SGOTM 02 - Smurkz

[Marc Aurel]

We all think to look for the final settle location in the column of the sheep. Right so!
The river will give additional health. not that unimportant, if we intend to whip production in Osaka rather than to build if we are lacking hammers.
You can continue with hunting I think, but we need to calculate whether after it Mining is better.
I have an alternative concerning the moves. When going 1SE with the warrior, we can let the settler itself scout for the north ending on the tile north of the sheeps. We would not be able to settle the south so fast if we want to then, but I am ATM in any case for settling north of the sheep and only good news from the warrior on the plain hill scouting the land would persuade me to settle south of the sheep and that the warrior would discover the next turn.

 

[Methos]

I have an alternative concerning the moves. When going 1SE with the warrior, we can let the settler itself scout for the north ending on the tile north of the sheeps.

I like this idea, primarily due to the hill view if the warrior goes 1 SE. It would open a lot of land.

 

[Niklas]

Ok, some calculations. Alright, worker costs 90 hammers, so it would take us 23 turns to complete it by working the sheep. Since we'd be settling on turn 4, that means we'd have it out on turn 27, still well under the time when the barbies show up, but not extremely much so. Before settling, we'd be making 12 bpt. After settling that would be, at worst, 5 bpt (assuming -8 maintenance, but +1 from the sheep). Hunting costs 88 beakers, that would take us 14 turns (3 x 12 + 11 x 5 = 91). Mining is 111 beakers, we'd be running at 5 bpt up to turn 17 and after that 7 bpt, which means 17 turns (3 overflow + 3 x 5 + 14 x 7 = 116), so mining would come on turn 31. So perhaps we should go for Mining first, to have it available when the worker comes out. Hunting isn't really of value to us anyway, other than as on the way to Archery, so there's no reason not to take Mining first.

Or rather, there's one big reason. The big question is, do we dare not beeline for Archery? Only if we can answer yes to that question can we even consider a worker first.

I agree with MA on taking the warrior SE, since we're thinking about taking the settler N-ish. But I'm really hesitant about what to do research-wise, we should really decide on that before Methos plays on.

EDIT: I'm going to need to take a break, will probably be back in half an hour or so . I'll do some calculations in the mean time. If you guys decide that we should chance it, by all means go ahead and play.
EDIT again: I'll calculate archery first before I go, hang on.

 

[Methos]

Or rather, there's one big reason. The big question is, do we dare not beeline for Archery? Only if we can answer yes to that question can we even consider a worker first.

Note that in a couple of my test games I built a barracks first before building units. Granted, that increased the abilities of the units, so may not compare.

But I'm really hesitant about what to do research-wise, we should really decide on that before Methos plays on.

I'm hesitant to not go for Archery first, due to raging barbarians. I've played several SG's with raging barbarians on and they suck! I understand wanting Mining first due to the gems though.

Question is, with the gems improved how soon could we get Archery?

Edit: If we go Mining>Hunting>Archery>BW how fast will the improved gems speed things up?

 

[Methos]

EDIT: I'm going to need to take a break, will probably be back in half an hour or so

Please remember, that I sleep during the day, so lets not take too long. We can always halt after a while and finish later tonight. I could probably make it about another hour maybe.

 

[Niklas]

I know you need to sleep. Either you decide to play on without waiting for me, I would be fine with that, or we can play again together later tonight (for us GMT+1-ers).

Hmm, my calculation are off again, didn't consider the +1 gpt from the CC of Osaka. So Hunting would take 12 turns (3 x 12 + 9 x 6 = 90), and then 15 turns to Mining (5 x 6 + 10 x 8 + 2 overflow = 112) to bring it in on turn 27, same turn that the worker comes out. So you can safely continue researching Hunting in any case. So go ahead and play another turn and post another screenie!

EDIT: Continued.

The worker comes out on turn 27, that means the mine will be complete on turn 33. Somewhere around this time Kyoto will grow to size 3, bringing in another 2 bpt, I'm going to assume that it happens on turn 30, you can easily check this in a test game turn log, I don't have time right now. Anyway, this means three turns of research at 6 bpt, then another 3 at 8 bpt before the mine is finished. Switch to working the gems instead for 14 bpt, and we'll have Archery in 13 turns (3 x 6 + 3 x 8 + 7 x 14 + 1 overflow = 141), i.e. on turn 40. While researching Archery we can build another warrior, and the first warrior should stick around for defense, so we'll have two warriors on turn 40 and building archers.

 

[Marc Aurel]

I have made up my mind concerning the research. I do not dare to go for mining first and would continue with the hunting-> archery route. There is a simple reason. The improved mine on the grass can be destroyed very fast. What would we do having only one defender (even an archer) in Osaka if a barb archer moves on that tile. Attacking him we have a under 50% chance cause we have to cross the river! Otherwise I fear he will destroy the mine first and then go attacking Osaka, cause his chances to conquer Osaka are really bad. That pillage often happened in my test games. However not always - sometimes the barbs also attack the city first but we cannot be sure. So I started the worker in my test games not before I had a couple of archers out there to watch on the surrounding hills. However the situation is totally different now and it would require new calculations. Since I cannot do this ATM I trust you guys now to make the correct decisions.

