News: GOTM12 Pre-Game Discussion

[da_Vinci]

Is anyone else tempted to move the settler NE to the hill to see what's there?

I'm thinking about moving the warrior NW to check out the sea, and if there is a sea resource, taking the settler W. If there isn't any sea resource, taking the settler NE to see if there's anything attractive beyond that. If there isn't, returning the next turn. OTOH I am nervous because I recall wasting a couple of turns in WOTM01, exploring with the settler only to conclude the starting spot was the best place to settle after all.

I'm also thinking that settling in-place makes a lot of 3-gpt coast tiles unworkable (you could pick up an extra five of them by settling 1W, ...

If you found something good by going up the NE hill, how far away from the start position would you go to chase it?

If you have to go further NE to chase it, you will leave behind all the resources that we already see, and have to put a later city near the old start to use them. Which seems like a loss of time (could start in place and put second city in the NE if that looks good after scouting.

If you would settle on the NE hill if you found something attractive, then you have left the pigs and a spice behind - would a second city have to go where the Warrior starts to claim those later?

All of which raises two philosphical questions that we lower tier players might benefit from seeing discussed:

1) Is it better to concentrate a group of resources in one city, or to split them up among two cites for the greater territory command that gives (or even have two cities "share" a resource, to use alternately as needed?)

2) How much time should one spend looking for a better initial city site?

dV

 

[da_Vinci]

Hi All,

After trying a random practice game with the settings of GOTM 12, a question arose.

In the practice, iron was nearby (needed IW to hack out some jungle) and found well before there was time to mass skirmishers.

So the question is, if we do find metal early, is it better to produce 33% more skirmishers, compared to a smaller number of axemen (for offensive purposes)?

What ratio of skirmishers to fortified archers will it take to capture a city with skirmishers (before we have cats)? Defending at 1.85x3, seems to me that 3 to 1 is required, and expect to lose 2 per archer. Seems painful.

And I can think of a few neighbors who could nullify the skirmishers: Incan Qhechua are cheap, but + 100% vs. archery. Persian Immortals cost same as skirmishers, but get +50% vs Archery, and have the mobility edge.

Do you suppose ainwood set us up with a scenario of dueling UU's?

How does whether one tries to pump out skirmishers for early war, or wait for metal units affect the decision of were to settle the capital?

dV

 

[Redbad]

2) How much time should one spend looking for a better initial city site?

Well, let me quote Moonsinger's remark in the civ3 cotm12 pregame thread:

When not sure which direction to go, it may be best just to settle right on the spot

In this case the starting spot isn't bad and there is no clear direction to go for improvement. So ?

 

[Redbad]

1) Is it better to concentrate a group of resources in one city, or to split them up among two cites for the greater territory command that gives (or even have two cities "share" a resource, to use alternately as needed?)

In the beginning it is an advantage to be able the work resources. Later in the game it is enough to only have the resources connected. Especially resources that give extra commerce are mostly surpassed by working towns. Only food bonusses mostly hold their value.

I wouldn't found cities to share resources. Sharing bonuses is a civ3 way of thinking. In civ3 excess food and shields were wasted, so optimising their usage by sharing them between cities made sense, as did having more cities. Having more cities in CIV is penalised and excess food/hammers don't go to waste.

When not pursuing domination it is imo better to place cities in positions where they aquire extra resources and/or can become good cities. By good I mean productive wrt hammers, commerce or food. Not just to add more territory.

 

[drkodos]

Hi All,


Do you suppose ainwood set us up with a scenario of dueling UU's?


dV

That would be a nice touch!

 

[Svelte]

Another test map. (HOF 1.61.008)
View attachment 141358

 

[Mad Professor]

It would be nice if that river going past the gold hill is fairly long and winds around back and forth a lot. The result would be lots and lots of commerce when one plonks a city down somewhere in that river valley. Bring on the cottages. A river valley full of towns later on would be quite pleasant with the financial leader.

