SGOTM 06 - The Real Ms. Beyond

Swiss Pauli · Feb 10, 2008

Compromise said:
Anyone very experienced with a specialist economy? It might be of use to us here since we're likely to overexpand quickly. (Probably already have done so.)

Yeah, I've used it a fair bit lately. Obviously we don't have Pyramids, so it's more of an emergency option for us. However, seeing as we want to keep warring then Currency is huge tech for us because of wealth building. If we decide we have enough troops we can put cities like Corinth on wealth and keep ourselves afloat. I can't remember what the conversion of :hammers:

to

is in Warlords. Anyone know? This will tell us whether CoL or Currency has higher priority for us.

Kodii · Feb 10, 2008

T0 275AD- I cancel Corinth's library, whip Athens' library

IBT - Mansa founds exactly where Swiss predicted

T1 290AD - Whip overflow in Athens is put into Barracks.

T2 305AD - Hadrumetum has rice, along with the cattle

IBT - Confucianism is FIADL

T3 320AD - Bombardment of Hadrumetum begins

IBT - Christianity spreads to Thebes

T4 335AD - Bombardment continues

T5 350AD - Athens completes Barracks, begins a WB; I pause here

We need to decide whether or not to keep Hadrumetum. We also need to decide what to do with the GG we just got in Corinth. I brought Hadrumetum down to a single defender without any losses.

I say no, just because we don't need any more cities, and we have iron already.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/The_Real_Ms_Beyond_SG006_AD0350_01.CivWarlordsSave

Spoiler :

LKendter · Feb 10, 2008

Kodii said:
We need to decide whether or not to keep Hadrumetum. We also need to decide what to do with the GG we just got in Corinth. I brought Hadrumetum down to a single defender without any losses.

My vote is raze that puppy. +5 at 0% science says we want afford any cities. I hope we can pillage like crazy. We need to get researching again.

sunrise089 · Feb 11, 2008

Yeah, let's raze.

As far as my place in the roster goes, I haven't yet taken the time to uninstall and then re-install in release order all three Civ games, which I assume if the proper fix for me. I will also be out of state at a friend's wedding next weekend as well, so perhaps I could trade with whoever is up Wed or Thurs if I can get my install sorted out by then.

Swiss Pauli · Feb 11, 2008

I say keep, because it has good food and production (and some commerce potential), but it looks like I'll be out-voted.

Swiss Pauli · Feb 11, 2008

Can we please get an exploring WB out of Athens during the next set? We really need to know the answer to the Ragnar-gate question.

EDIT: Kodii, I guess you're planning to continue tonight?

Kodii · Feb 11, 2008

Yes I will continue. I was hoping to hear from Compromise too regarding Hadrumetum, but thats okay. Athens already has a WB ordered up, which should be completed near the end of my turnset.

Kodii · Feb 11, 2008

T5 350AD - I raze Hadrumetum because we don't need another city just yet, and we can always resettle it later. Unfortunately, in the final assault, I lost a spearman at 83.7% odds. :mad:

IBT - Christianity spreads to Athens; Parthenon and Pyramids BIADL

T8 395AD - Begin the march to Carthage

T10 425AD - WB completed in Athens and begins the journey to Ragnar-gate

T11 440AD - Our troops are in place beside Carthage, and I end here

Several notes:

- The Oracle has yet to be built... I'm tempted to start it :lol:

- The troop convergence in Corinth can be send to quickly raze Kerkouane
- We have a GG in Corinth, awaiting orders
- Our troops at Carthage should bombard then attack, I vote to keep it
- Our WB (SS Ragnargate) is making its way up the coast
- Our workers have generally fully developed both Athens and Corinth, and are now at Thebes to make some cottage cheese
- The entire southern tundra has been scouted, and we spot some land to the east to be discovered

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/saves/civ4sgotm6/The_Real_Ms_Beyond_SG006_AD0440_01.CivWarlordsSave

Spoiler :

Compromise · Feb 11, 2008

Be sure to keep Hadrumetum.

No, just kidding. I'd actually started a reply to this post and thought I posted it, but I must've closed out before hitting "submit."

I actually didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Hadrumetum. I don't think it'll affect our game too much.

Good work Kodii. I hope to be able to look things over tonight or early tomorrow to post more thoughts. With sunrise out, I think I'm up.

Edit: This is my 1000th post!

Swiss Pauli · Feb 12, 2008

Let's keep Carthage, heal and head onwards and upwards!

TheArchduke · Feb 12, 2008

We need to keep Carthage but we definetly need to appoint some scientists soon and repair our economy soonish.

Atm I doubt we can even afford to keep Timbuktu, though we should continue to clean out the AIs in any case.

Btw, who is next?

LKendter · Feb 12, 2008

Do we have enough cash to research CoL yet? We can't keep ignoring science.

I was disgusted that I had to shut research off, and it still isn't back. We've hit the exact point I fear with AW - economic stagnation.

Swiss Pauli · Feb 12, 2008

There's nothing to fear in this situation: most AW games have all the Civs on one landmass, which is not the case here. And we're simply having a spell in binary research

sunrise089 · Feb 12, 2008

The counterbalances to economic stagnation are as follows:

1) We get cash from taking each city, so we can binary research.

