Monarchists' Cookbook I

[slobberinbear]

I feel like Goebbels here (addressing the German high command, as it were), but this lurker agrees with Winston suggests the need to face the following facts:

- The German homeland, to put it mildly, blows. Deutschland has exactly one food resource (fish, far to the south) to exploit outside of Berlin.
- All paths to the rest of the world go through Saladin. He is choking the Fatherland, not the other way around. The Arab will only grow more powerful with time.
- If the High Command believes an attack with axemen is ill-advised, then it had best prepare for a war with swordsmen and catapults, and sooner than later.
- I humbly submit that an axeman assault can work, with dedication, preparation, and determination to win at all costs. Specifically, I'd make 12 axes and enough galleys to ferry them all over in two trips, then attack by land from the narrow bit of land not within Arabian borders. I consider this hammer investment the equivalent of building a wonder, with a much larger game-breaking impact.

12 axes are sufficient to deal with as many as four protective archers, yes, even those in a holy capital city.

If Germany had better land, I would be in agreement with your proposal to build multiple wonders with Industrious. But a lightning war of steel is needed here.

 

[Diamondeye]

On the topic of trees, I decided settlers out early had a priority. That said, OTAKU did better than me, I believe. His or OTAKUs', I'd say

 

[Bleys]

I agree about the copper, my planned city order is:

Marble City
Copper City
Commerce City on Marble Island (which will grow the fastest of the 3)

I just dont see Sal getting there before that, especially since I plan to make those settlers WHILE building the Wonders, with whip-overflow in our food-heavy capitol. My planned site for the Copper City is 1SE of the copper, netting the 3 hills for production to the north, less ocean tiles than 1-2 E of the Copper, and chained farms eventually from Berlins little river.

Next round should prove interesting. I am still leaning toward Rolo's save, teching Masonry ASAP, following the Settler with the GLH, but to be honest, my save has the best line for my plan, LOL, not shocking I suppose.

I really dont see these 4 wonders as being "wonder spam" at all. We are giving up Stoney, the GW, and probably the Mids (I have no intention of building them, does anyone?) Oracle is a pretty key build for an IND leader, IMHO, if just for MC and forges, the bonus is Colossus on a water heavy map, not the primary goal, followed by a GE pop for Machinery with a CS self tech beeline to get the first Maces on the board. Screw Swordsman, LOL, I almost never make them, axes and spears serve as better garrison and stack defenders, and making Cats while getting to Maces is a better general plan for me.

Heh, a week is SOOOOO LOOOOONNNGGG, LOL I want to play now.

 

[Nares]

Did I really suggest that?

Apparently I'm just trying to drive you insane.

It was Solon70 who made the statement I'm referring to.

My mistake.

 

[Winston Hughes]

attack by land from the narrow bit of land not within Arabian borders.

If you mean that bit visible from our homeland, then I fear it will be engulfed by Arabic culture (what with the holy city) before we have the chance.

But it's good to see another supporter for the War Party. To be honest, I was starting to waver in the face of all that opposition. It's a pity we don't have any representatives in Kaiser Diamondeye's inner circle, though.

I really dont see these 4 wonders as being "wonder spam" at all. We are giving up Stoney, the GW, and probably the Mids

Are you obsolete in disguise? He's the only guy I know of who'd classify a strategy as non-wonderspam because it didn't build all of the wonders.

Apparently I'm just trying to drive you insane.

You're one of them, aren't you. Hiding around every corner. Planting bugs under my skin!

Now where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

 

[Nares]

I am still leaning toward Rolo's save, teching Masonry ASAP, following the Settler with the GLH, but to be honest, my save has the best line for my plan, LOL, not shocking I suppose.

What are your thoughts on allowing players to play their own save into the next round? It would certainly help highlight how their plan came together, allowing for a better comparison against other approaches.

I feel this was a valid issue raised by Mutineer in Ruff_Hi's CSG. It's very difficult for other players to envision where a particular save is headed, and comparing approaches that are in different stages of implementation is difficult.

