LK74 - Sid, Civ = TDB

[Greebley]

As it was we may have built the temples too early in this game. I was worried about this after the temples came in on one of my turns. We dropped from 14 gpt to 4 (or something like that). That 10 gpt could have gone toward tech to help us get techs a bit earlier - at that point the extra content citizen didn't gain us anything or help lower lux - the towns were too small.

I agree completely with Lee on growth being extremely important in the expansion phase; in fact probably the most important thing. Raising Lux also makes sense as it is a loss of a small amount of gold early, for a much larger gain later.

[Edit: I do prefer a tighter build than what we got; I feel it important to utilize all (land and coast) squares before hospitals. If I were to do this again, I would settle an even looser build, but then fill in afterwards. In other words, come up with a 12 squares per town type density and initially settle every other town and backfill. Ideally, I would try to settle so the in between town locations would be too close for the AI to want. Not sure if this is completely possible, but if so, it combines the denser build with grabbing land more quickly].

 

[danz]

Hmm, I think we're more or less talking about the same thing. Growth is imporant, and depending on the situation, we have to make compromises for culture (expand borders so the AI doesn't steal our tiles), production (might need a military unit or a courthouse), or workers. Overall, I don't think we made any sigificant mistakes. We had a problematic start with very little extra food and a neighbor with an ancient age UU that peaked early and has since vanished. On the other side of the straits we have the runaway civ nipping at our shores. We're doing fine. And considering we'll need a war to keep Byzantium in check, I can't see us shifting into pop-growth mode. We simply don't have a lot of choices.

 

[hotrod0823]

LK 74

440 AD (0): Well I had a chance to look around and see a lot of workers spread all over the place. It may take some time but can't see the reasoning for a lone worker roading a forest near Bombay or a slave planting forest in a food poor town of Indus. I know that Akots will fix things up better than I but I think I have to do something to get some kind of focus on our worker actions. This isn't my strongest suit but will do my best. Also, why have we wasted IMO shields on a Coloseum in Delhi. We don't need it, can't figure out what it is pre building for and really don't want to swap to anything else because of the wasted shield but 9 more turns on a usless building doesn't make sense to me. I see lots of ducts being built. Do some MM in Jaipur to focus on growth, ditto for Bombay. We are still happy at 8 so lets get there. Opt for a granary first in Chittagong over a duct. Ditto in Madras, MM for growth. Getting a duct in place without a granary is personal preference and good idea IMO. MM Punjab for food, again the extra shields are just being lost to corruption. Stop a few of the confusing worker actions and consolidate workers. Well I bite the bullet and waste 1 1/2 turns of shield to change Delhi from a Colusseum to a trebuchet. BTW I put our lone scientist back to work and up research to 40% running a small deficet but with 200+ in the bank I think I am safe from dangerous demands. Still only get feudalism in 13 turns . We need those libraries soon too. I've come to realize we need a little bit of everything don't we. YUCK!

Did I happen to mention that the Persians have 10K in gold.

INBT: Now we had deals with the Maya, I believe we were sending horse to them but now they are no more. The Byzantines took then out. Is our rep crushed that is all we need. I'll check it out.

450 AD: Moving the Trebs to the front lines for a an eventual show down with some one. Well the Inca will give us nothing for our Iron our rep is tainted. Great!

460 AD(2): Not much, Feudalism is still 13 turns away.

470 AD(3): Well I tried to get something for our iron but the Inca wouldn't budge. So now he demands it. I refuse, they are the weakest foe we have so lets go maybe we can get something from him as long as the others stay out or join our side. Good news he didn't declare war.

480 AD (4): Delhi builds a horse starts another. Bengal a courthouse starts a treb. Notice we have a lone settler in the southern jungle move it into positon for a new city next turn. I haven't seen any cultural expansion so flip risk should be low.

490 AD (5): Found Ganges in the south. will grab the dyes once expanded and the local persian city is dipatched.

500 AD (6): Chittagong builds a granary starts a aqueduct.

510 AD (7): More horsemen from Delhi and a granary in Madras, starts a duct.

520 AD (8): Bombay gets a cathedral starts a treb. Byznatines completed Suffrage.

INBT: The Inca declared war on the the Persians. Do we want to join sides?

