News: GOTM 20 Pre-Game Discussion

[Harbourboy]

Yes, there is a big difference between immediate horses and horses that take another 30 or 40 turns to hook up.

 

[Tosti11]

This might just seem obvious to more experienced players, but i have never tried a chariot unit rush. Assuming an early immortal rush without barracks, what promotions do you give your immortals and in what mix?

For example:
50-50: Flanking only (II will give immune to first strike to make immortals even more effective against archers), Combat only
third each: Flanking only, combat only, combat shock (if opponent has spears)
Throw in a combat medic? Other useful promotion combos?

I saw Balbes strat of resource denial and agree that his promotions fit the strat well. What promotions fit the early immortal rush strat?

 

[Erkon]

I've made a quick estimation of the start if you settle on the initial tile. The basic idea is to get Immortals in action to help me dominate the world. To do that, I want as much production as possible to build me an army.

I don't have access to the game so I'm not sure about certain things: does city grow to 2 at 22 or 24 food? how long does it take to road/mine/farm? etc. Still, here's my plan:

Settle on initial site on turn 0 (4000 BC). Work FP when culture expands. Build worker. Research AH. (no surprise here)

Improve corn when worker is completed, build two warrior and research mining. Then farm FP, then mine hill 1N of city. Work corn and FP at size 2, then the mine at size 3. Build settler when city grows to three, then barracks. Research wheel, then bronze working. Work plains forest 2W at size 4, then hill SE-E at size 5.

Settle second city on rice, work lake until size two, then work gold. Mine hill north of gold when possible.

This is just a rough plan and does not take any strategic resources into account, or barbarian activity etc. The plan is not based on any test games.

If my calculations are correct, I will on turn 42 (2740 BC?) have completed AH, Mining, Wheel and BW. I will have two cities:
Capital size 4 (8 hpt with barracks) and north city size 2 (4 hpt). ~1 immortals / two turns. I like, I like...

Comparing this start with settling 1N: the gold will be worked on turn ~42 instead of turn ~20. The difference is 132 commerce. Reduce this with 35 from the FP. Reduce with another 18 for commerce from mine 1N. That leaves about 80 commerce in difference. The trade route between the two cities and the extra commerce in northern city is not included, nor is the city maintence cost. The potential for initial settlement is looking good at size 5, with 11 hpt. Northern city will reach 7 hpt. At turn 50, I'll have 18 hpt...

The barracks can be replaced with a worker, or immortals if horses can be connected in time. I estimate that the barracks corresponds to a 20% production increase (since the units survive longer). The investment into barracks is thus payed off after 50 turns after the start. Perhaps not worth it? The extra worker will boost early production by chopping trees (or improving tiles), perhaps better than barracks then?

I'm not trying to convince anyone with my reasoning. I'm just wondering if I'm the only one thinking along these lines? Don't be shy now...

da_Vinci - Yes, horses are of course necessary. What is the saying? Plan for the expected, expect the unexpected? Hmm, I think I got that wrong...

LC - I can't find the 2C flood plains, please help me

Conquistador 63 - As DaviddesJ stated, research is not critical for me the first 50 turns. The worker will have plenty of work to do.

Lexad - The settler will cost me 45 food and 55 hammers. I have traded early immortals for a high peak production later. I judge that this delay is not harmful.

Lehm - If I settle on rice and work a farmed river side, I will get 3+3 food and 1 commerce. The other way around will net me the same food (4+2) but no extra commerce. Not until civil service will there be any difference in food. Size two is good enough for me (7hpt)

 

[DaviddesJ]

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?

There's no "risk", because you will find out whether or not you have horses long before you have to make any decisions about them.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Lehm - If I settle on rice and work a farmed river side, I will get 3+3 food and 1 commerce. The other way around will net me the same food (4+2) but no extra commerce. Not until civil service will there be any difference in food.

Civil Service is irrelevant. The rice is already irrigated from the lake. You get 3+3 food if you settle on the rice, and 2+5 food if you settle adjacent and farm the rice.

But you do need Iron Working.

 

[LowtherCastle]

LC - I can't find the 2C flood plains, please help me

Hey, so I was seeing double at the time. Gnejs suggests I refrain from helping you in that direction.

 

[ainwood]

Adventurer Class bonuses:

1. Player starts with a worker (same square as the settler).
2. Player starts with two arches (one on plot with settler, one on plot with scout)
3. Player starts with mining & the wheel.

