SGOTM 10 - Team Liz

[Andronicus]

Looking at cities I think most are in great shape

Most obvious need for improvement to me is Nottingham. It should be working 10spt producing 3 turn horses for the war effort
(give it goat mountain, sheep, an irr plains , roaded forest and unimproved forest and it will make 10 shields (after waste) and stay happy) Happiness becomes a problem when it reaches size 6 - by then we should have a lux As it currently only needs 6 shields to complete current horse it can use sheep, 2 forests and either 2 coast or 2 taxmen to maximise commerce - starving a little doesnt matter as no need to get size 6 in any hurry.

In order for Nott to be 10spt, a sacrifice on shields has to be made at Hastings. Currently building 6spt with 5 turn horses. By giving goat mountain to Nott it can still produce 5spt and 6 turn horses (currently 12 shields in bin so 5spt gives 2 over-run plus 1 when grows size 4 -> can use lake for extra commerce for 3 of those turns)

Warwick can speed its production. Moving grass to BG allows 6spt, current horse build can be sped by using river forest 2 turns, then BG to complete.

Overall effect of these changes are Warwick and Hastings swap between 5 and 6 turn horses, and Nott changes from 4 turn to 3 turn horses net gain 1 horse every 12 turns - not huge

My only other suggestion for cities is to query whether Oxford should build harbour before worker since our worker numbers are not so dire and we will shortly have 2 worker factories.

Speaking of worker factories, its a shame we have just invested 60 shields in Coventry's granary, but we did not know pyramids were coming (we havnt actually got them yet, but fingers crossed). Is it worth pushing shields in this town to pop up a settler whilst waiting for fish marsh improvement to make worker factory fully operational?

 

[Andronicus]

Quick query
Where is settler near Warwick headed?

I'll answer my own question - to 4 south of it's current position

 

[Andronicus]

Roster (round 2)
Abegweit - UP Inca dude
Redbad - on deck
juballs2001
Andronicus
markh
Paul#42

 

[Abegweit]

OK. Looked at the save. Everything looks great guys. And I get to get the Incas

I'll likely take the full 72 for this one as I am going to try and finish GOTM 54 first.

In the meantime, suggestions are welcome although I don't know what suggestions are needed; this is a fine well-oiled machine.

@Paul One suggestion for the future: I see too much inefficiency in worker moves. There are four workers cleaning up the same grass fish @Conventry. This should have been split up into two gangs of two, or even four gangs. There are also two workers on one grass west of Warwick. This should never happen. For extremely important cases, you might put three on a tile. This is not important and two is the wrong number anyway.

@Andronicus. While the situation is getting better, we still don't have near enough workers. We probably need twice what we have - and any new cities will require a lot of work too. Workers are still high priority - above either settlers or harbours.

I haven't been around for a while and haven't looked at the dotmap; I don't even know if there is one. Please point me at it if so. In the absence of such, let me give my $.02 - settler should go 5s of it's current location. Four crowds Canterbury too much.

 

[Paul#42]

Most obvious need for improvement to me is Nottingham. It should be working 10spt producing 3 turn horses for the war effort
(give it goat mountain, sheep, an irr plains , roaded forest and unimproved forest and it will make 10 shields (after waste) and stay happy) Happiness becomes a problem when it reaches size 6 - by then we should have a lux

Happiness WAS a problem there: When working 10 shields before the goat was roaded last turn, we had unhappiness and I would have to adjust the lux slider at 40%. It's operable now.

@Paul One suggestion for the future: I see too much inefficiency in worker moves. There are four workers cleaning up the same grass fish @Conventry. This should have been split up into two gangs of two, or even four gangs. There are also two workers on one grass west of Warwick. This should never happen. For extremely important cases, you might put three on a tile. This is not important and two is the wrong number anyway.

Those two on grassland just chopped a forrest there. One can road and the other move to an adjacent tiel or mine.
For Coventry I though we'd rather need a fish soon then two in double as many turns.
But you are certainly right, worker efficiency is something I could improve

 

[Andronicus]

Happiness WAS a problem there: When working 10 shields before the goat was roaded last turn, we had unhappiness and I would have to adjust the lux slider at 40%. It's operable now.