530 AD (9): Lahore builds a duct starts a market.

540 AD (10): Bzyantines join with Persia against the Inca.

550 AD (11): The Inca are down to 3 cities. Then it is just us and the big, really big guys. Don't think there is anyway out of this one .

Built a few new horses and a few new trebs along with some granaries and start a few ducts.

 

[danz]

Heh, I take it back, maybe we don't all follow the beat of the same drummer

I always try to have aquas built before pop growth maxes out. If it looks like a city will be a 6 too soon, I peel of a worker or a settler and start aqua so it's complete before max pop. A few turns of "growth in 9999" is fine, but a lot of them basically means that irrigation and harbor food are going to waste. And wasted growth means me might as well be working mountain tiles. At least those might get a shield. That's why I usually build aqua and then granary, except in early settler/worker pumps. Why speed up growth before it can be accomodated? Currently, 6 of our cities are at max pop or will be long before aquas come online. So why hurry the pop? Also we have 3 courts being built. 2 ready in 50+ turns and one in 24. What's the point? In 60 turns, it won't matter. 4 corrupted citizens or 6, it's same same net efect: 1 shield, 1 gold. Might as well maximize shields now, get them online, and get those cities productive earlier. Having completely corrupt pop 6 cities growing in 9999 makes me scratch my head. Some of them are getting aquas soon, but some will not for quite a while. Is the idea to grow to 6 and then hire scientists in lieu of having libaries? Because none of the maxed cities are researching. So that can't be it. What's the trick? Why the emphasis on pop growth *now* that all the land is settled and we need infrastructure and a military?

I'm willing to step back and follow whatever course is set by our fearless leader. But be really precise about what you want done, in what order, and why. Otherwise I'm afraid that my assumptions and playing habits will conflict with the big picture you have in mind, and that would be worse that *any* strategy any of us could come up with.

 

[Greebley]

At least there are 2 balanced AI's. One Runaway one is SO much worse. I know; small consolation...

Danz, I think trading iron with Maya at the start of your turn was not so good. We may not have been able to keep our rep as the horse deal may not have been over (not sure), but the iron deal pretty much guaranteed a broken rep. At this level of difficulty you need to be aware of the fact that the Mayans were at war with two civs bigger than they and thus a high risk. This is why I didn't trade lux or resources with them (or the Incas) during my turn.

-----

Lee, do you have a opinion on renegotiating peace for getting around a broken rep? I know you are forced to keep the deal (it is a peace treaty), but the very fact you can ignore a bad rep is in many ways a big exploit. On the other hand ones rep is so fragile that many ppl allow it.

You all know what renegotiate peace is, right? (its when you are at peace already, go to your active deals, and pick the peace deal to add gpt on your side of the table and a tech on theirs. This works no matter what your rep is like).

If we do allow this, then our broken rep is not a big deal. I have done it in SG's, but I feel dirty every time I do.

 

[hotrod0823]

Having completely corrupt pop 6 cities growing in 9999 makes me scratch my head. Some of them are getting aquas soon, but some will not for quite a while. Is the idea to grow to 6 and then hire scientists in lieu of having libaries? Because none of the maxed cities are researching. So that can't be it. What's the trick?

Yep forgot to put them on scientist good point. As far as courthouses, yeah they are lost causes. Maybe a pitiful spear is better I don't know if you have a better build option let me know.

Corrupt cities with scientists will be a modest help that was an oversite on my part. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was late with these turns and didn't fully MM before posting.

 

[hotrod0823]

You all know what renegotiate peace is, right? (its when you are at peace already, go to your active deals, and pick the peace deal to add gpt on your side of the table and a tech on theirs. This works no matter what your rep is like).

If we do allow this, then our broken rep is not a big deal. I have done it in SG's, but I feel dirty every time I do.

I had just renegocitated for peace in LK75 to get Monarchy from Russia for a "reduced" price. She wouldn't budge on the regular negociations.

