SGOTM 11 - Fifth Element

[Dhoomstriker]

Fortune favours those who plan. Those who are brave will dare to remember their PPP and will boldly play by what it says.

- Stated by Gabriele d'Annunzio and Virgilio in their collaborative novel, "Sharing Ideas and Achieving Consensus on those Ideas before Playing," written after they played SGOTM games together in Heaven (or wherever your beliefs refer to as "the place to be.")

 

[BLubmuz]

Thia is a draft PPP for turns until 160:

Dehli: finish worker (5-6 turns), pop GS, fire some, Aqueduct, HG
Whaties: Finish settler (1-2 turns) then?
Bedrock: finish settler (7 turns) then?
Silverado: continues granary?
GPF: switch to WB?
Riverdale: Continues Monastery?

Settler from Dehli goes to Crabs (start move this turn - 151)
Settler from Wheaties goes to Rice (start move in 1-2 turns)
Settler from Bedrock goes to 3Clams (start move in 7 turns, but the path is short)
All 3 will settle only if some foreign settler is spotted
But do we settle any of them before turn 160 if no settler arrives in sight?

Worker 1 (on crabs site) continues chop, then?
Worker near Dehli mine the riverside GLHill
the remaining 2 will finish their job this turn, ready next one: so?
The one arriving from Dehli in 5-6 turns?

Civics/Religion?
Espionage? (i suppose not touch, but i've seen Sal has spent some points on us)
Demands? give in to anything but CoL and Theo?
I suppose Zara will not demand anything, since we demanded last turn. Is it correct?
I also suppose we'll continue to keep our cities unguarded, right?

What about the AP?

Sorry guys, i've lost focus on this, i need help.

Another thing, somewhere outside this TS: a player saves beakers while researching a tech already completed by a player who he knows. It's only the contact or this will not happens if at war?

 

[Irgy]

Just letting you all know: Still reading, a tiny bit out of touch with the details because there's a lot going on in the MTDG and related pitboss games just now. I'll have a ton of free time next week as my wife is going on a short holiday with the baby but without me, so I'll hopefully be well on top of things by the time it's my turn set.

I'm still dubious about the idea of delaying settling. I'm willing to believe the trick would work, but the thing I still don't understand is what evidence we have that Saladin is likely to send a settler on a galley any time even in the next 50 (let alone the next 10) turns? I thought all we'd seen was an exploring workboat. Do we even know where his own lands are yet?

 

[Dhoomstriker]

I don't have time to review the PPP... that'll happen sometime tomorrow. But I do want to coment on this point:

Just letting you all know: Still reading, a tiny bit out of touch with the details because there's a lot going on in the MTDG and related pitboss games just now. I'll have a ton of free time next week as my wife is going on a short holiday with the baby but without me, so I'll hopefully be well on top of things by the time it's my turn set.

I'm still dubious about the idea of delaying settling. I'm willing to believe the trick would work, but the thing I still don't understand is what evidence we have that Saladin is likely to send a settler on a galley any time even in the next 50 (let alone the next 10) turns? I thought all we'd seen was an exploring workboat. Do we even know where his own lands are yet?

The primary goal of delaying Settling is NOT to trap Saladin or any other AI that sends a Galley filled with a Settler Party.

The primary goal of delaying Settling is to avoid crashing our economy by building Cities that are not productive.

We wanted the Great Person Farm ASAP, as we want it to grow ASAP so that it can run Specialists ASAP.

But the other Cities are just mediocre Cities anyway.

What we'd LIKE is to FIRST have each of those Cities having at least one improved square to work before settling them.

Otherwise, the Maintenance Costs plus working a 3 or 4 "basic Inputs" square will not balance each other out.

I detailed this stuff before, let's see if I paraphrase what I wrote previously.

