Racing Deity to Space

[Spoonwood]

We want to launch the spaceship on Deity and do it as fast as possible. We'll try and put all of our settings with a focus on this goal.

Settings:
Level: Deity
Selected Tribe: Someone scientific, I can't see Germany as a good choice.
Opponents: All scientific, we'll pre-select.
Map: Standard size
Barbarians: Sedentary or off, whichever we think will help launch faster.
Land mass: 60% pangea
Climate: wet or temperate
Temperature: warm or normal
Age: 5 billion
Aggression: Least, since that probably should help us launch faster.
All the rest standard settings, with SGLs on, of course.
Variant: none

I think wet/warm the most conducive to a fast SS launch, but I don't know really. We can play with that, but we should pick a setting we believe leads to as fast a launch as possible. We have no variant rules, but we do have the goal of launching the spaceship as fast possible. So, if you usually beeline the optional tech of Chivalry and bash the AIs with knights, please first ask yourself "how will this help us launch the spaceship faster? Will it do so? How much war weariness will this cause?" and so on. For those inexperienced with this sort of game at this level the AIs *might* (if we use them well, have decent luck with free techs, they don't war so much, etc.) help us push the tech pace, even in the industrial age. War remains on the table as an option, but we'll want a team discussion and general agreeement that doing such will lead to a faster SS victory before warring. The same goes for peace. I'd also prefer that all tech decisions get made by the team, at least until the very end, since we can pick up the pace by getting the AIs to do research for us. The three age change-overs should get handled carefully, so we'll probably want a team discussion here.

I *currently* believe a full slot of 7 scientific opponents works as the best way to get a fast launch, since the more scientific tribes, the more tries at free techs (as well as cheaper trading opportunities). But, maybe we want fewer AIs so they have more territory without warring. I think all scientific tribes possibly good for this, with the exception of Germany. Russia might make sense if we only have 4 or 5 opponents, although I don't know really. I can't see them working well with 7 opponents at this level. Everyone else seems about even in my opinion.

Bucephalus recommends that we have some sort of goal date to beat. Things can go weird, so the game can run faster or slower and we might not have enough control over our exact time of launch, so we won't have a specific goal, but we'll say this. If we finish by the certain date, we'll get the following awards:

1000 AD: The Andromeda Award
1100 AD: The Centauri Award
1200 AD: The Apollo Award
1300 AD: The Gemini Award
1400 AD: The Mercury Award.

Roster: I don't know how many players we'll have or want yet, but so far:
Bucephalus
Spoonwood
Andronicus

I welcome any comments.

 

[Bucephalus]

Blimey, Spoonwood. you don't hang about, do you?

Bucephalus recommends that we have some sort of goal date to beat.

Let me explain my reasoning for this: I've recently been concentrating on HOF attempts in my solo games, and I've found it adds a whole new dimension to the game. It's completely unlike a 'regular' game where the only goal is victory; in a regular game, who cares if the world is at war? It actually suits you for the AI to have a slow tech pace, and if you can get two or three techs ahead, all the better.

When you have a date to beat, all that changes; you end up trying to strike a fine balance between keeping the AI researching the techs that you want them to, and not allowing them to get too far ahead. You gift or sell techs that you would normally hoard, trade for resources that you might otherwise take by force.

And because of the importance of change-of-age trading, the game goes to the wire every time; when every year counts, there is no building your Spaceship while the AI languishes in the Industrial Age.

In short, it's a whole lot of fun, right to the last turn.

I think as a target, we should at least aim to beat the HOF best date for these parameters (currently held by Spoonwood, in case he's too modest to mention it )

I think it will suit players with good mm and trading skills, rather than warmongers, and who are comfortable at DG at least.

 

[Aabraxan]

lurker's comment: Just stopping in to wish you good luck!

 

[Optional]

Same from me. This should be an interesting one to follow!

 

[Bucephalus]

Same from me. This should be an interesting one to follow!

lurker's comment: Just stopping in to wish you good luck!

Thanks, guys.

Do you not fancy the challenge? I'm not sure what level you play at these days, Aabra, but I thought you were a comfortable DG player, Optional?

 

[Aabraxan]

lurker's comment: Thanks, Buce, but I'm still trying to net my first DG victory and haven't even tried a Deity game yet. While I certainly enjoy a good challenge, the biggest problem right now is time. RL simply demands too much of it right now to commit to an SG.

 

[Bucephalus]

lurker's comment: Thanks, Buce, but I'm still trying to net my first DG victory and haven't even tried a Deity game yet. While I certainly enjoy a good challenge, the biggest problem right now is time. RL simply demands too much of it right now to commit to an SG.

No worries, mate - it's nice to have you lurking, anyway.

 

[Pain]

lurker's comment: I also wish you luck on this one spoonwood. subscribed.

