After the following amount of turns not building a build item that was previously started:
Units = 10 turns
Buildings = 60 turns
the Hammers invested in that build item start to decay one Hammer per turn that you aren't building that item.
Wonders = Hammers never expire or else the value is so high that I've never seen it happen... well over 60 turns, for sure.
I am almost pretty certain that the decay values do not change based on game speeds. Consider that Hammer values are already scaled for game speeds. Thus, things like how many base Food, Hammers, and Commerce you get per turn per square worked by a citizen is unchanged. Therefore, it is not too much of a stretch to believe that decay will also be unchanged. As you say, it should be easy enough to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that the decay numbers remain constant across game speeds.
That explains why the decay rates don't change with speed, but it doesn't explain why the delay doesn't change. The delay determines for instance how big a thing you can build while putting off something else, and that should change with game speed. It doesn't matter though, if that's the game rules then I'm not going to argue.
It seems that while the team is not really willing to run test games, the team is mostly convinced by screenshots and test game results instead of experience-based explanations.
I don't have time to run many test games, but I do find them convincing. I don't see what's so inconsistent about that. There's good and bad test games though, and I will be just as convinced by math as a test game that will tell me nothing more than the math could have told me instead.
I agree with this. It's looking like Stonehenge first (of all things!) is a winner.
Now, tomorrow morning I can post a screenshot of a moved warrior. I'd prefer however to get things moving faster by posting a screenshot of a settled city (and a moved warrior), given that we seem to have at least agreed on settling in place. Hence the most recent PPP. I won't press end turn, which will therefore give us time to change the build, which is still up for some discussion (and the tech if we want as well).
I will now modify the PPP to include this. I'll do this with an edit which preserves the original version. I think the modifications should make everyone happy enough, while wasting as little time as possible.
I'll also requote it here:
PPP
1. Settle in place
2. Set production to warrior
3. Move warrior SW.
4. Set research to Polytheism.
5. Post a screenshot.
Proposed modifications:
1. Set production to stonehenge instead of a warrior.
2. Do not click end turn, in case we haven't settled on the first build.
3. Move the warrior before settling
4. Consider stopping and posting a screenshot before settling if the warrior sees something unexpected that may change our settling decision.
What else do we need? 24 hours after his PPP was posted.
If, as I believe you are trying to claim, you say that his PPP was equal to your voting poll, since it discussed the same issue, then it can be argued that a poll can start off the 24 hours process. But we had never discussed this possibility before. There was no rule set up this way. We had agreed that we would wait for the UP player to make the PPP and then vote on that.
So we can make a new rule around voting polls, to help reduce decision-making time. Anyone on the team should be able to put up a voting poll once an issue has been discussed for a little while--say, after 3 players have openly discussed the issue in our team thread. I don't mind writing the rule for voting polls--I am working offline on updating the rules, but I keep getting dragged from that task by the (exciting) discussions, test games, and then decisions to move ahead when I'm trying to work offline on improving the rules. I'll add this task to my list.
BUT, a key component of the voting polls should be that all of the discussed options (unless everyone had since said "no" to such an option openly) should be included. Otherwise, the poll will have to be treated as invalid and voting will have to begin anew. That's where the person making the voting poll has to do a high-quality job--capture all of the options.
If you are the person that wants to start a voting poll, but aren't sure if you captured all of the thoughts from the discussion, you could instead phrase your message as a summary of what you believe are the only options being discussed and then in the same message, ask a question as to whether we think anything was missed. I'm sure that several members of the rest of the team would be happy to pitch in with an appropriate reply.
We'd still allow for items to be added, in case something got missed or in case something new was thought of in that 24 hour period, but this way, you wouldn't make us waste time on voting until we've got a decent poll to begin with. Then, once you've either thoroughly read and understood the thread's discussion or gotten some feedback, and if you feel that you captured all choices, you can ask for people to vote on the issue. Just don't get frustrated if another voting option is added later and the voting process must begin anew--it's only fair to do so.
Having a lot of Civic options early on helps to add value to our Spiritual Trait, as we can switch Civics every 5 turns without any Anarchy cost.