We have no rush to actually sit these Settlers down immediately. It will cost us more to settle them than they will be beneficial, until:
1. FOR CRAB CITY: we get the Fish + Pig improved in the Great Person Farm. Sharing the Fish with the Crab City by settling it immediately would just mean that the Great Person Farm would have to work an unimproved square. So both the Fish and Pig must be improved before settling the Crab City. PREFERABLY, we will wait until we have TWO Fish and the Pig improved, OR the Fish + Pig + Cow, because we'll want the Great Person Farm to be at Size 2 for quite some time early on.
2. FOR RICE CITY: we either improve another square for Bedrock to work or else we whip Bedrock to Size 2, such that Rice City can steal a Flood Plains square without leaving Bedrock working an unimproved square. Rice City will not be effective if it steals Bedrock's Cottage but leaves Bedrock working an unimproved square, nor will it be effective without its own improved square if Bedrock keeps using all 3 of its Flood Plains Cottages.
3. FOR THREE CLAMS CITY: we get a Work Boat for the Clam City or at least the Marble or Cow improved.

Now, here's the tricky part:
We can't just settle one of those Cities IF we meet its condition UNLESS we have all 3 Settlers in place. Otherwise, Saladin

Spoiler :

since he sent a Work Boat explorer, he could arrive at any time, but at least one other Buddhist AI exists who could come at any time, since he or she will guaranteed have Open Borders with Saladin and this other AI might even be closer to us than Saladin and Saladin may have just explored us by coming through that AI's borders

could scoot past us and steal the City location for which we don't have a Settler prepared.


So, ideally, we will say:
A] Until all 3 Settlers are in place, do not settle them, UNLESS an AI Settler Party lands, in which case we must settle in order to prevent them from Settling. We MUST let that AI Settler Party LAND BEFORE we Settle, otherwise we will not effectively mess up the AI Settler Party and will VERY LIKELY LOSE A CITY LOCATION TO THE AI.
B] Once all 3 Settlers are in place, but they don't have an improvement to work, DO NOT SETTLE THEM.
C] Once all 3 Settlers are in place AND at least one of those Cities has an improvement to work, we have a decision to make. One decision is to wait a few more turns to both:
1. Keep our Science Rate higher
AND
2. Give the AIs a chance to land a Settler Party, so that we can permanently mess with that AI, like we messed with Zara earlier

The other decision is to settle that particular City, since it can start being productive.


So, part C] of the plan still has a decision that needs to be made. But Parts A] and B] are the stages where we must delay settling UNTIL an AI Settler Party lands. That's the primary purpose of delaying settling--to keep our economy in check.

Messing with the AI in Stage C] is a secondary goal that we have to vote on whether or not we support it.

HOWEVER, messing with the AI in Stages A] and B] IS A REQUIREMENT of our plan, or else we'll strongly risk losing at least one City location--if not on our continent, then the AI will likely just send their Settler Party to one of the nearby continents and steal that location.

So, the advantage of messing with the AI's Settler Party in Stage A] will help us to secure our on-continent and off-continent City locations.

Messing with the AI's Settler Party in Stage B] will help us to secure our off-continent City locations and will help us from crashing our economy by settling prematurely.

Messing with the AI's Settler Party in Stage C] will simply help us to secure our off-continent City locations.

How long we wait in Stage C] is something that we can discuss, but I SUGGEST that we do not settle any of the 3 Cities until all 3 of them can be immediately productive AND no AI Galley is in sight. This situation shouldn't happen until after BLubmuz' turnset.

However, what COULD happen during his turnset is an AI Settler Party showing up. That's too early for us to get effective Cities settled, so we'll have to convince the AI Settler Party to land and then settle the Cities near where they landed, in order to:
1. Make the AI Galley run away
AND
2. Prevent the AI Settler Party from settling anytime soon. Remember, a Galley moves AT TWO SQUARES PER TURN. A GALLEY CAN ALSO CUT CORNERS BY MOVING DIAGONALLY and our Coast is rather diagonally-shaped along the way to the Three Clams location. HOWEVER, an AI Settler Party will move AT THE SPEED OF THE ARCHER, aka ONE SQUARE PER TURN. That's the BIGGEST VALUE of messing with the AI Settler Party--it buys us time before we have to settle our Three Clams City in an unproductive status (when it doesn't have a useful square to work).

