My Huge Sid Milk Run

[Chamnix]

Don't forget the MPs. These content faces are much more easy to be had than the happy one from the lux slider, if you are a Monarchy.

That's a good point although I'm not certain I'm going to stay a Monarchy all game. Depending on how many turns remain when I reach domination, it may be worthwhile to switch to a government with the trade bonus.

I was also considering Communism which would both keep MPs available, and it would increase the efficiency of the luxury slider. I would prefer cash rushing to whipping in a milk game, but Communism might just be too good not to use.

I'll see where I stand when I get Communism and then again when the wars are finally ending.

 

[Elear]

Chamnix, I was wondering how the "shape" of the map played into the difficulty of finding a game to play through? I've increasingly found in milk runs that it's not the opening that makes it so difficult to score well, but rather the fact that my first logical conquest doesn't lead me in an ideal "direction"; the way the AIs are laid out is often inconvenient and difficult to cope with.

 

[Chamnix]

There were definitely some maps that were excellent starts that ended up being rejected for a bad shape. I generally didn't get very far on maps where I started by myself - I wasn't good at making the first conquest overseas. I also rejected maps where I started with only 1 AI on my landmass because I didn't want to face all their units myself. And maps where I started between 2 AIs were tough - if you sign one neighbor into an alliance against the other, then you have to deal with hundreds of foreign units clogging your roads and blocking your workers.

I found that I had more success starting pretty far north or south rather than close to the equator so I would only be adjacent to one AI.

But yeah, a lot of things have to go right for it to be a really good map.

 

[Elear]

Good to know.

This is what happened in my most recent game. The problems should be evident. My game also seems to fit your description of only 1 AI on the island and an equator start. I suppose it's frustrating but that's why we keep running Mapfinder.

It's interesting to compare and contrast the differences between games to understand what works and doesn't.

 

[Spoonwood]

Lord Emsworth's comment along with some of the ideas in the "anarchy" thread make me wonder... even though you're not religious, would a quick revolt to communism make sense? I mean, would the benefits of reduced corruption later outweigh having the unhappy/content/specialist faces during the communist revolution man? Would Big Brother keep everyone happy? O.K., that started out serious and dovetailed into "humour".

I wouldn't whip as a communist, just use civil engineers. In my histographic game after the ancient ages really (which wouldn't have worked here due to the luxury slider issue), I set up the rule that basically in any non-core town a citizen could either exist as content or happy. So, if I had an unhappy citizen I made him a specialist. At first this meant scientists for research (which won't matter here), and latter meant civil engineers until I had improvements in. Then at size 6 and 12, as few as possible citizens working on tiles *without* losing any food per turn, and the rest civil engineers for aqueducts and hospitals. I did buy a few improvements, but mostly civil engineers did the work. The thinking came as that unhappy citizens wouldn't provide me with any points, while a specialist would do so now, even if it meant I'd grow a little bit latter. The same goes for the aqueduct and hospital. I wouldn't get any more points from the city until I got those improvements in basically, so may as well get them in sooner rather than later. I don't know if that works out best, but it's a thought at least.

I had the luxury slider I think at 60% or 50%, but I know it soon got raised to 90% once my island towns grew and stayed there the rest of the game.

 

[Elear]

Lord Emsworth's comment along with some of the ideas in the "anarchy" thread make me wonder... even though you're not religious, would a quick revolt to communism make sense? I mean, would the benefits of reduced corruption later outweigh having the unhappy/content/specialist faces during the communist revolution man? Would Big Brother keep everyone happy? O.K., that started out serious and dovetailed into "humour".

I'm inclined to say "don't bother". The #1 important thing in milking is maximizing happy faces...that's why we edge the line with obsessive use of the luxury slider in the early game. Why waste time to get reduced corruption? The same effects can be achieved by careful use of the treasury. I think remaining in a cash rush government is fine, in fact, even if it's not Republic. I don't think it will matter very much that it's a Monarchy. When you're big enough, you're going to be extremely rich anyway (the doubters can check out Huge/Monarchy milk run save files during the milking phase).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Lord Emsworth's comment along with some of the ideas in the "anarchy" thread make me wonder... even though you're not religious, would a quick revolt to communism make sense? I mean, would the benefits of reduced corruption later outweigh having the unhappy/content/specialist faces during the communist revolution man?

I think unhappyness won't be so much of a problem if your biggest source of happyness is war happyness and luxes. The depotism penalty on the other hand that will cost you a lot of food.


