Husky-01

[vmxa]

One of the great things about SGs is that players can learn from each other... and in doing so... usually play a much stronger game than the individual players could play by themselves.

If anyone doubts the value of a team in AW games, try them by yourself. No one to look over your shoulder to give you a sanity check. So you over look something and suffer.

This is especially true in later stages with long turns and no relieve. I am trying to slug through one with 31 civs and it is tedious.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is a screen shot of the end of my session.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The red dot is where I would build a city. Then if we were going after the English I would invade as per the yellow arrows. Two cities on the viking continent could support each other should the Vikings get ugly and with temples they would expand to provide a substantial land base for the future. They would also be a base to invade the rest of England.

 

[scoutsout]

@BirdJaguar: Thanks for the screenshots.

Though I haven't looked at the save, it appears to be that a campaign against England might be more effective if you went straight after their core... supporting the campaign by crossing the strait east of Nottingham... Warwick can wait IMO.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@BirdJaguar: Thanks for the screenshots.

Though I haven't looked at the save, it appears to be that a campaign against England might be more effective if you went straight after their core... supporting the campaign by crossing the strait east of Nottingham... Warwick can wait IMO.

You are probably correct if the goal is just to take out England without regard to anything else. I was looking longer term to the Vikings. Getting two cities on their continent early (and while at peace) will make conquering them easier because we will have a stronger base of operations to build up forces. Also if the war against England were to go badly, then having Warwick and another city somewhat protected from direct land attack might minimize the downside risk. I see it as a kind of hedge.

By going for Hastings second we can pick up the incense and deprive England of it should the war be a long one and weariness set in.

 

[Mirc]

I will play tomorrow (actually later today, since it's 00:23 here).

BTW, I'm not very sure, but I would capture Warwick first, and then go for Hastings.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Any suggestions on these?

How many swords are needed before we attack somebody?
Who will we be attacking first?
Where do we attack?
Do we need any spearmen for home defense?
Should we have a stock of settlers (2 or 3) ready to land and build in the invaded land?
Do we need to be building any "buildings" in our cities? If so, which ones?

 

[Mirc]

It depends.

I don't know how many swords we need.
It depends, I think England, but if the Vikings are an easier target then we should go for them.
I think we should attack at Warwick (if we decide to attack the English).
I don't think we need spears. I've rarely seen the AI transporting troops over seas to attack you below Emperor. We could need 2 or 3 of them (one in each of the northern cities).
2 or 3 settlers would be nice, but I don't know if they are vital. I think we should wait for the war to finish and then settle on that land.
Buildings: I usually don't build something else than Barracks in early game, but I don't know...

 

[Whomp]

Any suggestions on these?

How many swords are needed before we attack somebody?
Who will we be attacking first?
Where do we attack?
Do we need any spearmen for home defense?
Should we have a stock of settlers (2 or 3) ready to land and build in the invaded land?
Do we need to be building any "buildings" in our cities? If so, which ones?

Swords? 8-10 should be sufficient. If we attack straight for the core of England they are done. The critical piece to all this is their horses. We need horses the balance of the next two ages so we should grab them while we can. Horsemen are much easier to beat in the AI's hands than knights.

No to spearmen. Archers are much more effective cheap build due to their bombard and upgrade path. As well, swords carry the same defense and superior offensive capabilities compared to spears so I see no need for spears.

I would like to have a least one settler overseas to establish a foothold. Others can follow to gain the rest of the continent. I would keep the English cities and starve the population with either taxmen or scientists till we've whittled down the foreign population to 1. I would keep our battleforce out of the cities the turn after they've been taken. That way if they flip we can reconquer them. Did they get the pyramids?

The core of Viking land should be #2 . Both the Vikings and English were significantly behind in tech and the real threat will be the Ottomans. Sipahis are nasty and they are keeping pace techwise. On that note we need to meet the Japanese because I'd like them to use their GA with samurais versus the Ottomans.

A few other notes...

What is our research strategy? Will we research republic?

If you can't think of what to build how about workers? We probably need more. I don't think mining or roading hills is in our best interest until our cities are bigger and we don't have the despotism penalty. We need to develop and maximize food #1. Growth is power. I'm with Mirc on other builds. Temples are a drain on the economy and will be the rest of the game. If it's not a barracks city building units then I'd focus on either settlers (if happiness is an issue) or a worker (if there's a happiness issue) or a galley or barracks. All of these will be needed.

 

[scoutsout]

No to spearmen. Archers are...

I agree.

and the real threat will be the Ottomans. Sipahis are nasty

Yes, they are, aren't they?
A few other notes...

What is our research strategy? Will we research republic?

I have my own thoughts on this... but i'll refrain.

Growth is power.

Quoted for emphasis.

Temples are a drain on the economy and will be the rest of the game.

Oh ... I'm tempted to make a smart-aleck comment here.

Seriously - Temples have their place in the game - but learning to break "builder habits" is the best way to get beyond Monarch. And many players get addicted to Temples. When examined on a cold "cost-benefit" basis, there are so many things that you can do with 60 shields that will do much more good for the empire.

If you guys have some serious happiness issues when you hit the middle ages, you might want to consider temples in powerhouse cities that could use a Cathedral.. .then sell off the temple. Aside from that... cheap culture in the conquered lands will help with border expansions...

...but the biggest advantage to being a Religious tribe is that you have limited Anarchy. How might you play that to advantage in this game? How might that affect your research path?

 

[Ansar]

lurker's comment: Temples = 2 swords. Unless you are religious, and you meant to pick religious for the temple reason. If you want cultural expansion, libraries are the way to go. Also, on the short anarchy, when I play as Celts, which is pretty much the only religious civ I play with, I tend to switch between Monarchy and Republic from time to time which really comes in handy.

then sell off the temple.