THE OTHER VALUE of messing with the AI's Settler Party is that the AIs will often only have 1 Settler early game and only 2 Settlers later in the game, so we effectively reduce the AI's City spamming, because we'll have trapped their Settler on our continent. That will leave neighbouring continental City-settling more to us than to the AI.


Do you get it yet? If not, ask questions, but the point of doing all of this is to:
1. Meet our long-term primary goal of getting a Diplo victory, which means not crashing our economy if we don't need to do so
AND
2. Meet our short-term primary goal of REXing as much as we can off-continent. Unless we see an AI Settler Party soon, the goal IS NOT REALLY to secure our on-continent City locations but instead TO SECURE OUR OFF-CONTINENT CITY LOCATIONS. You guys talk about wanting to settle off-continent. I'm telling you how to do it the most effectively. You can either trust my experience with "messing with the AIs"--that's one of my strongpoints in playing Civ 4--or you can ignore my advice and likely need to give up on most or all of our off-continent settling. Make the choice.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

BLubmuz, please clarify how you plan to play from PPPs

Sorry guys, i've lost focus on this, i need help.

That's fine, but before I help, I'd like you to clarify whether or not you'll use the PPP that we as a team collaborate on or if you'll just want to rewrite it in your own words.

Because if you are just going to rewrite it, then there's no point working out the small details, as they tend to get lost when the PPP gets rewritten.

Also, if you agree to go with playing out the team-collaborated-upon PPP, I would ask that you play through the test game once before the real game with the finalized PPP. The other players on the team have been willing to do so. Ideally, you will ALSO give us a game report and screenshots of this final runthrough, so that others can spot any misunderstandings that you may have from what was written.

But, if you won't play by the PPP that the team collaborates on, let us know ahead of time, so that we don't spend the effort on a task that will not be fully appreciated.

If you are going to rewrite the PPP in your own words, I will only give you high-level points, but I will expect you to play multiple rounds of test games. I will expect you to write multiple rounds of PPPs and I will expect you to come up with all of the small details. The other players have been willing to take high-level advice and rewrite their PPPs many times; there should be no reason for you to be the exception case.

The team is here to help you with test games and small details, but only if you will follow them.

So, make your decision and then I will act accordingly when I have time tomorrow to review the PPP.

As you can see, I am not trying to force a method upon you, but want to give you a choice between two methods so that you can pick the one that will work best for you.

So, if you take it upon yourself to rewrite the PPP every time, then I will ask for multiiple iterations of test games out of you. It will take longer this way, but you'll be the one writing the PPP.

The tradeoff is more work out of you in exchange for more control of how the PPP gets written. But let me assure you, if you want to take on this extra work, we will work you to the bone (translation: we will work your fingers so hard that all you will see on your hards will be bones--no flesh) until you get something really good for your PPP.

 

[Irgy]

Ok I understand why we're not settling straight away then. In that case really what feels wierd is that we rushed the settlers out only to have them sit around. But, I can see the point that we risked losing the spots otherwise. It just feels like an unusual situation.

Talking about wanting to settle off-continent but not really doing it is indeed usually how my games go, happy to try something different

 

[unclethrill]

We definitely need to get the southwestern settlers in place fast. I would expect Sal to send a galley pretty quick. The AI in general like to get a foothold on your land early especially when there is such a wide open expanse.

 

[BLubmuz]

BLubmuz, please clarify how you plan to play from PPPs

That's fine, but before I help, I'd like you to clarify whether or not you'll use the PPP that we as a team collaborate on or if you'll just want to rewrite it in your own words.

Because if you are just going to rewrite it, then there's no point working out the small details, as they tend to get lost when the PPP gets rewritten.

As i said, i've lost focus and probably i can recover by playing the actual game. Adding to this that i made a stupid mistake with that scientist, changing a 6 for a 4 (don't ask me how i did), i'll print the PPP and try to strictly follow it.

This would probably put me back in-game.

