SGOTM 11 - Fifth Element

[Mitchum]

The more I think about it, the more I think that UT should stop when he originally intended to stop (i.e. once worker 1 / warrior 2 are completed). Going beyond that is adding additional things to his PPP that have not been agreed yet (although they appear to be agreed based on our testing). I can bet that those of us active on this thread right now would not be happy if a PPP were extended to decisions beyond the original PPP without having time to review and discuss them first. We should try to be fair and follow our rules, right? Approving to extend a PPP just because it agrees with what the four of us want to do doesn't make it right or fair.

 

[BLubmuz]

Settler 2 immediately after warrior 2/worker 1 would be my vote and this is what I did in all of my test games. If that is agreed by all, then I don't see an issue with UT playing his full 20 turns (or 22 turns to get us back to even turn numbers).

However, I don't recall seeing havr or Irgy weigh in on what to build after warrior 2/worker 1 since it originally fell outside of UT's turnset. Is it fair to throw it in at the 11th hour?

I think they agree on settler immediately. But i cannot say it for sure.

Let's keep the 20 turns, to avoid a lot of work to our Fearless Leader.

 

[Mitchum]

The ChokoMisfits and Barley Demons have a short and quick drop in their power graphs. This couldn't be due to whipping because whipping 2 pops = -1K power. They must be having barb issues. BD with animals and CM with humans.

I think our fog busting approach is by far the smartest thing to do...

 

[Dhoomstriker]

IIRC, Irgy was the one pushing for exploration east with BLubmuz giving an 8 tile leash.

I have not really heard any arguments explaining what we intend to do with the eastward exploration info other than to satisy our curiosity, which really adds no value to the game.

I would hate to delay this yet again...

To be completely fair, we really should wait to see what he says. I know, I know, more of a delay, but on the other hand, it's not fair to exclude an active player the chance to have a vote just because they are in bed when one of us is ready to play.

So, can we vote on Warrior 2's exploration path, GIVEN THE UNDERSTANDING that Warrior 2 will be built before Worker 1:
a) Warrior 2 goes SE to explore the ORANGE SQUARES, then westward to the south to explore the BLUE SQUARES, then heads west to fog-bust at Fog Buster 2 location
b) Warrior 2 goes east for 4 turns before heading back west towards the ORANGE SQUARES, then westward to the south to explore the BLUE SQUARES, then heads west to fog-bust at Fog Buster 2 location
c) Warrior 2 goes east for 8 turns before heading back west towards the ORANGE SQUARES, then westward to the south to explore the BLUE SQUARES, then heads west to fog-bust at Fog Buster 2 location
d) Did I miss anything that would cancel all prior votes and force a new voting poll to need to be made?

I vote for a).

Settler 2 immediately after warrior 2/worker 1 would be my vote and this is what I did in all of my test games. If that is agreed by all, then I don't see an issue with UT playing his full 20 turns (or 22 turns to get us back to even turn numbers).

However, I don't recall seeing havr or Irgy weigh in on what to build after warrior 2/worker 1 since it originally fell outside of UT's turnset. Is it fair to throw it in at the 11th hour?

Here is what Havr had to say on the subject:

Here are the results of my test:

T11 - Delhi grew to size 2. Did not switch production.
T18 - Poly -> Agri. I let Delhi stay full steam on growth (continue warrior).
T20 - Delhi at size 20. Work Hill for extra commerce. Switch to worker.
T21 - Got warrior.
T28 - Agri -> Masonary.
T39 - Masonary -> Mono. Finally got worker. Build settler.

While it is unclear as to what he chose to do for Worker/Warrior, because of these conflicting comments:

T20 - ...Switch to worker.
T21 - Got warrior.

However, it is clear that he went for Settler 2 next:

T39 - Masonary -> Mono. Finally got worker. Build settler.

Irgy did not express any objection to Settler 2 before Warrior 3, but it would be great if he could confirm this fact, so that we don't need to make the vote official, since, as you say, the turnset didn't originally plan for this decision to be made now.


Is there a chance that Irgy will log in in the mornings? Does anyone have his email address or have any way of getting him to read this message ASAP, so that he can give his go-ahead or can vote in opposition to skipping eastward exploration, while giving us his points in favour of eastward exploration?