 

[Spoonwood]

I agree with your reasoning about having a goal finish date Bucephalus. The problem I have... maybe it's mine alone... comes as that after I've had my 1220 AD launch, I've set myself the goal and felt frustrated everytime when I couldn't launch faster (too slow of a tech pace by the silly warring AIs, not having the ability to trade for resources, etc.), even though I thought I had played well. Hence, I thought the awards idea as a way to sort of still have goals while not having that frustation problem as much. I probably should start playing a bit slower and micromanaging more in the later phases of the game. I do remember MMing in my game though when I couldn't initially get MT in 6 turns, and got it down to 5 turns.

Any thoughts on our tribe Bucephalus? I have a feeling others would prefer Sumeria, and no doubt with 7 opponents, Sumeria might make the easiest tribe to get going. Speaking of them, how can they have cheap aqueducts and not cheap hospitals??? Anyways, if we play as Korea, Greece, or the Byzos, we might trade our way through the ancient ages and not want/need the Great Library even with 7 tribes. I often don't like how fast my workers do their jobs, so Persia and the Ottomans seem like good choices too. If we could get to Philosophy first with Babylon (with 5 non-alphabetic sci tribes you can do this, I don't know about doing it with 7 tribes with a few with alphabet) we might pull off a Monarchy slingshot, go Monarchy, try Republic later, and then even try Democracy perhaps later. We could also have a poor luxury situation, so cheap temples and cathedrals might work out nicely. Any lurkers have any thoughts here?

 

[Chamnix]

lurker's comment: I like Korea for high level spaceship games.

 

[darski]

lurker's comment: I am going to enjoy this game. I expect to learn a great deal that I can apply at my wussy levels. One of the things I hate about space games is that they take forever for me to play. ((sigh)) Can't wait for y'all to start and I would propose the Ottos just because I like them for the traits.

 

[Bucephalus]

I agree with your reasoning about having a goal finish date Bucephalus. The problem I have... maybe it's mine alone... comes as that after I've had my 1220 AD launch, I've set myself the goal and felt frustrated everytime when I couldn't launch faster (too slow of a tech pace by the silly warring AIs, not having the ability to trade for resources, etc.), even though I thought I had played well. Hence, I thought the awards idea as a way to sort of still have goals while not having that frustation problem as much. I probably should start playing a bit slower and micromanaging more in the later phases of the game. I do remember MMing in my game though when I couldn't initially get MT in 6 turns, and got it down to 5 turns.

Well, it doesn't have to mean we've 'lost' if we don't make it, and your awards idea is not mutually exclusive.

Any thoughts on our tribe Bucephalus? I have a feeling others would prefer Sumeria, and no doubt with 7 opponents, Sumeria might make the easiest tribe to get going. Speaking of them, how can they have cheap aqueducts and not cheap hospitals??? Anyways, if we play as Korea, Greece, or the Byzos, we might trade our way through the ancient ages and not want/need the Great Library even with 7 tribes. I often don't like how fast my workers do their jobs, so Persia and the Ottomans seem like good choices too. If we could get to Philosophy first with Babylon (with 5 non-alphabetic sci tribes you can do this, I don't know about doing it with 7 tribes with a few with alphabet) we might pull off a Monarchy slingshot, go Monarchy, try Republic later, and then even try Democracy perhaps later. We could also have a poor luxury situation, so cheap temples and cathedrals might work out nicely. Any lurkers have any thoughts here?

Sumeria has indeed a lot to recommend it; Agricultural would certainly speed growth in the absence of the Pyramids which, unless we get a SGL, is a given. My only problem with it is that they start without Alphabet, making a monpoly run on Writing difficult, if not impossible. Other tribes can compensate for the lack of agriculural growth, to an extent, by using a dedicated worker pump specifically for adding to other cities; obviously that requires a bit of luck with our territory, but to be honest, that's a necessary requirement anyway (for me, at least) - I'm good enough to merely win with most starts, but I'm not good enough to put in an early launch without some lush lands. BTW, there is no contradiction with the aquaduct/hospital thing - in RL, the aquaduct is an agricultural improvement, even though in Civ it only has the same function as a hospital.

In my own games I find it difficult to see beyond Greece and Korea; they have a killer trait combo, begin with Alphabet, and have an easily timed Modern Era GA - assuming we have picked up a Scientific Wonder (and this attempt becomes a whole lot harder if we miss the GL), the UN does the job.

Babylon are something of an unknown quantity to me - they are one of the few tribes that I've never played. I can certainly see the advantage in having access to cheap religious improvements, irrespective of the luxury situation; at Deity, cultural pressure is always going to be an issue - especially in a peaceful game -, and I usually build them for that reason alone. The short anarchy period is nice, but I don't think it's a game breaker.

