Primitive Conquest Comparison Game I

Banach · Dec 5, 2007

Sorry, I've let my game languish since I've been swamped at work. I'll try to finish it soon. I've made some mistakes that are making it difficult, however. Hopefully sometime this weekend I can finish and get in on the spoilers. Holiday season is busy.

Magic_gorter · Dec 6, 2007

Peaster:

Spoiler :

In my game, the AI scientists never really threatened to learn anything dangerous, so I never felt much pressure to speed up my conquests. Maybe this was lucky, or maybe my refusal to give away good techs for maps this time made some difference (?).

- most of the times after giving trade I can get theire attitude to me high enough for maps.

About Wonders: I estimate you need at least 50 cities for Primitive Conquest (and I prefer 150), so you'll certainly need HG and Mike's at Diety level. I'm a big fan of the LH, and will build it ASAP unless it is clearly not needed, which is rare. Next, MPE; it's often my first WoW in normal EC games, but to me it seems less urgent in PrimC (what do you think?). Next, I'd consider Colossus, if I have a good STC in mind. I almost never build GW in EC games, and don't consider it urgent in PrimC either, but it makes outposting really easy and powerful, so it makes my list. I might avoid Pyr at Diety level, but I like it at Warlord.

Don't know yet if PrimC games will take longer at Diety. If so, I might go for Mag's, Darwin and/or SoL (for Fundy).

I guess we must avoid Leo's, in case several AI's get Feudalism, but that is not 100% clear to me. It might be worth the risk, to upgrade a large shipchain of triremes, or a horde of settlers, etc.

- I agree with you on Leo's. In case some civ has feudalism and we have leo's and get that tech by accident...the game is lost. But when they have more techs we don't have it will be possible. SoL looks like a good wonder to get fundy. 10 units no shield support is great. If delivering enough caravans gets us quickly to democracy we can build it and build a large army

Walls: If one of your AI's had city walls, you'd probably already know, because your warriors would all be dead! I don't think even 30 or 40 warriors would have much chance against 2 phalanxes + walls. Dunno really, I haven't actually tried it. With 5 or 6 crusaders, you might win, but with warriors I think you really need dips to sabotage walls.

Also, if you look closely at your main screen, you can see the walls on any city that has them. Compare your own cities, in a save before GW, against a save after GW. I have a little trouble seeing the walls on oriental cities, but most other styles are pretty clear.

- I will look at it after my holiday (will be back in little more then a week and don't know if I have internetaccess)

Peaster · Dec 6, 2007

Banach: There's no reason to rush your game. I'm enjoying some talk with Magic already, but we definitely haven't figured everything out. We'll still want to check out your game when you're done. If you made some mistakes, that'll probably be interesting too.

Magic:

Spoiler :

Magic_gorter · Dec 7, 2007

My last post before holiday.

Peaster:

Spoiler :

Peaster · Dec 17, 2007

I expect to have some more time for this soon. Is anyone still playing the Warlord comparison game? Anyone want to go on to Diety?

Banach · Dec 17, 2007

Peaster said:
I expect to have some more time for this soon. Is anyone still playing the Warlord comparison game? Anyone want to go on to Diety?

I'm still playing it. Have 4 civs down to 1-2 cities each, and am slogging through the fun of moving 100+ warriors into position to finish it up. I know I'm way behind you guys - my win will be in the early AD years. I'm not really interested in trying Deity, but I do want to finish this.

Magic_gorter · Dec 17, 2007

I'm back from holiday and will have soon time for a new comparison game (first have to finish the new GOTM). But let's wait till others have finished so we can discuss a little more about the first comparison game.

Peaster · Dec 17, 2007

I'd like to discuss Banach's game too, and also whether we need to change any rules for the next game. I'll have some free time over the next week or two, but probably not much in early 2008. Is there any way we [or I] could start within a few days ?

