News: GOTM 20 Pre-Game Discussion

[Tosti11]

Quoting from my own post earlier today in GOTM19 Final Spoiler

Actually your post in that GOTM 19 spoiler prompted my posts and questions in this thread! The higher difficulty makes it an even more risky endeavor to steal that first worker.

 

[LowtherCastle]

For GOTM20, building a worker, beginning a second, switching to a warior several turns after the corn is farmed so that the city expands to size 2 just as the gold in mined, then completing the worker and warrior, and finally a settler would be a tentative game plan going in.

With all due respect, I'd rather get 2nd worker from AI with my immortals if I have horses, as my 2nd city. If you don't get horses withing 40%-culture borders, then it's another story, agreed.

This is why I keep emphasizing that it depends on one's overall strategic goal. I suspect each of the above plans is perfect for its own particular strategy. My guess:

• Cactus Pete's strategy aligns to a high-score strategy involving an research-focused bee-line to Biology, most likely finishing with Domination or Conquest.
• Lexad's strategy aligns to a fast-finish strategy involving Conquest or Domination (but possibly useful for a number of VCs).

What say you two? Am I close?

Now, since you are both offering help to less skilled players goodjob, which of the two strategies (corrected, as needed) do you suppose might be more "workable" for someone just hoping to win at Immortal, maybe for the first time?

 

[Cactus Pete]

Tentatively planning to create two workers is the more conservative, more generally applicable strategy and probably better suited to less skilled players. However, if there are horses in the capital city's cultural borders, then an immediate immortal rush is certainly the easiest way to win.

BTW, getting all the way to Biology is often not compatible with a high score. I've researched it in only one GOTM. My high scores are usually the result of a resource-rich map that allows the AI to found many growth cities, which I begin capturing early in the game and am able to get nearly all of fairly early without exceeding the domination limit.

 

[Harbourboy]

We don't often hear advice from the mighty Cactus Pete so I am reading every word intently. My aim in this is to get as close to winning as possible. I have never won on Immortal level before (other than cheesy duel sized quechua rushes) so any advice is much appreciated.

 

[Adama]

I just have to say I have really enjoyed this discusssion. I am really too new to offer any help to anyone, {I'm the noob that always asks a ton of questions}, but I couldn't pass on telling everyone how much your discussion (especially in the question and answer format, imagine me saying that !) has helped me understand the huge, almost insurmountable obstacle a noob like me will be facing on Immortal level. It'll be fun to try.

I am sure many lurk here and learn, too, without posting. So, it is very helpful to many of us. By the way, for me at least as a noob, the questions that are asked that may seem elemental or noobie, are just as important, because many of the answers are the same things this noob was wondering about before the question was asked.

As a 'real' noob, I guess the one question that the whole discussion begs for me is whether it is just almost imperative to either cripple or take out any enemy so early ( I haven't been particularly successful with early rushes of any kind yet in my games). I.e., straight up infrastructure and settler and building barracks etc. with regular development and planning for and preparing over time for war later is ... as I am understanding from the above .... just not a reasonable course of action on Immortal level (because of the AI's great starting bonuses, and fast development rate?) I presume one would just fall too far behind in each area (military, techs, cities, territory, population, etc.).

Thanks again to everyone for the input-- at least when Immortal kicks my butt I can't say you didn't warn me properly!!

Luck to all,
Adama
Military Leader of the last remnant of the Human Race

 

[Lexad]

@LtC

Well, Cactus Pete said it all.

 

[Thrallia]

As a 'real' noob, I guess the one question that the whole discussion begs for me is whether it is just almost imperative to either cripple or take out any enemy so early ( I haven't been particularly successful with early rushes of any kind yet in my games). I.e., straight up infrastructure and settler and building barracks etc. with regular development and planning for and preparing over time for war later is ... as I am understanding from the above .... just not a reasonable course of action on Immortal level (because of the AI's great starting bonuses, and fast development rate?) I presume one would just fall too far behind in each area (military, techs, cities, territory, population, etc.).

Trying to play peaceful on Immortal, with Aggressive AIs is more than likely going to end in a conquest loss. I think that the best course of action is likely to be taking out 1 or 2 AI early...either with Immortals or with Axes/Swords. It will almost be imperative unless going for a cultural victory(which I must say is not likely with aggressive AI) because of the reasons you stated...the AI has a faster development rate than Emperor(I think the AI gets a 25-35% discount on everything over the human at Immortal) and because of the fact that the AI starts out with 2 Settlers and 2 Workers!!

With faster settler production by the AI, and with the ability to have 2 cities almost immediately, it will be nearly impossible to stake out enough land to compete long-term without an early war.

 

[Cactus Pete]

I guess the one question that the whole discussion begs for me is whether it is just almost imperative to either cripple or take out any enemy so early ( I haven't been particularly successful with early rushes of any kind yet in my games). I.e., straight up infrastructure and settler and building barracks etc. with regular development and planning for and preparing over time for war later is ... as I am understanding from the above .... just not a reasonable course of action on Immortal level (because of the AI's great starting bonuses, and fast development rate?) I presume one would just fall too far behind in each area (military, techs, cities, territory, population, etc.).