Good point, no good doing 10spt if its rioting. Now however I recommend the changes I outlined

 

[Andronicus]

There are four workers cleaning up the same grass fish @Conventry. This should have been split up into two gangs of two, or even four gangs.

I have to agree with Paul here, this is the way I would do it so as to get the benefit of the first fish marsh sooner. (edit - I agree 3 is a more efficient number as all 3 tasks - clear marsh, mine and road are divisible by 3)
I actually felt I made a mistake putting one worker on goat hill and one on goat mountain - if both had done 1 at a time we would have ended up with more shields produced

While the situation is getting better, we still don't have near enough workers. We probably need twice what we have - and any new cities will require a lot of work too. Workers are still high priority - above either settlers or harbours.

Agree we need more workers. We went fron 9 to 14 in last 10 turns and there are currently (I think) 6 being built. My thought was that we have our 3 turn WF operating and soon will have our 2 turner going as well, so a settler in Coventry first would allow it to grow to optimal size (and the settler would be useful for filling in the area after removing Inca dude)
The other suggestion of Oxford doing harbour before worker is to boost growth so it can use those high commerce tiles whilst still being able to siphon off workers

I haven't been around for a while and haven't looked at the dotmap; I don't even know if there is one. Please point me at it if so. In the absence of such, let me give my $.02 - settler should go 5s of it's current location. Four crowds Canterbury too much.

Last dot map (collection of 3) was on posts 202 onwards, howeverr only 4 of those dots are left (Byz grabbed 1 - the dyes, and Sumeria another - the rest we have filled in)
One of those was as you describe 5 S of settler's current situation. Redbad suggested moving 1 north which makes gold hill available and is not adjacent to volcano. This pos does crowd Coventry so I am fence sitting on this one.
I think we need a new dotmap, but I suspect most sites will be filling in Incan land particuarly between Cuzco and Tiawanaku.
The other 3 sites were 2 on tips of NW peninsula, and one south of Liverpool SW of cows.

 

[Andronicus]

I'll likely take the full 72 for this one .

I dont think this is a problem - along with Klarius we are the furthest progressed in this game. There is some advantage seeing stratagies of teams ahead reflected in progress graphs and our next save will show where we started our military campaign (I am assuming we will add at least 2, possibly 3 or 4 captured towns to the usual SF produced ones).

 

[Redbad]

Just a quick remark: when we take Cuzco with the Pyramids, I wouldn't sell our real granaries until the Inca are destroyed. Their culture isn't much, but still more then ours and it's all concentrated in Cuzco. A flip would disrupt our factories if we've sold our granaries.

 

[Abegweit]

I'm thinking that our next cities should be built in the fertile north instead of the jungles to the south and west. NNE of Cuzco looks like a good spot for the next one. Machu Pichu and Oilantaytambo will auto-raze and that area needs to be filled in before the AI gets its grubby little bytes on it.

As for flip risk, Tiwanku has expanded borders... In any case I suspect that Cuzco will be less than Brighton is now.

 

[Redbad]

I agree. When having the Pyramids growth can be fast. The Inca and Sumeria lands are closeby, have some infrastructure and can easily be improved. When we agree on knocking out Sumeria after Inca we can expand rapidly. When having researched republic we could already have a decent amount of sciencetist there. And at the time we turn to the south we'll have a lot more workers to cut the jungle and improve the marsh.

As for flip risk, Tiwanku has expanded borders... In any case I suspect that Cuzco will be less than Brighton is now.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't sell the granaries anyway. We don't need the cash at the moment, we'll loose the upkeep anyway and a flip would be a big setback.

 

[Redbad]

I dont think this is a problem - along with Klarius we are the furthest progressed in this game. There is some advantage seeing stratagies of teams ahead reflected in progress graphs and our next save will show where we started our military campaign (I am assuming we will add at least 2, possibly 3 or 4 captured towns to the usual SF produced ones).

It will be a pretty sight though if we could see the purple line leave the yellow one and forcing AlanH to add higher numbers at top of the graph.

 

[Redbad]

Btw. the corrupt scientist cities don't need much space. If not bigger then size 6 they only need 3 or 4 workable tiles each.

 

[Andronicus]

Machu Pichu and Oilantaytambo will auto-raze and that area needs to be filled in before the AI gets its grubby little bytes on it.