I think Monarchy should be quite alright. Beakers, gold, and shields from specialists aren't affected by the various governments anyway.

 

[Spoonwood]

Umm... the pointy stick research comment, where was it? Anyways, the Ottomans still had plenty of cities left, so if you had reduced them down further, you could have demanded techs from them. I was wrong. The shot about not being able to get Education from the Ottomans doesn't show much.

 

[Chamnix]

First, I finally found time to squeeze in another turn. OK, what was going on in this game again?

IBT – The Ottomans ignore my coast – weren’t we at war? Their redlined rifles also walk away from me. Confirm that we are at war still .

I left one of my armies too low on hps – I guess I didn’t think anything was within range, but Aztec cavalry came out of the fog and killed it after it defeated the first 2 attackers. That’s not a good way to resume this game. The Aztec monster stack of 100-something units turns south exiting my territory. Russia is attacking the Ottoman capital of Van and came very close to capturing it – the top defender was a redlined conscript rifle when their turn ended. The Aztecs start Magellan’s Voyage; the Incans finish Magellan’s Voyage.

870 AD – First thing to do is turn my leader into my 33rd army before I forget and start using elites.

I’m having a very hard time coming up with a reason that I’m still at war with the Ottomans. I want them to put up some resistance to Russia, I’m not planning on taking any more Ottoman cities immediately, and they are really just a distraction from the Aztecs. If I can’t think of a good reason to be at war, then I’ll sign peace at the end of this turn.



Aztecs – there are 3 redlined Aztecs pretty far south. I find 3 healthy elite cavalry who can reach them and kill all 3 picking up one leader – now that’s a much better welcome back to the game! It isn’t easy to find veteran cavalry to fill these armies right now, but I stick a couple injured units in, and they’ll just have to heal as an army, and I’ll fill them the rest of the way later.

I move many bombardment units to a spot where I hope they will get an opportunity to bombard the massive Aztec stack next turn.

I hunt down all Aztec cavalry in sight. This is very difficult with all these units – I have no idea where they were all supposed to be headed.



I remember the units in Russia were pillaging their way to Moscow so I keep doing that.



I can’t think of any reason to continue fighting the Ottomans. Check to make sure I don’t have any alliances against them. We agree to peace – I get 3 cities, 4 workers, and half of their 241 gold (on its own, they would have given Printing Press; Education by itself was doubtful).

While I liked my new city locations, the Ottomans neglected to mention the neighbors:



Two of them are immediately abandoned, and Karabuk will doubtless be abandoned next turn.

I start pulling portions of the worker wall down, since there is no need to defend against Ottoman boats anymore. Workers start gathering into railroading-appropriate stacks and prepare to make a long connecting railroad from my core to the front as their first task. I just better have coal...

 

[Chamnix]

Regarding governments, I had pretty much decided last night that I would go to Communism as soon as I could although I'm not really sure anymore. I'd like to think I wouldn't face much starvation while going through anarchy because I will hopefully get Communism at the same time as Steam Power. All my cities have enough food right now, so railroading appropriate irrigated grass during anarchy should prevent mass starvation although I might still lose a few citizens.

I agree I wouldn't pop rush in Communism, but I would prefer to have the option of cash rushing in addition to specialists. I think I'll see what CAII has to say about governments.

CAII's Economy Tab:





For shields, adding up the shield numbers in CAII for Communism gives 534 spt.
In game F11 has manufactured goods of 541.

Considering Monarchy's numbers aren't really going to change much, and Communism's will continue to get significantly better, and I still have well over 300 turns to go, I think I will be switching to Communism once I get it.

 

[Elear]

While I liked my new city locations, the Ottomans neglected to mention the neighbors:

This always happens to me. I rarely can hold the remote cities because I can't get up a defense in time with many scattered troops around.

I'm also surprised that you're not able to do more pointy stick research...if you wanted to, that is. I'm really bewildered as to why it's so difficult, because I can say with confidence that the three 80k games all employed pointy-stick.

 

[Chamnix]

I think part of the reason is that I am always at war with so many tribes - I think the terms of peace offered are less favorable if you are at war with other strong AI.

 

[Elear]

That would explain something, because I doubt most games in a Republic would be in as many wars/quite as often as you have been.

 

[Chamnix]

Before ending 870 AD, since I’ve made a decision to go Communist, I rush another wormy while I still can cash rush, and I start many courthouses in my core to prepare for the switch. I also start a prebuild for the Secret Police Headquarters.