This is very good information...thanks scoutsout!

Republic does sound like a good way to go, I mean, its monarch, nothing too rough happens...

 

[Mirc]

I played. I'm way too tired to write a turn log, but here are the main events:

THE BAD NEWS:
The Ottomans disembarck a huge stack of Horseman (about 7) near the newly founded city in the north and 3 cities are in extreme danger since the horsemen can get to them in 2 turns. I HAVE to make peace, even if it costed me 100 gold. Since we can't declare war at less than 20 turns from the peace deal, I have to focus on attacking England instead of them. I would like to attack the Ottomans, but I can't .

THE GOOD NEWS: We founded a lot of new cities! We captured 2 English cities, destroyed Warwick and got a settler were Warwick used to be. We have a stack of 4 Swordsmen (IIRC) to attack the next city, and I estimate that we will conquer them easily.

PS: I tried to let the Ottomans capture that cities and then take them back, but we lose a lot of gold and they raze the cities so I can't get them back. I think it was a better decision to make peace and attack England instead. We could risk to lose most of the northern cities. Now we are much stronger, we got a lot of new cities, we are ready to take down a civ.

I will upload the file now.

Download

 

[Whomp]

Nice work Mirc. Making peace was the right thing to do IMO. I don't think the cash was very important versus our objective of taking down England and settling those lands and getting horses.

Any lurkers out there want to take this baby for a spin?

I hope to have my hard drive installed this week so I might need a swap.

 

[vmxa]

Whomp you may need to go to your start page and update to game conditions. I was trying to figure out if this was a variant or not, but I never did figure exactly what the story was.

So that could make it hard for any lurkers to jump in.

 

[Whomp]

OK I updated on the first page vmxa. This is a regular emperor game but with a training aspect to it. Chukchi, in particular, has said that he has not beat chieftain so I'd like to engage him in discussions about the process of developing the empire.

I think your expertise would make for some fantastic lessons for the team.

Win condition has not been determined. I would leave that up to Chukchi but I'd think either a domination or space win is our mostly likely win condition.

 

[vmxa]

First one of the confusing things was the level. You have mentioned Monarch all over the place, but the first page says Emperor. I loaded it up and it is Monarch. So that could open the door for other Luckers.

I am real glad to see see that Dog Town was founded on the grapes, rather than over on the forest. I would not mind the forest, as long as it was chopped first. For your Chuckchi, that 10 shields is useful so early in the game and I hate to lose it.

For my money, I would have like to seen 2 or even 3 of the 8 galleys blocking the coastal path to your contient from Oshman and the Vikes. They could not come to attack without risking being sunk and you may not have to face 7 horses or whatever it was.

If you sunk 1 or 2 ships, you would not be looking to make peace and giving up the 100g and war happiness.

I simply loathe paying off below DG, which sort of leads to the quesion raised by Birdjaguar.

Not to answer directly, but 8 galleys and 11 swords is not a ratio I would settle for.

I am have not looked at the game all that close, but one question comes to mind. What is the value of horse before Astronomy? I see sea tiles between them and us, so I would think we cannot import them without astro?

Yes we may get +1 move and be able to travel, but I am not sure if that applies to trades and imports. I confess I do not play seafaring civs, so I am not positive. If that is the case we took a beating going to England first.

In any event we need workers over there to connect the towns to a harbor town, once one is either captured or build.

I agree with all the comments about no spears, so why are they being build in many towns? I would not build them at this level, but at least let not do it without a barracks.

Asturias, forgive any misspelled names. It is empty and we have horsemen next to it. We have over 500 gold, so it could cost us some cash if they decide to help themself.

So off I go for 10. It is close to dinner here, so I may not finish tonight.

 

[vmxa]

One thing that is often useful to the next turn player is at least a summary of what needs to be attended to. I am looking at some settlers, but I do not know where they are headed.

I see some boats with one unit, but no mention of the plan. Also many vet warriors are in Seville and lots of cash on hand, any reason a few were not upgraded? Are we saving for some defict research or something?

These and other info are nice to have, especially if you want a lurker to pick up a turnset. Otherwise they will go off the cliff on their own, so off I go.

 

[Birdjaguar]

One thing that is often useful to the next turn player is at least a summary of what needs to be attended to. I am looking at some settlers, but I do not know where they are headed.

I see some boats with one unit, but no mention of the plan. Also many vet warriors are in Seville and lots of cash on hand, any reason a few were not upgraded? Are we saving for some defict research or something?

These and other info are nice to have, especially if you want a lurker to pick up a turnset. Otherwise they will go off the cliff on their own, so off I go.

We have no plan. Planning is a good thing. Part of this game is to help CH learn to play and toplan, but I think he is reluctant to make decisions beyond his own turn set. Like most of us, he may not want to be shown to have made bad or wrong choices. The planning question is how can we build a plan that encourages CH to contribute without the implied blame is things go badly?

One way might be a multiple choice for each major decison, with each choice being a reasoned one that does make sense. Start broad and narrow down.

1. Victory condition to try for: List best 2
2. Next two reseach choices to support that goal:
3. Setter strategy
4. War strategy
5. Government choice

Then let CH chart the path he likes best. Every complete turn set or two we could reevaluate the plan.

EDIT: #5 added.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Birdjag and vxma make good points, both of which I agree with. Earlier in the game, IIRC, there were lots of dotmaps up and discussions about what might be best and why. IMHO, go back to that. I'll add a number 5 to Birdjag's list:
Government choice?

 

[Whomp]

Good idea Birdjag.
I will take blame for not being more verbal in this game but it's been tough without being able to look at a save. The good news is even an idiot like me can install a hard drive (tonight). Tomorrow I hope to get the recovery disk and civ reinstalled.