Anyway, I think this was discussed in one of the recent 5CCC games as an option. By tying peace negociations to trade you don't feel the wrath of the broken trade deal? That is what you are saying correct?

I don't really use renegociation too much but can see how it can be effective if you have a superior position but won't the costs go up if they see you as weak? Yeah no "penalty" for breaking a deal but is there a greater cost?

Some of the "penalties" for busted trades just don't make sense. Like if you trade to a civ that dies you get blacklisted. If you trade lux or good to another civ as part of an alliance then defeat the common enemy before the 20 turns is up then you get blacklisted for dropping the alliance and the lux trade.

I am sure there are others.

Anyway, I think it is allowed but you're right does feel dirty.

Hotrod

 

[akots]

Got it. I'd like to hear what LK says about peace re-negotiations. I don't like it and IMHO we should try to avoid these kind of things.

@danz and re:growth discussion. I don't really get it. Corrupt cities stuck at size 6 should be building workers and cash-rushed settlers, non-corrupt or less corrupt cities should be building courthouses as a first build maximized for shields, then markets or ducts also maximized for shields. Then, they can be allowed to grow to whatever size we can afford, get one or two scientists and then maximized for shields and build military.

@Greebley. Our build is extremely luxurious but this is one the "house rules" or am I wrong here?

 

[LKendter]

To much to comment on before leaving for work...
Will comment later.

=============================

Signed up:
LKendter (on deck)
Greebley
Danz
Hotrod0823
Akots (currently playing)

Remember 10 turns per round - STRICT 24 hours got it, total 48 to complete.
>> Starting with LK68 the LK series is on patch 1.22.

 

[Greebley]

Ya, you are correct Hotrod. We have to pay an additional price since we are weaker. We have to pay it even if we find we can't afford the tech (or we are at war).

So ya, my saying it is as useful as a good rep wasn't true. As I say I have used it in my games before and am fine if we can use it here.

 

[LKendter]

I will start with a very basic comment.
I don't play to run another Sid succession game until I have personally beaten it
If I do run another I think my rule will be previous Sid win. This level is just to insane to support different playing styles. I think Arathorn summed it up right that the jump from deity to Sid is worse then the jump from regent to deity.

Akots had made a post a while ago that was about having no room for mistakes. Based on the way this game is going I know have to agree. The nature of a SG causes directional shifts, and Sid doesn't allow for that variance.

==========================

Got it. I'd like to hear what LK says about peace renegotiations.

I have no problems with renegotiate peace. With the games broken rep issues this is the only way around it. The big risk here is we are so much weaker then Persia / Byzantines that the price will be absurd to get anything this way.

==========================

@Greebley. Our build is extremely luxurious but this is one the "house rules" or am I wrong here?

Can you supply more details what your issue is. All I get here is sarcasm and that does nothing to fix the problem.

==========================

Where do you see a city spot? A city south of Dacca would be cultural suicide. I am lost what spot you plan on building.

490 AD (5): Found Ganges in the south. will grab the dyes once expanded and the local Persian city is dispatched.

I am not happy to have this city built. I had already stated that I felt any city in the south would be cultural suicide. Take a look at the relative culture between Persia and us.

I have a real debate what to do with the city. If it flips we have additional cities at risk for a cascading flip. I have seen it before and it is really painful.

I'm willing to step back and follow whatever course is set by our fearless leader. But be really precise about what you want done, in what order, and why. Otherwise I'm afraid that my assumptions and playing habits will conflict with the big picture you have in mind, and that would be worse that *any* strategy any of us could come up with.

If that were done this would no longer be a succession game as I would be playing your turn by proxy.

I agree that lack of coordinated strategy is killing us the game, but this issue isn't grand strategy. The issue is playing styles.

==========================

There is a lot more I comment on, but I am not sure what will be gained. It is clear the danz and I see the game a lot differently. It looks like akots and I may also see the game a lot differently. You can never "win" an argument on playing styles.

 

[danz]

...If that were done this would no longer be a succession game as I would be playing your turn by proxy.

