Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Hey Skan. Hope you had a good holiday.
Charis: WLTKD is pretty much useless. I can't imagine going out of my way for it. It CLAIMS to lower corruption, but I've not seen any lowering worth mentioning. It supposedly helps resist cultural flipping, perhaps useful in a few rare situations, but better is a one-unit-per-population garrison, plus one unit. That's the only way to go for a big wonder-owning city you take over, even if you do plan to starve them down to size one and regrow from there (my usual plan). I used to use WLTKD for a MASSIVE growth in population once I hit democracy, but no more. I ignore it entirely now. We lost a whole tech's worth of potential research, celebrating We Love the Vain Day in India.
With Hocus brokering our tech breakthroughs, it will be interesting to see what happens. I've only ever opened a wide tech lead when I don't give the bloody AI ANY techs, for any reason, unless they are inevitably about to trade them back and forth anyway. Anything to slow them down, will help. The sooner they get Music Theory, for example, the sooner they start researching Physics. What really hurts, though, is with this patch, that new bug where the AI can trade amongst themselves on YOUR turn, if the autosave has been used ever. I haven't used it in this game (no reloads, says Charis), but I did notice the AI brokering on my turn once, back in BC times. Somebody who didn't have Monarchy got it DURING my turn while I was brokering the Republic to somebody else. *sigh* At least Hocus got to sell Banking to everyone. I just hope their gold flowing to us slows them down enough. 15 per turn is only 300 gold, and that ain't much at all for a cutting edge technology. Maybe I'm just used to playing Emperor. The longer the AI sits in the middle ages, though, the more I like it.
I WILL trade techs, but I keep an eye on the AI bankrolls. If none of them have cash on hand, they can forget seeing any of my tech, even obsolete ones. On the other hand, if they have oodles of cash lying around, they will trade with one another the moment one gets a new tech, so I will do all I can to acquire their cash: brokering world maps, tech, luxuries, diplomatic treaties, anything. Because the AI's will just trade with each other and still get the tech, and give you nothing. They won't make costly per-turn gold agreements with each other, though. And since Hocus got per-turn instead of cash-on-hand, that's one situation I absolutely would not have brokered. I suppose I could describe my trading philosophy as "make the trade if they are going to trade anyway, otherwise no dice". Once ANY of them have the tech, if ANY others (they aren't at war with) get enough gold, they WILL buy the new tech. They may also trade luxuries for it, amongst themselves. AIs trading back and forth is not good for the player, but you can learn to spot when they can and will do that, and when they can't or won't.
One of the best reasons to grow large and cover a lot of territory, is that he who covers more squares of land gets to charge more for Right of Passage. So I use RoP to bleed away AI cash-on-hand to cut down on their tech exchanges with one another, and pull farther out in front. This, presuming the game is going well. Some of my Emperor games, I've been playing tech catch up well into the industrial age. Thus, skipping the early wonders in favor of building tons of settlers and spreading out can actually be worth more net gold in your pocket than a wonder like Smith's trading company, if you continually USE that size to charge half the world for useless RoP agreements.
Cy's Gambit is not something I would have tried, but presuming continued peace with Persia for another few hundred years, it will certainly have paid off in multiple ways, even though it seems unlikely to me, with Persia's strong total culture, that it will actually lead to direct city acquisitions.
Also... as for mining cattle and wheat... only if you can't irrigate them. Here's a writeup I made for another succession game I got involved in:
Hocus's mine-grasslands, irrigate-plains philosophy is generally sound, especially for despotism situations. I still prefer my "Little of everything" method, with no rule of thumb. I am quite fond of irrigating half the grasslands and half the plains and mining the other half, so that instead of all these squares with two food apiece, I have some with three food and some with one, most with two, with a mix of shields, to choose several possible configurations, some higher on food, some higher on shields, and flop the situation around depending on the priorities. At times I will even run negative food to rush a HIGH priority project along, and go high food once it's done to recover -- just one example.
