Opening - any options I’m missing?

[Build2Much]

Roosevelt, Immortal, Fractal. Not planning on a full shadow or anything, but have this opening that I think has 2 good options and just curious what would be considered “best” with the available info. I already moved the warrior to reveal the coast which I already could tell was there. I do not consider SIP to be viable. 2 options I see:

1. Settle 1SW on FPH. Guarantee pig, cow, rice in BFC, extra hammer, GLH is a possibility. Lose fresh water, cottages not really an option.

2. Move settler 2E. Guarantee Cow, rice, banana in BFC. Fresh water. River cottages are definitely in play. Capture more land immediately. Lose the coast, no extra hammer in BFC.

Which is the superior option (and is there an option I’m not considering)? AH tech start if I go 1SW? Thanks!

 

[jorissimo]

Hard to beat 1SW. The early hammers are more important than the later commerce potential. Pigs are also better than unimproved banana.

 

[sampsa]

And then there is GLH, superb for Roosy on fractal. It's not very close for this leader.

 

[Build2Much]

Perfect - my thoughts were reasonable. I have played this map all the way through and I know I can win it, but I think I messed up the opening a bit - here is question part 2:

I have gone AH>Mining>BW (not finished BW). I know that Sitting Bull is close to the south, Mansa is close to the east (their capitals are basically identical distances away). I can see Timbuktu was settled on grassland across a river with 2 elephants. I assume the best plan is an early war of some kind, but chariots is extremely risky against those 2, so probably need construction. I have found gems to my east and I really need the commerce since I have none in Washington - 1 of the gems can be mined right now, the other 2 are jungle. I have also found horses over there. The bananas have become a jungle tile unfortunately. I have an old (I know bad) habit of building my 2nd city too far from my capital. I am really tempted to grab all the gems and the horses with New York (and that is what I did the first time). My settler has just finished and I’m ready to move.

Where should I settle my next city?

 

[sampsa]

I think settler at size 2 is a mistake - you have 3 very strong tiles so just get there building warriors. You haven't scouted/fogbusted south which has flood plains and is thus interesting. As played I'd go 3E1N to work the gems and steal a tile from capital.

 

[Build2Much]

There is problem 1 - probably should have gotten to size 3.

I have scouted south to SBs borders. Pic of that land and what I can see of Mansa for full info. I know that they are so close that I shouldn’t have crazy barb issues. (Trying to take similar route to what I did the first time and not use knowledge I already have - found SBs scout on turn 3).

 

[sampsa]

For me the cow+fps is the most interesting area. 1SW of cow? A rare case where it's a decent idea to stay at size 1 for a while. Then 2N of cow and cap border pop claims you the missing flood plain. 1W of cow is another way, but no extra cc and loses a forest - that's a lot of lost for a more convenient placement.

I don't think this is a GLH map, so it's unlikely to be a priority.

 

[Build2Much]

I think settler at size 2 is a mistake - you have 3 very strong tiles so just get there building warriors. You haven't scouted/fogbusted south which has flood plains and is thus interesting. As played I'd go 3E1N to work the gems and steal a tile from capital.

3E1N is what I assumed a better player would do when I thought about what I did after the fact. Still get the gems I can work immediately but can also grow on rice. I never even considered it the first time, I always go too far away, especially if I think there will be a battle for land with neighbors.

General strategy - is construction path with current info on land/neighbors something I should even be thinking about this early?

 

[sampsa]

General strategy - is construction path with current info on land/neighbors something I should even be thinking about this early?

I think construction is fine - extra / ,lots of forest and close neighbors. Only the traits don't point into that direction really.

 

[Build2Much]

For me the cow+fps is the most interesting area. 1SW of cow? A rare case where it's a decent idea to stay at size 1 for a while. Then 2N of cow and cap border pop claims you the missing flood plain. 1W of cow is another way, but no extra cc and loses a forest - that's a lot of lost for a more convenient placement.

I don't think this is a GLH map, so it's unlikely to be a priority.

Again, I get fixated on the gems and didn’t look south at all. So you like the land grab with the cow and the extra hammer?

Edit - you are correct that by this point I knew GLH wasn’t my likely path, but I still think it made sense for the start.

 

[sampsa]

I think gems is good, perhaps the best way for construction

 

[Fippy]

1nw of gems would be an auto-settle for me, agree @Build2Much

 

[sampsa]

1nw of gems would be an auto-settle for me, agree @Build2Much

I'd go 3E1N to work the gems

Yes. I don't think you could ever consider other placement on deity.

