Discussion in 'Civ3 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by killercane, Apr 29, 2005.
I didn't think that it would be that different.
The Pyramids grow population, which in turn grows the domination limit by having more settlers to claim more territory. You also get shields in faster, and thus produce more shields overall for markets/military to get towards the domination limit.
Well I have tried some Maya maps. The objective is to put in Seafaring and Scientific civs to spur super tech pace and get MT in BC years. Also w/o any Masonry civs I give Masonry to the nearest neighbor.
Unfortunately, this is very difficult to control. Seafaring civs absolutely run away with the tech pace. Spain built Great Lighthouse in 1750 BC, and they regularly get to MAs in 1250 BC. Even quick trade for alphabet and min run on math doesnt give great results. I think I will stick with Iro.
Does anyone know when score is calculated? Is it before growth in the interturn or after along with the shields and everything is calculated? In other words, do I need to anticipate happiness decline for the next turn and adjust accordingly? Im sure I can test but that would be tedious if someone knew the answer.
4549 domination limit w/ 4 turn factory found after 200k mapfinder iterations.
Could you send me the map, please?
Got an SGL at Writing in it too. But I dont know what to do... I have much land to backfill but I have hardly any AI gold. In fact I am broke. I have only one MW! This is not normally the way I would like to approach a game. I would like to buy some settlers from those northern floodplains and devote everything else to unit building but again, no gold. I could upgrade warriors to MDI but no gold. I only know about 6 opponents but they are all medieval and both persia and ottos have iron and feudalism.
To be honest, I would not even have played this start.
I started a new Sid Histo game. The best strategy is to build the Pyramids without a doubt; just find a high domination limit game and attempt to build them until you do. You might think that this would hamper your production totals at 1000 bc but you should still have over 20 cities. IIRC I had 22 cities and 6 settlers on their way at 1000 bc. Building the pyramids is 50/50 if you have no masonry civs and have enough food bonuses around to do 2 settlers and then the pyramids with 3 turn growth still at the capital from size 2-6. Workers for add in and improving come from your other 2 cities.
I have 56 cities compared to Moonsinger's 36. I have not added in any workers yet and have finally recovered from building pyramids to match her score.
Points: 2353 (+36 ppt)
Units: 24 horse, 24 knights
Points: 2353 (+53 ppt)
Units: ~20 horse
This is with the resource trick, which is more obscenely unbalanced than palace rank exploit, but hey Moonsinger came up with it. Currently at 740 AD conquering, it is going well with no major mistakes so far. I dont know if I will ever finish (turns take 20-30 minutes at this early stage), but hopefully someone will try the Pyramids strategy and get over 90K.
If you're doing that... does it come as worth it to SGL the Pyramids via Ceremonial Burial? I know Kuningas managed this on a Sid 80% archipelago in a 20k game. If you can get the CB SGL, the only question I have does having a bit lower domination limit come as a major drawback?
With mapfinder settings of food bonus, fresh water, and >4475 domination limit you do not get too many maps; if you had the time and/or computing power I am sure you could find enough to attempt such a map if you chose minimum number of AIs. A CB SGL with enough room to expand, no early war declaration, and most important being on the alpha continent is literally one in a million.
Lower domination limit would be a major drawback; I wouldnt consider maps less than 4450 tiles really.
That's interesting. EMan's Huge Chieftain (with Pyramids) is around 4400 even with his SGL around 2900 BC. His Warlord around 4564 with an SGL in about 2850 BC, and his Regent about 4505 with his SGL in 2800 BC. I guess each of those comes from the 2nd or 3rd tech researched though.
You are not even guaranteed to get to CB first on Sid so it would take some doing. I would much rather have a start with a nice first and second ring of cities.
What was your score in 740 AD in the Maya game with the Pyramids?
I dont recall, I reinstalled windows on that machine. I will say that the gains are exponential from 0 AD onward as long as you keep conquering. The only thing that could have gone better is not having to fight the strongest civs in the game right off the bat (Germany, then Hittites), thus leading to slowly getting to rails.
I dont think I can overstate the value of the Pyramids in this endeavor. The only thing holding me back on that strategy for so long was the points, but the math proves you overcome it and growth is exponentially accelerated. It is a major advantage. Even if you conquer Pyramids early you are missing out on growth by building early troops and the advantage of taking them over early only saves you 400 shields, but you would have built at least 300 shields worth of granaries anyway on a decent map.