If a good set of resources is available and the map allows you to settle at least three excellent cities, then you don't have to attack early (but look for the opportunity) -- just play well.

 

[culdeus]

I've tried to create some practice maps and I keep running across the following thing that I find interesting. The map setup as described seems as if only 40%-45% of the map is land. This is after generating maybe 10 maps looking for one that wouldn't take 20 minutes to edit.

If there is truly that little land to attack then a very fast domination victory might be possible just by the sheer lack of land to conquer.

 

[Lexad]

If a good set of resources is available and the map allows you to settle at least three excellent cities, then you don't have to attack early (but look for the opportunity) -- just play well.

But with Small map and 5 rivals what are the odds? Often you can just let the AI do the job

 

[jesusin]

Do the top players build a worker or steal them to start the game? If the top players steal first, then a follow up question is do you ever build/chop workers or do you just steal them? At what point is the impending war not worth the risk? How do you determine if the war is worth the risk?

I can’t speak for them. In my game, I would do a worker steal without too much thinking if we had a warrior instead of a scout. If the scout discovers a really close AI, I would probably change my production from worker to warrior and steal one. If it is not very close, I think it would take too long to produce a warrior, send him, find the worker, bring it back…before he could start working, so I would build the worker myself then.

As a 'real' noob, I guess the one question that the whole discussion begs for me is whether it is just almost imperative to either cripple or take out any enemy so early ( I haven't been particularly successful with early rushes of any kind yet in my games). I.e., straight up infrastructure and settler and building barracks etc. with regular development and planning for and preparing over time for war later is ... as I am understanding from the above .... just not a reasonable course of action on Immortal level (because of the AI's great starting bonuses, and fast development rate?) I presume one would just fall too far behind in each area (military, techs, cities, territory, population, etc.).

That’s a very reasonable plan. But in this particular map, so crowded, I don’t think it is a good idea.

 

[Erkon]

Am I the only one that considers settle in place and work FP for the extra commerce, then corn, then mine? Wrk, war, war, settler ?
A.H. then mining? Second city on rice or close to far horse? Then
immortals...

 

[Lexad]

1 settler = 4 immortals in terms of hammers. I tend to get better odds with combat, and I get gold.

 

[Lehm]

I have two questions :

1. The cease fire thing sounds interesting - I never even though to sign a cease fire contract.. What does that mean? Can you still move through the enemies land or will you find your troops outside the borders after signing? Where´s the difference to a normal peace treaty? Can you declare war again without the 10 turns of waiting?

2. @ Erkon: Why would you settle on the rice? Don´t you get just one more food by doing that? If you settle next to the rice you get +2 don´t you? So one more. And to have a more or less good immortal production city means you need a city at size 3 ( at least ) ... mh... the city won´t reach size 3 earlier because you can´t work the rice.?.?...

 

[Lexad]

1. You can't move in the opponent's borders unless you have Open Borders. You can attack anytime, even the same turn. You can't demand any retribution for ceasefire, unlike peace treaty.

 

[DaviddesJ]

2. @ Erkon: Why would you settle on the rice? Don´t you get just one more food by doing that? If you settle next to the rice you get +2 don´t you?

There is jungle on the rice so, unless you settle there, it's not useful until you have Iron Working.

 

[Conquistador 63]

2. @ Erkon: Why would you settle on the rice? Don´t you get just one more food by doing that? If you settle next to the rice you get +2 don´t you? So one more. And to have a more or less good immortal production city means you need a city at size 3 ( at least ) ... mh... the city won´t reach size 3 earlier because you can´t work the rice.?.?...

He also said he would settle in place (on the rice for city #2). In that case, what would intrigue me is why he is willing to accept not getting the gold in the capital's fat cross.

 

[DaviddesJ]

He also said he would settle in place (on the rice for city #2). In that case, what would intrigue me is why he is willing to accept not getting the gold in the capital's fat cross.

Because he's going to get the gold in city #2. Because he's going to conquer lots of neighbors with immortals and research is not all that important.

You can disagree with his strategy (I do), but it's not so hard to understand.

 

[LowtherCastle]

He also said he would settle in place (on the rice for city #2). In that case, what would intrigue me is why he is willing to accept not getting the gold in the capital's fat cross.

One view might be that 1) he'll have more gold earlier, working the +2 flood plains and 2) he'll have more food/population for poprushing units, and 3) the worker comes on line 1 turn earlier.

 

[da_Vinci]

1 settler = 4 immortals in terms of hammers. I tend to get better odds with combat, and I get gold.

Are we talking about the best opening for the test game, where we know by now where the horses are, or for the real game, where that is unknown?

The discussions that emphasize immortals over all seem to carry a risk if the horses don't show up in the capital, don't they?

dV