PH17: pholkhero and the Holy Grail

[Ozbenno]

I also think worker first is the better move.

 

[mc-red]

i started an emperor game around that same time.

This happens to me lots of times. It is especially for HOF games because you find after playing that you don't have an initial save thanks to firing up a start to mess around with and clobbering the start save.

 

[Talamane]

This happens to me lots of times. It is especially for HOF games because you find after playing that you don't have an initial save thanks to firing up a start to mess around with and clobbering the start save.

Yes, i tried renaming a start file once, only to find out that the game erases all files with a civ4 save game extension in the auto folder, not just the one that whose name would collide.

 

[GreyFox]

Worker first is only half the time the superior move -- as always, it depends on the start. There is no one single superior opening strategy -- if there is, I would have given up Civ4 long ago.

In this case, the combination of expansive and food resource in 2nd ring is something I am not familiar with -- hence I throw out the question of whether worker first is better or waiting for size 2 growth is better.

I am not fully convinced (may be 90%, but not 100% ). Mainly because the evidence produced is only which turn the worker is built. At that point, obviously worker-first is better. Question however is then when would the city grow to size 2 if we go worker first?

 

[Talamane]

Yes, it can be viewed as angels on the head of a pin, .

I think the better metric for arguing this fine point would be when the first settler could be built, and that's considerably more complex, .

 

[mc-red]

@greyfox and Talamane
I disagree that all that was shown was just turn worker comes out but how little extra yield the second pop produces. Getting a worker out and rice improved worked and then pigs improved worked is going to outproduce the other start. Especially when the free forge for the worker is factored in for the 4 hammer start.

Overall I agree every start is different depending on map, terrain, traits, starting techs, etc.

Here is what I see as the main feature.
Lakes->we can meet all civs to get trades and tech discounts -> exploration is very important.
Food Rich Cap-> early GP farm settler and worker pump
Poor Production -> early second city maybe even build settler at pop two with the 9 food surplus from early development of pigs and rice
Perfect cap for Beauro and Philo leader -> long term need cottages in capitol and a separate GP Farm
expansive leader -> granaries and workers are a priority
immortal level -> block space from AI's for expansion
Beauro capital -> CS asap / maybe helper cities to grow cottages

Just throwing this stuff out for consideration.

 

[nocho]

I am not fully convinced (may be 90%, but not 100% ). Mainly because the evidence produced is only which turn the worker is built. At that point, obviously worker-first is better. Question however is then when would the city grow to size 2 if we go worker first?

Warning: possibly fuzzy math coming up!

Worker first, then we have the worker at turn 15. If the worker starts irrigating the rice first, we'll have a 5-food tile (rice seems to have river access) at turn 21 or thereabouts. Never know exactly how many turns it takes to irrigate/mine/pasture whatever. At turn 21 we would have 6*3 food in the kitty, growth is at 33 so 15 more needed. So at turn 24 we'd grow to size 2. Or maybe turn 25 if I'm mistaken about the build times.

Warrior(s) first, we grow at turn 14 (8*2+6*3=34 food after 14 turns). I presume we'd switch to worker immediately. That worker will be produced in 90/7 = 13 turns. So we won't have a worker until turn 27, I think.

So at turn 27 in the first scenario we have a worker, some improved land and some food reserves (from turn 24/25 to 27). In the second scenario we have a worker, no improved land and no food reserves. In both cases we have about the same number of turns invested in warriors (13 vs 14). The only advantage of warrior first is that we'll have scouted a bit more. But I rather have the improved land and the extra food saved.
Just be careful with the scout and hope we pop another one. I won't complain about popping a tech though either.

 

[mc-red]

Nice analysis Nocho

Just another thought our old BFC probably contains a strategic resource. Hopefully, either revealed by BW or AH.

edit:
Does anyone know anything more about lakes maps. Do they have special properties like great plains and oasis maps?

 

[nocho]

Do we, apart from mr pholk, actually know where the settler was initially? Anyway, I'm not too worried about the settler move and possibly missing a strategic resource, if that would be the case we'll know where to build a good second city. The capital looks fine enough with the present resources.

No clue about lake maps. I suppose they have, well, uh, lakes?