This fact also means that we can switch Civics AS SOON AS WE LEARN a Civic's associated tech, instead of what you often do in a non-Spiritual game, which is "save up" two Civic switches to occur at once, in order to have 1 less turn of Anarchy.
3. Being Spiritual means that temples are half the cost (and OR-enhanced to boot). This will be a great way to increase our happiness limit early in the game. And well have a lot of temples that we could build due to all of the religions well have. Larger cities means more tiles worked which leads to a more productive empire. This is yet another advantage that will enable us to catch up to the focused early REX strategy.
This point is pretty strong. Consider that many teams who ignore religions and beeline Worker Techs will be forced to research Monarchy in order to increase their happiness levels. We can skip researching Monarchy, helping us to "make up" for going after religious techs.
Those teams are unlikely to put more than 3 military units in each of their cities (+3 Happiness per city), which is the same level of happiness that we can get from running a religion and building* 2 Temples in a city that has our state religion (+3 Happiness).
* Building the Temples could be replaced by whipping them and then waiting for the whip unhappiness to wear off, perhaps by building a Settler or a Worker if after whipping and regrowing, we are at our maximum Happiness limit due to the whipping unhappiness.
Those same teams will have to research some of the same religious techs that we will research, such as Meditation or Polytheism plus Priesthood or Masonry+Monotheism, in order to get a pre-requisite for Monarchy. However, those teams won't get the benefit of founding the religion or the Organized Religion Civic early on.
If said teams wait a while for multiple AIs to learn the religious techs before trading for them, they'll even be further delayed in when they get those techs.
Sure. I left the old one as is because I didn't want to change the original post substantially, and thought it was better to make the differences clear rather than the end result. Plus, the modifications are separate and we might end up concluding that we want some of them and not others.
Here's a merged combination for you nonetheless:
Latest (merged) PPP
1. Move warrior SW.
2. If warrior reveals something unexpected that might affect settling, take a screenshot and stop. Otherwise, continue below.
3. Settle in place
4. Set production to Stonehenge
5. Set research to Polytheism.
6. Don't click end turn
7. Post a screenshot.
The hope is to do this at approximately Thursday 2300GMT (i.e. "tomorrow morning" for me ).
Test iii: Grow to 2 ASAP, finish warrior -> worker
T0 - SIP. Set build to warrior. Set research to Polytheism. Citizen on corn (duh).
T11 - Grow to i2. Work corn and PH. Poly in 7. Warrior in 4.
T13 - Citizens work PH and grass land forested hill (1F, 2H)
T14 - Warrior completed. Set build to worker. Poly in 4. Worker in 18
T18 - Learn Poly. Set research to Agriculture (12 turns). Worker in 14
T29 - 137/139 commerce in Agriculture...
T30 - Learn Agriculture. Set research to Masonry
T32 - Worker done. Grow in 9. Masonry (44/186) in 9.
Comparison to Test i. Results from building a Building or Wonder instead of a Warrior first
The worker in my test comes out 3 turns later. So the tradeoff is 3 worker turns, growth to 3 pops 3 turns earlier and 11 fail gold from SH vs. an exploring warrior some 27 turns earlier (assumes 3rd pop will work a 2H tile to push out the warrior soon in Dhoomstriker's test).
In my mind, it's a toss up. 3 worker turns can be a lot (although in this game, after farming 2 corn and building 1 mine, there may not be a lot for our poor worker to do) . On the other hand, I put a high value on early map knowledge. 27 warrior turns would enable quite a bit of exploring. Sometimes, 1 warrior can't scout enough to ensure that we're settling in the optimal location. Plus, with a second warrior coming soon, the first scouting warrior would not be forced to do an entire loop around the capital but could venture out a bit more. Obviously, one of the warriors would need to come back in time to fogbust for the settler's journey to the Garden of Eden (which happened to be just outside one scouting warriors sight ).
Am I missing something in the tradeoff? Oh yes, I am. In my test, in the next 11 or so turns while your test i is finishing the first warrior, the warrior first option (iii) could have half a third warrior built. Or build SH for fail gold until pop 3 and then pump out a settler (which may or may not come earlier due to the delayed worker improvements).
