RBC16 - Sleeveless
- Thread starter Sirian
- Start date
SesnOfWthr
True Believer
My bad, I clearly misread that, twice actually. 
I think that must be an obvious sign it's time for bed...
I think that must be an obvious sign it's time for bed...
We are the commercial English, of course we would want to be republic, to maximize our income 
I am having a hard time considering a fishing village a worker farm, as it has no surplus of food. Also, it would be building quite a lot of infra, so ..
Grimjack
I am having a hard time considering a fishing village a worker farm, as it has no surplus of food. Also, it would be building quite a lot of infra, so ..
Grimjack
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Got it.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
I just reread the variant rules and there isn't any restrictions on fishing villages. In fact that may be the only way we can feed ourselves on this frozen rock.
I would have to protest against Feudalism quite strongly. It would cripple the commercial trait, virtually the only thing we have going for us at the moment.
I would have personally settled York one south to grab both whales, but what's done is done.
I would have to protest against Feudalism quite strongly. It would cripple the commercial trait, virtually the only thing we have going for us at the moment.
I would have personally settled York one south to grab both whales, but what's done is done.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Does Lee actually have 6k posts and change?? 
I think I said that before. Was that back when he had reached 4k? Or 3k?
I believe the reply was something like, "All those got it and you've got it and who's got it posts drives up the number". Yeah, a likely story.
- Sirian
I think I said that before. Was that back when he had reached 4k? Or 3k?
I believe the reply was something like, "All those got it and you've got it and who's got it posts drives up the number". Yeah, a likely story.
- Sirian
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
Sir Bugsy said:
No worker farms. What could we do with a size-2 town? Build a spear every 8 turns?
Sir Bugsy said:
But it would have too much overlap if we want to put another city in the SW. We'll only have that many cities with reasonable size.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 19,617
Sirian said:Does Lee actually have 6k posts and change??
I think I said that before. Was that back when he had reached 4k? Or 3k?
I believe the reply was something like, "All those got it and you've got it and who's got it posts drives up the number". Yeah, a likely story.
- Sirian
Since the sucession game forums is the only I participate in, most of the posting is from my SGs.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
That's what I was thinking. It may take a while to get the library and the harbor actually built, but once they are, you have a nice research village. I'm having a bit of success with the idea in the latest RBC Epic game.
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
Don't worry. Nothing more. Just commenting on a management style that seems to be completely ignored as a possiblity in the present game.Speaker said:No spoilers please.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Sorry for delay. Pushing the limit of my 72 hours and then some, but hey, cut me a lil slack here.
OK, we're going to get a little radical here, guys. Normally I am loathe to move a city someone else has put down on the map, but in tight variant games with limited useful territory, it may be called for. I thought carefully through our situation. Here are the conclusions I reached:
There are six forest tiles wasted on the current setup. I drew a pink outline around them. Three of them are spice tiles! I would have put York on the pink dot where it can irrigate all its grass and grow to size 12 and grab all those forest tiles for shields. Another strong city on orange dot. We would thus have three good cities to go with our fishing villages. Other dots you see are all on the coast, all fishing villages, except for white dot, which will redeem the inland lake and the iron but be as close to London as possible. That is the only inland village that looks worthwhile to me.
It will cost us a dozen turns on York and one unhappy unit at Orange dot (which will get transferred when York is abandoned) but I deem this move worthwhile despite the costs. I moved an early city in LK-? 5CC Diety Conquest and that worked out well for us.
So here we go.
1725BC: Build settler in London, start barracks. (Going to need some units to face down those barbs, and I don't want to shrink London too far with another settler immediately.)
1675AD: Traded Mysticism to China for Mathematics @3rd and 29g. Sold it to Korea for 108g.
1625AD: Sold Mathematics to Carthage for Map Making and 50g. Aztecs are other civ with map making.