Of course, if any major unexpected event like a new contact, a landing or else i'll stop to inform the team.

BTW, why not change Izzy with Sal in the test game? I can easily do it, in case.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

As i said, i've lost focus and probably i can recover by playing the actual game.

Do you mean you can regain focus by playing the test game? Because we only get one chance at the real game--there is no "learning what we can do better as you play" during the real game--you can only apply the lessons learned if you're playing the test game and then applying that info to the real game.

Things like build orders, hiring and firing Specialists, switching Civics and Religions, etc, can all be planned out by playing test games and writing a PPP. That still leaves a lot to the UP player--watching the AIs to see what they do, paying attention for unexpected events that might occur, watching for variations from the PPP and pausing play to let the team know so that we can recalculate things, and more (such as your good idea to take a screenshot of the listed Leaders of the world and their relative ranking).

Adding to this that i made a stupid mistake with that scientist, changing a 6 for a 4 (don't ask me how i did)

I'm not sure that I understand you. Did you mean to FIRE a Scientist for a turn and only run 4 Scientists? If so, what square were you planning to work with the citizen? We never even talked about this idea, BUT, it is something that we can still do before the Great Scientist appears, since we now have at least 1 extra turn of GPP from hiring the 6th Scientist for a turn.

That's just an option--we can also just stick with 5 Scientists until the Great Person is achieved, which would give us a slightly higher chance at getting a Great Scientist.

, i'll print the PPP and try to strictly follow it.

Okay, I will hold you to that.

Just to clarify, my understanding is that people may add to your current PPP and you will follow the lastest version of the team-collaborated-upon PPP, instead of rewriting the PPP yourself, correct? So, if I update your PPP, you won't rewrite it; instead, you might change one or two small things inline, instead of retyping ideas and potentially missing important points, right? You still didn't make it clear if you are going to follow the team's PPP or just one that you write yourself, and your answer will dictate the level of feedback that I will giving you (either directly adding to and updating your PPP, which you or anyone else can make direct changes to aftwards, or else just giving you high-level suggestions and waiting for you to keep revising the PPP until we're happy with what you have written).

Of course, if any major unexpected event like a new contact, a landing or else i'll stop to inform the team.

Great. We're not 100% certain if Saladin or another AI will land a Settler Party. We're also not 100% certain WHERE they will land their Settler Party. So, if an AI Settler Party lands, be sure to leave yourself with at least one unit with their movement points remaining (to avoid letting the AI settle because we accidentally advanced the turn by pressing the ENTER key). Then, when you report the event to the team, we can set up a precise scenario in the test game that matches an AI landing in the exact same spot, and we can see what effects our Settlers sitting down will have on that Settler Party.

BTW, why not change Izzy with Sal in the test game? I can easily do it, in case.

Be my guest. Go ahead and change the AIs. None of the rest of us know how to do so.

We've figured out how to change an AI in a World-buildered save, thanks to Havr's help, but doing so would mean playing the game again from the start--I don't think that ANYONE on the team wants to go through that level of effort. Unless you are volunteering to do so...

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Thia is a draft PPP for turns until 160

The advantage of what you wrote so far is that it helps to get the team aboard in terms of what we plan to accomplish in the turnset.

It's only one part of the PPP, though.

The other part of the PPP lists tasks in order that they occur. If you don't have this other portion of the PPP, then how do you expect to remember to do all of the high-level points on each turn? The reality is that you won't, and some things will be forgotten.

So, a complete PPP will have something similar to what you wrote for a high-level view of what we're doing and the goals that we are trying to accomplish, while it will also have turn-by-turn steps of the important things that we need to change, based on decisions that we have made while playing a test game.

We have yet to really draft a complete PPP. Some of the earlier PPPs focused on the high-level goals and overview portion, without describing much about what had to happen on each turn. Other PPPs focused mostly on the turn-by-turn steps, without listing our overall turnset goals (you had to read a bunch other messages just to figure out what our goals for the turnset were).