As for the number of opponents, I'm not committed either way; I think it's a swings and roundabouts thing - with seven, we get more chances of the change of age turning out well, with fewer we get more room to grow, so have a more robust economy. In my own games I go with fewer, but that's just my playing style. Scientifics are a no-brainer, though I have a weakness for France when I play with more civs - they always perform so well in my games, and become a great trading partner, which makes up for their not being Scientific.

If you are going to pin me down, I'd say we play as Greece/Korea, with five opponents (six at a push); the opposition would be Greece/Korea (whichever one we don't choose), Babylon, Byzantines, Ottomans and Persia. I don't like Sumeria as an opponent - they expand so quickly on any level, and at Deity they are turbo-charged. Germany is too damn aggressive for a peaceful game, and Russia never seem to perform well in my games. So if we compromise with a sixth civ, I would choose France.

However, none of this is carved in stone - let's wait and see if we get some input from another player (if we get one).

 

[Spoonwood]

Good point about the awards and finish date not being mutually exclusive. I don't see us needing a monopoly run on Writing. Of course that's nice and all. We can just go straight to Liteature and bulid The Great Library half-buying Writing along the way. We can also go with Sumeria and get to Alphabet first if we only have 5 scientific opponents. Sumeria as an opponent has scared me tech-wise in the past. But, I just finished one with Korea (the AIs didn't stop warring from the middle ages on and provided me with almost no help whatsoever), where Sumeria didn't provide too much of a problem. In fact, it's probably better to have some AI that will help to push us/give us better trading opportunities than too many laggards stinking up the rear.

I usually use a worker pump or three for growth even with Sumeria. Although, I think develop territory too much before adding workers in. Finding the balance seems tricky to me right now. Hence, industrious might help us grow faster, and getting production up early enough sometimes seems a problem to me also, which I attribute mostly to the speed of the game.

Do you think Germany helps pick up the tech pace even a turn or so in the anicent age since they start with WC? Maybe even if they help pick things up then, they'll slow things down later... hard to say. Maybe level Germany off and put Japan in since they have The Wheel and Warrior Code? Then again, that's it we'll ever get out of Japan and they'll almost surely get crushed at some point in the game, probably because they started the war.

 

[Optional]

Do you think Germany helps pick up the tech pace even a turn or so in the anicent age since they start with WC? ... Maybe level Germany off and put Japan in since they have The Wheel and Warrior Code?

Aren't better off with goody huts?

And in response to Bucephales, who never saw Russia performing well, I have to say Russia is always doing great in my games. Are you playing with goody huts off, perhaps?
And France.. there have been times that I restarted the game as soon as I discovered France was on the map, as I couldn't bear the sight of seeing Joan gettting ripped to pieces again.. But she's a nice trading partner.

I don't claim to be an expert in this type of game, far from it, but I would think you would be better off with sedentary barbs (goody huts on)?

 

[Spoonwood]

Optional,

I think the answer to your question is... maybe.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Above Emperor, don't goody huts and barbarians mostly benefit the AI? Unless you were playing as Russia, there is no reason to have either.

 

[Spoonwood]

I don't think roaming or above barbarians would make sense since they might whack us early on and thus slow down our expansion. Would the AIs also get more aggresive with each other or us since they'll have vets and maybe elites also? I don't know, but them having more gold would work out nicely.

Goody huts will benefit the AIs. So, they might have more gold for trading, and/or we might have a faster tech pace this way. Hopefully, that tells you the reason why goody huts *might* work out well for us also. But, say if we don't get to Philosophy first, thus implying that we probably want the Great Library, the AIs might get Literature from a hut, and we could lose The Great Library then. They could also pop Philosophy from a hut. I don't think this would happen with 7 tribes, as I'd expect almost all huts to get popped earlier, but I don't know really. With 5 or 6 it becomes more likely they'll pop those techs. Either way, it could work out to help pick up the tech pace and make things better for a faster launch date (if it benefits the AIs, it *can* benefit us towards our goal), or it could make keeping up in tech too hard. Also, maybe the AIs end up with more vets/elites or military in general this way and that might make them more likely to war with each other or us... which I doubt we want.

If we have sedentary barbs, we'd either have to build military and disband it before popping a hut, or not build military until the nearby huts get popped at this level.

I wonder how much benefit Russia can get out of huts on a pangea Deity map with 4, 5, 6, or 7 opponents.

 

[Spoonwood]

Bucephalus et alia,

Since we might feel undecided about prefering to have 7 scientific opponents or have more holes, we could go to a Large or possibly even a Huge map and have a full set of 8 scientific opponents and still have some extra territory. Of course that would be a different game for us in some ways, but I thought I'd at least throw that out there.

 

[Andronicus]

Interested
I like the idea of playing for fastest poss victory rather than just victory.

 

[Spoonwood]

I signed you up Andronicus.