Hocus's admonition to adapt to the situation at hand is the best advice. No rule of thumb can work best all the time, thus why the automation is so inefficient.
- Sirian
Charis: WLTKD is pretty much useless. I can't imagine going out of my way for it. It CLAIMS to lower corruption, but I've not seen any lowering worth mentioning. It supposedly helps resist cultural flipping, perhaps useful in a few rare situations, but better is a one-unit-per-population garrison, plus one unit. That's the only way to go for a big wonder-owning city you take over, even if you do plan to starve them down to size one and regrow from there (my usual plan). I used to use WLTKD for a MASSIVE growth in population once I hit democracy, but no more. I ignore it entirely now. We lost a whole tech's worth of potential research, celebrating We Love the Vain Day in India.
With Hocus brokering our tech breakthroughs, it will be interesting to see what happens. I've only ever opened a wide tech lead when I don't give the bloody AI ANY techs, for any reason, unless they are inevitably about to trade them back and forth anyway. Anything to slow them down, will help. The sooner they get Music Theory, for example, the sooner they start researching Physics. What really hurts, though, is with this patch, that new bug where the AI can trade amongst themselves on YOUR turn, if the autosave has been used ever. I haven't used it in this game (no reloads, says Charis), but I did notice the AI brokering on my turn once, back in BC times. Somebody who didn't have Monarchy got it DURING my turn while I was brokering the Republic to somebody else. *sigh* At least Hocus got to sell Banking to everyone. I just hope their gold flowing to us slows them down enough. 15 per turn is only 300 gold, and that ain't much at all for a cutting edge technology. Maybe I'm just used to playing Emperor. The longer the AI sits in the middle ages, though, the more I like it.
I WILL trade techs, but I keep an eye on the AI bankrolls. If none of them have cash on hand, they can forget seeing any of my tech, even obsolete ones. On the other hand, if they have oodles of cash lying around, they will trade with one another the moment one gets a new tech, so I will do all I can to acquire their cash: brokering world maps, tech, luxuries, diplomatic treaties, anything. Because the AI's will just trade with each other and still get the tech, and give you nothing. They won't make costly per-turn gold agreements with each other, though. And since Hocus got per-turn instead of cash-on-hand, that's one situation I absolutely would not have brokered. I suppose I could describe my trading philosophy as "make the trade if they are going to trade anyway, otherwise no dice". Once ANY of them have the tech, if ANY others (they aren't at war with) get enough gold, they WILL buy the new tech. They may also trade luxuries for it, amongst themselves. AIs trading back and forth is not good for the player, but you can learn to spot when they can and will do that, and when they can't or won't.
One of the best reasons to grow large and cover a lot of territory, is that he who covers more squares of land gets to charge more for Right of Passage. So I use RoP to bleed away AI cash-on-hand to cut down on their tech exchanges with one another, and pull farther out in front. This, presuming the game is going well. Some of my Emperor games, I've been playing tech catch up well into the industrial age. Thus, skipping the early wonders in favor of building tons of settlers and spreading out can actually be worth more net gold in your pocket than a wonder like Smith's trading company, if you continually USE that size to charge half the world for useless RoP agreements.
Cy's Gambit is not something I would have tried, but presuming continued peace with Persia for another few hundred years, it will certainly have paid off in multiple ways, even though it seems unlikely to me, with Persia's strong total culture, that it will actually lead to direct city acquisitions.
Also... as for mining cattle and wheat... only if you can't irrigate them. Here's a writeup I made for another succession game I got involved in:
Irrigation vs Mining. Sounds like a simple equation, but as with pop rushing via the whip, it can be more complex than what shows on the surface. A lot depends on the rest of the land you have.
In this case, there are about five or six grassland with shields, plus the cattle, some grassland without shield, a hills, and several mountains. Presuming cattle first, then several grassland with shields in a row, for the worker, it goes something like this.