 

[Mitchum]

I just saw a post in the team maintenance thread. Our culture is through the roof (relatively speaking). I guess UT played (until T36 it looks). No power drop. Good. Nice UT!!

 

[unclethrill]

Sorry if there was a delay wanted because the TS is done now.

Here is the uploaded file

I only played until T36 when the worker was finished since that was what was planned.

The good news is that the warriors are both still alive and in good positions. Warrior 1 is in the north forest already. Warrior two is slightly south of where he needs to be.

Bad news is that one lion attacked and I had to terminate with extreme prejudice. I killed a wolf to the southeast too.

I discovered that there are two silver to the SE along with whales but nothing else visible in that direction so far.
The silver city location has nothing else besides the silver and deer.

That is about all.


Session log

Spoiler :

Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Wolf (1.00) vs Gandhi's Warrior 1 (Delhi) (2.70)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Combat Odds: 0.1%
Turn 24, 3400 BC: (Animal Combat: +10%)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: (Plot Defense: +25%)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Wolf is hit for 31 (69/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Wolf is hit for 31 (38/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Wolf is hit for 31 (7/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Wolf is hit for 31 (0/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Gandhi's Warrior 1 (Delhi) has defeated Barbarian's Wolf!
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Lion (1.04) vs Gandhi's Warrior (3.20)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Combat Odds: 0.0%
Turn 24, 3400 BC: (Animal Combat: +10%)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: (Plot Defense: +50%)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Lion is hit for 28 (24/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Barbarian's Lion is hit for 28 (0/100HP)
Turn 24, 3400 BC: Gandhi's Warrior has defeated Barbarian's Lion!

Turn 29, 3275 BC: You have discovered Agriculture!

Turn 33, 3175 BC: The borders of Delhi have expanded!

I am having an issue with my autolog but I will get it fixed before my next TS.

Here is a screenshot

 

[Mitchum]

Good work, UT!

It looks like the next turn set is going to turn out to be the boring one... Wait, I'm up next according to the latest roster!

Got it! I'll post a PPP later tonight. I don't think there will be much to discuss, but we've all thought that before and been wrong...

Edit: Oh no!!! UT posted his turn set report in post 666. We're Dhoom'd!!!

 

[Dhoomstriker]

The good news is that the warriors are both still alive and in good positions. Warrior 1 is in the north forest already. Warrior two is slightly south of where he needs to be.

Absolutely awesome!

Bad news is that one lion attacked and I had to terminate with extreme prejudice. I killed a wolf to the southeast too.

Such a Lion fight is to be expected, and the fact that you only had to fight one is good news. Do you think that there is a risk for the next turnset of another animal coming close before we are fully healed?

Actually, I guess I should ask:
1. What is the health status of both of our Warriors?
2. Have you spotted any animals near either Warrior within the last 4 turns or so?
3. Do you have any comments for the player of the next turnset in regards to the Warriors and Animals that you would like to share?

 

[BLubmuz]

Good work, UT!

It looks like the next turn set is going to turn out to be the boring one... Wait, I'm up next according to the latest roster!

Got it! I'll post a PPP later tonight. I don't think there will be much to discuss, but we've all thought that before and been wrong...

Edit: Oh no!!! UT posted his turn set report in post 666. We're Dhoom'd!!!

The number of the Beast let's hope it's a good sign for a peaceful game.

Give those warrior(s) the woodsman promo.

Well, try to setup a PPP quickly for you 20 turns.

There's almost nothing to decide, looking to the screenie.

- keep warriors alive and promoted to Wood
- build settler
- settle Silver. This will be the name, right?
- farm the 2 corns and mine the silver if you spare some turn mine the unfamous PH, then take a coffee for some 20 turns.

 

[BLubmuz]

Do you think that our opponents can maybe suspect that we founded a religion?

On a more serious graph gazing, take a look to US. Have they suicided their warrior on the 2nd turn?

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Edit: Oh no!!! UT posted his turn set report in post 666. We're Dhoom'd!!!

At least we have the Devil's Advocate on our team...

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Do you think that our opponents can maybe suspect that we founded a religion?

