SGOTM 10 - Smurkz
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
I doubt you have much to fear. I'm proud of the game, but it didn't exactly burn up the record books. 
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Finished! Too tired to post in the thread or read yours (other than to check that I did manage to beat you, Renata, though not by as much as , er, I might have hoped. 
) All righty then, time to get serious about this SGOTM! If only we could get Windows to work on the Mac--tried last weekend but no luck. We still have a week or two of free Apple phone support, as opposed to Microsoft, who want $60 for a phone call! We'll get it running one way or another.
) All righty then, time to get serious about this SGOTM! If only we could get Windows to work on the Mac--tried last weekend but no luck. We still have a week or two of free Apple phone support, as opposed to Microsoft, who want $60 for a phone call! We'll get it running one way or another.
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Those who have commented seem to agree that moving a 2-move unit (settler or scout) to one of the gold hills is our next move. Since it seems very likely that we'll want to settle one of our two initial cities east, I agree with zyxy's suggestion to move one settler SE-SE to the western gold hill and save the explorer for something else. BL, do you agree, or do you think it's better to use the explorer instead to see the whole area to the SE this turn? If you agree, I'd say do that and edit your test game accordingly so we can start MMing test games. I'm finally ready to help! And Renata is no doubt chomping at the bit, too.
And Renata is no doubt chomping at the bit, too.
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
After much deliberation moving one settler 2 SE to the grassland gold would probably be the prudent move. We're likely going to settle a city there as one of our first two, so putting him in the general vicinity can only help us. The explorer should probably go 2 SW to explore to our west. That is most likely our best bet to meet the other civs. The two longbows then the following turn can move onto their respective hills. I think we'll be safe moving the longbows around for 5 - 6 turns or so depending on how tightly packed the civs are. In my test games I found barbs to be pretty well negated due to the map being small and the addition of another civ on top of it.
I should point out I haven't tested the move yet to see exactly what we reveal and most likely won't have time to do so tonight. I'd like to see what the settler move 2 SE reveals, though.
The other thing we should discuss is where to settle after the land is revealed. In my games I settled my capital 1 SW of the starting location and was able to pop out two work boats by turn 8. I should also note that this is possible from where we start as well, but I'm of the belief we should settle things more to the west to snag as much land as possible.
There's our civic choices for this turn. I ran a few more tests and was blown away with how strong serfdom is. Since our cities start with 2 pop and a granary, we grow pretty quickly. That said, we want to work as many improved tiles as possible and serfdom gets forests chopped, farms built and mines placed significantly faster to make a big difference. I don't have time right now to post the number differences but if someone is feeling adventurous I'm sure we'd all like to see how big a difference it is. I'd vote HR/Bureau/Serf/Mercantilism as our swap.
Finally we have to decide whether or not we wish to run a religion post turn 6.
Pros:
I should point out I haven't tested the move yet to see exactly what we reveal and most likely won't have time to do so tonight. I'd like to see what the settler move 2 SE reveals, though.
The other thing we should discuss is where to settle after the land is revealed. In my games I settled my capital 1 SW of the starting location and was able to pop out two work boats by turn 8. I should also note that this is possible from where we start as well, but I'm of the belief we should settle things more to the west to snag as much land as possible.
There's our civic choices for this turn. I ran a few more tests and was blown away with how strong serfdom is. Since our cities start with 2 pop and a granary, we grow pretty quickly. That said, we want to work as many improved tiles as possible and serfdom gets forests chopped, farms built and mines placed significantly faster to make a big difference. I don't have time right now to post the number differences but if someone is feeling adventurous I'm sure we'd all like to see how big a difference it is. I'd vote HR/Bureau/Serf/Mercantilism as our swap.
Finally we have to decide whether or not we wish to run a religion post turn 6.
Pros:
- Extra happiness
- Slightly better culture
- Religious civics, specifically Pacifism to pop GP. OR is another possibility, but I'd wager 100% faster GP outweighs any 25% building bonus.
- Likely diplomatic repercussions. When I stayed out of a religion, I noticed I was never the worst enemy of someone right off the bat. Most of the time they had someone else as their worst enemy.
- That's it really, but to me the first point is worth 2 points because of how big an impact I think it is.
Yeah, I can't really argue with that reasoning (about religion). It's just too dangerous, especially with our variant ruleset. We need to be expanding, not defending ourselves against religious nutjobs.
Not 100% sold on Serfdom yet, but it's very tempting. It really does make the work go quickly.
Not 100% sold on Serfdom yet, but it's very tempting. It really does make the work go quickly.
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
I have run one test game up to Biology, on quick speed. The start situation seemed a bit worse than what we have in the present game, with more food but no metals and little happiness resources.
I switched to HR, Bureau, CS, and Merc, and to FR later in the game. CS allowed scientists right from the start, for an early academy and popping Education, which allowed me to be first at Liberalism. I am not sure whether this is worth it or whether it is even necessary to get a free tech (after all, trade is also an option), and perhaps Serfdom would have been the better choice.