I think the key for me is the 27 warior turns plus the fact that the worker in both cases will likely be idle once two farms are completed and the PH is mined (unless there is another unforested hill, which likely won't be worked for a while if we build a settler at pop 3).
Should we continue the tests until your save has completed the warrior (T41?) to see where each option would be? On second thought, it would be better to run the test 3 turns past when you have the 3 improvements done, which should be the time I complete the 3 improvements myself? This will show the true benefit of those 3 worker turns (again, assuming the worker will be idle).
Latest (merged) PPP
1. Move warrior SW.
2. If warrior reveals something unexpected that might affect settling, take a screenshot and stop. Otherwise, continue below.
3. Settle in place
4. Set production to Stonehenge
5. Set research to Polytheism.
6. Don't click end turn
7. Post a screenshot.
The hope is to do this at approximately Thursday 2300GMT (i.e. "tomorrow morning" for me ).
That explains why the decay rates don't change with speed, but it doesn't explain why the delay doesn't change. The delay determines for instance how big a thing you can build while putting off something else, and that should change with game speed. It doesn't matter though, if that's the game rules then I'm not going to argue.
A quick test shows that BUFFY lies.
BUFFY tells you that after 10 turns in an Epic game, a unit will start to lose its Hammers. But, I didn't lose the Hammers until after 15 turns.
It takes 18 turns to build the Worker.
So, that would mean that we would lose 3 Hammers.
SpoilerMicromanagement tip to save an additional Hammer :
But, we can avoid losing 1 of the Hammers if we keep the Warrior in the queue--you don't lose a Hammer unless at the start of a turn, you are not building that unit. It's the start of the turn that matters, not the end of the turn.
A unit is completed after you have ended your turn, but officially it is completed "at the end of your turn before AI turns begin." That way, if you whip a unit to defend a city, it will be available as a defender when each of the AIs get their turn.
So, as long as the Warrior is in the queue after the Worker, when the Worker completes "at the end of our turn," the Warrior will be "in the queue," meaning that it will fulfill the rule of being the build item at the start of the turn, so we won't lose a Hammer for that turn.
Thus, if we simply click on a Worker on the turn that we grow to Size 2, the Warrior will automatically appear in the build queue below the Worker and we'll only lose 2 Hammers invested into the Warrior when it starts to build again. However, we will have to build the Warrior to completion IMMEDIATELY and COMPLETELY, otherwise we will once again lose a Hammer on that Warrior for every future turn that we don't build it.
SOOOOOOO... we need to think a little bit past the first turnset in order to decide what to build on turn 0.
THUS, MORE TEST GAMES ARE IN ORDER! I ran them and the possibilities that I can think of and their results are below.
For example, we could build:
a) i. Partially build Stonehenge/a Building -> Worker -> Settler at Size 2? That gets us started on a Settler ASAP but only leaves us with the initial Warrior to fog bust and defend from Barb Animals. It means no Hammers wasted from decay on building a Warrior. A Settler would be completed on Turn 50, 2750 BC and our capitol would be at Size 4, working 2 irrigated Corns. The Plains Hills square will be mined next turn. It will take us 4 more turns to grow to Size 3 and 6 more turns to complete a Warrior (assuming that we use the 10 Hammer overflow from the Settler in a Warrior).
a) ii. Do the exact same thing except that the 10 Hammer overflow goes into a Settler for a turn, then we build the Warrior. Grow to Size 3 and then Size 4 and complete the Warrior on the same turn, 9 turns after producing the Settler. i.e. on Turn 60, 2500 BC, we are at Size 4 with our second Warrior (counting our initial Warrior), having produced a Settler.
b) Partially build Stonehenge/a Building -> Worker -> Warrior and grow to Size 4? We would get to Size 4 on Turn 44, 2900 BC. A Settler would be completed on Turn 56, 2600 BC and our capitol would be at Size 4, working 2 irrigated Corns and 1 Mined Plains Hills square and one unimproved square. We can start on another Warrior and get it in 2 turns if we use the overflow. We can also put the overflow into our next Settler.
c) Partially build a Warrior -> Worker -> continue working on the Warrior while growing to Size 3 -> complete the Warrior ASAP by switching the unimproved Corn a 1Food+2Hammer square 1 turn -> Settler while switching back to the Corn. A Settler would be completed on Turn 53, 2675 BC and our capitol would be at Size 3, working 2 irrigated Corns and 1 Mined Plains Hills square. In 4 turns we could grow to Size 4 and in that time, produce 1 more Warrior. After that, we could start on another Settler.