I was asking more for a general strategy and a set of priorities, so that there is more consistency and less style variation. There will always be stylistic differences, but their danger can be minimized, I hope, by more coordination. Things like dot maps help. Descriptions of why a dot is here and not there, why more density here versus less density there, why improve this area but not that one, and so on, are also helpful.

We can still win this game. We have a decent amount of land and two strong AI's that we could manipulate into destroying each other if we throw enough money at them. The trade rep situation is regrettable, but it was unavoidable. Trading with the strong AI's while leaving the weak ones out only makes the strong stronger and the weak deprived of crucial resources. This can not lead to any good. The bruised rep makes it more expensive to trade when the weak AI's are finally defeated, but I think it's worth it. In an ideal situation, it would have been possible for us to jump in and join the Inca and the Maya in their fight against the Byzantines. But we just weren't ready to do that, so things snowballed. Oh well...

 

[akots]

... Can you supply more details what your issue is. All I get here is sarcasm and that does nothing to fix the problem. ...
... It looks like akots and I may also see the game a lot differently. You can never "win" an argument on playing styles.

No sarcasm this time, I liked your dot map and city placements in the beginning. And we managed to grab most of the landmass available on start. But in general, "one tile here - one tile there" and AI would not have settled their 3 cities. Well, indeed, you never know how it could have turned out.

We just need more cities.

Different playing styles is an attractive reason for me to play SG. You learn a lot and trying to integrate your playstyle into the team's playstyle is a great fun. For those who think that their playstyle is perfect, there are SGs on Sid when no playstyle is ever perferct. IMO, you have to be flexible and adjust yourself to the current situation using multiple playstyles.

 

[LKendter]

Different playing styles is an attractive reason for me to play SG. You learn a lot and trying to integrate your playstyle into the team's playstyle is a great fun. For those who think that their playstyle is perfect, there are SGs on Sid when no playstyle is ever perferct. IMO, you have to be flexible and adjust yourself to the current situation using multiple playstyles.

I will certainly agree you can learn from different play styles. It took my quite awhile to understand some of the reasoning used by top players like Sirian, T-Hawk, Arathorn, etc.

The trouble is it looks like Sid requires almost perfect play. Different playing style and almost perfect play conflict with each other. Until I understand how to beat sid I can't offer good leadership to win at it.

I still wonder if beating Sid does require a good food start, something we lacked.

 

[Greebley]

I think having a food source makes a big difference. So far all SG SID wins that I have seen either had an isolated start (Arathorn's game), or it had a food bonus. AG12 also fell far behind in tech with a lesser food start (+3 food).

My guess is that the jump from a food rich (settler factory) SID start to a no food bonus is also a regent-deity jump.

(This is based on 2 SG SID wins, 1 SG SID loss, reading MM1, an SG AWS win on a tiny map, several AWS losses, and reading oringal Arathorn's SID game, and this game to date).

 

[akots]

Preturn check. We are running wines-silks deal with Persia paying them 35 gpt which has expired. Did this deal expire? If yes, how long ago? Hopefully, this turn. Our rep is completely gone. Persia has 13K in treasury but cannot spare 1 gpt. Same thing with Byzantines. First, micromanaged cities, mostly for growth and to optimize the build times. Switched Bengal to market from Trebuchet, was very surprized to see Catherdals. Have not seen them for a long time. But we are in really bad shape with virtually no military and paying 36gpt of unit support. There is even nothing to disband to cut that number. Having more cities, even completely corrupt, would be a great help. We cannot even afford tax collectors. Also, don’t understand well the point of irrigating all plains. A few plain tiles, especially near Bengal could have been mined because of fish. IMHO, corruption is the worst enemy on Sid. Back to Foreign affairs. Deal with Persia cancelled. They are furious with us. Deal with Theo re-negotiated, we get ivory+furs+8gpt for our silks. Theo is annoyed. Inca is also furious? I don’t dare to renegotiate peace with Persia or Theo. Renegotiate peace with Inca and get Feudalism + Lit for 33gpt. They will not last more than a few turns anyhow. Research to Chivalty in 10 tuns at 50% losing 22 gpt.