If I had to choose between having one of the two, I'd say we'd want the turn-by-turn steps, as it's easy enough to read other messages to figure out what our goals for the turnset are. But, if we just talk about WHAT our goals are but not HOW to accomplish them, we will surely fail at achieving many of our goals. Ideally, though, we'll have both parts in each PPP.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

So, if you are going to keep control of writing the PPP yourself, it would help a lot if you started to get some turn-by-turn dates for the items that you have listed. If you are willing to follow a PPP that others collaborate on, then the rest of us can help to fill out some of the turn-by-turn details.

Some examples:

T15X
Built a Settler in Wheaties and switched to buiding another Settler

AND

T15X
Worker 3 completes the PFor Chop into Wheaties
Move Worker 4 to the PCow SW + S of Wheaties and builds a Pasture

T15X + 1
Move Worker 3 to the PHFor 1NW of Wheaties

AND

T15X
Receive a Great Person (hopefully a Great Scientist)
Lightbulb Philosophy if a Great Scientist, otherwise pause play and consult with the team
Delhi: Fires the 5 Scientists and works the following squares: 2 Corns, GCopper, (fill in the blanks here). Delhi will grow in Y turns. The Aqueduct will be complete in Z turns.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Some answers to BLubmuz' general questions

More details about settling the Westside Cities

Spoiler :

All 3 will settle only if some foreign settler is spotted
But do we settle any of them before turn 160 if no settler arrives in sight?

Okay, yes, we will settle all 3, but not all 3 at once. We'll want to settle 2 at once and leave the 3rd one as a Settler. We'll want to do so because if an AI Settler Parties arrives on your turnset, we will not have had the time to improve the appropriate squares for each of these Cities to work. Thus, we'd be settling them before the ideal time to settle them and thus we will want to delay settling them as long as we can.

We HAVE to settle two Cities, just to block the AI from settling within 1 to 2 turns of movement points. However, we can leave the 3rd City unsettled, so that we don't have to incur the big hit to our economy. If the AI Settler Party moves towards that location, we can wait a few turns until the AI Settler Party is 2 turns or more away from settling in a valid spot. A valid spot is any spot that isn't within a 2-square radius of other Cities on our continent. Then, we settle the 3rd City.

That way, we accomplish several things:
1. We don't crash our economy as badly immediately
2. We make the AI Settler Party "work hard" by making it run to one spot then stealing that spot, then watching it run somewhere else instead, thus delaying the time that the AI can settle in other spot (say, the Fish + Incense spot) and thus delaying the amount of culture that their settled City can produce
3. We keep the AI's Settler "alive" as a Settler for a longer time period, meaning that the AI is less likely to build a replacement Settler during that time period, which buys us more time to get our off-continent Cities


If we are super lucky, the AI Settler Party will just stand in place once we settle our first two Cities, so we can safely delay setting our 3rd City until:
a) We have an improved square for it to work
OR
b) We have a Galley and decide to send the Settler to an off-continent location instead, since it takes a while to MOVE to an off-continent location, while the next Settler that we can build can get to the 3rd on-continent City location within a short period of time, thus risking very little in terms of losing our on-continent location, while buying us EXTRA time to settle off-continent by using an earlier Settler to do so

In other words, an extra benefit of not settling the third City immediately is that we can possibly use the Settler to secure an off-continent location for us.

Espionage

Spoiler :

Espionage? (i suppose not touch, but i've seen Sal has spent some points on us)

I've said some of these points before but I'll say them again.

Espionage points are best used when they are focused on a single target.

When you spend 0 Espionage points on an AI, the AI is far less likely to keep spending points on you, unless they have no other valid targets. Once Saladin and Zara meet, Saladin may switch more of his Espionage to Zara than he would have done if we'd started assigning Espionage points to Saladin.

Until we get an off-continent City, we cannot have Espionage actively used against us (i.e. through the use of a Spy unit) by an AI that isn't on our continent. That includes Zara and possible other AIs that are connected via a long and twisty Tundra or Ice passage to the SE of Zara--which even if it is the case, might be too windy for an AI's Spy to properly navigate and even if it could navigate it, it would take a long time for a Spy to return from its capitol after completing its first Spy Mission.