Not-so-short SUMMARY:
a) i. Kind of a goofy option, as growing to Size 4 doesn't fit in very well with the extra Hammers going into the Warrior instead of using the overflow into the next Settler. Settler on Turn 50. Turn 56 Warrior. Then we're stuck building a partial unit or building until we grow to Size 4 or else we build another Settler when we're only partway to Size 4.
a) ii. A bit better timing of the a) i. scenario, assuming that getting out 2 quick Settlers is our goal before starting on The Oracle. Priesthood won't be ready yet, anyway, as we only get Monotheism on Turn 61, 2500 BC. Settler on Turn 50. Warrior on Turn 60. Size 4 on Turn 60, with a few Hammers invested into the next Settler. Turn 65 we have 71/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Another Settler on Turn 69 , 2275 BC, 1 turn from Priesthood (the tech date will change slightly based on when and where we settle).
b) Warrior on Turn 44. Size 4 on Turn 44. Settler on Turn 56. Another Warrior on Turn 58. Turn 65 we have 77/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Settler on Turn 69, 2275 BC, and we just learned Priesthood.
c) Warrior on Turn 39. Settler on Turn 53. Another Warrior on Turn 57. Size 4 on Turn 57. Turn 65 we have 78/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Another Settler on Turn 68, 2300 BC, 1 turn from Priesthood.
Summary of the Summary!
Options b) and c) are very, very close in production and research, while both of those options seem to beat option a) ii. I stopped analyzing option a) i.
Option c) gets Settlers #2 and #3 a bit faster than option b), while option c) has a similar tech rate than option b).
I would appreciate it if someone can run a test game that matches Option c) and see if they come up with the same numbers as me, as there is a small chance that I made an error in recording my results. However, if I did not mess up my calculations (which I might have done since it is very late at night for me and I am going to bed immediately without checking over what I wrote), then it looks like Warrior first is the way to go!
EDIT from here and below: Note that on the way between the Corn and the Plains Hills River square, I partially Irrigated (1 turn) the Grassland River (no Forest) square. Then I completed irrigating it after mining the PHRiver square. I worked that square as soon as it was improved, since I'd be building a Settler at that point and would get 1 extra Commerce per turn this way over working a 3 (Food + Hammer) square. I did so for all of my test runs in this message.
As long as you are paying attention to when a Worker completes its improvement and are sure to switch to using the improvement on the turn that the Worker completes it, which is 1 turn earlier than the Worker asks you what to do next, then you *should* be able to match my numbers, barring an error that I made while recording my results.
If you'd done a better job and gathered all of the options that we'd discussed, I'd have been more willing to let this situation slide. But the fact is that you ignored several options and then later claimed it was an official vote on a PPP. We were waiting for Irgy to post a PPP, not you.
What i did was the best possible: i've read all the warrior move (1 move) proposal and posted the options for a vote. Then i gathered the votes. Irgy did the same and posted is PPP if we can call PPP a single move.
No further discussion was needed since we already voted. 48 hours are lost due to your complaints.
Anything the warrior can see W does NOT change where to settle the Capital. Only in the East there can be something which makes us change our decision.
But since the vote was for SIP, this discussion is closed. Once and for all.
So, in your opinion, issues that relate to the SGOTM in general, such as questions about Skype--since that question applies to all teams, do not need to go through the team captain? Only, in your opinion, points that directly affect our team only should go through you? That's news to me, so please confirm or deny my interpretation of what you said.
Those questions went through me. Just, not in the way you asked me to do.
Since i'm the most experienced player in SGs i judged that issue has to be public and not private.
Any experieced enough SG player looks at the graphs, they are the only legal way to "spy" what other teams do. Far to be accurate, but you can gather some useful infos.