I left science at 0% until Library and academy were up in Moscow, which should be more efficient than running full science right from the start. A difficulty that I didn't manage very well is building Oxford. It requires 5 cities with universities which takes along time to set up. This may actually be the critical constraint on early development.
I had no state religion and diplomacy went quite easy: I am nobody's worst enemy, can trade reasonably well, and am at the head with research. The game has seen only two wars sofar, one just started between two AI's and one further in the past between me and my neighbor Cyrus, which I started to keep him down. This worked quite well I think - at least Cyrus is now by far the weakest civ. He was weakend because my two longbows parked in his lands prevented him from improving the land, and forced him to spend enormously on military (he discovered that catapults don't win from longbows ). Funny thing is that he sneaked an undefended settler past my longbows, founding city that I just could have walked into except for the special rule of this game...
Barb cities are a bit of a nuisance. Apart from that, no trouble with them.
I switched to HR, Bureau, CS, and Merc, and to FR later in the game. CS allowed scientists right from the start, for an early academy and popping Education, which allowed me to be first at Liberalism. I am not sure whether this is worth it or whether it is even necessary to get a free tech (after all, trade is also an option), and perhaps Serfdom would have been the better choice.
I left science at 0% until Library and academy were up in Moscow, which should be more efficient than running full science right from the start. A difficulty that I didn't manage very well is building Oxford. It requires 5 cities with universities which takes along time to set up. This may actually be the critical constraint on early development.
I had no state religion and diplomacy went quite easy: I am nobody's worst enemy, can trade reasonably well, and am at the head with research. The game has seen only two wars sofar, one just started between two AI's and one further in the past between me and my neighbor Cyrus, which I started to keep him down. This worked quite well I think - at least Cyrus is now by far the weakest civ. He was weakend because my two longbows parked in his lands prevented him from improving the land, and forced him to spend enormously on military (he discovered that catapults don't win from longbows
). Funny thing is that he sneaked an undefended settler past my longbows, founding city that I just could have walked into except for the special rule of this game...Barb cities are a bit of a nuisance. Apart from that, no trouble with them.
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
I played the test game to turn 50 and am joining the chorus saying that serfdom beats caste system, at least for the early game. Our cities are too busy growing to run many specs and there are a lot of improvements that need to be made. As zyxy pointed out, settlers are very expensive in advanced starts so we should emphasize workers more. I built 5 workers in my game along with 2 barracks, 2 libraries, a caravel, and one settler (with 1 more in 4 turns). Pops were 9 in Moscow and St Pete and 2 in Novgorod. [Edit: I also built a warrior (in 3rd city, which wasn't hooked up to metal), archer, and crossbow to help with defense and happiness. I'm very impressed BL had 4 cities by turn 43 (see post 36. Did you have time to build any buildings?]
I settled 1 SW and, mostly for grins, 2 E for St Pete. I wanted to get the iron in the BFC, while also keeping both golds and the wheat and corn. It's not clear if that was a good idea--depends on what we see in the sea out east. The first worker action was to chop the forest due S of the settlers so the hammers went to Moscow's first build, a workboat. After building culture for 1 turn (to nab more seafood via cultural expansion) I finished another workboat on turn 6. That seems to be a good sequence for fast growth. As BL recommended, I farmed the tile W of the rice and wheat to irrigate them.
The first GP was an Eng on turn 35, which I used to rush Angkor Wat. Sistine Chapel went to the AI at turn 20, Notre Dame at 28, Sankore at 36, Shwed at 49. The 3 AI I met all settled their 3rd cities around turn 40, just as I did. I saw a barb city on turn 25 and a barb galley on 33. At 100% research on turn 50 I was making 80 bpt with -13 gpt, with 19 hpt in Moscow and 18 in St Pete. The 3rd city was out west in the spot with 2 gems, 2 gold, spices, and cows and several workers were furiously improving the land. BL's test game sounded pretty good, maybe better.
From other comments it seems that we're pretty well agreed on serfdom to start, and moving one settler SE-SE with the explorer SW-SW also looks best, with Moscow to be founded SW of the starting spot. The worker should move 1E and start chopping. Shall we give BL the green light to finish up the first turn and revolt?
[Edit: Hmm, maybe we should wait on moving the 2nd settler (the one that is tentatively planned to found Moscow after moving SW) until we move the other settler this turn, to see more of the E and SE.]
I settled 1 SW and, mostly for grins, 2 E for St Pete. I wanted to get the iron in the BFC, while also keeping both golds and the wheat and corn. It's not clear if that was a good idea--depends on what we see in the sea out east. The first worker action was to chop the forest due S of the settlers so the hammers went to Moscow's first build, a workboat. After building culture for 1 turn (to nab more seafood via cultural expansion) I finished another workboat on turn 6. That seems to be a good sequence for fast growth. As BL recommended, I farmed the tile W of the rice and wheat to irrigate them.