2) We're knocking out competitors, so there is less need to keep up research.

3) Most importantly, we're upping our land and population far above what it would be in a peaceful game, so whatever science we can make from a couple scientists per city or from 20% research once our troops are inside our lands ends up being more total beakers per turn than it would be in a small empire.

I'm convinced knocking out AIs is much better than allowing them to trickle attack us until we develop some hypothetical late-game advantage...after all, how much more favorable can it get than Jumbos and Cats vs Archers?

LKendter · Feb 12, 2008

sunrise089 said:
I'm convinced knocking out AIs is much better than allowing them to trickle attack us until we develop some hypothetical late-game advantage...after all, how much more favorable can it get than Jumbos and Cats vs. Archers?

I am not saying that we stop beating up AIs.

However, I feel like I am the only team member that wants to get science moving forward and it is quite frustrating.

TheArchduke · Feb 12, 2008

I am with LKendter on this one, we need to reestablish research quickly, probably with some scientists to get vital techs.

Carthage must be taken imo, but we need to be ready to take the fallout from it now. We need specialists and quickly so.

sunrise089 · Feb 12, 2008

TheArchduke said:
I am with LKendter on this one, we need to reestablish research quickly, probably with some scientists to get vital techs.

Carthage must be taken imo, but we need to be ready to take the fallout from it now. We need specialists and quickly so.

Oh I agree as well...to the point that I favor doing what is necessary to create as many beakers while continuing the war. I think LK and TheArchduke are suggesting the right micro-level strategies to keep our tech going, and in fact don't really see a general difference of opinion here.

Where I see a gap between members of the team is simply how concerned we are about the tech rate

So long as we agree that we want to continue the war, then any micro decisions that preserve tech are no-brainers. But if we are continuing the offensive, why let a low tech rate bother us? I don't think the more hawkish players in the roster are actually disagreeing with you LK, it's just that we realize there's only so much we can do to help science right now.

LKendter · Feb 12, 2008

sunrise089 said:
But if we are continuing the offensive, why let a low tech rate bother us? I don't think the more hawkish players in the roster are actually disagreeing with you LK; it's just that we realize there's only so much we can do to help science right now.

I give up on this argument. It is clear that I am out of sync with the team.

I've suffered too many games of AW hell in solo play, and the common element was scientific self-destruct. I don't have the energy or tolerance to suffer with it again.

TheArchduke · Feb 12, 2008

People, we don´t have ANY research right now.

We can´t afford too many turns of that and we should definetly turn this around now.

sunrise089 · Feb 12, 2008

LKendter said:
I give up on this argument. It is clear that I am out of sync with the team.

I've suffered too many games of AW hell in solo play, and the common element was scientific self-destruct. I don't have the energy or tolerance to suffer with it again.

LK - I apologize if I'm coming off as argumentative, I'm really not trying to, I simply fail to see what the actual argument is.

Reading all of the recent posts, I fail to see two different courses of action being dictated. Instead I see a series of posts discussing how to manage the war and press forward, and another series lamenting our economic condition. I don't (but admittedly I may have missed something) see the hawks suggesting we not try and generate beakers, and I don't see you or Archduke suggesting we stop the war. So is there any argument?

If you're simply suggesting that I should be taking the economy more seriously...then I suppose that's a fair criticism, but I can't see how that matters unless there's actually a difference of opinion regarding how to proceed.

Now as far as economic stagnation goes, I may not have the AW experience that LK does, but I know in my experience stagnation brought about by a land grab once Code of Laws and Currency are available is rarely a bad thing. IMHO, several different game mechanics make a large empire almost always able to catch up from economic stagnation. The only times I've seen stagnation prove fatal are when an AI kills the player with superior units (which seems less likely rather then more when all of the AIs on our continent are dead) or when the player expands too early and is forced to stop expanding with LESS land than the AIs. Do you really think we're going to be behind in tech long term with all of the land on our entire continent (at least 4 civs worth) cottaged?

I will share one experience from a recent game - BtS, Continents, Emperor. I had a gem of a settler producing capital, and a large ammount of available land. I expanded to SEVEN cities by around 800BC. I lost a city to the barbs and re-founded. I was declared on by Monty (of course) and defended by whipping warriors! I didn't research WRITING until around 400AD. And since it was continents, the AIs on the other continent were teching up a storm.

What happened? I won Liberalism. I had such a huge land advantage that my tech soon left the other AIs in the dust. The game penalized the leading civs with no tech discount, gave me discounts on all the already-researched techs, and the way the tech price curve slopes meant that I was researching techs in 1-2 turns on Epic speed. The ONLY danger of me not winning such a game was one of the other AIs declaring on me, and I made sure that Monty was dogpiled and eliminated (more land for me) and the other AIs on my continent were treated like royalty. Now, if I could catch up on Emperor difficulty (ok, maybe more like Monarch in Warlords), don't you think we can catch up on Prince with the other AIs generating units due to war conditions?

SGOTM 06 - The Real Ms. Beyond

Emperor

Ka ICE

Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!!!

Not that good

Emperor

Emperor

Ka ICE

Ka ICE

Emperor

Emperor

Feeling at home..

Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!!!

Emperor

Not that good

Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!!!

Feeling at home..

Not that good

Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!!!

Feeling at home..

Not that good

Similar threads