P666-01 Fix the Trash Game

[mice]

As I posted earlier it would be good to get the views of the noble princes on the various submissions before they feel 'intimidated' (LOL) by the highbrow discussions of the imperial monarchs.

First reaction is shock that both Cam_H and cabert went for the pyramids. What is the reason for this?

Metal Casting for all kinds of reasons became the first technology priority, although completed Masonry nonetheless.

Can you say why it was your priority.

Next reaction is that Cam_H you prioritized building the cities up to potential.
Do you usually do this as opposed to early attacks? It seems like a conservative but effective way to run a game.

 

[cabert]

First reaction is shock that both Cam_H and cabert went for the pyramids. What is the reason for this?

because
1) i could!
2) it makes a specialist economy possible, and we're low on cottages
3) police state is good too, if it comes to counter high war weariness or to all out war building
4) we're not philosophical, we need GPP

Priority on metal casting is high because:
1) gives access to forges
2) we're industrious and forges are cheap
3) forges give happiness bonus for silver and gold which we have + production bonus
so for a very low cost, you can get + 2 happiness in the big cities+ production bonus. Remember we're expansive too, so health should not be a problem, even with forges.

 

[Petrucci]

Good deal on getting pyramids, didn't even occur to me how beneficial they could be, i was a bit worried about lack of military!! So i just finished up that library in berlin and then made military and forges everywhere!

 

[Cam_H]

Mice,

I'm echoing Cabert's reasoning - compounded by the telling off I got for not going after The Oracle in the last round, I felt that I had to get at least one Wonder!

I would like to think that we can break wonder-addiction in this game, but we have a couple of highly productive cities and the Industrial trait, plus a technology tree and game objective that's focus imho does not veer us towards several of the improved civics made The Pyramids an attractive option.

Early access to all of the Government civics is going to be super handy and if nothing else will give us more to debate over!

I did have Police State in mind as a handy war-time civic, and even Hereditary Rule for addressing post-war happiness issues. Representation's +2 and the extra from the Specialist Engineer I want in Berlin is good too.

On Metal Casting - exactly as Cabert says.

Petrucci,

I too was very concerned with the lack of military, and dropped everything to get a few Archers out in the first few turns. I was a bit divided as to getting the right balance between military and infrastructure myself towards the end.

Voting:

I am unable to vote for this round (at least for four days) as I'm away from my Civ-machine and didn't get the opportunity to do a full assessment of the posted games (apologies), so if we still don't hear from the other guys, could someone wrap this up soon and get the vote underway?

 

[mice]

The next vote is for the trash game right? This means we won't see the pyramids because I'm guessing that cabert's and Cam_H's games arent candidates for the trash game. So this means cabert , Armstrong and Pigswill vote for the trash game I think.

 

[armstrong]

Okay, I'm going to look at the saves in a few moments. First a comment:

One thing that makes it difficult to evaluate the saves is that we haven't decided how we're going to win the game. Though they are both games where war is important, there's a very big difference between conquest & domination/back-door diplomacy. In one case, you only need about 10 cities or so; in the other, you need an economy capable of supporting 30+.

I think I've been playing with a leaning towards conquest, which would probably give the fastest win. But domination would probably be the most fun. However, it's really hard to evaluate the saves without knowing which one we're shooting for. So I'd like if we could all decide which one we're aiming for.

Personally, my strategy was to whip the cities a lot (4-5 times each, as quickly as possible - they have tons of happiness) and go straight to war. As I said, I was focused more on conquest than domination - the plan was to take out the rest of the continent as quickly as possible, keeping only the choicest cities, and peacefully build to Astronomy+some dominant military unit (probably Cavs, since most of the fighting would be done by elephants.)

This doesn't make that much sense on domination, however, as you want to keep as many cities as possible and, because of that, need to focus more on building a more robust economy, so it's kind of silly to race ahead fighting, only to have to raze/rebuild cities you can't afford yet.

Now, off to look at the saves!

 

[Cam_H]

... I'm guessing that cabert's and Cam_H's games arent candidates for the trash game ...

I'm quite happy for my game to be included in the mix. I'm really not in a position to say how it stacks up against the others, as I've really not spent time making comparisons (apologies again).

... there's a very big difference between conquest & domination/back-door diplomacy ... So I'd like if we could all decide which one we're aiming for.

I must say that I've only won one Conquest game ever, so I'm not all that au fait with the subtle differences between Conquest-strategy vs. Domination-strategy, although Armstrong/you explain the principal of it well. I am happy to go with the group verdit, and have no firm leaning one way or the other. I guess if pressed for a decision I might go with Conquest by keeping the bulk of the well-placed cities on our own continent but razing most of the cities on the other landmasses.

