RLC#1. Suryavarman of Khmer.
- Thread starter pigswill
- Start date
vranasm
Deity
^^^Yep. 1N of rice is certainly very strong. Which is better? You may be right on 1N since it also works the oasis earlier for a little more commerce but as Im sure youre aware (since youre a better player than I am) its very possible to win with either.
Question: where would you place city #2? A, B or C as per @pigswills post or in the rice / FP / hills (which would be my choice if shadowing)?
on monarch you have a lot of leeway, doesn't change the fact that 1N of rice is best city 2 you can get
what it has over 1 NW of rice?
Mec AntiKythera
King
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 980
More FP's, but you know that. Slightly better blocking effect, but either site would require a third city for closure.
Pigswill, good to see you doing this. Good luck.
Pigswill, good to see you doing this. Good luck.
learner gamer
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 657
@vranasm, @Soirana: Always interesting to see how different folks play the same map. 
More interesting I think though is that we’re all looking at city #2 in the vicinity of rice / FP / hills. Will be interesting to see how @pigswill’s different approach fares...assuming that a city at A or B can be connected to the capital without roads (which I hadn’t realised), it might be that @pigswill has out-thought us all. 
@pigswill: You might want to take a look at Soirana’s spoiler before you decide where to settle....it doesn’t contain any new info at all, but does propose a very good alternative dotmap IMHO....especially if you move yellow dot 1N. If you follow Soirana’s dotmap, the question is then what to do about B, which red dot rules out. Perhaps red dot, 1N of yellow dot and A – assuming you can find the health and happiness to grow those cities in good time?
More interesting I think though is that we’re all looking at city #2 in the vicinity of rice / FP / hills. Will be interesting to see how @pigswill’s different approach fares...assuming that a city at A or B can be connected to the capital without roads (which I hadn’t realised), it might be that @pigswill has out-thought us all. @pigswill: You might want to take a look at Soirana’s spoiler before you decide where to settle....it doesn’t contain any new info at all, but does propose a very good alternative dotmap IMHO....especially if you move yellow dot 1N. If you follow Soirana’s dotmap, the question is then what to do about B, which red dot rules out. Perhaps red dot, 1N of yellow dot and A – assuming you can find the health and happiness to grow those cities in good time?
pigswill
fly (one day)
N or NW of rice does give a very nice city but I'm not sure where you settle other cities around it.
I'm not sure how much importance to attach to blocking Brennus from expanding peacefully westwards, I'd think fairly important but it doesn't seem to have figured in other people's thoughts so much.
Essentially we're going to have a commerce city to the east, production city in west and 1-2 hybrid cities in the middle.
I'm not sure how much importance to attach to blocking Brennus from expanding peacefully westwards, I'd think fairly important but it doesn't seem to have figured in other people's thoughts so much.
Essentially we're going to have a commerce city to the east, production city in west and 1-2 hybrid cities in the middle.
pigswill
fly (one day)
Rightly or wrongly this is my current dotmap (though only city1 aka site B is imminent). Further exploration and discovering resources will likely change this. If push comes to shove I can put a city 2N of rice to turn into a major city and site B becomes a fairly small city running a couple of scientists and a few towns, it will still pay its way long term.
vranasm
Deity
I'd go 1E of corn, maybe not the best city you can place long-term..but very good support city, what i prefer for my 2nds. Leaves space for 1 big commerce city north later, and can grow cottages for it if you want
normally I would go with my 2nd city with good overlap on capital, but in this case it is of less value imo.
capital won't work cottages and he can stay on s/w duty longer and then switch right into library + scientists.
don't see much value in overlapping for the corn since you lower output of capital.
oasis isn't bad tile on itself and can be worked before you improve rice.
PeteJ
Warlord
This is what I would do:
1N of rice is the best spot for a second city imo for reasons already mentioned. City 3 will share cottages and maybe grab stone if you are lucky(not sure how difficult it is to fight AI culture on monarch). City 4 will also share cottages and you will prbably want to claim it by this time. City 5 depends on further exploration so it is tentative. I would also recommend bypassing AH and teching towards pottery asap. Your capitol is strong enough with 2 foods and copper, no need for cows at least until after pottery.