Hmm. We could really use a galley, now that we have the option. If I built one soon, we could sail the York settler over to that small island just east of our continent and grab it while we still can. The barracks was not meant to be a prebuild, thus not intentional and within the letter of the rules, but whew, that's splitting some hairs. I thought it over. The rule wasn't meant to prevent us from being able to react to surprises. It was aimed at systematic exploitation of prebuilding as a trick to pick up advantages. If I finish the barracks first, we'll actually suffer a penalty, and that wasn't the aim. So I go ahead and make the switch from barracks to galley. Please use this analysis as your guide for deciding when it's OK or not OK to switch projects with progress in the box.
1600BC: Whipped York.
1575BC: Nottingham rioted. Heh. Forgot that the effect would be immediate. Kind of odd that if the unhappy face had gone to London instead, that London's production round was over and I don't think it would have rioted when the unhappy unit transferred. (I could be mistaken.)
1550BC: Load settler and warrior onto the galley. East they go.
1500BC: Trained an archer out of London, start settler. We need to resettle York on the pink dot. Here's my Dotmap(TM) suggestion graphic.
We have a tradeoff to make in the far east, at the gray dots. If we settle in the middle of the island, we redeem both the hill and forest for use. If we settle on the upper corner, we can put another city on the bottom corner and have two fishing villages. I guess it depends on how bad the corruption will be. Might be worth it to put two cities there, IF we build FP at light blue dot. Not so sure if we build it at York. Green dot is where it is at to grab the most sea.
Remember! Fishing villages with zero food bonus get to redeem as many water tiles as they can reach, with harbor built. They only get to redeem two tundra/forest or hill tiles TOTAL and can only use them when they max out growth or halt growth temporarily. Thus forget the land and grab as much of the sea as you can. The sea is what counts. Thus the logic behind where I put down my dots. (Red dot has a fish in range if built there).
No diplo action took place in 1500BC, so next player up can make deals if he finds any.
- Sirian
OK, we're going to get a little radical here, guys. Normally I am loathe to move a city someone else has put down on the map, but in tight variant games with limited useful territory, it may be called for. I thought carefully through our situation. Here are the conclusions I reached:
There are six forest tiles wasted on the current setup. I drew a pink outline around them. Three of them are spice tiles! I would have put York on the pink dot where it can irrigate all its grass and grow to size 12 and grab all those forest tiles for shields. Another strong city on orange dot. We would thus have three good cities to go with our fishing villages. Other dots you see are all on the coast, all fishing villages, except for white dot, which will redeem the inland lake and the iron but be as close to London as possible. That is the only inland village that looks worthwhile to me.
It will cost us a dozen turns on York and one unhappy unit at Orange dot (which will get transferred when York is abandoned) but I deem this move worthwhile despite the costs. I moved an early city in LK-? 5CC Diety Conquest and that worked out well for us.
So here we go.
1725BC: Build settler in London, start barracks. (Going to need some units to face down those barbs, and I don't want to shrink London too far with another settler immediately.)
1675AD: Traded Mysticism to China for Mathematics @3rd and 29g. Sold it to Korea for 108g.
1625AD: Sold Mathematics to Carthage for Map Making and 50g. Aztecs are other civ with map making.
Hmm. We could really use a galley, now that we have the option. If I built one soon, we could sail the York settler over to that small island just east of our continent and grab it while we still can. The barracks was not meant to be a prebuild, thus not intentional and within the letter of the rules, but whew, that's splitting some hairs. I thought it over. The rule wasn't meant to prevent us from being able to react to surprises. It was aimed at systematic exploitation of prebuilding as a trick to pick up advantages. If I finish the barracks first, we'll actually suffer a penalty, and that wasn't the aim. So I go ahead and make the switch from barracks to galley. Please use this analysis as your guide for deciding when it's OK or not OK to switch projects with progress in the box.
1600BC: Whipped York.
1575BC: Nottingham rioted. Heh. Forgot that the effect would be immediate. Kind of odd that if the unhappy face had gone to London instead, that London's production round was over and I don't think it would have rioted when the unhappy unit transferred. (I could be mistaken.)
1550BC: Load settler and warrior onto the galley. East they go.
1500BC: Trained an archer out of London, start settler. We need to resettle York on the pink dot. Here's my Dotmap(TM) suggestion graphic.