Settling 1W would be very tempting if there's a sea food resource there just into the black where we can't see it. You can always get the gold with a second city to the east (unless it's a horrible desert just beyond that gold hill). That way you'd also get four extra coast tiles with their nice commerce. On the other hand you'd lose a forest and start a turn later. Those two things may not be that bad in the long run though when the extra commerce and food is weighed up.

Having said that I find settling in place very tempting. With pigs and gold both the fat cross of your capital, you can get really rolling early on.

 

[Meatbuster]

In one of my test games I went worker-settler-Academy + CS slingshot (failed to build the Oracle though) and attacked only when I had massed Elephants and Cats. That is, I had ivory that game, if this game doesn't I'll have to tech to Macemen + Cats.

Funny thing is I got a GA as my second great person that game (stupid National Epic) and I used it to lightbulb Music then used the new GA to lightbulb Monarchy.

 

[totororo]

Couldn't resist to make a new try yesterday night, without cottaging first.

I got the oracle between 1200 BC and 1100 BC, CS slingshot and an academy beforehand. Indeed, pig + gold + many forests is a very good start.

I do think the're must be something weird with the map, considering the low difficulty setting and the start.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you found something good by going up the NE hill, how far away from the start position would you go to chase it?

Not very far. If I saw some other great resources from the hill, that I could move to settle the next turn, then I'd probably do it, as that'd free up the land to the west for another city. But I'm more thinking, the view from the hill might give me some clues as to the kind of land that's going to lie eastward (and northward), and that might enable me to better judge whether settling 1W or 2W of the starting spot, relying on being able to pick up the gold with a 2nd city to the east, is likely to be a sound strategy.

 

[Vynd]

Doing some early exploring with the Settler seems reasonable to me, although I'm not sure if I'll do it myself. Losing a turn or two at this difficulty level is unlikely to hurt much. The starting location is excellent, but as DynamicSpirit has pointed out it might be worth taking a slightly worse location for city #1 if that opens up another good site for city #2. If you're really concerned that we're isolated on a small island, I think that's another argument in favor of exploring with the Settler. It could be the difference between having having one great city and a few marginal ones, or having 4-5 good cities.

 

[da_Vinci]

Not very far. If I saw some other great resources from the hill, that I could move to settle the next turn, then I'd probably do it, as that'd free up the land to the west for another city. But I'm more thinking, the view from the hill might give me some clues as to the kind of land that's going to lie eastward (and northward), and that might enable me to better judge whether settling 1W or 2W of the starting spot, relying on being able to pick up the gold with a 2nd city to the east, is likely to be a sound strategy.

So from that NE hill, would you move further north to settle? That would take the gold out of the fat cross, so perhaps not. You would have to settle 1 or 2 E of the NE hill, or on the hill, to keep the gold in the capital. And settling on the hill crowds your later pig city. If there is a great site in the NE, why not just settle there as the second city? Is making the capital more central that useful (re maintenance)?

Seems like the real question is whether we are on an island and the land we see is what we get. If that is the case, then will we regret settling in place? There is land E (and SE?) of the gold, so there is a place, although not necessarily a great one, for a second city if we settle in place.

One advantage of going to NE hill is that the warrior can get to the tile 1 N of pigs before settler's next move. But if you then decide that 1N of pigs is the place to settle, on what turn can you finally get that settled from the NE hill? Looks like turn 4 to me. But given that 1 N of pigs as a city loses all but one hill, what would you have to find in the sea to make settling there worthwhile in any case? Is early commerce more important than early hammers?

I have never settled on a resource, so what are the implications of settling on the spice 2 S of the settler start? Can be settled on turn 2, grabs all visible resources (but potentially wastes a spice as a workable tile), 3 hills in play, and room for more cities N and E even if we are on an island. Does preclude any more cities NW and W, so can't get any sea resources that might be there. and the capital will be at the margin of the empire.

Thoughts?

dV

 

[da_Vinci]

I wouldn't found cities to share resources. Sharing bonuses is a civ3 way of thinking. In civ3 excess food and shields were wasted, so optimising their usage by sharing them between cities made sense, as did having more cities. Having more cities in CIV is penalised and excess food/hammers don't go to waste.

