huerfanista
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,276
@Abegweit
Actually, my point was that if you go very early it's quite easy to take out both Zara and Rameses. It's not hard at all, and this is the perfect setup for doing it: copper in the BFC, decent starting techs, gold and gems for early research. I found it fairly trivial to go fishing> mining > BW, build an ikhanda, switch to workboat, back to ikhanda to size 2, switch to worker, mine gold, etc etc - pump impis, kill Zara, kill Rameses. But I didn't delay anything. To me, that tech path will always be optimal with this leader in this location. But as soon as copper showed up in the BFC (not even needing a road!) I green-lighted an impi rush by chopping out 6 of them ASAP. That way, I didn't face CG archers.
Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying?
@Slobberinbear
I would normally agree with you here, except that I have found that there are unique challenges on this map that (IMO) make a normal strategy sub-optimal.
First and foremost is the poor (terrible, actually) quality of the land below the equator in Africa. There's no food, and without food
are very hard to come by. All games (except perhaps diplo) come down to
- whether you put them into units, culture, or spaceship parts. And without food there are no
that are usable.
Second is distance. In the early game the penalties of owning cities in the extreme north and south of africa are quite large, and will eat up a good deal of your
resulting in a low
rate. A few gems and gold will not fix that. Ikhandas are a large benefit in this regard, but it's hard for me to see the point of founding sub-optimal (i.e., very slow-growing low-output) cities in south africa which will only increase your maintenance. Nobody is going to take that land away from you for a long time if you don't settle it. Once your economy is established (i.e., post-CoL and currency) you can easily establish cities in that jungle and try to get them to grow.
So I don't see the point of what Neal's doing. I already said - several times - that I'm not in the same league as him (or most of you), so I'm hoping to learn a lot here. But I haven't seen many substantive replies to the points that I've raised. How exactly is a 2nd city in S. Africa going to contribute to the overall strategy:
Is there a site that will yield enough
and/or
to make a difference over what Ulundi can produce on its own, and will justify its upkeep costs before you have a strong economy? The gems/grassland next to Ulundi on the west will give you 1 good commerce tile (gems), no
(other than the 2 from the gems), and will be very slow growing with only grass farms to feed it (cottaging them immediately would stunt growth even more). The coastal fish to the ENE of Aksum will probably not be able to hold the gems, and will not claim them (or the fish) until 15 turns after a monument is built (leave aside the fact that there are no workers available for this, nor any escort, at a time when barbs are starting to appear), and has only plains hills (which will eat up all your food very quickly, stunting growth for little return). The silver/ copper/ phant/ site to the north is all plains, so you will get neither growth nor hammers nor commerce from there anytime soon, and you really have all the happy resources that you can use for the short term - you can get some very short-term gain by chopping all the trees.
The only reasonably cost effective use that I can see for the settler is
resettling Aksum on the coast to claim the fish and gems after you raze the one that Zara settled on the hill. You will lose the cow and incense, but you can't claim the cow and fish in the same BFC, and the fish is the only food that's there. It'll become a semi-decent production/commerce site, and will keep Saladin from settling there.
All the things that are needed for a cultural victory are sitting up there in Thebes. They're not in S. Africa. All of your research will come from those floodplains, any wonders you plan on building are in that stone and marble (and in the FP-powered
that will get the required techs in time to build them). The sooner those things are in your hands, the less far behind you'll fall in the tech race. I'm sure Neal can get to Egpyt with Shaka, but can he get there in time to actually use those resources? You can eventually conquer all of Africa quite easily, but there's not a lot IN Africa that will get you to a victory condition (at least as far as I can see). I'd describe it as "Mongolia with gems".
I'm rooting for Neal all the way. This is one of my fav threads. (And besides, with Sis in retirement somebody has to keep the high-post-count tradition alive.
)
I think this is where you go wrong. You go too early. Get up a proper attack force (about 10 vets) and keep pumping more out. You'll find about one fortified archer and two whipped in the entire civ. If one has CG, it's probably one of the whipped.
Actually, my point was that if you go very early it's quite easy to take out both Zara and Rameses. It's not hard at all, and this is the perfect setup for doing it: copper in the BFC, decent starting techs, gold and gems for early research. I found it fairly trivial to go fishing> mining > BW, build an ikhanda, switch to workboat, back to ikhanda to size 2, switch to worker, mine gold, etc etc - pump impis, kill Zara, kill Rameses. But I didn't delay anything. To me, that tech path will always be optimal with this leader in this location. But as soon as copper showed up in the BFC (not even needing a road!) I green-lighted an impi rush by chopping out 6 of them ASAP. That way, I didn't face CG archers.
Maybe I'm missing something in what you're saying?

@Slobberinbear
I suppose what chafes a bit, though, is the idea that somehow Neal has messed up this game (or made it harder on himself) by building a settler before his impi stack. Denying AI city sites and grabbing resources is a legitimate strategy, even if it sets back the rush a little.
I would normally agree with you here, except that I have found that there are unique challenges on this map that (IMO) make a normal strategy sub-optimal.
First and foremost is the poor (terrible, actually) quality of the land below the equator in Africa. There's no food, and without food



Second is distance. In the early game the penalties of owning cities in the extreme north and south of africa are quite large, and will eat up a good deal of your



So I don't see the point of what Neal's doing. I already said - several times - that I'm not in the same league as him (or most of you), so I'm hoping to learn a lot here. But I haven't seen many substantive replies to the points that I've raised. How exactly is a 2nd city in S. Africa going to contribute to the overall strategy:
crush them in some spectacular early wars, then turtle up for a cultural victory
Is there a site that will yield enough



The only reasonably cost effective use that I can see for the settler is
Spoiler :
resettling Aksum on the coast to claim the fish and gems after you raze the one that Zara settled on the hill. You will lose the cow and incense, but you can't claim the cow and fish in the same BFC, and the fish is the only food that's there. It'll become a semi-decent production/commerce site, and will keep Saladin from settling there.
All the things that are needed for a cultural victory are sitting up there in Thebes. They're not in S. Africa. All of your research will come from those floodplains, any wonders you plan on building are in that stone and marble (and in the FP-powered

I'm rooting for Neal all the way. This is one of my fav threads. (And besides, with Sis in retirement somebody has to keep the high-post-count tradition alive.