IBT. Inca were destroyed by Byzantines. Dehli horse-horse.

[1] 560AD. Chivalry in 7 turns at 70% -32gpt. Careful steal costs 1500g. Researching about 1000g, still makes sense to research for now even without libraries but only Chivalry, then either we build libraries or stop researching.

[2] 570AD. I cannot stand this aqueduct in Bangalore in 13 turns and switch town to settler. We can claim 3 tiles with another city and gain some unit support releif.

[3] 580AD. Calcutta finally builds duct, starting horseman. Here we go, X-man comes and demands TM+27g. We pay for now since our elephants are due soon. But next time we have to go to war.

[4] 590AD. IBT, bangalore makes settler, goes for aqueduct.

[5] 600AD. This is very frustrating. No trades, no cash to rush, nothing. And these improvements are really very expensive.

[6] 610AD. Pune founded. The city claims 3 new tiles and increases our gpt income by +8gpt. That is significant. I give up again and switch Indus to settler. There are 2 hills and 2 coastal tiles unclaimed between Madras and Indus to build a city. There is also a marsh tile near Dacca. Just have to clear this marsh and then can settle there safely.

[7] 620AD. IBT we learn Chivalry and go to Invention with a single scientist. Price for the Invention is around 1300 beakers. Without libraries it makes sense to steal because for the same time we make about 17K gold due to markets.

[8] 630AD. New Dehli founded saving our treasury +6gpt. The city can be safely disbanded later in the game. Set to build settler since we don’t want too many improvements there. Dehli reached size 12, we can start mining some plains there after chopping forest.

[9] 640AD. All quiet. First horseman upgraded for 120g. we can do it once every turn. Will take 6 turns only. We can also upgrade some swords to MDI. And spears to pikes.

[10] 650AD. Did not check cities. We are making +155gpt and this number steadily grows.

Overall it looks grave. Our only hope can be war against Persia allied with Theo. If it goes to stalemate, we have a chance, but if either side prevails, we can lose. having a dozen or so WEs and a bunch of trebuchets is all that we can afford.

 

[LKendter]

Signed up:
LKendter (currently playing)
Greebley (on deck)
Danz
Hotrod0823
Akots

Remember 10 turns per round - STRICT 24 hours got it, total 48 to complete.
>> Starting with LK68 the LK series is on patch 1.22.

 

[Greebley]

Aren't the Byzintines stronger than the Persians? If so we want to attack the Byzantines, not Persia. We need to keep the two balanced. Attacking the weaker and locking ourselves into 20 turns of war would mean a win for the Byzantines.

I am also suprised you didn't discuss this prevously (war with Persia). War with the Byzantines has been discussed and there were no counter-arguments or statements to support a war with Persia. I guess making a deal with Byzantines doesn't preclude attacking them, but it does make it look that you have decided the target is Persia.

We know we have different playing styles, so we need to talk more before making decisions, not less.
-------------------

So who do we attack?

Reasons for the Byzantines are:
They were the stronger civ (If this is no longer true then attacking Persia makes more sense).
We gain towns near our core that can be productive.
Attacking Persia could lead to their collapse and we would lose by domination or culture.

Reasons to attack Persia:
The own the GLib. The problem with this is we would have to damage them too much to get it and the Byzantines would win.
We wouldn't have cities surrounding us so defense will be much easier.

I need to look at a more recent save to decide myself (I am at work), but I am guessing that Byzantium is still the bigger civ and the one to go for.

 

[LKendter]

I guess making a deal with Byzantines doesn't preclude attacking them,

Well consider the LK houserule below:
3) Declaring war / demanding leave solely for the purpose of getting out of trade deals.

===================

I can't comment on which civ to attack from work. However, LK72 has really taught me the lesson you must hit the #1 civ first. LK72 came close to a loss to Persia because it took to long to attack #1.

 

[Greebley]

I wasn't sure whether that rule covered pure "per turn" deals (or deals where we gain rather than lose such as incoming gpt).

In any case, it probably won't really be an issue to wait for it to expire. We will want time to build up some knights anyway so it will have expired if we do decide the Byzantines are the better choice.