The first GP was an Eng on turn 35, which I used to rush Angkor Wat. Sistine Chapel went to the AI at turn 20, Notre Dame at 28, Sankore at 36, Shwed at 49. The 3 AI I met all settled their 3rd cities around turn 40, just as I did. I saw a barb city on turn 25 and a barb galley on 33. At 100% research on turn 50 I was making 80 bpt with -13 gpt, with 19 hpt in Moscow and 18 in St Pete. The 3rd city was out west in the spot with 2 gems, 2 gold, spices, and cows and several workers were furiously improving the land. BL's test game sounded pretty good, maybe better.
From other comments it seems that we're pretty well agreed on serfdom to start, and moving one settler SE-SE with the explorer SW-SW also looks best, with Moscow to be founded SW of the starting spot. The worker should move 1E and start chopping. Shall we give BL the green light to finish up the first turn and revolt?
[Edit: Hmm, maybe we should wait on moving the 2nd settler (the one that is tentatively planned to found Moscow after moving SW) until we move the other settler this turn, to see more of the E and SE.]
Hi, probably still out of any civ-ing for this week. Doubt that it matters, but I should be swapped if needed 
I was striked by one thing reading the thread, it is that if settlers are expensive (agreed with zyxy/XCal comments) new cities comes with buildings and 2 pop (making pre-enhancing tiles even better if doable), which compensates a little. Just though it was worth mentionning. Forge+Gold = one more happy citizen
I was striked by one thing reading the thread, it is that if settlers are expensive (agreed with zyxy/XCal comments) new cities comes with buildings and 2 pop (making pre-enhancing tiles even better if doable), which compensates a little. Just though it was worth mentionning. Forge+Gold = one more happy citizen
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
Before we finish the turn, I would like to raise some points for discussion:
- What is good about the site 1 SW? It has a lot of food, but little else.
- I am not convinced that chopping is the best first use of a worker. A chop is a one time bonus, whereas an improved tile is a value forever. Maybe the benefit of an early workboat (or worker) will offset the loss of worker turns, I don't know.
- I also think Serfdom is better. However, not taking Caste System may cost us the free tech from Liberalism. Moreover, it may be a while until we get Liberalism and the next civics change, so we are excluding Caste System for quite some time. I think that we can do without the free tech, and without Caste System for a while, but it is good to realize this.
(Why may it cost us the Liberalism tech? Well, in both my test games on quick speed, the AI discover Liberalism after about 33 turns. This corresponds to 75 turns on epic speed. Edu + Lib costs 3900 beakers (on Epic speed, taking 20% discount into account). That's 52 beakers per turn. I think that this cannot be achieved without the additional scientists and possibly a GS-bulbed Education that you only get with Caste System, or perhaps with a really early library). - BL's testsave is rather different from what I have seen sofar. In my try, it was quite easy to get Liberalism on turn 66 (with start turn counted as 0; this is turn 343 as the game counts) because none of the AI went for Education and in general they all seemed to research very slow. I used a GS to pop Edu but in hindsight it probably wasn't necessary. Probably I can get Economics first as well, which is rather extraordinary. Moscow was settled 2E, and St Pete's SW-SW-W on the ivory. First settler was out on turn 30 (307), second and third on turns 46 and 49 (323 and 326). Initial build order in both cities was worker -> library -> settler. The first worker improved corn, rice, gold. Barbs were not troublesome except one barb city blocked the rice/gems location.
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Gahhh!! 
How are we going to decide what to do? One other thing to think about is that if we settle either in place or 1S (or 1E, but that doesn't seem like a good idea) then we will have an automatic irrigation link to the rice and corn without having to build a farm. And yes, settling in place gives us 3 seafood plus iron plus the free plains hill hammer. We could run a lot of specialists with that, and we wouldn't be wasting a forest either.
We almost certainly want to have both gold hills in the 2nd city's BFC, right? To work those hills and still be able to grow decently that city will need both the rice and corn, unless there's some seafood to the S or E. We really need to see what's down there. Maybe it is best after all to send the explorer SE-SE; he can see everything, while if we send the settler he won't be able to see E of the eastern gold hill. If we go with the explorer he could move SW-SW (or SW-S) next turn, which isn't a bad direction to explore.
How about if we move the explorer SE-SE and then do a real analysis of where to settle? At least count the food, hammers, and commerce to start and when built-out, which we haven't done yet. The test games have been useful for getting a rough feel for what/when things are likely to happen, but we could be a lot more quantitative if we felt like it. Are we willing to put in that effort? I think that knowing what's beyond those hills would make our planning a lot easier--let's go look!