Also, have you considered extending this round until 1000BC? Or, given that the discussion has died down, would you want to squeeze in a mini-round, until 1000BC, at this point? It just seems that everyone is at a very similar position, and it's too early to distinguish between the saves as to which is the "best."

 

[OTAKUjbski]

What are your thoughts on allowing players to play their own save into the next round? It would certainly help highlight how their plan came together, allowing for a better comparison against other approaches.

Highly encouraged, though it would only be a "shadow game". (I'll definitely be shadowing off my save at least for a short stint just to see what happens.)

Even if the shadow turns out to be in a better position than the main, best ball game, the main game continues as if the shadow never existed.

I.E., only games built off the previous round's official 'best ball save' is eligible for best ball consideration.

Also, have you considered extending this round until 1000BC? Or, given that the discussion has died down, would you want to squeeze in a mini-round, until 1000BC, at this point? It just seems that everyone is at a very similar position, and it's too early to distinguish between the saves as to which is the "best."

I think that call is up to Diamondeye. I'm not opposed to extending Round 1 to encompass 4000 BC - 10 AD (or whatever) and choosing the first 'best ball save' at that time!

There isn't enough time now for a "mini round" plus its ensuing discussion, and wasting next week on just 40 Turns of play is bad, IMO.

 

[Diamondeye]

I agree about the copper, my planned city order is:

Marble City
Copper City
Commerce City on Marble Island (which will grow the fastest of the 3)

I just dont see Sal getting there before that, especially since I plan to make those settlers WHILE building the Wonders, with whip-overflow in our food-heavy capitol. My planned site for the Copper City is 1SE of the copper, netting the 3 hills for production to the north, less ocean tiles than 1-2 E of the Copper, and chained farms eventually from Berlins little river.

Same thoughts here

next round should prove interesting. I am still leaning toward Rolo's save, teching Masonry ASAP, following the Settler with the GLH, but to be honest, my save has the best line for my plan, LOL, not shocking I suppose.

Yeah. My save is kind of the same plan... Ehm... We'll have to choose the save that has the best access to both rush, rex and wonders. I believe OTAKUs is good for wonder, where my own, Rolos and Bleys' is better rush and rexxy.

I really dont see these 4 wonders as being "wonder spam" at all. We are giving up Stoney, the GW, and probably the Mids (I have no intention of building them, does anyone?) Oracle is a pretty key build for an IND leader, IMHO, if just for MC and forges, the bonus is Colossus on a water heavy map, not the primary goal, followed by a GE pop for Machinery with a CS self tech beeline to get the first Maces on the board. Screw Swordsman, LOL, I almost never make them, axes and spears serve as better garrison and stack defenders, and making Cats while getting to Maces is a better general plan for me.

Heh, a week is SOOOOO LOOOOONNNGGG, LOL I want to play now.

Couldn't agree more

Apparently I'm just trying to drive you insane.

Good, we can use one like that

But it's good to see another supporter for the War Party. To be honest, I was starting to waver in the face of all that opposition. It's a pity we don't have any representatives in Kaiser Diamondeye's inner circle, though.

Are you planning a rebellion, pawn? . Nah, seriously, I agree we should choose a save that holds rush open (Rolos' sounds good, Bleys as well. Mine has already settled south, so we would need a third city to claim copper. Slobberinbears save is rather warlike aswell, having rex'ed the copper site, but had some bad events unfortunately. We must take everything into consideration

Are you obsolete in disguise? He's the only guy I know of who'd classify a strategy as non-wonderspam because it didn't build all of the wonders.

In that case we'd really be a solid team. We're good enough without

You're one of them, aren't you. Hiding around every corner. Planting bugs under my skin!

Don't blow our cover, we are trying to secure the base of our conclave

Now where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

Do I smell a Eoin Colfer(sp?) reference? Foaly the Centaur

 

[OTAKUjbski]

On the topic of trees, I decided settlers out early had a priority.