I can tell by some of your comments you have not applied it yet. You dont build them in the second city due to happiness concerns. 2 settlers first is usually optimal depending on the map since you want settlers from all 3 when Pyramids are complete.
As I tried to say elsewhere, I don't see how the math isn't going to prove it, because you forfeit much of your GA by putting in the Pyramids. On lower levels, I agree this isn't so much of a big deal. But, here you need vast military production. You can get 4-6 cities without too much trouble to produce 1 turn horse-knights, or 1 turn horse-calvary (you zoom to the city and upgrade them, and they are ready to go immediately) with the resource trick getting you scores of gpt and lump sums. In my current game at 400 AD I currently have 99 calvary, 21 armies (1 knight, 1 4 calvary army, the rest 3 calvary armies), 70 cannons, 48 rifles (these are for later to use as combat settlers via an RoP agreement... this is a possible weak spot), 4 knights, 4 muskets and other units. This isn't even much with the disconnect-reconnect/Emsworth agreements going on, as I have too much tundra nearby my capital. In my other game, I feel sure I would soon have over 150 calvary by 430 AD, though not so many armies, as I got later to Military Tradition. In that game I had even hand-built banks into my core before putting in units, so I could have amassed even greater numbers, with a good stash of cash for rushing armies, and I had 15 opponents. But, I'm not so sure that all would have happened had I not had 4-6 cities producing 1 turn horse-knights, and a slew of my other cities producing 2 turn horse-knights during my GA for either just enough gold to get to 20 shields in 10 shield cities plus the upgrade cost, or just the upgrade cost in 15 shield cities.
Hence, I want to know what things look like later on. Moonsinger's number 1 game in fact indicates that an early start doesn't make or break things by any means, at the very least. If you haven't compared scores of her # 1 game with Kuningas game, and her # 2 game I advise you do so. Here's some numbers (Moon3-Moonsinger 3, Kuni-Kuningas, Moon1-Moonsinger 1):
Year Moon3 Kuni Moon1
250 4069 3169 2861
330 4754 3651 3274
610 7634 6460 6515 (she passes Kuningas at this point)
760 10,674 9335 10,689 (she finally passes her number 3 game)
How do the games differ? Moonsinger's number 1 game plays capture and keep rather consistently, as does Kuningas's game (though perhaps not as much), while her number 3 game more-or-less plays raze and replace with settlers immediately in place of a razed city. The number 1 game captures The Pyramids in 310 AD, hundreds of years before the other two, with Kuningas capturing it in 760 AD. No one has reached the domination limit by 760 AD.
Additionally, Moonsinger has far more tiles under her control by that point. She hadn't passed Kuningas in terms of the tile count until 550, and trailed significantly early on. It might come as interesting to check the victory status screen... it seems that even with as many happy citizens as you can get, territory tiles count for over half of your score, at least from my current game going on. And the more cities you capture earlier, the more citizens you have for even more points once you can quell them safely. The AIs also grow far faster than you can hope for in most cases.
The question I have here comes as will the benefits of the earlier Pyramids combined with a basically forfeited GA result in an equivalent, or near equivalent creep towards the domination limit and conquering of the AIs? You don't need to just conquer, but you need to conquer fast. If the forfeited GA doesn't affect your conquering speed, then you are right, you need to build the Pyramids early. If it does affect your conquering speed significantly, then you just want to conquer The Pyramids very early. If you can prove something here, I'd like to see it, but I'm not so sure this is easy to prove one way or the other.
I find it especially strange that you say this. Happiness concerns? You just take the luxury slider up as needed, or beyond that point. You only really need 10% on Alphabet, if even that. Just pick up everything else via the resource trick. 3 cities by the time you complete the Pyramids? That's no problem at all by the time the Pyramids finish if you use the second city. See my HoF 20k Sid games (except the one with the Byzantines... I handbuild the Oracle in some of them, but in others the Pyramids in the 2nd city and have at least 3 if not 4 cities out by that point), or this thread.
That said, when I think about it, the capital will work will better. But why put out 2 settlers from the capital? Why not put out 1, and then start on the Pyramids? I'd expect the second city can put out a worker soon enough in any case such that if you have some decent BGs around, without Masonry tribes, you can get the Pyramids. The second city can rather handily put out a settler soon enough and found a 3rd city by the time you have the Pyramids up after the 2nd worker. I don't see why you would need anything more than 4 turn growth in the capital really. I also don't see why you need workers to add in... in my 20k games I rarely have had any add ins by that point, maybe 1 or 2, but not much, and I wasn't agricultural in those games.