How are we going to decide what to do? One other thing to think about is that if we settle either in place or 1S (or 1E, but that doesn't seem like a good idea) then we will have an automatic irrigation link to the rice and corn without having to build a farm. And yes, settling in place gives us 3 seafood plus iron plus the free plains hill hammer. We could run a lot of specialists with that, and we wouldn't be wasting a forest either.We almost certainly want to have both gold hills in the 2nd city's BFC, right? To work those hills and still be able to grow decently that city will need both the rice and corn, unless there's some seafood to the S or E. We really need to see what's down there. Maybe it is best after all to send the explorer SE-SE; he can see everything, while if we send the settler he won't be able to see E of the eastern gold hill. If we go with the explorer he could move SW-SW (or SW-S) next turn, which isn't a bad direction to explore.
How about if we move the explorer SE-SE and then do a real analysis of where to settle? At least count the food, hammers, and commerce to start and when built-out, which we haven't done yet. The test games have been useful for getting a rough feel for what/when things are likely to happen, but we could be a lot more quantitative if we felt like it. Are we willing to put in that effort? I think that knowing what's beyond those hills would make our planning a lot easier--let's go look!
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
To answer some things:
Settling SW. Merely to try something different. It's obvious settling in place would be best for having only one settler, but I'd like to snag as much land as possible early. We have no idea how close the AI are to us. I also like the idea of having an Iron/Fish/Mined hills third city as our military pump. Work the fish and Iron, mine a hill or two, maybe run some irrigated farms up here and we have a high pop high-hammer production center that can build both army and naval units quickly. Remember we do need triremes to guard our seafood. In my view with the resources available and starting buildings our cities are going to grow pretty large right from the start, so we really shouldn't cram them all together.
Just an outside the box thought: Anyone think we should settle in place and save the second settler to use as a "block the AI" city? Depending on the scouted land and considering our ruleset, we might want to do this...
On Liberalism: We basically have two choices: fast teching early via Caste System or fast horizontal expansion through working improved tiles. Since we cannot capture cities until nukes I feel it is paramount we settle as many cities as possible. Land is power, and the bigger our core is the better position we'll be in later for our conquests. With this in mind, this means some slow research early on. I think our builds should be settlers, workers, and military units alone until we're out of land to settle. We can run specialists later once we've established our borders. Basically I'm saying the hell with liberalism.
Capital/2nd city. Yea, both gold in its borders is a must. I've even considered making this site the capital for a much larger bureau bonus. There's a few drawbacks to this, namely increased maintenance costs for each city settled west and the subsequent second city builds things slower (namely work boats).
When I get home I'll move the explorer 2 SE to see if there's fish floating around.
Settling SW. Merely to try something different. It's obvious settling in place would be best for having only one settler, but I'd like to snag as much land as possible early. We have no idea how close the AI are to us. I also like the idea of having an Iron/Fish/Mined hills third city as our military pump. Work the fish and Iron, mine a hill or two, maybe run some irrigated farms up here and we have a high pop high-hammer production center that can build both army and naval units quickly. Remember we do need triremes to guard our seafood. In my view with the resources available and starting buildings our cities are going to grow pretty large right from the start, so we really shouldn't cram them all together.
Just an outside the box thought: Anyone think we should settle in place and save the second settler to use as a "block the AI" city? Depending on the scouted land and considering our ruleset, we might want to do this...
On Liberalism: We basically have two choices: fast teching early via Caste System or fast horizontal expansion through working improved tiles. Since we cannot capture cities until nukes I feel it is paramount we settle as many cities as possible. Land is power, and the bigger our core is the better position we'll be in later for our conquests. With this in mind, this means some slow research early on. I think our builds should be settlers, workers, and military units alone until we're out of land to settle. We can run specialists later once we've established our borders. Basically I'm saying the hell with liberalism.
Capital/2nd city. Yea, both gold in its borders is a must. I've even considered making this site the capital for a much larger bureau bonus. There's a few drawbacks to this, namely increased maintenance costs for each city settled west and the subsequent second city builds things slower (namely work boats).
When I get home I'll move the explorer 2 SE to see if there's fish floating around.
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
The plot thickens:
Spoiler :
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Well, isn't that interesting? As I'm sure someone has already suggested, maybe we want to send the worker SW-SW to scope out as much land as possible before settling? Losing the worker would be very bad but he should be perfectly safe for at least 2 more turns, right? Bah! Having two settlers makes it at least twice as hard to decide what to do!
Good points, BL. I think you're right about pushing for settlers and growth over teching (and libraries) early on. We'll catch up soon enough with more cities than the AI. In my game they didn't settle their 3rd cities until right around turn 40--do you and zyxy recall what happened in your games? Which tile were you thinking of for the 3rd city up north, BL?
Was this question ever resolved: If we do a 2-turn revolt right away, when must our cities be settled to not lose a turn of city activity? I'm wondering if we want to move 1 settler SE-SE to possibly settle 1S of the western gold, but that would mean he couldn't settle N of the cows until the third turn (counting this as the first turn, although its number is 0). Likewise, we could hedge our bets and move the other settler 1SW; he could still settle on the starting location, but not until the 3rd turn.