That was going to be my approach. I wanted the GLH ASAP so I could focus all of Round 2 on REXing. GLH alone makes new cities pay for themselves upon founding, so I was going to whip a Galley into a Worker (overflow) and then queue up endless Settlers and Workers -- growing and whipping as plausible!

 

[Diamondeye]

I think that call is up to Diamondeye. I'm not opposed to extending Round 1 to encompass 4000 BC - 10 AD (or whatever) and choosing the first 'best ball save' at that time!

There isn't enough time now for a "mini round" plus its ensuing discussion, and wasting next week on just 40 Turns of play is bad, IMO.

Personally I feel the reason there are so few approaches is the map. If we had a Pangea, we would be far more different out. So my answer would be a no, I feel this first round is crucial to determine whether we start out rushing, rexing, whatever. minirounds would be complicating, and stretching the round to 4000-1000BC (or even 10AD) would be overdoing it. I think, as a rule of thumb, 4000-2000 does it. But agreed, this first map is not the best example of so.

 

[Bleys]

Winston, proper message board etiquette means that you must provide a link to the tinfoil hat if you are going to reference it! Where are your manners!

LOL, been a while since I thought of that one, thank you for the laugh that made my day!

More thoughts: We all play our own saves for the next "Full Round". I kinda had that "feeling" we had made the first round too short, and this map magnified it by a LOT. I think OTAK is spot on when he says we are likely to almost be in the same exact place, just taking slightly different paths to get there. The next round (2000 BC through 10 AD) will clear out a lot of the questions about wonder decisions and overall progress.

However, I am not against picking ANY of the 1-city saves and playing the next round from it. I am 90% sure I can get Oracle, GLH and ToA from Rolo or OTAKs saves. Not kidding. I love the BC era, I play 100s of Monarch BC games and never finish them past Lib. I am confident we can get theose 3 Wonders and take our time building the Colossus, since it requires a Forge anyway. Winston makes a very good point about limited hammers. I wouldnt build Colossus until I had my 4-6 cities down. Those 3 wonders set the stage for our entire game, allow us to REX once we get some actual land, and will help finance the techs we need to take down a PRO-Religious leader like Sal. Slobberingbear is 100% right that our future lies through the path of Sals dead archers.

 

[Bleys]

Whoa, I just got an AMAZING idea.

How about a slight twist? We all play the next round, but can play it FROM ANYONES SAVE! Our report includes whose save we chose, why, then then standard "what we did" stuff.

I like that even better. In fact, I think having a round or two like this in EVERY game, where players can choose which "ball" to play from (I have a slice, OTAK has a hook, so we "prefer" different Drives?). Would help avoid the "every game ends up the same" thing that was mentioned in the other thread, as well. Not every round, mind you, but a round or two each game, we call them "Wild Card" rounds or something, and save them for this exact situation.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Whoa, I just got an AMAZING idea. ...

So essentially every save is a best ball save this Round ... thereby making every 10 AD Round 2 save eligible for the "best ball"?

Interesting ... I like it. Any ruling on whether we can play two saves and submit them both? (For example, I'd love to keep going with my original plan using my save as well as the wonderspam strat off r_rolo1's save ... could I submit them both, or would I need to submit one and report the other as a "shadow"?)

 

[Nares]

could I submit them both, or would I need to submit one and report the other as a "shadow"?)

That sounds like it would be complicated, even for the reader just to follow both a primary and a shadow game.

Maybe select the one of your choice?

Relying on a single, voted save each round sounds like it could be a bit limiting, especially given that each save will have its own approach, and will be in its own stage of development, making them both hard to compare and hard to pick up if it is not your own save.

 

[r_rolo1]

I think that a free choose would create a huge mess...