 

[cabert]

my game is not a candidate since i have no save

secret vote too?
i say everyone can vote, i can do the coordination (send me your bottom 3 list)

and about victory conditions, we said to focus on military, and that is enough for my understanding.
On continents, you can't avoid to tech far anyway (you need astronomy at least), so there is no question about economy:build it up!
Conquest would be great but it's not going to happen soon.

 

[armstrong]

I must say that I've only won one Conquest game ever, so I'm not all that au fait with the subtle differences between Conquest-strategy vs. Domination-strategy, although Armstrong/you explain the principal of it well. I am happy to go with the group verdit, and have no firm leaning one way or the other. I guess if pressed for a decision I might go with Conquest by keeping the bulk of the well-placed cities on our own continent but razing most of the cities on the other landmasses.

To be honest, I've only won two Conquests myself. I'm a builder at heart, most of my wins are cultural or space race, though a lot of those cultural wins are backdoor domination wins by culture (does anyone else do that? ) and the best games usually involve an early war or two anyway.

But, our variants call for war, and so war it is. Looking at the saves, I really can't reach a verdict unless I know if we're going for conquest or domination...

I think your game is probably the strongest for a domination win (the best infrastructure by far, though mice's game is quite strong for that too) but for a conquest I don't think it's as high as, say, VuDu's or petricci's (who have sufficient army to clear the continent and can now focus entirely on infrastructure until it's time to go overseas.) mice's game is weird, very strong for both - Great Library is great for conquest since the Great Scientists it makes can lightbulb most the big techs you need, but his game also has strong infra and a very solid army (but too many axes! )

And for the worst in both categories, my verdict is still out.

One thing that really struck me from all the Noble-Prince players was how big their armies were, but the fact they hadn't declared yet. I'd probably build an army with about the same makeup as VuDu's, but I would have declared with a half (or even a third!) of that. Even if you only take two of Khan's cities, you increase you empire by 50-66%, you cripple him, and can get a free tech for peace... then you can hit Isabella or Nappy, grabbing more cities, and they will be too weakened to really threaten you anymore. It's not good for diplomacy, of course, but if you're going to fight them anyway why not? In a roleplaying sense, war is no good, but, especially at higher levels, sometimes you don't have a choice... And if you have to, better to do it before Printing Press shows up to document the crime.

 

[mice]

One thing that really struck me from all the Noble-Prince players was how big their armies were, but the fact they hadn't declared yet. I'd probably build an army with about the same makeup as VuDu's, but I would have declared with a half (or even a third!) of that.

I attacked Kublai and my stack is the survivors plus all the axes I built to fight off the barbs. I went for the capital but my 3 axe,2 catapult,2 elephant stack wasnt enough.

I agree that we should settle on a victory condition. I was surprised that you see the infrastructure as being suited to either conquest of domination at this stage in the game. I thought of conquest as an extension of domination, but I see your point.
Conquest could be a hoot, and it would be easier to see the best/worst game.

 

[armstrong]

my game is not a candidate since i have no save

Give us one! 6 more turns... I'd love to see it, you're a very good player.

i say everyone can vote, i can do the coordination (send me your bottom 3 list)

I agree, I'd like to see the Noble-Prince players vote, too. The more I play this SG, the more I see the big differences are just small changes in strategy or very big changes in micromanagement/aggressiveness... and we all can judge those. But I would like everyone to say, after the vote, why they picked the best/worst game.

and about victory conditions, we said to focus on military, and that is enough for my understanding.
On continents, you can't avoid to tech far anyway (you need astronomy at least), so there is no question about economy:build it up!
Conquest would be great but it's not going to happen soon.

Here I disagree. Yes, we need middle-level techs, but there's a big difference in how you go about it. You can either build cottages or use great scientists to lightbulb the techs. I'm not a fan at all of specialist economies, but as I said:

Though they are both games where war is important, there's a very big difference between conquest & domination/back-door diplomacy. In one case, you only need about 10 cities or so; in the other, you need an economy capable of supporting 30+.

If we're going for domination, we need cottages to sustain the economy (since they can provide gold, too, to pay for upkeep), so Pyramids & Great Library (which only provide beakers) are highly devalued. If we're going for conquest, they're worth more. Remember, we're picking the worst game, so even if cottages are optimal in both cases, Pyramids/Great Library can improve a non-optimal game significantly if our goal is conquest as opposed to domination.