 

[Methos]

I know you need to sleep. Either you decide to play on without waiting for me,

I'd rather wait than continue on. I've opened a pepsi so that'll help.

Will edit in further calculations.

No problem.

MA brings up some good points, though I must say I'm still undecided. With the improved gems I feel we chould speed up our research a lot and could possibly get Archery just a little later than we originally expected. The risk is when will the barbs start showing up, and can we afford to wait those additional turns?

 

[Niklas]

Whatever we do, we should continue on Hunting for now, it will cost us nothing, and we'll have time for Mining before the worker. So you can safely play a few more turns of scouting even while I'm gone.

EDIT: Leaving now, will be back as fast as I can.

 

[Marc Aurel]

Yeah, Methos that's right. We have to rethink. But the next turn seems to be agreed by us three:

Let research on hunting and move settler 2NE, move warrior 1 SE IIRC! So we can just go on 1 turn.

 

[Niklas]

Whoa, move warrior first!

 

[Marc Aurel]

Whoa, move warrior first!

OK. I admit that's better!

 

[Methos]

Turn 1, 3970 BC: Settler NE-NE. That was quick:

View attachment 135064

We meet one of Izzy’s scouts. Warrior SE and we just found our settling location! IMO, it’s between the two gems on the plains tile.

View attachment 135066

Edit: I hope you haven't taken off yet Niklas. Things just got a lot better IMO!
Edit #2: Swapped 2nd attachment, so that it shows tile benefits.

 

[Marc Aurel]

Yes we definitely have found our settling location IMO!

Methos proposal is looking good. However there is one alternative - the hill, the warrior is standing ATM. We would have a plain hill under us, giving us one more production on the center tile and thus meaning very fast early production!
We have gems and one gold on a grass hill! (second happiness resource) and can work the oasis for growth and commerce.
But we would have the rice and also sheep in distance! We would want that stonehenge early to expand!

We would lack the river for health, but have forests to balance this!

I think that is now the point for complex analysis on what is best. But in general that is our settling region. Only that additional hammer in the center would bring me to calculate one alternative to the very good tile between the two gems. Great start - as I believed an embarassment of riches!

 

[Methos]

I would have to disagree with settling on the hill. Until either Stonehenge or an obelisk all we'd have access to was a gem, gold, and one +1 food tile. Though the extra hammer would be nice we'd be short changing IMO Osaka for quite a while.

Granted, we'd get none of the resources until a worker is built, which looks like may be about the time we are working on Stonehenge, so kind of makes the above point moot.

I'm thinking our next move would be warrior south. This would open up the tiles that could decide on whether to settle on the plains hill or between the gems.

Edit: Air Conditioning service man will be here in the next few minutes, so I'll be offline until he leaves. Since I was awake decided to get some things done the wife has been trying to get me to do for about a week now. I'm amazed they're coming over so quickly!

 

[Niklas]

Oh my, to think we wanted to go west... Embarassment of riches indeed, hope that not too many teams walked the wrong way as that would be truly unfair.

Hmm, to choose a settling location. The plains hill definitely seems like a good candidate, but not obviously so. We would lose one turn getting there so Osaka would be delayed one turn. Also the nearest gems are not on the river, so they would only give 6C. On the other hand, we could work the Oasis before the gems are improved, so we'd have both more production and more research up to the point where the worker comes out. I think these are both very strong reasons to settle where MA suggests, but I'm going to do some more calculations to be sure.

 

[Marc Aurel]

I would have to disagree with settling on the hill. Until either Stonehenge or an obelisk all we'd have access to was a gem, gold, and one +1 food tile. Though the extra hammer would be nice we'd be short changing IMO Osaka for quite a while.

Granted, we'd get none of the resources until a worker is built, which looks like may be about the time we are working on Stonehenge, so kind of makes the above point moot.

I'm thinking our next move would be warrior south. This would open up the tiles that could decide on whether to settle on the plains hill or between the gems.

Yes, only thing I was saying is that its now the time for detailed calculation. We would not need to scout further (warrior south doesn't hurt!) to find the general place to settle. Looking at the hill I only had in mind, that it gives this two additional bonusses (the hammer in the center and the food or gold from the oasis). From our test games we know about the time when stonehenge might finish. Otherwise we would definitely want the obelisk no matter whether we settle the hill or between the gems cause in both cases we would get additional resources by culture boost. The hill would have also access to the first Floodplain we have seen at our initial start.
A pity that I cannot do any analyses now. I only have the feeling, that until the culture boost we would be able to live with working the gold the gem and the oasis. However I also saw the benefits of the place between the gems. It'S just a point when I wanted to be really sure by checking what is best. Hope Niklas and you are doing that ATM.

 

[Methos]

Be away from the computer for a little while. Be back in a bit.

 

[Methos]

Ok, I'm back. They probably don't want me looking over their shoulder anyway.

 

[Marc Aurel]

So you can move the warrior south.