SGOTM 02 - Memphis Blues

[KingdomBrunel]

I think the key for the second city (Tokyo?) is defensibility. I would look for a nice piece of coastline to reduce the number of directions that the barbs can come from, and try to hook up bronze/iron/horses with the third city, once the second city is secure. Settling near another civ would be a plus for free fog busting and a good first target.

I think ShannonCT's right here (welcome BTW ). On a river would be good too, as that would give a further penalty to any barbs getting in close enough to attack the city.

The more I think about this start the more horrifying scenarios I think of. Losing that settler is not an option. It would be a long way to astronomy with just Kyoto.

There is a tinge of lighter colour up north of Kyoto isn't there? I'll be looking for the first cultural expansion with great interest. If there is land there, getting a settler in a galley to the mainland is a real option.

I think there is a real possibility we'll be off this island after 2 or 3 cultural expansions. Perhaps not something we should count on, but I think we're likely to be looking at two separate empires. That would make CoL and the forbidden palace something essential early on.

After playing around some more, I'm tending to agree about going for archery before BW

I have no problem with this approach either. However if we settle where we are, I think it's a very defendable position with just warriors. There's coast, river and plenty of forest for the 50% bonus in. I am worried that if we didn't settle until we had archery that we'd still be producing our first or second archer when the barb axemen appear.

 

[Frederiksberg]

In terms of settling, I believe we should do so ASAP, and that 1NW of our current location is the place to do it. We have to take the distance penalty for this settler at some point anyhow, not settling him immediately just costs us the extra hammers, food and commerce. If we were going for an early religion I’d argue differently, but with Fishing & The Wheel as starting techs, I don’t think this is a possibility. We should be able to grow to size 4 in 36 turns, by which point we’ll be generating 5 commerce in (what will be) Tokyo and almost self sufficient.

Thoughts?

I think there are good reasons for moving the Settler. It's true that we loose some production and growth this way, but it's likely that we gain a lot of gold in the long run! The distance maintenance is dependent on the distance to the Palace. For every 4.5 tiles we move closer to the palace we save 1 gpt. If you multiply this with the time it will take before we can move the Palace you are bound to get a large sum. Loosing 6 or 7 turns worth of city growth and hammers seem less important to me. And our 3rd and 4th city will naturally be close to our second so the maintenance saved in these cities come on top of this saving.

 

[KingdomBrunel]

I drew up a turn order based on who turned up when, which is what we did last time, although I swapped Frederiksberg & Radiopill over as Radiopill didn't want to start. Yell if you want to change anything, this just seemed a sensible first draft. Also anyone want the captain role - I'd be happy for Mad Prof to have it as first poster.

Mad Professor
Frederiksberg
Radiopill
KingdomBrunel
ShannonCT

 

[Frederiksberg]

I am worried that if we didn't settle until we had archery that we'd still be producing our first or second archer when the barb axemen appear.

Don't worry . By waiting to settle we speed up the research time towards Archery so our first archer will actually come out earlier!! Settling earlier would only give us an extra warrior.

 

[KingdomBrunel]

Don't worry . By waiting to settle we speed up the research time towards Archery so our first archer will actually come out earlier!! Settling earlier would only give us an extra warrior.

That is exactly my worry. Taking our time to settle, and moving is a huge risk.

 

[Frederiksberg]

After playing around some more, I'm tending to agree about going for archery before BW. I think the key for the second city (Tokyo?) is defensibility. I would look for a nice piece of coastline to reduce the number of directions that the barbs can come from, and try to hook up bronze/iron/horses with the third city, once the second city is secure. Settling near another civ would be a plus for free fog busting and a good first target.

I agree! And I would add that a grassland hill inside the initial 3x3 border is also very nice because it is easy to defend a mine on a hill due to the hills defense promotion of the archers.

 

[Frederiksberg]

That is exactly my worry. Taking our time to settle, and moving is a huge risk.

You worry becuse we get the archer earlier

 

[ShannonCT]

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

 

[BSouder]

Sorry I am late checking in, I hadn't checked for the new threads in a couple of days.

This game is definately going to be interesting.

So far I agree with where the concensus appears to be going. Defense has to be our number one priority for a while, and to me that means going for the sure bet of archery first before taking the gamble for metals. However, after archery BW should still be a very high priority since Kyoto is the poster child for pop rushing (and also an excellent candidate for a GP farm later).

I don't really disagree with delaying settling, the maintenance cost would be a killer. But, to play devil's advocate a bit...delaying too long might be more of a gamble than we want. The longer we delay the longer we get to run at a decent science rate but also the longer before the city grows, before we produce more scouts, before we produce our first worker, etc. Also keep in mind that animals won't appear for a few turns (the 6-8 turns mentioned sounds about right) but animals won't attack a city while they have no problem eating a settler.

 

[KingdomBrunel]

You worry becuse we get the archer earlier

No. I worry that we'll need the extra warrior, and that going for archery leaves us vulnerable.

 

[KingdomBrunel]

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

That's reassuring .

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

I don't think settling in place is playing it safe - as we'd effectively start with no science. My thoughts for suggesting it are based on if we can settle immediately or close to it, and we can survive until we have the city paying for itself, then we are in a stronger position than if we delayed settling for 30 or 35 turns (which is how long archery will take to get). Also, the gpt loss is only in effect until we get the forbidden palace, but the benefits of an early settle are forever. However, if we want to go west for a bit (up to say 10turns), and can bring the maintenance down to say, 5gpt, then I guess I have no big problem with that.

BTW: I calculate archery: 60beakers for hunting, 90 for archery.