 

[armstrong]

I attacked Kublai and my stack is the survivors plus all the axes I built to fight off the barbs. I went for the capital but my 3 axe,2 catapult,2 elephant stack wasnt enough.

Yikes! I'm sorry, I remember that now from the spoilers but I forgot it when I looked at the saves - so many games. In any case, you got a free turn of research from the war and permanently weakened Khan, which is something to keep in mind (but I wouldn't have chosen you game as the worst in any case.) I'm curious why you chose to lightbulb Theocracy instead of build the shrine - I'm not saying it's bad, but it's interesting because no one else did that.

I agree that we should settle on a victory condition. I was surprised that you see the infrastructure as being suited to either conquest of domination at this stage in the game. I thought of conquest as an extension of domination, but I see your point.

Yeah, see my last post. Cottages can generate or , but Great Library/Pyramids only generate . That makes a big difference if we'll ever need the .

 

[cabert]

sorry armstrong, no save available (playing cIV with 3 daughters around is a tough call!). I checked the autosave, they are from VuDu's game that i test played up to 600 ad
I even tried to play it again but was unable to do the exact same things (battle results were different, meaning i did some things in another way...).

about the different games, i must say we're not really playing the war variant right now (cam! even you!). I must say it's a tough call, but some differences are obvious, and not dependent on victory conditions.

I'd leave cam's game out of the vote, i have the feeling he did rush it for a taste of the game.
If we look at raw power, his game would be the weakest. But with a very strong economy, it's really not a trash game.

 

[mice]

I'm curious why you chose to lightbulb Theocracy instead of build the shrine - I'm not saying it's bad, but it's interesting because no one else did that.

That's just because I'm scared of Isabella. I'd rather have Thoeocracy for those military build bursts. But on the other hand i'm trying to learn how to use things like shrines better. I was being conservative

 

[pigswill]

I don't think that this is a cop out by in my opinion there is no obvious trash game (there's no obvious super game either). Some games are weaker in some areas but none obviously stand out.
I would propose (contrary to the starting rules) that everyone continues their current games for another fourty turns to hopefully crazyeye: ) make it easier to identify a trash game.

 

[Cam_H]

i must say we're not really playing the war variant right now (cam! even you!)

I don't believe I just read that!

Well what did we start with, two Archers and a Warrior or something along those lines? And who was responsible for that miserable state of affairs?

... and who was the one who went after the Iron in the previous round? Huh?

 

[cabert]

I don't believe I just read that!

Well what did we start with, two Archers and a Warrior or something along those lines? And who was responsible for that miserable state of affairs?

hum
well
those who voted for my game maybe
to be true, i didn't want to spam useless archers, when i was only a few turns away from axemen/spearmen and a few more from elephants/catapults.
Plus the big cities i left could churn out an archer in 2 turns if i remember well.

... and who was the one who went after the Iron in the previous round? Huh?

you played well, back then in the old times
That's why i expected you to crush kublai in this round!

enough sarcasm for now, do we follow pigswill's option of 80 turns instead of 40, postponing the vote until everyone played to 1125 ad, if i count well (not quite sure), or do we go for a vote now?
I think 2 of the 4 games we have are candidate for trash game, though not the same reasons. 2 of those are "obviously" (IMHO) better, though not for the same reasons. It's a tough call true, but i think leaving the game until 1125 AD on a "bad track" (no offense meant) is going to be a real challenge.

 

[VuDu]

Well what did we start with, two Archers and a Warrior or something along those lines? And who was responsible for that miserable state of affairs?

Those archers and warrior had war in their blood - just a very small war!

 

[cabert]

That's just because I'm scared of Isabella. I'd rather have Thoeocracy for those military build bursts. But on the other hand i'm trying to learn how to use things like shrines better. I was being conservative

Founding a religion without building the shrine isn't very useful in most of the games. Only when you need the happiness or the culture from one more temple/cathedral and are isolated.
Here we have selected the war option in the variant (meaning no cultural victory for us!), so founding one more religion isn't going to be very important.

Theocracy can be good.
But we had a massive tech lead at the beginning of the round, and there is nothing to fear from isabella (just look at the border cities or the power graph).
Plus for theocracy to be effective, you need the state religion in the cities. I had the luck that confucianism spread to berlin without missionary, but i did not switch to any state religion so there is no benefit for theocracy (plus you didn't build any monastery, so any city build/conquered after that wouldn't have the religion in it)!

 

[cabert]

Those archers and warrior had war in their blood - just a very small war!

well, they had seen some action