Challenger Class Equalisers:

1. Gold visible in the starting screenshot is removed.
2. Start without knowledge of agriculture.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's no "risk", because you will find out whether or not you have horses long before you have to make any decisions about them.

Isn't the risk because you spend the turns researching animal husbandry, which you could've spent researching bronze working. Of course bronze working carries a risk of no copper, but it does guarantee slavery, where animal husbandry gives you nothing if there are no animal resources. And I may be wrong, but my vague perception is that copper seems to be a slightly more common resource than horses (it's possible though my perception is distorted because in most (non-Cyrus) games I regard copper as more useful than horses and so tend to seek it out more actively).

 

[Thrallia]

I tend to see horses more often than I see copper. On a few types of maps, copper seems more common, but usually I find horses to be more common.

 

[da_Vinci]

My comment about risk was mostly a reaction to this by Lexad:

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

It looked like he was going to forgo the first settler. But if AH is researched early, DaviddesJ is right that you know whether you need that second city for the horses or not well before the you'd be building that first settler anyway.

dV

 

[Gnejs]

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...

Sounds interesting, but there is one flaw in your grand plan: what happens if the horses turns up somewhere outside the fat crosses of the first and planned second city? Do you still settle on the rice, or give up on the gold entirely?

Or what if the horses turns up inside the fat cross of the capital? Wouldn't you rather build Immortals than a settler?

1N or 1NW guarantees the gold no matter where the horses pop up. Seems much more flexible to me.

 

[Harbourboy]

I think I am going to have to go Adventurer for this game. I don't stand a chance otherwise.

 

[Lehm]

I already made a test game. I settled in place and founded second city in the east ( found horses there ). I only built barracks in my two cities and then never stopped producing immortals. I had to realize that it´s still a hard fight against cities with a +50% cultural defense bonification.

Once again I didn´t destroy the cities. I kept them. By the year 1 AD I had 8 or 9 cities and killed one enemy leaving 3 more on the continent and one more somewhere else.

Now that (of course) I have a negative income at 0% science I got about 35% of the worlds territory. I just started building cats and now I am falling behind in tech. From now on it will be a hard fight which I don´t know how to continue...

Okay... I know I have to raze more cities... haaa.... but it´s so hard... I think I can´t win without maceman.

And due to the fact that the real GOTM will be a kind of an island map won´t give us the needed 60% territory anyway...

mh, maybe finally it´s time for a cultural victory, which I never tried befor. I am a bit double-minded

 

[da_Vinci]

Once again I didn´t destroy the cities. I kept them. By the year 1 AD I had 8 or 9 cities and killed one enemy leaving 3 more on the continent and one more somewhere else.

Now that (of course) I have a negative income at 0% science I got about 35% of the worlds territory. I just started building cats and now I am falling behind in tech. From now on it will be a hard fight which I don´t know how to continue...

Okay... I know I have to raze more cities... haaa.... but it´s so hard... I think I can´t win without maceman.

Maybe an alternative approach is to pillage enemies but don't take their cities ... until you have the ability to make courthouses. Why not keep the AI weak but let them build the infrastructure in those cities for a while, before you eventually take them!

Plus, leaving weak surivivors may be necessary to keep a trading partner, as I recall if you are the only civ an AI knows, they won't trade with you? or is it ever knew (living or dead)? (help me out here, guys!)

dV

 

[LowtherCastle]

Well, I tried the Erkon plan. Combined with Lexad's love of letting the AI's build your settlers, it's perfect. The only detail still to be resolved is what unit you would use to capture this city, if it happened to be stabling your horses (3080bc):

 

[Adama]

@Thrallia & Conquistador, et. al.

Thanks again for the info.

And to all, as still a noob, I can barely believe the analysis that Civ can generate. It's intoxicating... {no wait, that might be the alcohol}. This promises to be quite a GOTM, and I will be traveling most of July. Hope I can find adequate time.

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

 

[Thrallia]

Plus, leaving weak surivivors may be necessary to keep a trading partner, as I recall if you are the only civ an AI knows, they won't trade with you? or is it ever knew (living or dead)? (help me out here, guys!)

dV

The AI will almost never trade a monopoly tech(Mansa is the only exception I'm aware of)
What that means is that if you are the only civ an AI knows, he won't trade with you. It also means though, that if he knows 2 or 3 civs, but none of them know that tech also, he will still not trade with you because he thinks he has a monopoly on that tech.