Pop 1: 3 commerce* 17 turns = 51
Pop 2: 5 commerce* 13ish turns = 65 (food increase at 8? turns)
Pop 3: 7 commerce*5 turns = 35
Total = 35 turns.

Then (assuming 2hammers): 19 turns to build an archer.
Total = 54 turns.

 

[KingdomBrunel]

Sorry I am late checking in, I hadn't checked for the new threads in a couple of days.

Good to see you back.

Defense has to be our number one priority for a while, and to me that means going for the sure bet of archery first before taking the gamble for metals. However, after archery BW should still be a very high priority since Kyoto is the poster child for pop rushing (and also an excellent candidate for a GP farm later).

I agree with all of that.

 

[radiopill]

The early risk from moving comes from the animals only. Running at full research to archery before settling has given me time to build 1-2 archers in Tokyo before I saw any barb in my test games. Settling in place effectively doubles the research time to archery, in which case we're forced to mount a defense with warriors.

Is the animal risk worth taking? I would say yes. The risk can be minimized with tactical movement, and the danger period will only begin after turn 6-8. I am inclined to start off with a bolder opening than other teams may play because I dont think we can make a good showing playing it safe. I'm not sure we can even finish this game playing it safe. It's not like SGOTM1 where you were basically set up to win.

I don't really disagree with delaying settling, the maintenance cost would be a killer. But, to play devil's advocate a bit...delaying too long might be more of a gamble than we want. The longer we delay the longer we get to run at a decent science rate but also the longer before the city grows, before we produce more scouts, before we produce our first worker, etc. Also keep in mind that animals won't appear for a few turns (the 6-8 turns mentioned sounds about right) but animals won't attack a city while they have no problem eating a settler.

I'd say, let's scout "safely" a little with our settler during 6-8 turns then we can decide whether we settle (if we have found a good spot) or we keep running 5-10 more turns until we found a spot (or we have reached the closest point to kyoto).

 

[radiopill]

However, if we want to go west for a bit (up to say 10turns), and can bring the maintenance down to say, 5gpt, then I guess I have no big problem with that.

You all talked to go west, and I don't understand why it is closer than by east..?

I just made this map using kyoto as a scale and for me it seems that going east is the fastest way to "home"...

 

[ShannonCT]

You all talked to go west, and I don't understand why it is closer than by east..?

I just made this map using kyoto as a scale and for me it seems that going east is the fastest way to "home"...

By that map, the board would only be 51 tiles accross east-west. But it should actually be 84 for a standard map. So the minimap we see is incomplete. I think your map does verify that Kyoto is only 36 tiles to the west of the settler.

There are still too many unknowns to know the best course. There might be a great spot to settle within 8 turns reach (a gold hill and some flood plains would be nice). We might hit the end of the continent or an impassable border after going west for a while and have an obvious choice. Or Kyoto's border expansion might connect to the coast and make it better to save our settler to hook up a strategic resource and run at 100% research to BW so Kyoto can pop a settling party.

Mad Professor certainly will have an interesting first 20 turns. We should discuss further when we get some screenshots.

 

[AlanH]

I'm going to play my broken record one last time for each team:

Please also subscribe to the Maintenance Thread for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

Anything I post there will NOT be repeated individually in every team thread. You may even find some useful information there now

 

[Mad Professor]

I'm going to play my broken record one last time for each team:



Anything I post there will NOT be repeated individually in every team thread. You may even find some useful information there now

For those who haven't checked yet, AlanH confirmed the calculation that the maintenance cost for the second city planted where the settler currently is would be 7gpt per turn.

I like the idea of trying to reduce this a little, but I don't like the idea of the settler wandering for too long. If we can reduce by 1gpt for each 4.5 tiles we get closer to Kyoto, it might be worth moving for a short while westwards. I'm not sure if we're all happy with one way or another on this subject yet...?

Does anyone have any objections to the playing order KingdomBrunel posted?

So we're going for Hunting->Archery first up for tech then? Then afterward mining->BW? Is this what I see people suggesting, or is this not settled yet?

 

[Mad Professor]

Also anyone want the captain role - I'd be happy for Mad Prof to have it as first poster.

Captain? <chuckle> I could do that as long as no-one gets the idea that means I know more about this game than the rest of you! I won't argue if someone else wants the job.

 

[radiopill]

By that map, the board would only be 51 tiles accross east-west. But it should actually be 84 for a standard map. So the minimap we see is incomplete. I think your map does verify that is Kyoto only 36 tiles to the west of the settler.

OK, now it's clearer for me. Thx

There are still too many unknowns to know the best course. There might be a great spot to settle within 8 turns reach (a gold hill and some flood plains would be nice). We might hit the end of the continent or an impassable border after going west for a while and have an obvious choice. Or Kyoto's border expansion might connect to the coast and make it better to save our settler to hook up a strategic resource and run at 100% research to BW so Kyoto can pop a settling party.

Mad Professor certainly will have an interesting first 20 turns. We should discuss further when we get some screenshots.

I agree with that, we should wait until deciding that to do with our settler. That's the reason why, I think MadProf should divide is turnset in 2 turnset of 10 turns... so we can have better overview of the situation...

Does anyone have any objections to the playing order KingdomBrunel posted?

Nope, that's fine, with me.

 

[radiopill]

So we're going for Hunting->Archery first up for tech then? Then afterward mining->BW? Is this what I see people suggesting, or is this not settled yet?

It looks like the best way to survive. But we need to think about middle/long term research also... IMO we should aim for CS/machinery asap, so we can use of our (powerfull..?) UU. I never played Toku, so I don't know how usefull samuraïs are, but the 2 first strikes could be really handy in our conquest plan...