Good points, BL. I think you're right about pushing for settlers and growth over teching (and libraries) early on. We'll catch up soon enough with more cities than the AI. In my game they didn't settle their 3rd cities until right around turn 40--do you and zyxy recall what happened in your games? Which tile were you thinking of for the 3rd city up north, BL?
Was this question ever resolved: If we do a 2-turn revolt right away, when must our cities be settled to not lose a turn of city activity? I'm wondering if we want to move 1 settler SE-SE to possibly settle 1S of the western gold, but that would mean he couldn't settle N of the cows until the third turn (counting this as the first turn, although its number is 0). Likewise, we could hedge our bets and move the other settler 1SW; he could still settle on the starting location, but not until the 3rd turn.
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
Ouch. Should have kept my mouth shut, because now the explorer moved in the wrong direction... 
Scouting with the worker loses worker turns and I don't really like it. But it may be necessary, or we have to scout with the second settler instead. Or gamble on a settling spot.
Cities gain nothing from settling before turn 2 (counting the starting turn as turn 0).
In my test, AI's founded their third towns in 1465 (2x) (turn 36), 1470 (37), 1510 (45), and 1515 (46).
Concerning settling: capital 2E gets better and better, with contention only from 1 SW - or perhaps SW-SW-W. The numbers are quite convincing (fpt surplus; raw hammers; raw gold).
At size 8, working corn, cows, rice, iron, 2 gold hills, farmed grass and plains hill, the town yields 7; 16; 17. Three more grass tiles are available for cottaging.
Good; the best option at medium size, and a contender at large size.
Some other options:
Settling in place is rather bad, also because it makes it nearly impossible to settle a town to work the gold (or the cow, as we now know).
At size 8, working the 3 seafoods, corn, rice, iron, grass hill, ivory, it gets to 17; 12; 11. Compared to the first option much more food, but less hammers and gold. With another 5 grass tiles available you can get some more cottages than in the first option but it's hard to close the gap. So, lots of food but little you can do with it. This option certainly diminishes the potential for a second town by using most of the good tiles or making them unusable.
Good early on, not good in the long run.
Settling to the SW loses fish, iron, corn and plains hill settlement, but gains a plains hill, ivory and floodplains. At size 8, working the 2 seafoods, rice, cottaged floodplains, grass hill, plains hill, 2 ivories it yields 7; 14; 11+. There are 7 more grass tiles for cottaging. This is stronger than the second option and leaves more good tiles for a second town (though both a town to the east or to the north will share strong tiles with this location). It seems comparable to the first, generating lower hammers and gold at size 8-11, but with more gold potential at size 12+ because of the extra cottages.
Good long run.
SW-SW-W has some food, some production, and a lot of unknown tiles. It doesn't crowd out any of the other locations. At size 8, working the 3 floodplains (there seems to be one on the fog), ivory, mined grass hill and 3 grassland cottages (cannot see any better tiles), it yields 3; 8; 15+. Good commerce but probably too little food, unless there is more in the fog.
Mediocre (based on what we can see!), certainly not for the capital. It could become a very good location, if we find more resources to the west.
NW-NW has food and production. At size 8, working the 3 seafoods, 3 mined grass hills and 2 coast (cannot see any better tiles), it yields 9; 11; 11. This is a fairly good third (or second?) town, especially if there is more in the fog.
Fair but not for the capital. If there's more in the fog, could become good.
Scouting with the worker loses worker turns and I don't really like it. But it may be necessary, or we have to scout with the second settler instead. Or gamble on a settling spot.
Cities gain nothing from settling before turn 2 (counting the starting turn as turn 0).
In my test, AI's founded their third towns in 1465 (2x) (turn 36), 1470 (37), 1510 (45), and 1515 (46).
Concerning settling: capital 2E gets better and better, with contention only from 1 SW - or perhaps SW-SW-W. The numbers are quite convincing (fpt surplus; raw hammers; raw gold).
At size 8, working corn, cows, rice, iron, 2 gold hills, farmed grass and plains hill, the town yields 7; 16; 17. Three more grass tiles are available for cottaging.
Good; the best option at medium size, and a contender at large size.
Spoiler :
Some other options:
Settling in place is rather bad, also because it makes it nearly impossible to settle a town to work the gold (or the cow, as we now know).
At size 8, working the 3 seafoods, corn, rice, iron, grass hill, ivory, it gets to 17; 12; 11. Compared to the first option much more food, but less hammers and gold. With another 5 grass tiles available you can get some more cottages than in the first option but it's hard to close the gap. So, lots of food but little you can do with it. This option certainly diminishes the potential for a second town by using most of the good tiles or making them unusable.
Good early on, not good in the long run.
Spoiler :
Settling to the SW loses fish, iron, corn and plains hill settlement, but gains a plains hill, ivory and floodplains. At size 8, working the 2 seafoods, rice, cottaged floodplains, grass hill, plains hill, 2 ivories it yields 7; 14; 11+. There are 7 more grass tiles for cottaging. This is stronger than the second option and leaves more good tiles for a second town (though both a town to the east or to the north will share strong tiles with this location). It seems comparable to the first, generating lower hammers and gold at size 8-11, but with more gold potential at size 12+ because of the extra cottages.