1N of rice is the best spot for a second city imo for reasons already mentioned. City 3 will share cottages and maybe grab stone if you are lucky(not sure how difficult it is to fight AI culture on monarch). City 4 will also share cottages and you will prbably want to claim it by this time. City 5 depends on further exploration so it is tentative. I would also recommend bypassing AH and teching towards pottery asap. Your capitol is strong enough with 2 foods and copper, no need for cows at least until after pottery.
1AD
Really fun map
Agree with Pete on City 5, that's going to be a great city! 8 FP's so only -2 health. I do wish this was Emperor or Immortal though because I'm playing really recklessly due to this being Monarch
The grabbing the stone is all a matter of effeciency and if you care about it. I think you SHOULD be able to culture steal it but steal or not, the Mids and other stone wonders shouldn't be a problem at all.
I think City 2 should be 1E of the corn. That will give it some production as well. It doesn't lose the fresh water access and can even work a cottage or so for the capital. You should grab the tundra island as later on, you may be able to grab the incense. You should also backfill and grab that fur pretty quickly because then all your cities can grow one size larger.
Spoiler :
Really fun map
Agree with Pete on City 5, that's going to be a great city! 8 FP's so only -2 health. I do wish this was Emperor or Immortal though because I'm playing really recklessly due to this being Monarch
The grabbing the stone is all a matter of effeciency and if you care about it. I think you SHOULD be able to culture steal it but steal or not, the Mids and other stone wonders shouldn't be a problem at all.
I think City 2 should be 1E of the corn. That will give it some production as well. It doesn't lose the fresh water access and can even work a cottage or so for the capital. You should grab the tundra island as later on, you may be able to grab the incense. You should also backfill and grab that fur pretty quickly because then all your cities can grow one size larger.
pigswill
fly (one day)
Been thinking about this. I suspect that there's a body of thought that the optimum city development strategy is to identify a site for a very powerful capital (which benefits from bureaucracy of course) and then fit in other cities around it rather than try to fit in several average cities in the same area. This would certainly explain the dotmaps that have been suggested and the emphasis on 1N of rice as the next city.
Revent you make me nuts
All these *peep* non-river cottages while having cities around FPs, we need Obsolete for a good slapping here!!!
Well, all the FP sites also have cottages to be fair! Although I do plan to farm over those once I get CS in and then run some specialistis. Plus, I'm too lazy to change my capital
Don't know about body, thought or spirit much, but my personal reasoning would be:
Bellow immortal I would not settle average second city. Second city is usually very strong contributor and can easily be size 10ish by 1AD. If that means sacrificing spot for average city N5, or putting few spots on sacrifice I would still make it.
Now by strong contributor I usually mean not only potential at size 10, but also ability at ~5 size either to act as worker pump [tend do settlers in capitol] or put quick library and recruite two dorks in it [the lower the dificulty, the lessser importance on these two dorks].
Once again I would say one can clear main continent with cats/trebs and maces rather reliable on monarch/emperor getting pretty enough average cities due to AI settling habits, so I'd rather settle fewer strong cities [preferable hammer orientated] and
poor helpless AI out of their missery.Just the way I would play. No not to start to beat the bell about someone not being Sisiutil, but could we get comprehensive writeup what is:
a) priorities in your opinion at given moment
b) priorities long term [maybe it is worth let Brenus dvelop these FP for you, if you would happen to be aimed at some cats+stuff war]
c) theoretical ways how to reach b) while meeting a).
Cause you know current "I rush Brennus", "I don't rush", "oh discovered copper, but for some strange reason continued making serttler at size 2 instead of growing on to 6 tile" style is not super educative.
Good luck anyway and please don't move capitol, since it is almost never worth it.
pigswill
fly (one day)
Its true I'm not Sisiutil. Maybe I've been trying to be Sisiutil and failing, foolish but probably true.
I am of course still only on T30 which is ridiculously early in the game. Its in that sense far too early to be developing a long term strategy, I need to explore the map and get established.
One of my many weaknesses in civ is early development and trying to work out the best mix of research, growth and exploration/expansion is something I want to work on.
Growing to pop 5-6 before spitting out settlers and workers is certainly the standard way to play.