Magic_gorter · Dec 17, 2007

I don't know how much time I need with the last GOTM. I've played a little more then 100 turns and have to play carefully to get a good result. It's ok with me to start in a few days but I don't know when I have time to play it (but I will play). Just let know which rules you like with this game and create a game. I want to know if it's possible on Deity to win with only warriors.

Banach · Dec 17, 2007

Just finished, conquered in 160 AD. I'll post a log tomorrow, it's getting late and I want to read through all of your guys spoilers first. And I took some snapshots too at certain points. My suggestion is that we do Prince next and work our way up to Deity - strategies will have to change as the AI improves, and I think it'll be better to approach it slowly. I say that especially since I did so many things wrong this game and am behind the curve in a big way. I have doubts about how I'd do on Deity. I'm happy to have done this, I learned a lot. Sorry it took so long guys.

Peaster · Dec 17, 2007

OK. I was thinking that we could make things a little harder, in addition to raising the level. Maybe we should rule out units such as phalanxes, archers, and chariots -even for defense - to make it a "pure warrior" conquest. I think you didn't use these much anyway, and I probably could have avoided them in my game, too. Units from huts could be moved into the nearest city before disbanding (ASAP). I'd still allow diplomats, explorers, boats for transport, etc.

Second, no reloading of hut outcomes (probably). If we start the game with WC again, we can reconsider this. But I never had to reload in my game, and I think we can probably avoid WC for most of the game if we try, which should allow us some early hut-popping.

What do you think ? I don't insist on either of these new rules, of course.

Peaster · Dec 17, 2007

Banach! Congratulations! [I just noticed your post]. Yes, we are eager to see your log, but don't worry, there's no need to rush it.

I was looking forward to Diety, but if you are ready to try again at a lower level, maybe we could do that. Would you be willing to try "King" ? Magic ? But first, let's talk about the Warlord games, and then we can decide.

Magic_gorter · Dec 18, 2007

Banach! Great to see you managed also a victory.
Peaster it's all ok with me. It's mayby a big step to Deity and we might change our tactics at the higher levels. The rules above are ok with me. When we find out that defending will be a problem in the future we can change the rules a bit...but let's just try with only warriors, dips and explorers.

Banach · Dec 18, 2007

My abbreviated log - I didn't record anything in the later turns when nothing was happening. I didn't put as much effor tinto this game as I should have. I'll make more of an attempt in the future.

Spoiler :

Magic_gorter · Dec 19, 2007

Don't know if the comments must be in a spoiler so I still put them into it.

Spoiler :

Peaster · Dec 19, 2007

Caution .... SPOILER INFO below! ... but it seems we're all done.

Banach: First, you can be quite proud of your game. Nobody considered this possible a few months ago (I know I didn't). Also, Magic and I had the benefit of practice games, which really helps in planning. You'll find the next game easier, I think, whether at Prince or King.

We all played to outgrow the AI's and to win without super-techs like espionage. You and I included big trade, but Magic didn't seem to need it. You were the only one to face Feudalism. Was that a big problem or just a nuisance?

As far as I know, the human has little control over if/when the AI get techs like that. Magic and I finished earlier, which helps the odds, of course. Sharkbait mentioned that the AI's may mimic the human research rate, but I notice yours was low most of the game. I'm not sure about that strategy anyway. I generally tried to keep my AI's in despotism as long as possible, by not trading techs on the monarchy path, for example. Maybe that helped.

My main advice is ICS growth until you have at least 30 or 40 cities (with possibly-slower growth later, to at least 50 or 60). You were about 500 to 1000 years behind Magic and I in terms of growth, though maybe ahead in trade. In normal EC games, you don't really need so many cities, but here support and vet production are bigger issues.

You didn't discuss your economy in much detail, but I guess you invested a lot in early trade (?). Did that work well? I only noticed you delivered a van for 88g, which is a loss (in my opinion), but hopefully most vans paid better. Also, I noticed you often had lots of gold on reserve. Actually, I did too, near the end anyway, but that's usually a waste. I usually try to re-invest almost all my gold every turn, keeping just enough for an emergency bribe or two. In this game, my economy bloomed very late, after the game was essentially won; not a good model to follow!