Still, the problem is there (verified few minutes ago). Or Alan is too busy to solve it or he can't solve it. Strange he did not posted an answer.
If i see nothing new in few hours, i'll PM him.
What I do want to do is work out a voting procedure here and now. I do not agree that someone who posts a poll that does not capture all of the discussed options can consider any of the votes to be official.
Issue 1: So, do we want voting polls to be exclusively in the domain of the UP player or can any player post one?
Issue 2: If a posted voting poll misses an option that was discussed and someone mentions something (say, within 24 hours), can we say that the votes cast are invalid and must be recast with a more complete poll, starting the 24 hour period again?
Issue 3: If a posted voting poll has a new suggestion added to it within 24 hours, can we also invalidate old votes and have players recast their votes, again resetting the 24 hour period?
I deleted parts of your post, if anyone is interested can always click the link.
When i propose a voting poll i got the possible options clear. I added a third option, in fact which no one cared.
What you propose takes too long to be voted, rediscussed, revoted and maybe discussed again.
No, thanks. We must move!
Then, your long digression about the Pyramids was totally useless, since i used them as an example, nothing more.
I don't care at the present if can or can not be an interesting option.
What i care is start play.
About test games, sure i always pushed for them. But after we knew a good portion of the map.
Since you're referring to the last SG, we started in renaissance and we has some 6 units. In 2 turns we have seen a lot of land and our tests were very useful even before to settle. This is not the case of this game.
What if there's gold 2E of the settler? Let's just hope there's NOT gold 3E of the settler.
A good leader is someone who improves the morale of the team members, not someone who shoots them down.
A good leader is someone who strives for openness and inclusion of others' ideas, not someone who seems to push their own opinion as the one, true, right way.
A good leader is one who pays attention to the input of their followers.
A good leader strives to build consensus when it is lacking and does not try to use the opportunity to bash his or her own opinion down upon the team.
I challenge you: Can you step up to the plate? Can you become this good leader for us?
Sure. I left the old one as is because I didn't want to change the original post substantially, and thought it was better to make the differences clear rather than the end result. Plus, the modifications are separate and we might end up concluding that we want some of them and not others.
Here's a merged combination for you nonetheless:
Latest (merged) PPP
1. Move warrior SW.
2. If warrior reveals something unexpected that might affect settling, take a screenshot and stop. Otherwise, continue below.
3. Settle in place
4. Set production to Stonehenge
5. Set research to Polytheism.
6. Don't click end turn
7. Post a screenshot.
The hope is to do this at approximately Thursday 2300GMT (i.e. "tomorrow morning" for me ).
I would appreciate it if someone can run a test game that matches Option c) and see if they come up with the same numbers as me, as there is a small chance that I made an error in recording my results.
I ran a test and got slightly different results. I'll mainly point out the differences.
T29 - Complete worker (same as you). Learned Agriculture (1 turn earlier than you). I had met 3 AI (all of them found me) at this point, which must explain the difference. If you recall, in my earlier test I was only 2 beakers away from Agriculture on T29. This allows the worker to go straight to the corn.
T39 - Warrior #1 completed. Set build to settler #1.
T53 - Settler #1 done. Grow in 4. Warrior #2 in 3 turns (it was 4 turns for you)
T56 - Warrior #2 done. Start warrior #3.
T57 - Grow to 4. Partial warrior #3 to Settler #2
T66 - 4 farms done (2 corn two grassland riverside) and 1 mine done
T68 - Settler #2 done. PH in 1 (130/139). Warrior #3 5/22. 3 warriors, 2 settlers, 1 worker.
These are very similar to the end stats you had in your game.
I decided to continue my test (iii) until I had 2 settlers. Here is what I got:
Test iii: Grow to 2 ASAP, finish warrior -> worker
T0 - SIP. Set build to warrior. Set research to Polytheism. Citizen on corn (duh).
T11 - Grow to 2. Work corn and PH. Poly in 7. Warrior in 4.
T13 - Citizens work PH and grass land forested hill (1F, 2H)
T14 - Warrior #1 completed. Set build to worker. Poly in 4. Worker in 18
T18 - Learn Poly. Set research to Agriculture (12 turns). Worker in 14
T29 - 137/139 commerce in Agriculture...