Why was I going for an early settler at pop 2? To block Brennus. A close neighbour getting too well established is a good way of blocking my own development imho. One option is to rush a neighbour, another option is to try to keep them small enough not to become a problem later in the game. With land to the north and an easy choke point blocking is less hassle. The sooner I block Brennus the sooner I get to grow. Its possible that Brennus has a huge block of land to the east in which to expand, its also possible that I've restricted him to a couple of cities. No doubt I'll find out later but as you know you make the best guess with the limited information you have at the time, sometimes its the right guess, sometimes its the wrong guess but when you're playing you don't start with hindsight.
I am of course still only on T30 which is ridiculously early in the game. Its in that sense far too early to be developing a long term strategy, I need to explore the map and get established.
One of my many weaknesses in civ is early development and trying to work out the best mix of research, growth and exploration/expansion is something I want to work on.
Growing to pop 5-6 before spitting out settlers and workers is certainly the standard way to play.
Why was I going for an early settler at pop 2? To block Brennus. A close neighbour getting too well established is a good way of blocking my own development imho. One option is to rush a neighbour, another option is to try to keep them small enough not to become a problem later in the game. With land to the north and an easy choke point blocking is less hassle. The sooner I block Brennus the sooner I get to grow. Its possible that Brennus has a huge block of land to the east in which to expand, its also possible that I've restricted him to a couple of cities. No doubt I'll find out later but as you know you make the best guess with the limited information you have at the time, sometimes its the right guess, sometimes its the wrong guess but when you're playing you don't start with hindsight.
First of all don't take to personally, one thing I am not know for being good at any gaming forums I have account on is manners. Oh well.
Two - I actually strongly disagreed lot of Sisiutl did in his games. Probably would disagree even more now. Yet I was somehow getting behind his thought process.
Really, I don't think so.
Lots of people at some time fall into trap letting small decisions slowly and gradually become defining ones. Like I need tech X now, I settle Y spot now... And at 1AD you can't do war or are short on trading partners or whatever, which removes lots of healthy options.
Some people would probably disagree but playing from turn zero with sorta plan in head moved me 1 difficulty up almost immediately.
Let's take boring me for example:
My turn zero plan is getting hold of my home landmass... since that basiically gurantees any win condition.
Naturally that would change a bit depending on situation -
can I get to all AI voia land
can I get enough land for domination on my continent
are there any obstacles - like 10+city having religion sharing Boudica next to me
and so on...
Short term goal on turn zero is scouting as anything else depends on it. Well, again having info to make your decisions is often overlooked aspect.
As game progresses I look at establish fare base to killing AI to get unhealthy share of land. And by fare base i mean at least 4-5 really good cities. Lots of people aim for like 6, but all best national wonders - HE, Ne, maoi do not have city number requirement. Not like I would decline extra space to expand if available, but 4 cities usually gets the job done.
Now that is war orientated mentality, if you need good advice on peaceful life and build up, you will need ask someone else.
I would have canceled settler, grown up and resumed it. Likely gets settler turn or two later but you end with extra 6 yield tile and pop point.
Given difficulty Brenus is another 10-15ish turns [at very best for him] away from building his own settler, plus some turns adding escort. [that is from your last save point.]
Chopping instead of working 5-6 yield tiles in capitol is super rare to be good strategy.
Well, that is mentality thing again.
Rush on difficulty with AI having archery from start has rather high opportunity cost.
Personally I would rush if:
A)I end being blocked from expansion [overall I don't give damn of him expanding, dead guys are not problem later in game],
B) that is guy I can not live safely through buildup stage [Monty, Genghis and Co],
C) having quechas or being Prince or bellow - killing one AI has usually enough merits to do so in this case.
D) maybe if oponent rome and looks like getting hold of way too good land - Praets make classic age war very meh, Julius is not healthy neighbour
The thought of "AI less than ten tiles! Kill! Kill!" is usually not very productive.
From my warmongerish mentality I do not see why I would want to contain Brennus in small as possible area, beat him to key resource bubbles - sure, brick him to two city empire - not so much.