I think you should be winning once you have about 100 vet warriors with good transportation; about 20 to 25 clustered around perhaps 4 or 5 AI capitols. If you have approx 200 of them, you've probably made "too many" (or maybe I should say "not enough boats"). I guess that depends on the AI defenses, though. Also, in general, don't attack until you are almost certain of victory.

I think we are all mostly in agreement about WoWs. I prefer HG fairly early, for the ICS growth (even at Warlord!). But I agree Mike's is more efficient once you have the tech for it. I also like a very early LH, as soon as I have approx 3-4 triremes, but that may be a matter of taste.

Once again, NICE GAME !!

Peaster · Dec 19, 2007

I missed MG's post while typing mine. Gotta learn to type with all the fingers someday.

I agree SoL/Fundy solves a lot problems, but first you've got to kill your trade bonuses by accepting invention. And build SoL, which is 600 shields = 60 warriors (IIRC). Is it worth it ? Maybe so, if you foresee a long hard game ahead. How did it work for you, Banach?

Peaster · Dec 19, 2007

The score at Warlord is: Humans = 5, AI's = 0, including 2 unfinished practice games (but I may have forgotten some earlier game(s)). I'm eager to find out if this is possible at Deity, and want to try it in Comparison Game 3, at the latest. If we lose, no big deal. We can back up, or try again.

Assuming Deity in Game 3, Game 2 should probably be halfway there (eg King). I predict 3-0 humans! If people prefer Prince, that's also OK with me. But if we can't agree on Deity for Game 3, I guess I can just try it myself anytime and see what happens.

Of course, any new players are welcome, and they should speak up about their preferences asap.

Banach · Dec 19, 2007

I'll do King next game, it'll just be more of a challenge. Thanks for the congratulations, Peaster. I don't think I played a great game, but there's always room for improvement. Fundy helped but by a longshot wasn't necessary. I had way too much gold late game because I let it drag out. I was bribing everything except capitals easily, before the capital was even taken, and was buying WOWs. Feudalism was a nuisance because I was too far ahead in the techs, which is why I conquered the Aztecs last. I think next game I'm just going to shoot for HG and heavy as I can ICS growth. I've never really been into that so it should be interesting. I had a rather large economy - late game I was pulling in 700 gold or so a turn, too much to even do anything with. I'm thinking about how I should play the next game - I prefer something more elegant than ICS, so I may try to play more my style - EL. At least then you'd have a different strategy to compare to. The only problem would be keeping Gunpowder away from the AI - a single musket would probably shut down the attack, even if a horde of spies sabotaged and poisoned everything. I'll think about it, but I'm sure the EC approach is more sound. Just not my forte.

Peaster · Dec 20, 2007

Why not give heavy ICS a try? Probably I'm warped, but I consider it elegant (in the sense of being a fairly simple optimal strategy). You can ease out of it after maybe 40 cities, if you want, so you don't have to micromanage a huge empire. IMO heavy trade (or even EL) requires more micromanagement than limited ICS. But maybe "elegance" and "micromanagement" are ultimately matters of taste, and clearly many players just don't like ICS.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing to "King". Magic agreed too, so I'll start a Game 2 thread soon. We can continue our discussion of Game 1 here, of course, and there is no rush for anyone else to start playing Game 2. But I'll begin asap, while I still have some free time.

I just started 5 games at King, and saved the best two, which are pretty similar. Both have 2 settlers and 2 techs. The first has lots of grass and a hut. The second has hills, some grass and a buffalo. That might be interesting if someone wants to try the size one trick and/or the mined-hill-city trick. But if nobody states a preference, I'll probably post the first one.

Primitive Conquest Comparison Game I

Warlord

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Warlord

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Warlord

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Warlord

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Warlord

Emperor

Similar threads