See? You ARE good with sarcasm in English!

On a more serious graph gazing, take a look to US. Have they suicided their warrior on the 2nd turn?

It was also my interpretation that they lost Warrior 1 in their first turnset. Remember that the graph is misleading: we only know data at the upload points. So, all we know is that between Turn 0 and the first turn that they uploaded their saved game (Turn 19), they lost Warrior 1. Regardless of on what turn it happened, there will be no easy fog-busting for them!

 

[Mitchum]

OK, here is the test game we should be using. I had to go back a turn and delete an AI scout to avoid us knowing another AI, which could impact our tech speed (especially for BW). Each warrior has 1/2 experience points. I believe I unfogged the correct tiles and added the new ones that UT discovered. I had to play to T36 twice. The first time I had worked the wrong tile for one turn when completing the warrior, messing up our hammer overflow and food by 1 each. The beakers in Masonry are exact.

As usual, feel free to point out any issues. In general, it should suffice for our testing until warrior 3 comes out and we know where we're actually going to settle our third city.

Is it just me, or do you guys get nervous as hell opening the real save. While I'm doing my map making excercise, I'm always very worried about mis-clicking...

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Give those warrior(s) the woodsman promo.

If he was defending in Forest, he would certainly only get 1 experience point per successful battle. If he only fought 1 battle per Warrior, then he won't yet have any promos to assign.

That said, I would agree with you:
Or normal policy is to ask teammates for Promotion decisions, but for our two fog-busting Warriors, their best chance of survival is on the defense in a Forest, so they should get Woodsman promotions ASAP, once they are eligible to be promoted. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up so that we have plenty of time to vote on the issue.

- settle Silver. This will be the name, right?

You bring up a good point. I thought of the name as being "Silver City," but if we just call it "Silver," then the name can be confused with the Resource. Perhaps something similar to Silver, such as Silverado (spelling?), Silverlands, Plains Silver, etc. With more Silver in sight, do we need to differentiate between the two kinds?


SETTLING LOCATION FOR CITY 2
Oh, and we should consider the possibility of settling on the Ice, picking up the Whale and another Silver.

Pros of setting in Irgy's location:
- We'll for sure get a Trade Route with the capitol, getting us 2 more Commerce per turn.
- Not yet, but eventually, we'll be able to borrow the capitol's Corn, once the Capitol has a lot of improved Mines to work in its place.
- If we go for a Cultural game, we can help to work THREE of the Capitol's Cottages. Plus, we can work an additional 2 Grassland Cottage. Plus, we have 4 "Oasis" squares--Lakes that can take advantage of a Lighthouse. Plus, we have a Deer, although it's only a Tundra Deer, so it is just a 4Food square (which is only a tiny bit better than a Grassland Forest).
- We'll be able to eventually both work the Silver and grow the city.

Cons of setting in Irgy's location:
- We might never get the Whale without our cultural borders. I rarely use Whales in my Cultural games, however, as I usually don't get Optics (which is the required tech for Whales) until after I research Liberalism and have the possibility of already switching to 100% Culture (or at least 70+% Culture), making the Happiness of the Whale become useless


Pros of settling on the Ice:
- We get a Whale (eventually) and 2 more Silvers within our borders. The Silvers can be traded with many AIs who probalby won't have a Silver Resource for themselves.
- Not much else.

Cons of settling on the Ice:
- We'd only get one more Silver Resource within our City 2's fat cross and we wouldn't really be able to work it plus our Plains Silver, as we are too short on Food in this city. So, we wouldn't get extra Hammers or Commerce from the second Silver.
- The second Silver is on Ice and doesn't have a River, so its output sucks pretty badly, anyway, so even if we had the Food required to work that square, we might never want to work it anyway.
- In our current test game, settling on the Ice does NOT give us a Trade Route with the capitol. If we update the test game to include the new land visible, we MAY OR MAY NOT get that Trade Route.
EDIT: - If there is a Seafood Resource off of the Ice Silver peninsula, we may prefer to instead settle on one of the Silvers, in order to get enough Food for that city (and we wouldn't settle such a as City 2). Settling on the Ice might mess up that possibility and we won't have time to scout out the Ice Silver peninsula in order to find out for sure.