IBT – The Ottomans tell me to get out or declare. Instead I offer an RoP so my armies can continue to get to Russia. The Aztec stack moves back into my territory, but they are on flat ground next to a bunch of bombard units, so hopefully I can whittle them down a little. The city with Sun Tzu’s flips to the Ottomans – I guess that was a reason to stay at war. I never sold my barracks so I’m glad at least it was just Sun Tzu’s and not the Pyramids or JS Bach’s.



880 AD – I notice that I am strong to the Aztecs. I don’t remember if that was already true before now. Bombard the Aztec main stack with 40 something rocks and cannonballs. After my bombardment hits, the top unit becomes a 4/4 pike instead of a 4/4 musket. I don’t attack them this turn, but I put armies on all the high ground they could reach so I can continue to chip away at their health.

I continue to focus on their cavalry in the north and ignore slow units. This turn 9 more Aztec cavalry died in addition to some units defending their cities. I captured the mostly useless city of Isapezi and the city of New Xochicalco.





Russia – I disconnect 2 sources of Russian dyes. I don’t see any other sources in their territory that they might be trading away, and they definitely do not have any themselves right now. Moscow is largely cut off – the Great Library is not far now .

 

[Donny Brook]

Talk to the Aztecs next – we renegotiate peace tied to an alliance against the Zulu, and I throw in Map Making. We have a deal.

Finally to the Ottomans – I don’t renegotiate peace with this one since that would be a little too dangerous. We sign an alliance, I provide Monarchy and receive 248 gold.

More off-topic stuff for the intermediate players...

Your quote is from page 3. In one case you "renegotiate peace" and in one case you don't. Can you explain (or point to another thread) the difference and/or what renegotiating peace is all about? I'm uninformed about this concept entirely. Every time you meet someone, you're automatically at peace. DOW will change that. But in this case, I don't think you were ever at war with either the Aztecs or the Ottomans. So can you explain the nuances of one situtation vs. the other.

You were automatically at peace with both since the moment you met them, correct? If you check the current trades tab, you see "Peace Treaty" with no expiry (i.e. Turns remaining = ---).

I hope you don't mind the "back to the beginning" intrustions on your thread. This is a sparsely covered topic that can be well explained in the context of an actual game.

For what it's worth, I'm with Lord Ems on sticking with Monarchy. You're a much better player than me however, so I'm sure there are lots of things I haven't even thought about that favour Communism.

 

[Chamnix]

You were automatically at peace with both since the moment you met them, correct? If you check the current trades tab, you see "Peace Treaty" with no expiry (i.e. Turns remaining = ---).

On that screen you click on Peace Treaty. Your advisor will ask "Are you sure you want to renegotiate peace?" If you say yes, then you must agree to peace terms with that AI, or you have just declared war.

If you reach agreement, then you will have the 20 turns of peace agreed as well as whatever else was on the table. Sometimes you might have to pay the AI something to make them agree to 20 turns of peace; sometimes you can get something from them.

In my case, with the Aztecs, I wanted war happiness eventually, so I needed them to declare war on me. By renegotiating the peace treaty and tieing it to an alliance against someone, then breaking either part of the deal breaks the whole deal. Specifically, if the Aztecs signed peace with the Zulu within 20 turns breaking our alliance, then they also break our peace treaty - i.e. they declare war on me.

At that stage of the game, I didn't want the Ottomans to declare war on me because I wasn't prepared for war with a close neighbor.

 

[Donny Brook]

Gotcha. I recall from a recent abandoned game where I was happy to get a DOW. I allied the neighbour on the other front, but was miffed when he signed peace after only 10 turns. I guess if I had tied a "Peace Treaty (20)" to the alliance, then he would have automatically DOW'd on me, giving me two doses of war happiness. Simple, now that I understand it. I didn't realize you could renegotiate an existing "Peace Treaty (---)".

 

[Donny Brook]

The Babylonians move a settler/spear pair into my territory from the north, so I can get them to declare anytime I want.

Why is that? Because you're weak compared to them and they would never leave under those circumstances?

 

[Chamnix]

If you make them furious with a bunch of demands first, and you are weak to them, I've never known them to leave peacefully when you issue the get out or declare ultimatum.

 

[Donny Brook]

As I feared, I lost my war happiness from the Babylonians, and nobody told me how to get it back .

Your quote is from page 4...

I presume this is because war happiness wears off after a while?