T30 - Learn Agriculture. Set research to Masonry
T32 - Worker done. Grow in 9. Masonry (44/186) in 9. Start warrior #2. Worker farms northern farm first (important).
T40 - Grow to 3. Switch partial warrior #2 (8/22) to settler #1 (17 turns)
T41 - Learn Masonry. Set research to Monotheism.
T55 - Settler #1 done. Start settler #2 to catch the overflow.
T56 - Switch from partial settler #2 to partial warrior #2 (still 8/22).
T59 - Finish warrior #2. Start warrior #3 (5 turns). Grow in 2.
T61 - Grow to 4. Switch from partial warrior #3 to partial settler #2. Learn Monotheism. Set research to PH. Citizens on 3 farms (just finished third farm) and mined PH.
T65 - I see my first barb warrior.
T68 - Settler #2 in 2 turns. 119/139 in PH.
T69 - 4 farms done (2 corn two grassland riverside) and 1 mine done. 3 turns behind test above, as expected.
T70 - Settler #2 completed. Warrior #3 in 2 turns (11/22). Learned PH. 3 warriors, 2 settlers, 1 worker.
Comparison
So, your test C gets settler #1 two turns sooner and settler #2 two turns sooner than my test iii. You also learn PH 1 turn sooner. My test gets warrior #1 (not including the initial warrior, of course) 25 turns sooner, warrior #2 three turns LATER and warrior #3 at about the same time.
So, in your test, you get settler #1 seven turns before learning Monotheism (learned IBT T59 and T60). In my test, I get settler #1 six turns before learning Monotheism (learned IBT T60 and T61). I would think that we would want to found our second city before learning Monotheism in the hope that Judaism is founded in this city for a quick and free border pop. You have 1 extra turn of leeway to do so.
At the end of the test, both workers dont have much to do and will likely be improving city #2 at this point (or may have actually already started rather than building the fourth farm ). Your worker will have a 3 turn advantage in improving said second city.
Im starting to lean toward Dhoomstrikers test C since it is 1 turn ahead in research, 2 turns ahead in REX and 3 worker turns ahead. Its only giving up 22 warrior turns (25-3).
A quick test shows that BUFFY lies.
BUFFY tells you that after 10 turns in an Epic game, a unit will start to lose its Hammers. But, I didn't lose the Hammers until after 15 turns.
It takes 18 turns to build the Worker.
So, that would mean that we would lose 3 Hammers.
SpoilerMicromanagement tip to save an additional Hammer :
But, we can avoid losing 1 of the Hammers if we keep the Warrior in the queue--you don't lose a Hammer unless at the start of a turn, you are not building that unit. It's the start of the turn that matters, not the end of the turn.
A unit is completed after you have ended your turn, but officially it is completed "at the end of your turn before AI turns begin." That way, if you whip a unit to defend a city, it will be available as a defender when each of the AIs get their turn.
So, as long as the Warrior is in the queue after the Worker, when the Worker completes "at the end of our turn," the Warrior will be "in the queue," meaning that it will fulfill the rule of being the build item at the start of the turn, so we won't lose a Hammer for that turn.
Thus, if we simply click on a Worker on the turn that we grow to Size 2, the Warrior will automatically appear in the build queue below the Worker and we'll only lose 2 Hammers invested into the Warrior when it starts to build again. However, we will have to build the Warrior to completion IMMEDIATELY and COMPLETELY, otherwise we will once again lose a Hammer on that Warrior for every future turn that we don't build it.
SOOOOOOO... we need to think a little bit past the first turnset in order to decide what to build on turn 0.
THUS, MORE TEST GAMES ARE IN ORDER! I ran them and the possibilities that I can think of and their results are below.