We have a tradeoff to make in the far east, at the gray dots. If we settle in the middle of the island, we redeem both the hill and forest for use. If we settle on the upper corner, we can put another city on the bottom corner and have two fishing villages. I guess it depends on how bad the corruption will be. Might be worth it to put two cities there, IF we build FP at light blue dot. Not so sure if we build it at York. Green dot is where it is at to grab the most sea.
Remember! Fishing villages with zero food bonus get to redeem as many water tiles as they can reach, with harbor built. They only get to redeem two tundra/forest or hill tiles TOTAL and can only use them when they max out growth or halt growth temporarily. Thus forget the land and grab as much of the sea as you can. The sea is what counts. Thus the logic behind where I put down my dots. (Red dot has a fish in range if built there).
No diplo action took place in 1500BC, so next player up can make deals if he finds any.
- Sirian
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
A couple questions:
Do we care about the southern whale or does the hill 1S of the former York site make things too crowded?
Are we trying to take advantage of all tiles in the long term or short term?
I feel like the Karate Kid. If Sirian tells me "wax on, wax off" I'll know it is true.
Do we care about the southern whale or does the hill 1S of the former York site make things too crowded?
Are we trying to take advantage of all tiles in the long term or short term?
I feel like the Karate Kid. If Sirian tells me "wax on, wax off" I'll know it is true.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
I'm not seeing any up side to where York was originally placed. If we were planning to put three cities down there, putting one out on the hill to redeem the second whale would still have been preferable. That would cost 3 to 4 shields (base) from Nottingham, though. Just to redeem a whale and a couple of sea tiles? And pack them in like sardines? I thought about it, but I don't believe that would be worthwhile.
Deliberate ICSing to min/max the economy would qualify as something up our sleeve. We have to put some of the fishing villages uncomfortably close to each other because of the shape of the coastline, but with those, the overlap doesn't matter because some of the tundra will inevitably go to waste anyway. With better lands, the cities can use all the tiles in their range, so no need to plop down more cities except to take advantage of the city density loophole.
As for Karate Kid... I've been wrong about details before and will be again. I tend to behave like an absent minded professor. I normally do well with the obscure stuff, but I have been known to overlook the obvious.
- Sirian
Deliberate ICSing to min/max the economy would qualify as something up our sleeve. We have to put some of the fishing villages uncomfortably close to each other because of the shape of the coastline, but with those, the overlap doesn't matter because some of the tundra will inevitably go to waste anyway. With better lands, the cities can use all the tiles in their range, so no need to plop down more cities except to take advantage of the city density loophole.
As for Karate Kid... I've been wrong about details before and will be again. I tend to behave like an absent minded professor. I normally do well with the obscure stuff, but I have been known to overlook the obvious.
- Sirian
Sir Bugsy
Civ.D.
I had this idea sent to me via PM from Scout. He's lurking but didn't want to intrude. I thought it had merit so I'm going to post it.
scoutsout said:
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Scout has an interesting idea. However, if London gives up one of its four bg tiles, that would slow it down. Until we get out of despotism and we irrigate, the grass tiles can't add add more than one unit to city size, and then they add one shield or they steal a vital tile from London to add two.
There's also the loss of increasing corruption from OCN for all cities beyond it by adding in an extra city. I'm thinking that only one city in the interior is worthwhile. I'd rather have our three good cities not be pinched by giving up some of their best tiles.
My thoughts on how to manage a continent like this during a difficult variant harken back to the success Charis and I had in RBD SG7 Cuban Isolationists. Here's hoping we can do as well as that with this scenario!
- Sirian
There's also the loss of increasing corruption from OCN for all cities beyond it by adding in an extra city. I'm thinking that only one city in the interior is worthwhile. I'd rather have our three good cities not be pinched by giving up some of their best tiles.
My thoughts on how to manage a continent like this during a difficult variant harken back to the success Charis and I had in RBD SG7 Cuban Isolationists. Here's hoping we can do as well as that with this scenario!
- Sirian
Similar threads
- Locked