Good long run.
Spoiler :
SW-SW-W has some food, some production, and a lot of unknown tiles. It doesn't crowd out any of the other locations. At size 8, working the 3 floodplains (there seems to be one on the fog), ivory, mined grass hill and 3 grassland cottages (cannot see any better tiles), it yields 3; 8; 15+. Good commerce but probably too little food, unless there is more in the fog.
Mediocre (based on what we can see!), certainly not for the capital. It could become a very good location, if we find more resources to the west.
Spoiler :
NW-NW has food and production. At size 8, working the 3 seafoods, 3 mined grass hills and 2 coast (cannot see any better tiles), it yields 9; 11; 11. This is a fairly good third (or second?) town, especially if there is more in the fog.
Fair but not for the capital. If there's more in the fog, could become good.
Spoiler :
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
Interesting analysis zyxy. Sounds like we're set then that settling in place is probably going to hurt us long term and should be avoided. Question is now then where do the cities go?
2 E is interesting because it keeps the iron in the city's BFC. I've been figuring leaving the iron for a third city since our cow/gold/everything else city is going to have so many good tiles to work. I'd been considering leaving the iron for a city 1N of the fish depending on what becomes visible the next turn when the longbow moves 1 NW. We'll cross that bridge when we get there once we see what's north.
Settling NW - NW may seem alright, but that city we take a while to get going. First it's going to take 5 turns to settle plus throw in the fact our worker isn't going to be anywhere near it since it will be tending to wherever our capital is. Yea, it's great for raw hammers but it's not going to be up for a while. It's a catch-22; I'd like to see what other tiles are up there before we commit to it, but we'd have to move a settler in that direction this turn to get it online asap. I think there's better immediate options now for cities. We can always settle another city up there if the tiles look promising without overlap being too much of an issue.
It's hard to get a gauge on SW - SW - W since there's so many unknowns here, but it may be worth sending the worker to check it out. I'm split on this. If we settle coastal, he should chop out a work boat asap. If we don't, we have no real use for him until cities are settled and even then he has to be on an improvable tile. The question then is how likely is one of our first two cities going to be coastal and require a work boat for food? That question gets answered with more exploring which for this turn only our worker can reveal more tiles. Yippee, another catch-22... Should I move one settler SW to set him up to do some exploring for us on turn 2? And should I move another settler east (specifically SE - SE) for the impending settling of our capital by the gold?
Where's rolo? unkle? Renata? Niklas, I know you're lurking... throw in your opinion! We have too many options and I feel we gotta get this show on the road.
2 E is interesting because it keeps the iron in the city's BFC. I've been figuring leaving the iron for a third city since our cow/gold/everything else city is going to have so many good tiles to work. I'd been considering leaving the iron for a city 1N of the fish depending on what becomes visible the next turn when the longbow moves 1 NW. We'll cross that bridge when we get there once we see what's north.
Settling NW - NW may seem alright, but that city we take a while to get going. First it's going to take 5 turns to settle plus throw in the fact our worker isn't going to be anywhere near it since it will be tending to wherever our capital is. Yea, it's great for raw hammers but it's not going to be up for a while. It's a catch-22; I'd like to see what other tiles are up there before we commit to it, but we'd have to move a settler in that direction this turn to get it online asap. I think there's better immediate options now for cities. We can always settle another city up there if the tiles look promising without overlap being too much of an issue.
It's hard to get a gauge on SW - SW - W since there's so many unknowns here, but it may be worth sending the worker to check it out. I'm split on this. If we settle coastal, he should chop out a work boat asap. If we don't, we have no real use for him until cities are settled and even then he has to be on an improvable tile. The question then is how likely is one of our first two cities going to be coastal and require a work boat for food? That question gets answered with more exploring which for this turn only our worker can reveal more tiles. Yippee, another catch-22... Should I move one settler SW to set him up to do some exploring for us on turn 2? And should I move another settler east (specifically SE - SE) for the impending settling of our capital by the gold?
Where's rolo? unkle? Renata? Niklas, I know you're lurking... throw in your opinion! We have too many options and I feel we gotta get this show on the road.
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Truly, I'm not trying to be difficult , but what about settling 1S of the western gold (which gives us the clams) and on the coastal elephant (which leaves all forests intact for chopping and saves us the time required to build a camp)? [Edit: It gives us just as much food as farther north--probably more if I knew how to count--and 4 hills to mine, with 4 river tiles.] That would leave a good site for the 3rd city either N or E of the iron, with no city overlap. We'd lose the river health bonus on the elephants and gain another floodplain, but we have lots of health to spare at the beginning.
Sorry if some feel moving the explorer wasn't the right move, but we had a quorum among the small number of people who've been commenting. Speak and ye shall be heard! Speaking of speaking, where's Commando Bob?