 

[Build2Much]

I wound up taking the advice of growing to size 3 before settler and settling 3E1N for the gems. Limited New York long term to size 12ish, but was far better in the early game - was possible to whip because there was food to grow back.

Just enough commerce in the empire to get to 4 cities, Construction by 550BC, DOW 375BC, capture 1st Mansa city 350BC, Timbuktu 150BC, make peace after taking half of his cities and get all Mansa’s techs 25AD, Currency 100AD. That was a couple hundred years earlier to finish that war than the last time and made it much easier to turn and take out the Bull. Basically just axemen and catapults for my whole continent (it’s a 3 continent map).

Seems strange to say, but placing NYC poorly (not sharing any tiles with the capital) cost me 2-300 years in the first war the first time through? Maybe I could have played it better with the “bad” city location and there were probably lots of ways to go about it, but this is the stuff that keeps holding me back!

 

[Master_Of_Ideas]

Roosevelt, Immortal, Fractal. Not planning on a full shadow or anything, but have this opening that I think has 2 good options and just curious what would be considered “best” with the available info. I already moved the warrior to reveal the coast which I already could tell was there. I do not consider SIP to be viable. 2 options I see:

1. Settle 1SW on FPH. Guarantee pig, cow, rice in BFC, extra hammer, GLH is a possibility. Lose fresh water, cottages not really an option.

2. Move settler 2E. Guarantee Cow, rice, banana in BFC. Fresh water. River cottages are definitely in play. Capture more land immediately. Lose the coast, no extra hammer in BFC.

Which is the superior option (and is there an option I’m not considering)? AH tech start if I go 1SW? Thanks!
View attachment 735600

I would first send the warrior 1NW to see if there is seafood. If there is seafood the decision where to settle can be another. Personally I see both plain hills as interesting. The southern one could contain Copper or Iron, so when there is no seafood I would rather take the northern one.

The other spot may be interesting for the second city to share the food tiles, but not now. We know nothing about this spot.

 

[Build2Much]

New situation for me - playing a game as Qin, it is 1535AD and it is setting up for a showdown between me and my 3 vassals vs Zara and his 2 vassals. Zara and I have been at friendly for a long time, he has been plotting at friendly, I assumed against Charley who I was at war with. I have just taken my 3rd vassal on this turn (Charley) and Zara stopped plotting. We are still friendly at the end of the turn.

I advance and he declares on me. Maybe this has happened before at a lower level and I don’t remember, but I did not know it was possible to do that. I tried a restart to beg but he wouldn’t give me anything. One of his vassals (Napoleon) has been annoyed with me for a while - is there some mechanic where the true attitude is a combo of master and all vassals?

Anything I could have done to prevent this? I’ll probably lose a city somewhere but it isn’t game over or anything, I just wasn’t expecting him to force the showdown immediately when we were best buds!

 

[AcaMetis]

With vassals there is, indeed, a mechanic where the true attitude towards a player or AI is the average of the master and all his/her vassals. Simpler example: If Brennus is Friendly to me, and his vassal Napoleon is Cautious towards me, than Brennus' actual attitude towards me is Pleased, not Friendly. The same if Napoleon were my vassal and Brennus was Cautious towards him.

As for what happened here, Zara's actual attitude was such that he could plot war on you, and after you took Charly as a vassal he plotted war and declared on the same turn. It's rare for AIs to do that, but not unheard of - particularly when they already have an army build and in position to attack, for understandable reasons.

 

[a pen-dragon]

I have just taken my 3rd vassal on this turn (Charley) and Zara stopped plotting.

If there are only two factions left you can not see if the AI is plotting. Thus if only seven players are alive, you are one of them, Zara another and there are a total of five vassals, it is not possible to check for plotting AI.... it might well be that Zara did not stop plotting at all, but that you just stopped seeing it.

This is because plotting is checked by seeing their reason for not declaring war on other players. If there are no other players to check against, you can not see it.

 

[Izuul]

Any chance you have the T0 save?

 

[Snowbird]

If there are only two factions left you can not see if the AI is plotting.

I think the request to vassalize would show hands on mode. BUG also does not respect the number of factions for showing fist, at least it used not to do so. Maybe there some other more obscure ways to detect it.