How about let the player choose between his save and the best ball? And post only one "oficila" report, otherwise it would become as clear as pitch black

 

[OTAKUjbski]

My main consideration for giving too much choice is determining where the multiple shadow type format (like in LHC or NC) and the SG format begins/ends.

Right now, the only "official" reports are those based off the 'best ball save'. In the case of Round 1, the single 4000 BC save is technically the 'best ball'.

If a Round 1 Best Ball is determined, then only reports based off that one save are 'official' in that they can be considered to be Round 2's 'best ball save' ... and so forth and so on.

This is what makes this an SG. One Round ends with only 1 save every time, and the next round begins with that same save.

Any games played off of non-official (read "best ball") saves are simply considered a "shadow" -- a game meant only for the sake of comparison and one we really don't even have to acknowledge (much less "follow"), which is the primary reason it would be in spoiler tags (so as not to draw any undue, confusing attention).

--------

I don't think this will put us in a situation next week any different than the one we're in now. We'll have 10 (or so) submissions, and we'll compare where each save is based on the strategy its player chose.

If we forgo the selection of a best ball save for Round 1, then any submission for Round 2 based on any 1 of the 10 saves submitted for Round 1 is valid for consideration as the Round 2 'best ball' (and in fact, the first official best ball save of this game).

We'll be in the same situation we're in now ... just with considerably more deviation (which is good).

We may end up with a save filled with 12 Axemen versus one filled with 12 Wonders. It will be up to us to then determine which save we like more (this is essentially what we have now ... a choice between finishing GLH now or finishing it later after building the Oracle or ToA ... or ignoring them all altogether.)

--------

I hope that made sense ... I did little proofing of it, because I need to go cook now ...

 

[Nares]

My main consideration for giving too much choice is determining where the multiple shadow type format (like in LHC or NC) and the SG format begins/ends.

SG forum ---->>>>

Moved to MC bullpen thread.

 

[Bleys]

Not saying EVERY round is "free choice", only certain rounds. The vast majority of the rounds will be played from a single save.

I think we shot ourselves in the foot with this game, since our options were so limited, and the path of progress was pretty predictable. I totally agree that we shouldnt be "rating" starts and such, but this particular game, none of us were able to accomplish our "goals" within the turnset.

If the start had been different, and we had to choose between Wonders, rushing a neighbor, or pumping out some blocking cities, I think we would have had a MUCH wider variety of saves.

 

[Winston Hughes]

About the map: I love it. This is exactly the kind of situation that can provoke lots of interesting discussion without becoming too complicated for easy analysis. Perfect for the first MC.

And using Refar's script chooser was an inspired move for a game like this - the uncertainty over the map type gives a nice twist to the arguments over which strategy, and which save, is best.

I think that a free choose would create a huge mess...

Indeed. For this game at least, we should stick with the format as stated in the OP. Anything else will just cause more confusion.

@Diamondeye
Could you restate the rules as they stand so we're all 100% clear? Specifically:

1) What should be included in the reports?*
2) How will the best ball be chosen?
3) What is the role of the roster players?
4) When should spoilers be used?

*inc. the minimum requirements for a save to be considered a possible candidate for best ball.

btw, I'd just like to say cheers to everyone in general and Diamondeye in particular. It's been a bit chaotic so far, but that's to be expected. What matters is that the concept is excellent, and that the quality of the reports and discussion has been very high.

 

[civplayah]

I actually got to play the save.
CAUTION: Before reading, be aware that I cannot take screenshots!


Techs:

Spoiler :

Fishing-3800 B.C.
Bronze Working- 3275 B.C
Sailing- 2950 B.C.
Masonry-2675 B.C.
Animal Husbandry- 2175 B.C.

Cities:

Spoiler :

Berlin
Size 5- Growing 18 turns.

Buildings:
Palace, Baracks

Culture:
Developing

Queue:
Lighthouse-8 turns
Settler- 30 turns

Military:

Spoiler :

1 Warrior, Promotions: Combat 1
1 Scout, no Promotions