So, that's me trying to argue both sides, but in a clear and concise way. I hope that you like the new format and I hope that it will make voting easier and simpler. Note that I have not yet posted a voting poll, as others may want to add more info that I missed to my Pros and Cons.

 

[Irgy]

Yay we've finally played some turns. I'm much more happy about that than the fact that we ended up with building a warrior but not examining any land to the east, which to me seems like a worst of both worlds compromise. It doesn't matter that much, good turnset unclethrill.

I did log on this morning, to see 3 pages of arguments over when the turn should or shouldn't have been played and related issues but no turn played. It was quite depressing. I must have got in just before the post asking for my opinion on settler 2 before warrior 3 though. I don't have a strong opinion on it anyway so it doesn't matter.

I will ask though, are we planning to explore the land to the east at all ever? Or are we just going to conceed it all to Zara and be happy with what we've got to the west? No sightings of fur, dye, silk or ivory yet. It's looking like it's going to be a bit of challenge to get them all. I just hope they're not sitting inside Zara's borders now where we could have got them but haven't (although I can't honestly claim to have thought of that as another reason for exploring east earlier until just now).

So, anyway, what's the next big decisions we need to make? Some test games so far have already played most of the way through this next turn set, does anyone care to summarise them? If not I'm happy to look through and try to make a summary myself.

 

[Mitchum]

I will ask though, are we planning to explore the land to the east at all ever? Or are we just going to conceed it all to Zara and be happy with what we've got to the west? No sightings of fur, dye, silk or ivory yet. It's looking like it's going to be a bit of challenge to get them all. I just hope they're not sitting inside Zara's borders now where we could have got them but haven't (although I can't honestly claim to have thought of that as another reason for exploring east earlier until just now).

So, anyway, what's the next big decisions we need to make? Some test games so far have already played most of the way through this next turn set, does anyone care to summarise them? If not I'm happy to look through and try to make a summary myself.

Yes, warriors 3, 4 and 5 will explore north and east now that we know barbs will be 95% under control.

I will post my PPP later tonight, but our plan is to get the two warriors into fog busting positions, farm both corns, mine the silver, settle Silver City on T55. Research will be Masonry -> Monotheism.

Based on all of my testing, this path should get us the Oracle around T90 without too much trouble. It also includes settling city 3 around T73.

 

[Irgy]

My preference would be settling on 'my' location, and much later on settling a city on the Tundra 1E of the ice where it would pick up the whale and both silvers. It wouldn't be able to work both silvers and therefore pay for itself until optics and civil service, so I wouldn't settle it any time soon.

 

[Irgy]

Yes, warriors 3, 4 and 5 will explore north and east now that we know barbs will be 95% under control.

I will post my PPP later tonight, but our plan is to get the two warriors into fog busting positions, farm both corns, mine the silver, settle Silver City on T55. Research will be Masonry -> Monotheism.

Based on all of my testing, this path should get us the Oracle around T90 without too much trouble. It also includes settling city 3 around T73.

Ok, that all sounds great to me.

 

[Mitchum]

Or normal policy is to ask teammates for Promotion decisions, but for our two fog-busting Warriors, their best chance of survival is on the defense in a Forest, so they should get Woodsman promotions ASAP, once they are eligible to be promoted. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up so that we have plenty of time to vote on the issue.

If said warrior is fortified in the forest for 5+ turns, he will have a 25% fortification bonus. If we leave him unpromoted, he still has this 25% bonus. Now, if we see a barb approaching and "wake him up" to give him the promotion, will he still have the 25% fortification bonus? If so, I vote that we do NOT give him the promotion until needed. If he loses the 25% fortification bonus, then I vote to give him the woodsman promotion straight away.

You bring up a good point. I thought of the name as being "Silver City," but if we just call it "Silver," then the name can be confused with the Resource. Perhaps something similar to Silver, such as Silverado (spelling?), Silverlands, Plains Silver, etc. With more Silver in sight, do we need to differentiate between the two kinds?

Silver City it is. BLubmuz is just going to have to type an extra space and 4 additional characters...