So, what to do now? I just got progressive lenses an hour ago and it'll take me awhile to figure out how to read again
so I'm not going to be able to carefully scrutinize the recent posts. If I understand things correctly, though, we don't need to move one settler until next turn, when we decide whether he's going westish, E, or (unlikely) staying put. The other settler should move to the western gold hill this turn and will still be able to reach any of the sites under consideration in time to settle. That leaves the worker. We could have him start chopping (only useful if we don't settle in that spot), move east to chop, or move SW for recon (and then another step in TBD direction). I guess I vote for SW--take a peek, consult with the team if necessary, and then move again, either back to a forest for chopping or continue SW for more recon. Yes, we'd lose 1 turn of worker action, maybe 2. If we rule out moving east for settling then we might consider using the settler for recon instead.
, but what about settling 1S of the western gold (which gives us the clams) and on the coastal elephant (which leaves all forests intact for chopping and saves us the time required to build a camp)? [Edit: It gives us just as much food as farther north--probably more if I knew how to count--and 4 hills to mine, with 4 river tiles.] That would leave a good site for the 3rd city either N or E of the iron, with no city overlap. We'd lose the river health bonus on the elephants and gain another floodplain, but we have lots of health to spare at the beginning.Sorry if some feel moving the explorer wasn't the right move, but we had a quorum among the small number of people who've been commenting. Speak and ye shall be heard! Speaking of speaking, where's Commando Bob?
So, what to do now? I just got progressive lenses an hour ago and it'll take me awhile to figure out how to read again
so I'm not going to be able to carefully scrutinize the recent posts. If I understand things correctly, though, we don't need to move one settler until next turn, when we decide whether he's going westish, E, or (unlikely) staying put. The other settler should move to the western gold hill this turn and will still be able to reach any of the sites under consideration in time to settle. That leaves the worker. We could have him start chopping (only useful if we don't settle in that spot), move east to chop, or move SW for recon (and then another step in TBD direction). I guess I vote for SW--take a peek, consult with the team if necessary, and then move again, either back to a forest for chopping or continue SW for more recon. Yes, we'd lose 1 turn of worker action, maybe 2. If we rule out moving east for settling then we might consider using the settler for recon instead.
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
One settler SE-SE (or SE-NE) and the other SW is fine for me. But it won't tell you anything you don't know already. I would move the worker E to start on corn or cows asap, and scout with the second settler. This is a gamble (namely that we find some decent tiles over there), but you don't win if you play safe.
I propose a different decision making process. Turnplayer presents a proposal, leaves at least 24 hrs for comments, and then plays if there is consensus. If no consensus can be reached (but make a serious effort!), the turnplayer takes an executive decision.
There were less than three hours between the proposal to move the explorer SE-SE (which was a reversal of what seemed a consensus to go west) and the decision to do so. You cannot really expect people to chime in in such a short time span.
I propose a different decision making process. Turnplayer presents a proposal, leaves at least 24 hrs for comments, and then plays if there is consensus. If no consensus can be reached (but make a serious effort!), the turnplayer takes an executive decision.
Ok still not open the save, but after reading the excellent posts, I think capital 2E really makes sense given its short-mid term potential (which is super highly critical). The possibility of getting the 2 golds so fast would really help making up tech-wise.
Second city is probably harder to settle, which is where some exploration might make for it. But I wonder on the possibility of settling on the plain hil phant. Not coastal for sure, which may be an issue, but looks like a good cottage city with flood plains and riverside grasslands. And forests....
Third city (or later if there is only sea, but we need to fogbust !) on the northern plain hill looks great with 3 seafood. Of course it will depend on what we get from the explorer.
Second city is probably harder to settle, which is where some exploration might make for it. But I wonder on the possibility of settling on the plain hil phant. Not coastal for sure, which may be an issue, but looks like a good cottage city with flood plains and riverside grasslands. And forests....
Third city (or later if there is only sea, but we need to fogbust !) on the northern plain hill looks great with 3 seafood. Of course it will depend on what we get from the explorer.
Xcalibrator
Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Sounds good to me. Although since BL is on the west coast and up later than everyone else, maybe 12 hours would be enough? I'm getting anxious, and also wonder if the weak input is because some people are bored.
I really don't know what to do. Was
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
I pulled up my test save and moved a settler SE - SE and it will reveal two more tiles while making it possible to do some more fogazing on others. Since both zyxy and XC have signed off on moving this one settler in this direction, I have gone ahead and done so.
Here's my proposal. I've thought long and hard about this and like this set up a lot. I think it'll make everyone happy.
Turn 0: Revolt to HR/Bur/Serfdom/CS. Can we agree on this?
Remaining Settler 1 SW, Worker 1 E.