From my gazing at cultural boundaries it appears Machu Picchu has expanded boundaries, Ollantayambo of course will raze

 

[Andronicus]

Anyone come to same conclusion as me looking at the drop off of culture per turn for A Team.

Unless they did an early palace jump (and why would anyone want to) they are going to have a hard time catching up after appearing to lose their capital.

 

[Abegweit]

From my gazing at cultural boundaries it appears Machu Picchu has expanded boundaries, Ollantayambo of course will raze

I just started playing. You were right, of course, about Machu Picchu - and Ollantayambo grew Three cities taken and no losses yet. On to Tiwanku.

 

[Andronicus]

Three cities taken and no losses yet. On to Tiwanku.

on, on

 

[Abegweit]

It's 825BC and I think that it's time for a team discussion. First of all, the Inca are dead That stack of horses at the top of the picture will, of course, move on to Lagash.

My intention was to ICS this area so I was going to move the settler to the horses, but CAII says it will be reasonably productive in Republic with FP in Cuzco. Even Tiwanku will just have 42% corruption.

So I think the better place is on the river north-east of Cuzco where the slave is. Tiwanku should be moved one ne. Starve it to size 3, then whip when ten shields are in the box. The unhappiness will move to the new city but we should be able to handle it. Thoughts and a dotmap appreciated

In passing, Ollanwhatever is rioting because it just came out of resistance.

Here's the turnlog and a pic. The save is up on the server.

Edit: I see that the horsie dropdown is hiding it but there is a fish 2e of Tiwanku


Pre-flight check.

Looks good. Switch scientist from Dover to Nottingham.

IBT York harbour->worker; Nottingham horse->worker; Canterbury worker->worker; Oxford worker->harbour; Cuzco builds Pyramids ; Sumerians switch to ToA

Turn 1. 975BC Declare war on Incas. Battle @Cuzco vet horse vs reg spear -> 2-4 horse and the Pyramids are ours! Spices allows lux slider to be reduced to 20%; grab worker with archer. Sci -> Cuzco

IBT Coventry worker->worker; two more nations want the ToA

Turn 2. 950BC Some movement and mm

IBT London settler->settler; Canterbury worker->worker

Turn 3. 925BC Battle of Machu Pichu vet horse vs reg spear -> 1-4 horse and the city is ours.

IBT Nottingham horse->horse; Warwick horse->horse

Turn 4. 900BC Chasqui scout appears from the south. Re-group to protect our new gains. Leeds founded -> worker

IBT barb warrior appears from the north; Canterbury worker->settler; Coventry worker->worker; Newcastle worker->worker; Brighton worker->worker

Turn 5. 875BC Elite horse vs. reg Chasqui -> 5/5 horse; reg warrior vs barb -> 3/3 warrior. Military guy says we are average against the Maya and strong against everyone else (except, of course, the barbs).

Turn 6. 850BC Movement

IBT London settler->settler; Nottinham horse->worker

Turn 7. 825BC Attack on Tiwanku. Vet horse vs reg spear -> 1/4 horse. Vet horse vs reg spear -> 2/3 Spear. Elite horse vs. 2/3 spear -> 2/5 horse. To the bitter end Tiwanku was building the ToA

 

[Abegweit]

It will be a pretty sight though if we could see the purple line leave the yellow one and forcing AlanH to add higher numbers at top of the graph.

Check the territory graph. And now that we have the Pyramids, the score graph will soon follow. Great plan, Redbad.

Btw. the corrupt scientist cities don't need much space. If not bigger then size 6 they only need 3 or 4 workable tiles each.

They should not get bigger. Cash-rushing settlers in corrupt cities pays back quickly as your compatroit, Wacken, points out.

Anyone come to same conclusion as me looking at the drop off of culture per turn for A Team.

Note that Klarius has taken an upturn in theirs. Have they built an FP already? Or is it a temple/library to fend off propaganda?

 

[Redbad]

quick my opinion (have to hurry)

attack sumeria, though my estimation is there by far a stronger oponent, both militarly and cultural.

no need to starve Tiwanku: next turn hurry settler (wil cost 4 pop) and then at size 3 again hurry next settler

no reason to ics immediatly, we can always ics later if area proves to be to corrupt.