About the worker/warrior thing, I think that not having a food resource in the 1st ring actually tilts the favour even more to worker, as now it takes considerably longer to start on the worker in the warrior scenario. Also being expansive makes worker first even more worthwile than not being expansive.

 

[Ozbenno]

Lakes (to the best of my knowledge) have no special features except for lakes and have a standard spread of resources, its not split into zones like oasis or great plains.

 

[pholkhero]

it's just a little "larger" than regular maps of the same size. thus, the small map size.

also, it's always fun to see so many posts after i played

finally, i am actually going to debate the "worker first" thing some more. i just think there's very few cases where building your warrior first is better than a worker. as i said, if you need the defense, or have no worker techs and are going religion, but . . .

in any case, in THIS instance, i went worker first. but even before that, our scout found a goody hut:

mmm gold...

and then moscow was founded:

went worker and Agr first, while our scout went on walkabout . . .

more coin

and a neighbor on turn 5:

oh, and another on turn 6:

I found Kublai's borders pretty quickly after that. He's close.

you can see the red of our BFC on the far right.

We fought our first of many wolves!

and another hut:

yup...can you believe it?!? just to be sure, i double checked the settings.

Yeah, it really IS immortal. And then disaster happens.

No, i didn't lose already like ROTQM02 at DM! remember that? a ha ha ha...good times...

you know, it's been almost 3 years since they swapped the pics, and i still get confused by who's kubey and who's qin...

OMG!!!! HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?!?!

it's like, a screen that has the tech info that we just discovered!! i bet you've never seen that!!11!! went with AH next, and another hut nabbed us a map, and we found Cuzco:

our scout killed another wolf:

and found another one:

cuzco founded Hindiusm (Buddhism fell rather quickly), and our scout killed its fourth wolf.

it has wood i now, and to make sure he dies next turn, i named him "Wolfslayer." I stopped here when this came in:

and here's our lands:

[conclusions and save to come after dinner ]

 

[pholkhero]

okay, a little bit of salmon later . . .

our worker farmed that rice, and is 2 turns into mining the grass hill above the pigs. we could finish or swap to the pigs. I think maybe it might pay to do so (swap, that is).

also, started us on archery next. we've got just the lone warrior right now in Moscow, but i imagine we'll need some barb protection real soon.

we seem to have some real good land nearby. by those horses are two deer that we could get in the BFC (in the south, that is). the northern horses by the ele's might be a good spot for city 2. if we really want to be aggressive, we could grab a phant, horses, rice, silk and gold all in one city on that forested hill there.

also, notice in the north those other desert FPs.

roster:
pholkhero >> just played (and prolly can't get whipped for such few decisions . . . right??)
fox >> UP NOW
nocho >> on deck
ozbenno
mc red
talamane

 

[mc-red]

Nice haul in techs already.
I think I would swap to the pigs will be interested what everyone else thinks.
Really nice setup. My inclination is to take that plains hill in the teeth of Capac asap.

Hope you enjoyed the salmon. I can't afford good salmon anymore just c*@p from a chain called Morrisons on this side of the pond.
Cod is even worse.

 

[pholkhero]

I can't afford good salmon anymore just c*@p from a chain called Morrisons on this side of the pond.
Cod is even worse.

uh, neither can we.


but as usual, the wife doesn't know what "can't afford" means

also, i think i know almost all the swear words but can't figure out "c*@p"....

ooohhhh....maybe it's carp?? idk....but it's fun to guess

and don't they make fish and chips from cod?? or scrod??

mmm...fish and chips . . . .

 

[Talamane]

The scout may have wood 1 now, and i have wood 2, but the wife doesn't care.

 

[GreyFox]

Got it.

Seems to have an amazing piece of luck, and I think c*@p is crap, not exactly swearing. (Well, if i get another slap from the mod, then it is "swearing" by CFC standards ).

IIRC, Morrison seems to be a famous steak house on the American side of the lake, at least it is in San Francisco.

-

 

[Ozbenno]

Inca and Mongols seem close enough to attempt an axe-rush. Are we game? Small is only 4 opponents, it would start us off very nicely.

In any case, I'd delay Archery and go Bronze Working, axes are much better barb protection than archers.