For example, we could build:
a) i. Partially build Stonehenge/a Building -> Worker -> Settler at Size 2? That gets us started on a Settler ASAP but only leaves us with the initial Warrior to fog bust and defend from Barb Animals. It means no Hammers wasted from decay on building a Warrior. A Settler would be completed on Turn 50, 2750 BC and our capitol would be at Size 4, working 2 irrigated Corns. The Plains Hills square will be mined next turn. It will take us 4 more turns to grow to Size 3 and 6 more turns to complete a Warrior (assuming that we use the 10 Hammer overflow from the Settler in a Warrior).
a) ii. Do the exact same thing except that the 10 Hammer overflow goes into a Settler for a turn, then we build the Warrior. Grow to Size 3 and then Size 4 and complete the Warrior on the same turn, 9 turns after producing the Settler. i.e. on Turn 60, 2500 BC, we are at Size 4 with our second Warrior (counting our initial Warrior), having produced a Settler.
b) Partially build Stonehenge/a Building -> Worker -> Warrior and grow to Size 4? We would get to Size 4 on Turn 44, 2900 BC. A Settler would be completed on Turn 56, 2600 BC and our capitol would be at Size 4, working 2 irrigated Corns and 1 Mined Plains Hills square and one unimproved square. We can start on another Warrior and get it in 2 turns if we use the overflow. We can also put the overflow into our next Settler.
c) Partially build a Warrior -> Worker -> continue working on the Warrior while growing to Size 3 -> complete the Warrior ASAP by switching the unimproved Corn a 1Food+2Hammer square 1 turn -> Settler while switching back to the Corn. A Settler would be completed on Turn 53, 2675 BC and our capitol would be at Size 3, working 2 irrigated Corns and 1 Mined Plains Hills square. In 4 turns we could grow to Size 4 and in that time, produce 1 more Warrior. After that, we could start on another Settler.
Not-so-short SUMMARY:
a) i. Kind of a goofy option, as growing to Size 4 doesn't fit in very well with the extra Hammers going into the Warrior instead of using the overflow into the next Settler. Settler on Turn 50. Turn 56 Warrior. Then we're stuck building a partial unit or building until we grow to Size 4 or else we build another Settler when we're only partway to Size 4.
a) ii. A bit better timing of the a) i. scenario, assuming that getting out 2 quick Settlers is our goal before starting on The Oracle. Priesthood won't be ready yet, anyway, as we only get Monotheism on Turn 61, 2500 BC. Settler on Turn 50. Warrior on Turn 60. Size 4 on Turn 60, with a few Hammers invested into the next Settler. Turn 65 we have 71/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Another Settler on Turn 69 , 2275 BC, 1 turn from Priesthood (the tech date will change slightly based on when and where we settle).
b) Warrior on Turn 44. Size 4 on Turn 44. Settler on Turn 56. Another Warrior on Turn 58. Turn 65 we have 77/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Settler on Turn 69, 2275 BC, and we just learned Priesthood.
c) Warrior on Turn 39. Settler on Turn 53. Another Warrior on Turn 57. Size 4 on Turn 57. Turn 65 we have 78/139 Flasks in Priesthood if we fortify our Settler and don't settle it. Another Settler on Turn 68, 2300 BC, 1 turn from Priesthood.
Summary of the Summary!
Options b) and c) are very, very close in production and research, while both of those options seem to beat option a) ii. I stopped analyzing option a) i.
Option c) gets Settlers #2 and #3 a bit faster than option b), while option c) has a similar tech rate than option b).
I would appreciate it if someone can run a test game that matches Option c) and see if they come up with the same numbers as me, as there is a small chance that I made an error in recording my results. However, if I did not mess up my calculations (which I might have done since it is very late at night for me and I am going to bed immediately without checking over what I wrote), then it looks like Warrior first is the way to go!
EDIT from here and below: Note that on the way between the Corn and the Plains Hills River square, I partially Irrigated (1 turn) the Grassland River (no Forest) square. Then I completed irrigating it after mining the PHRiver square. I worked that square as soon as it was improved, since I'd be building a Settler at that point and would get 1 extra Commerce per turn this way over working a 3 (Food + Hammer) square. I did so for all of my test runs in this message.
As long as you are paying attention to when a Worker completes its improvement and are sure to switch to using the improvement on the turn that the Worker completes it, which is 1 turn earlier than the Worker asks you what to do next, then you *should* be able to match my numbers, barring an error that I made while recording my results.