Turn 1: Longbow 1 moves 1 NW to hill 1 N of Iron. Longbow 2 moves 1S to grassland hill. Explorer SW - SW to grassland forest. Worker 2 E to Corn. Settler on Gold moves 2 N to plains forest 1 N for capital settling. Settler of forest grassland hill SW - SW (for exploring) or - SE for settling. Note: Here completely contradicting myself, how's this for a second site: 2 floodplains, 2 plains ivory, 4 grassland hills (possibly 5), 8 grassland plains tiles and on a river? See 1 SW, 2 S of original settler starting spot. Overlap is minimal with capital (2 tiles) and is perfect real estate for cottage spam. I'd farm the two floodplains to net a food surplus and thus fast growth then cottage the rest of it.
Turn 2: Settle Moscow (Gold/Cow site) and St. Petersburg (aforementioned site). Both cities start making a worker. (8 turns Moscow and 11 turns St. Pete, though it will be quicker in Moscow once the cows are hooked up). Worker moves 1 E and pasteurizes cow. Longbow up north moves 1 W to grassland hill and longbow down south moves 1 SW to hill. Explorer moves across hills to meet up with longbow on same tile.
This leaves the aforementioned plains hill/3 seafood site as our third city and military pump. The downside is unless we import work boats from our capital the city will have to make them itself, though settled on the plains hill and with the free engineer it shouldn't take that long.
Priorities: Turn capital into settler pump. Improve the high yield tiles first (Cows/Corn/Iron/Rice). Turn St. Pete initially into a hammer site (jumbos and hills) for unit production for fogbusting duty/power number padding until the third city gets online. Then convert it to cottage spam. Explorer continues west while the southern longbow explores for a few more turns before finding a nice spot to fogbust. The northern longbow depending on what it finds can fogbust the seafood site or exploring North / West some more
I really like this setup. All of the resources are used, the cities are spread out, and each of them can be specialized to suit our needs. If there's any drawback anyone can see with this arrangement speak up now, because I strongly believe this is optimal.
Spoiler for test save picture:
Now for some technology discussion. What to research? I think Free Religion would be awesome given the rule set and starting situation, so liberalism for that reason would make sense. If we get the freebie tech great, but I wouldn't hold our breath.
As for our unit production, we're going to need some excellent fogbusting to keep barb cities from boxing us in. Why? Because we can't capture any of them and it's possible we'll get boxed in my them. I was seeing barb cities popping around turn 20 or so in my test games.
Spoiler :
Here's my proposal. I've thought long and hard about this and like this set up a lot. I think it'll make everyone happy.
Turn 0: Revolt to HR/Bur/Serfdom/CS. Can we agree on this?
Remaining Settler 1 SW, Worker 1 E.
Turn 1: Longbow 1 moves 1 NW to hill 1 N of Iron. Longbow 2 moves 1S to grassland hill. Explorer SW - SW to grassland forest. Worker 2 E to Corn. Settler on Gold moves 2 N to plains forest 1 N for capital settling. Settler of forest grassland hill SW - SW (for exploring) or - SE for settling. Note: Here completely contradicting myself, how's this for a second site: 2 floodplains, 2 plains ivory, 4 grassland hills (possibly 5), 8 grassland plains tiles and on a river? See 1 SW, 2 S of original settler starting spot. Overlap is minimal with capital (2 tiles) and is perfect real estate for cottage spam. I'd farm the two floodplains to net a food surplus and thus fast growth then cottage the rest of it.
Turn 2: Settle Moscow (Gold/Cow site) and St. Petersburg (aforementioned site). Both cities start making a worker. (8 turns Moscow and 11 turns St. Pete, though it will be quicker in Moscow once the cows are hooked up). Worker moves 1 E and pasteurizes cow. Longbow up north moves 1 W to grassland hill and longbow down south moves 1 SW to hill. Explorer moves across hills to meet up with longbow on same tile.
This leaves the aforementioned plains hill/3 seafood site as our third city and military pump. The downside is unless we import work boats from our capital the city will have to make them itself, though settled on the plains hill and with the free engineer it shouldn't take that long.
Priorities: Turn capital into settler pump. Improve the high yield tiles first (Cows/Corn/Iron/Rice). Turn St. Pete initially into a hammer site (jumbos and hills) for unit production for fogbusting duty/power number padding until the third city gets online. Then convert it to cottage spam. Explorer continues west while the southern longbow explores for a few more turns before finding a nice spot to fogbust. The northern longbow depending on what it finds can fogbust the seafood site or exploring North / West some more
I really like this setup. All of the resources are used, the cities are spread out, and each of them can be specialized to suit our needs. If there's any drawback anyone can see with this arrangement speak up now, because I strongly believe this is optimal.
Spoiler for test save picture:
Spoiler :
Now for some technology discussion. What to research? I think Free Religion would be awesome given the rule set and starting situation, so liberalism for that reason would make sense. If we get the freebie tech great, but I wouldn't hold our breath.
As for our unit production, we're going to need some excellent fogbusting to keep barb cities from boxing us in. Why? Because we can't capture any of them and it's possible we'll get boxed in my them. I was seeing barb cities popping around turn 20 or so in my test games.
Similar threads
- Sticky