@ Redbad: Thanks for the response. I see your point about not sharing resources in Civ 4. One possible exception comes to mind: in early game, would it make sense to have a second city share a food resource with capital? As capital reaches early health/happiness caps, second city can use the food to fuel pop growth. Or is it better just to manage the capital pop by whipping, still using all of the food?

dV

 

[Meatbuster]

Depends. Here's a scenario I can think of: If the capital is on Bureaucracy I'd rather not whip it so in that case I'll give the food resource to a second city.

 

[Goodenuf]

I'd move the warrior NW to see if there's any seafood in the upper left. If so, I'd be tempted to move the settler 1W or even 1SW to really take advantage of the coastal commerce resources (need fishing and lighthouse). Obviously this means leaving the gold for a future city.

If there's no seafood in the upper left, then I'd likely stay where I am, although it would be a waste of the western coastal tiles.

The island to the south looks like to me its just those 2 squares, so it may not be worth settling, unless there's another coast close by even further south. If I settled in place or 1W, then perhaps a future island city may be called for to work the winery. The coastal tiles are rather numerous there.

 

[totororo]

damned! the first test map was wrong!

 

[LowtherCastle]

Random thoughts:

Adventurer gets a scout. That tells me that we're not by ourselves on an island, although it could mean that they are some goody huts for the taking. If not on an island, maybe this little piece of Glory Land we see is surrounded by mountains and desert or some such.

Maybe we're on Prince level because ainwood is prepping us for diety next month...

I don't like the pigs much because our starting techs don't lead to AH and they provide no commerce. I want to move the Settler SE and maybe NE, see if there's more food or another gold mine over there. Or maybe NE. Some water resources up there could be ideal for also gettin the gold mine and plenty of commerce with the Colossus. I guess I'm not in a hurry to settle. I dislike settling in place because it's not food-rich enough or commerce-rich enough, and even worse it prevents us from using the tip of the peninsula. On the other hand, all those forests and the hills make this wonder heaven.

I almost never settle in place and I'm afraid I won't here, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'll return to settle there....

 

[ThomasHardy]

I'd say settle in place and position the second city to take the gold. Hopefully there is some food near the gold...

 

[Meatbuster]

Actually somebody said GOTM / WOTM will oscillate (hard GOTM easy WOTM and vice versa). Since WOTM is moving up in difficulty, I won't be surprised if the next GOTM is Noble.

 

[Redbad]

I see your point about not sharing resources in Civ 4. One possible exception comes to mind: in early game, would it make sense to have a second city share a food resource with capital? As capital reaches early health/happiness caps, second city can use the food to fuel pop growth. Or is it better just to manage the capital pop by whipping, still using all of the food?

@da Vinci
More or less the same answer: the second city has to have the possibility to become a good city too. Sharing a food resource adds to becoming a good city but it can’t be the only reason. There is little harm in settling a second city close by to share a resource as not many cities will need their entire fat cross to work on. But if the shared food bonus is (nearly) the only advantage of the second city, then you have to decide if it’s worth the extra upkeep. And that upkeep will increase too with the pop growth.

That brings us to other ways of utilising a food resource when pop growth is no longer desirable. After all the whole idea of having a second city sharing the food resource was only to prevent the food resource from being unused.
You already mentioned one alternative: whipping. It’s a way to convert food into hammers. It needs bronze working, revolt to slavery and adds unhappiness. Another way of getting more hammers is combining working the food resource with working “low food/high hammer” tiles. This mostly only needs mining.
And of course a food bonus is only a good tile when you need the food, as it won’t have much hammers or commerce. Therefore, as long as don’t need growth, you could also switch working the food resource to working cottages for example.

Oh and don’t worry much about any health max. It only means you need an extra food. Growing beyond the happy limit isn’t effective. But rather then on investing energy in how (re)use the food bonus, I would invest energy in how to get more happy.