Seeing that barbarian warrior on T65 started getting me a bit worried. In the religion beeline, the best unit we'll have for the first 100 turns or longer will be a warrior. It won't be too long before barb archers show up. Barb axemen won't be long after that (all of the AI were revolting to slavery around T50 or T60 IIRC).
We'll have settled our first three cities BEFORE knowing where copper is. If we're lucky, we'll have it in one of our three cities, but this is no guarantee. It may be our fourth city that get us copper, which would put our first axeman well after T100, right?
Is this an acceptable level of risk? Barbs usually aren't much of a risk for me on Emperor, but I typically know BW and/or AH and have either copper or horses hooked up by T100. Can we control the barb (including archers for sure) with just warriors? On what turn can they enter our cultural borders?
If we do go the religion beeline, which I still think is a good play, maybe one way to mitigate the risk is to get that second warrior out on T15 to do some initial exploring and then to fogbust near our capital...
Actually, the level of detail he provided was required. Without it, I would not have been able to recreate his test and, if we chose one of his test options, the up player would not have been able to effectively write a PPP and/or play his turns.
Plus, he put MM details in a spoiler for those that care about such details...
Seeing that barbarian warrior on T65 started getting me a bit worried. In the religion beeline, the best unit we'll have for the first 100 turns or longer will be a warrior. It won't be too long before barb archers show up. Barb axemen won't be long after that (all of the AI were revolting to slavery around T50 or T60 IIRC).
We'll have settled our first three cities BEFORE knowing where copper is. If we're lucky, we'll have it in one of our three cities, but this is no guarantee. It may be our fourth city that get us copper, which would put our first axeman well after T100, right?
Is this an acceptable level of risk? Barbs usually aren't much of a risk for me on Emperor, but I typically know BW and/or AH and have either copper or horses hooked up by T100. Can we control the barb (including archers for sure) with just warriors? On what turn can they enter our cultural borders?
If we do go the religion beeline, which I still think is a good play, maybe one way to mitigate the risk is to get that second warrior out on T15 to do some initial exploring and then to fogbust near our capital...
To really go for the religion beeline (something that we shouldn't go for half-a$$ed but all out), I don't think we can expect to research BW until after Priesthood, which I believe was Dhoomstrikers original plan. That will give us BW on or about T90 (depending on how much the maintenance costs of our second and third cities drags down our science rate and how many AI the know BW we have met).
If we have copper in just one of our BFCs we should be fine. If not, settler #3 could be synchronized to be out on the same turn we learn BW (11 turns to build a settler at 4 pops), which should give us copper by T110 or so (a few turns to walk to the copper and a few turns to have a worker hook it up). Although, we won't have the Wheel yet, so only copper city and any cities connected to it via rivers will get copper. Trade via rivers is enabled by Sailing, but I think if the river is completely within our cultural boundaries, the river connects the cities. Does anyone know if this is correct?
If we do have copper in one of our first three cities, settler #3 supports our early REX goals anyway, so we've lost nothing.
Between T70 and T90, it may be a good idea to pump out a few warriors to do a little fog busting (hey, we need the warriors anyway, right?).
Can anyone run a test to see about when barb archers and barb axemen start to appear? Also, when do they start entering our cultural borders?
In my experience on immortal and normal speed, it's perfectly possible to spawn bust enough land that barbs aren't a problem by using just warriors. If you do it right, barbs won't spawn at all. If there's too much land to bust, warriors can defend well enough against barb archers if you fortify them in a forest (and preferably on a hill also). Barb axes will absolutely require something better than warriors, but hopefully we have some military techs by then at least, they come somewhat later.
But we need to get a fair few warriors out in that case. As the decay delay time is 15 turns I'm back in favour of warrior first. 9 hammers in a warrior is better than 11 hammers in something we won't finish building.
On another note, can we all try and keep the comments less personal? If you really have something you need to say, try and at least make a general statement that's not targetted at anyone in particular. Or even better, try and be constructive rather than critical. This for instance is attempting to do both.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
(assumes 3rd pop will work a 2H tile to push out the warrior soon in Dhoomstriker's test).
).