Heck, you could probably forget the settler, go for them right away, or put out a worker and then the Pyramids.
This presupposes, of course, that it comes as easy to build the Pyramids on an 80% archipelago wet, warm, 3 billion map, vs. a 60% wet, warm, 5 billion map. I guess there could exist some significant difference there. But, even so, I didn't play with an agricultural tribe in those 20k games there, and that can make a significant difference in terms of how fast you can build something early.
You ramp up military production at 0 ad. MS only had 24 more knights than me, and it took forever to hook up horses.
Spoonwood, I think you are missing a few things here that would occur to you if you practiced a few games with what I am talking about. Why 3 cities? You have more territory, pop and production, in other words, score at 0 sacrifice of the optimum growth curve (OGC). Why worker addins? To make sure you get the Pyramids built in time; there are lots of jobs to do. 4 turn growth is good? No, if I have 4t growth I am adding in workers at lower than size 5 even. 3 turn growth is average, and 2 turn growth w/o granary is ideal but not common. Happiness concerns come from keeping EVERYONE happy for the beginning, not just content.
I would say take MS's map and check it out but she has multiple masonry civs in play there.
That sounds pretty late to me. Here's my current game report at 10 AD.
I'm honestly not so sure she has all that great of production by that point having 24 horses, 24 knights, and 6 trebuchets. Taking a while to hook up horses comes as a potential drawback of playing with 8 opponents, though given the right map that isn't a problem.
You can easily have 3 if not 4 cities by the time the Pyramids finish if you have 1 city put out a settler, one of the two go with the Pyramids, and the other put out 1 extra worker to develop the Pyramids city, and then warriors/settlers.
Yes, but it comes as more on the "smaller" side of things. 6 tiles over 4 tiles makes much less of a difference than 666 tiles over 444 tiles.
I understand why you might want worker add ins, and I've done that, but development needs to come as their focus.
That's because you're putting out 2 settlers instead of 1. If you just put out one, and have 4 turn growth, by the time you have good tile development, you'll hit size 7.
The value of 2 turn, 3 turn, and 4 turn growth depends upon how many BGs and possibly forests you have around. Also, 3 turn growth needs time to catch up to 4 turn growth in terms of shield production and total shield output towards the Pyramids. If you want maximum possible shields at size 7 also, you'll want more mined tiles which means that if you irrigate two cows early, you'll have to re-mine them both, which means you've spent 7 turns developing each cow, instead of 4, for 14 total worker turns instead of 8. Irrigating them later I don't see as a problem after the Pyramids, since 5 fpt isn't all that meaningful for the capital producing the Pyramids until it goes back to size 6. So, why not mine, put out 1 settler instead of two from the capital, and add workers in earlier to finish it earlier? Or have workers standing by ready to re-irrigate as soon as the Pyramids finish? Have you tried that?
We're talking about what 14 citizens maximum here that the cities will have? 20 maybe? That's so few, and so early, that it won't have that much of an effect... of course if you have hundreds of citizens that's an entirely different matter.
If you find some other map, I'll definitely try out both ways sometime, and give you some sort of notes (even though I don't think either early Pyramids strategy comes as the best idea overall).
O.K., so for the first pseudo-game for analysis here, I put out 1 settler, started on the Pyramids in the capital. The second city put out 2 workers, one which helped develop the capital, irrigated the wheat for 002 and then came over and helped develop the capital. I did one worker add-in exactly when the capital hit size 7. I didn't have enough food to go with 3 turn growth, but this implies the possibility of more maps available (and possibly a map with a higher domination limit as suitable also). I've also included a save from the turn I added in my worker, and I have things set up so I can use the resource/luxury trick ASAP:
So, I've checked my Huge (won't get completed) China 10 AD save on a Huge pangea vs. 15 tribes. In 10 AD I have 77 calvary, 32 cannons, 15 cannons, 1 horseman, and 14,644 gold in the bank, and I've already captured 12 cities. Granted an archipelago map with fewer tribes (unless 15 really comes as the best option... I don't feel at all clear exactly how many tribes comes as best using the resource/luxury trick, and so that you can potentially keep tribes around for war happiness later, so that they're potentially easier to take down faster, for maximum gold from them, etc.) won't have such numbers by then, but 24 horses, 24 knights, and 6 trebuchets by 10 AD seems low in comparison. Then again, Moonsinger did have a jungle start, 3 more workers, and seems to want to produce workers for a bit.
Separate names with a comma.