Had salmon on the barbie last weekend at my sister's place! Good stuff it was too.

 

[nocho]

I would also go for bronze working right away. Axes are indeed better than archers and chopping and slavery are of course incredibly useful. Maybe we should 2-pop whip a settler, the AIs on immortal seem to spit them out really quickly. I'd fancy also 1N of the horse next to HC, or 1S of the rice.

I'm not an experienced axe rusher, but it sounds like a good idea. If we have bronze . HC's capital at least seems to be on flat land.

I'd be inclined to finish the mine first and then start the pasture to have some hammers for fogbusting warriors sooner and to save a turn moving back to the hill. But I can live with pasture first as well.

 

[GreyFox]

We have enough food, so I think I would continue with the mining (it's just 4 turns, just coincide with growth).

Seems to me like switching archery to BW, and starting settler after the current warrior.

That should be the plan. Feel free to object to anything, or add your suggestions. Otherwise, the game will proceed in 24hrs.

@pholky: to continue the worker-first debate -- the objective is not get the worker first. The objective is produce the worker with minimum time so as to grow faster. Half of the time, it is better to start a warrior, grow to size 2, and then switch to worker. Possibly because there are two food resources, so growing to size 2 would result in faster worker production, and minimize the no-growth time. Weigh that against the tech you have. No point having the worker as fast as possible but you have not learnt the required tech for the worker to be useful. As I said, it is always situational -- which is what makes Civ4 fun.

 

[nocho]

I'm thinking that maybe it's better to grow to size 4 before starting on a settler.

Allow me to bore you to death again with some improvised calculations. Yes, I have my nerdy side (but don't we all, civ-players, have that ), but also bored at work .

Settler at size 3. I agree at least 1 warrior should be produced before a settler. We can't send him into the wild unprotected/not fog-busted. 4 turns to growth, then still 3 turns to finish warrior (assuming mine is finished upon growth). Worker pastures pig after mine, assume it takes 6 turns, so worker is half way pasturing when settler is started. Settler costs 150, so 3 turns working rice/mine/fp/cs (city square) for 8 per turn. Then rice/mine/pigs/cs for 11 per turn, so we need (150-3*8)/11=12 turns more, so we'll have a settler in 4+3+3+12=22 turns. However, we get BW in 18 turns and a whip values 45 which would shave off about 4 turns, so we could whip when BW comes in. Add a turn for anarchy, so after 19 turns we could have our settler, reducing Moscow to size 2, or at turn 22 at size 3.

Settler at size 4. For simplicity (and my mental health) I assume we finish mine first here also. So we grow in 4 turns to size 3. For size 4 we need 39 food (IIRC growth to 2 is 33f, to 3 36f and to 4 39f). With rice/mine/fp we have an excess of 5 food so we should grow in 8, meanwhile the pasture comes online but near the end so it's still in 8 turns. With the hammers during those turns we get at least a second warrior out. Then we start a settler, which with rice/mine/pigs/fp/cs is 12 per turn so it would take 13 turns. The fp could be irrigated in the mean time but doubt it will shave off a turn. So here it will take a grand total of 4+8+13=25 turns. But again, we can whip after BW is in. If a population point indeed is worth 45, a 2-pop whip would shave off enough turns so it could be whipped exactly when BW is in. Again, add a turn for anarchy. Alternatively, a 1 pop whip should be available around turn 21/22.

So if we have in mind the size of Moscow upon completion of the settler, growing to size 4 first seems to get the settler out as fast as doing it at size 3. The main difference is that we at least get an extra warrior if we grow to 4 first. Also I think it gets us slightly more overflow from the whipping, but will be marginal. However, pasturing immediately instead of finishing the mine would help us to grow faster to size 4 probably and may turn out to make grow-to-4 even a faster option to get the settler out. Somebody else may calculate that...

Geez, all these calculations for a measly warrior ! Well, it would at least double our army and could be valuable fogbusting or scouting. Of course I hope my assumptions are correct and that my calculations don't have flagrant holes in them.

Apart from all this, maybe we should discuss what to research after BW. Mysticism for a monument in our new city comes to mind, or alternatively pottery.