 

[Ronnie1]

Why not keep the AI weak but let them build the infrastructure in those cities for a while, before you eventually take them!

Will they build infrastructure, or will they just continue to build best available units?

 

[culdeus]

Adventurer Class bonuses:

1. Player starts with a worker (same square as the settler).
2. Player starts with two arches (one on plot with settler, one on plot with scout)
3. Player starts with mining & the wheel.

Challenger Class Equalisers:

1. Gold visible in the starting screenshot is removed.
2. Start without knowledge of agriculture.

Arches huh

I never know what the hell to do to open adventurer starts. I guess with this one the first tech is AH the first build is barracks till size 2 after farming the corn then settler?

The archers can go forth and worker steal and then follow up with immortals.

I just never know what the first build should be since it's 9/10 times worker then settler.

Oh well. I'm considering just doing the normal save and seeing how long I last.

 

[Adama]

Arches huh

I never know what the hell to do to open adventurer starts. I guess with this one the first tech is AH the first build is barracks till size 2 after farming the corn then settler?

The archers can go forth and worker steal and then follow up with immortals.

I just never know what the first build should be since it's 9/10 times worker then settler.

Oh well. I'm considering just doing the normal save and seeing how long I last.

I am a complete noob, and the first two months I "practiced" I tried the "normal save" and I found myself with so many noobie mistakes and mouse slips that I was frustrated and "replayed" both months (several times) in order to learn (thus, they were not good for submission). However, last month I played the Adventurer Class (AC) and found it quite helpful, and even though it was Emperor, I actually won the game (no awards, here, of course, ha!).

The AC helps (1) offset stupid mistakes - although I made many less such blunders this last month, and (2) gives more 'play balance' for a noob.

You are right about having to think differently. I found myself saying, well, I'll just do what I would normally do on Contender save, with "worker, archer turns in-hand". Ahhh.... life is not that simple. I.e., it's not like playing a game of chess with two first moves instead of one.

But, if you'll give it the same thought that you would normally, on this level (I intend to play AC this month- I had never played Emperor before and certainly not this level- I've only played a half dozen or so games altogether), then with that preparation, AC is designed to add "play balance" for us (me, anyway) less experienced players.

So, you just begin the thought process with ... If I don't have to build a worker first ... what would I do with the extra "free turns" , etc.

That's why this game is infinitely challenging- change a couple of 'little' things and you have choices you didn't anticipate.

The theory is of course, I can do the same things that can be done with a normal save, but only a little faster, making up for errors in timing, playing and decisions that a noob will ultimately make to lose some of that ground (that's the way it is for me).

What I did last month, since AC actually had the archery tech to start, and not just archers, was to skip building any warriors at all. When the recipe called for "warrior" to build and grow to size 2, or whatever, I inserted "archer"-- and although it obviously took extra turns since archers were more expensive, the fact was I had some "free turns" anyway. That's how I approached it.

SO, I plan the same kind of analysis this month. We don't have archery as a beginning tech ( and I think only the wheel is necessary for the Immortals ), so that decision has to be made early on. But, you have a leg up on archery, if you need it, because you get to start with the free tech, the wheel, and you already get Hunting with Cyrus. Thus, you don't have to spend time researching the wheel, and could use those turns to get archery. I emphasize 'could' because when AH is teched, we should know if we have horses within the corral or not.

I know all of that is pretty obvious, but I am just trying to think out loud of the differences AC will make in our start, see?

Starting down that path, and that said, some here have wisely suggested that AC is probably a "crutch" that none of us should use. That's why I attempted the Contender my first two months (got a little frustrating). I found the AC level to be 'Goldilocks' for me --- it was "juuuusst r i i i ght !"

Just the problems associated with AC that you have identified help us to learn the game better. I learned as much playing AC last month ( and trying to figure out my tech timeline, what to do with the initial free worker for instance, until an appropriate tech is available -- last month a worker on AC had to mine, I think it was, until the cultural borders expanded and/or we completed the underlying tech -- this month the worker will already have techs of Ag and Mining, so choices, choices, although the corn is a priority for me.

Culdeus, hope that helped {someone? anyone?} ...

One last thought I have, and that's since AC starts with mining, you're also closer to BW to check out copper resources for Axes, just in case the horses turn out to be sheep when we get to see them up close ...

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