If you mine the cattle, you get one extra shield per turn. Period.
If you irrigate, you get one extra food. This reduces the time necessary to grow another size from seven turns to five (without granary, from four to three with granary). If, upon growing, you bring a grassland square with shield, mine, and road online, you would get another 2 shields and 1 commerce from that. If you get that two turns sooner, you've picked up four shields and 2 commerce, by the time the city would grow with the cattle mined.
So... after seven turns, with the cattle mined you are at +7 shields. With it irrigated, you are at +4 shields, +2 commerce. Ah, but the irrigated cattle will grow AGAIN in three more turns, vs seven more for the mined cattle. If you then bring another mined, shield and road grassland online, you get another +2 shields and +1 commerce per turn from the newly worked square. You then have four turns of this before the mined cattle version would catch up and grow. That's +8 shields and +4 commerce.
After 14 turns, the mined cattle are at +14 shields. The irrigated cattle are at +12 shields, +6 commerce, and will grow again in one more turn, after which, the extra shields from the extra population unit will SURPASS the mined cattle and pick up net gains from there on out, until a ceiling is hit where you need an aqueduct, hospital, or more happy faces, to continue to grow, at which point you could always go back and mine the irrigated cattle, if desired. Being on a river further adds to the commerce gains. Could make two turns difference on a discovery, that early.
Now I know it's not as neat as that, as workers may not have fully improved squares ready to come on line, or the land may be less ideal than this plot of ground -- and settlers and granaries change the balance -- but the principle still holds. It's not just a matter of mining=production. Also, once out of despotism, it stops mattering at all, as every irrigation or every mine, on a plains or grassland, is equal to any other.
I would have irrigated the cattle. I would also not have whipped the temple in Babylon. We bought eight to twelve rounds of culture at 2 per turn, and maybe as many as fifteen rounds of 1000-year bonus coming sooner, at 2 per turn. So for about 50 culture points (which will be ONE turn, in the final equation, assuming all other things being equal, which they won't be), we whipped, which bought us either 26 or 24 shields but cost us a population unit, which is 2 shields and 2 commerce per turn, uh, forever. Or thereabouts. Definitely worth considering whipping a temple at 60 shields, but just 30, you can build that pretty quickly in the capital. A lost population unit in some corrupt frontier city, no big deal, as the shields from them would be wasted anyway. It's a much more problematic action closer to home. The farther from home, the more worthwhile the whip. At least in a building game. If your whole empire is poprushing horsies and rolling across the land, that's a whole different situation, in which you never expect to get out of despotism and don't care about anything in your cities. If you want to build, the whip should be weighed in its true cost, which means looking ahead at the full scope of what is lost vs what is gained.
Then again, if the land were a little poorer, or a little richer, it would make the same difference as being more, or less, efficient. And the game can be won without perfect land, so it can also be won without heroic efficiency -- which is a good thing for me, because I overlook stuff all the time. In my turn on this game, I lost a turn at Ur for not paying attention to what squares were in use. Made a mistake or two in exploring, not paying attention to what was shore or not. No cities rioted, but I get that on a regular basis, every few turns one slips my attention.
So in the end, theorizing has its own limits. You got us off to a grand start, lkendter. Our position looks good and I like our chances.
Hocus's mine-grasslands, irrigate-plains philosophy is generally sound, especially for despotism situations. I still prefer my "Little of everything" method, with no rule of thumb. I am quite fond of irrigating half the grasslands and half the plains and mining the other half, so that instead of all these squares with two food apiece, I have some with three food and some with one, most with two, with a mix of shields, to choose several possible configurations, some higher on food, some higher on shields, and flop the situation around depending on the priorities. At times I will even run negative food to rush a HIGH priority project along, and go high food once it's done to recover -- just one example.
Hocus's admonition to adapt to the situation at hand is the best advice. No rule of thumb can work best all the time, thus why the automation is so inefficient.
- Sirian