So, that's me trying to argue both sides, but in a clear and concise way. I hope that you like the new format and I hope that it will make voting easier and simpler. Note that I have not yet posted a voting poll, as others may want to add more info that I missed to my Pros and Cons.

I vote that we settle in the original location mentioned by Irgy (e.g. 2W of silver resource)

 

[Dhoomstriker]

If said warrior is fortified in the forest for 5+ turns, he will have a 25% fortification bonus. If we leave him unpromoted, he still has this 25% bonus. Now, if we see a barb approaching and "wake him up" to give him the promotion, will he still have the 25% fortification bonus? If so, I vote that we do NOT give him the promotion until needed. If he loses the 25% fortification bonus, then I vote to give him the woodsman promotion straight away.

A Fortified unit will not lose their fortification bonus if they are promoted. I just confirmed this fact with a test game.

What you must be thinking about is UPGRADING a unit. If a unit is UPGRADED, say, from a Warrior to an Axeman, or an Archer to a Longbow, then they will lose all of their fortification bonus.


It would be kind of silly to "hunker down" as a Warrior, get "good" at fighting in the trees, only to have to refortify. "Oops, my position high in the trees from which I drop Clubs on the heads of unsuspecting foes, before falling down atop them, is no good now, because I'm smarter at how to use the trees to my advantage. Nope, I have to climb down the tree, mess around, and then climb back up." Fortunately, that situation wouldn't happen. He'd just stay in spot and only move slightly to pee, but off of the side of a branch, not down at the base of the tree. So, he'll keep his fortification bonus.


However, it would also be a bit unfair to "instantly upgrade your clubs to axes." Instead, the Warrior dudes have to go into a little hut, toss away their clubs, change their garb, deck themselves out with shiny jewelery, paint new warpaint lines on their bodies, grab some axes, and run back to their previous defensive positions. Of course those guys will lose their fortification bonus, as they actually had to get up and move.


EDIT: I am confused by what you wrote. Are you saying that you do NOT want to further upgrade our Warriors to be uber-Forest fighters?

There are SMALL pockets where a Barb Archer COULD appear, one-at-a-time, one our two fog-busters are in place. Plus, after a battle, using up a Promotion will heal a unit. I would think that we'd WANT to give our units the best possible fighting chance that we can, thus I would think that we'd want to upgrade to Forest defense ASAP. We won't ever use the Warriors for any other kind of combat, so why save their promotions? Can you explain why you would want to save said promotions? Or did I just misunderstand what you wrote?

I vote that we settle in the original location mentioned by Irgy (e.g. 2W of silver resource)

Okay, well I guess you guys took my Pros and Cons as something that you are able to vote on and voted already. Whatever. I'll vote for Irgy's location.


Next PPP's Warrior movements
Do your best to keep the Warriors alive. For Warrior 1, your best bet is just to leave him where he is. Hopefully, very few Barbs will be able to fight him, as few can spawn and if one does spawn, it'll help to fog-bust for other Barbs.

For Warrior 2, it might be best to play the "stay in place for a couple of turns" game, before moving a square and repeating. There's a Bear out there somewhere. If you do see the Bear and then run away and then it doesn't follow, I would suggest that you don't immediately go back to where you were, or you'll have a good chance of finding him again, but this time without a movement point remaining to run away. Yikes!

Fortunately, Unclethrill bought you several extra turns to use, so use them wisely. It would even be fine, in my mind, to wait until the mid 40s in terms of turns before creeping up slowly, hoping that the Bear will disappear right around the time that are going to move into place with Warrior 2.


Next PPP's Worker tasks
I've seen what you did in the test games and I'm confident that you'll correctly irrigate the Grassland River for a "free" Worker turn, before going to the Silver. However, if you write down the turn numbers for yourself in the PPP, it'll be easier for you to remember each task that needs to be performed and in what order.

The only other trick is that when you only have a couple of units to move, it is easy to accidentally think that you have the Worker selected, only to realize that you have a Warrior selected and, with a mouse-move, send the Warrior the wrong way. I did it once in one of my test games, so just watch for that. In a game with a ton of units, your screen will shift and you'll have to think about what each unit needs to do, so it'll be harder to make that kind of a mistake in a game with more units to control.