From my point of view being busy with blocking Brenus and leaving Gil extra share of land is unhealthy too - promoted vultures+protective longbows do rather well against cats and maces. I'd rather have celts at five cities and sumeria at five too, than Brenus at two and sumeria at 7 for example, even if i get extra city myself in later case.
Not sure where this does stand from builder viewpoint although Gilgamesh is lot of worse neighbour than Brenus. On top of all he has half a chance to actually pay for extra cities via zigurats.
So being me my short term points would be:
a) getting good second city oriented on production [1NE of rice], likely leaving southern part of FP fro brenus.
b)getting land scouted - locate Gil, locate good sites for cities 3-4-5-6 - pick these preferably towards Gil.
c)more mid term - tech to maces assuming more AI are founded.
And I suggest you take me few notches easier. It is not like I am looking for a bat to check in practice if pigs can fly or something.
Two - I actually strongly disagreed lot of Sisiutl did in his games. Probably would disagree even more now. Yet I was somehow getting behind his thought process.
Really, I don't think so.
Lots of people at some time fall into trap letting small decisions slowly and gradually become defining ones. Like I need tech X now, I settle Y spot now... And at 1AD you can't do war or are short on trading partners or whatever, which removes lots of healthy options.
Some people would probably disagree but playing from turn zero with sorta plan in head moved me 1 difficulty up almost immediately.
Let's take boring me for example:
My turn zero plan is getting hold of my home landmass... since that basiically gurantees any win condition.
Naturally that would change a bit depending on situation -
can I get to all AI voia land
can I get enough land for domination on my continent
are there any obstacles - like 10+city having religion sharing Boudica next to me
and so on...
Short term goal on turn zero is scouting as anything else depends on it. Well, again having info to make your decisions is often overlooked aspect.
As game progresses I look at establish fare base to killing AI to get unhealthy share of land
. And by fare base i mean at least 4-5 really good cities. Lots of people aim for like 6, but all best national wonders - HE, Ne, maoi do not have city number requirement. Not like I would decline extra space to expand if available, but 4 cities usually gets the job done.Now that is war orientated mentality, if you need good advice on peaceful life and build up, you will need ask someone else.
I did not suggested that, but how many turns you were into settler on founding copper? 3?
I would have canceled settler, grown up and resumed it. Likely gets settler turn or two later but you end with extra 6 yield tile and pop point.
Given difficulty Brenus is another 10-15ish turns [at very best for him] away from building his own settler, plus some turns adding escort. [that is from your last save point.]
Chopping instead of working 5-6 yield tiles in capitol is super rare to be good strategy.
Well, that is mentality thing again.
Rush on difficulty with AI having archery from start has rather high opportunity cost.
Personally I would rush if:
A)I end being blocked from expansion [overall I don't give damn of him expanding, dead guys are not problem later in game],
B) that is guy I can not live safely through buildup stage [Monty, Genghis and Co],
C) having quechas or being Prince or bellow - killing one AI has usually enough merits to do so in this case.
D) maybe if oponent rome and looks like getting hold of way too good land - Praets make classic age war very meh, Julius is not healthy neighbour
The thought of "AI less than ten tiles! Kill! Kill!" is usually not very productive.
From my warmongerish mentality I do not see why I would want to contain Brennus in small as possible area, beat him to key resource bubbles - sure, brick him to two city empire - not so much.
From my point of view being busy with blocking Brenus and leaving Gil extra share of land is unhealthy too - promoted vultures+protective longbows do rather well against cats and maces. I'd rather have celts at five cities and sumeria at five too, than Brenus at two and sumeria at 7 for example, even if i get extra city myself in later case.
Not sure where this does stand from builder viewpoint although Gilgamesh is lot of worse neighbour than Brenus. On top of all he has half a chance to actually pay for extra cities via zigurats.
So being me my short term points would be:
a) getting good second city oriented on production [1NE of rice], likely leaving southern part of FP fro brenus.
b)getting land scouted - locate Gil, locate good sites for cities 3-4-5-6 - pick these preferably towards Gil.
c)more mid term - tech to maces assuming more AI are founded.
And I suggest you take me few notches easier. It is not like I am looking for a bat to check in practice if pigs can fly or something.
Similar threads