So, not only should we focus our Espionage points, Zara is by far the best target for us to choose at the moment and likely for quite a lot of the future, too.

AI Demands

Spoiler :

Demands? give in to anything but CoL and Theo?

We won't have much in the way of other demands.

I suppose Zara will not demand anything, since we demanded last turn. Is it correct?

That sounds correct--an AI's demand, when you meet it, results in that automatic no-war-declaration time period. I would think that the code would not allow for an AI to make a demand within this time period, regardless of who's demand actually set up the time period of no war.

Therefore, Zara won't ask for much and Saladin already has all of our other techs.

If and when you learn Currency, although it sucks for the AIs to get it, I'd rather let them have it and make a friend than to make an enemy.

If we have Resources that they want, unless it is a strategic Resource like Iron, I don't see why we can't give into the demand. If we connect our second Iron or both of our Horses (neither will likely get connected within BLubmuz' turnset if we are leveraging our Workers correctly), then we should decide as a team whether or not to give that Resource away in either a trade or a demand. Preferably, we will have that discussion before we choose to hook up the second source of either Resource.

If another AI meets us, they may need a tech like Math, Alphabet, Iron Working, Monarchy (if we get it from Zara) or whatever, and of those, I only see a minor concern with giving away Monarchy, in that it leads to Feudalism. However, by the time that Saladin, Zara, and Gandhi (that's us) already know a tech, an AI is likely to go "shopping" (aka trading) for that tech on the turn after we get a demand for it. So, yes, even give away Monarchy in a demand, as the AI will get it anyway and this way, we'll reduce one AI-AI trade (i.e. the AI selling Monarchy will learn one less tech) and we'll get extra positive Diplo modifiers out of the deal.

Accept these Demands
So, if a demand is made for a tech like Math, Alphabet, Monarchy, or Currency, you can accept the demand and give away the tech.

If a demand is made for a Resource that isn't a Strategic Resource, give away the Resource, as we can always get it back in 10 turns by cancelling the deal.

Refuse these Demands
Refuse to trade Code of Laws, Theology, Philosophy, and Civil Service.

Consult with the team for these Demands (but this point won't happy in BLubmuz' turnset)
Demands for a Strategic Resource, such as Iron or Horse.


One more thing--don't demand anything from the AIs
It will be a good number of turns before Zara will successfully allows us to beg for things from him.

Other AIs won't be so easy to please (to get to a "Pleased" relationship), and we don't want to demand anything unless:
a) We are stronger than the AI (having more Cities, not so much which military units you own, actually counts the most in this calculation)
AND
b) They are Pleased or Friendly with us

So, basically don't make any more demands during your turnset.

Power Level

Spoiler :

I also suppose we'll continue to keep our cities unguarded, right?

I've read that unless you keep a high power level, the AI won't care if you are really weak or just a little bit weak. Just like in a combat, there are "jump points."

If an AI will declare war on us when they have 120% of our Power Level, then that number is a fixed value. If we have 119% of their Power Level, it is equal to us having 1% of their Power Level, in terms of the War Declaration calculations.

The best thing that we can do, instead of building a bunch of Axemen, is to get on good Diplomatic terms with the AIs, as for each level of relationship level that they drop (from Pleased to Cautious or Cautious to Annoyed), at least part of the number, if not the entire number, used for calculating whether or not they will go to war with us gets DOUBLED.

Apostolic Palace

Spoiler :

What about the AP?

What about it?

We still plan to build it. We still plan to try and build it in Wheaties.

If an AI is going to self-research Theology, it will most likely be an AI that likes Theocracy. Okay, sure, we've seen two such AIs already, but at least we'll know the turn that they research this tech.

That's ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR JOBS as the UP player from now on, on each turn, now that we know Alphabet: to watch the F4 (Foreign Advisor) -> Tech screen, to see if anything changes.

A BUFFY notification will appear if an AI learns a tech that we do not know, but THAT INFO IS NOT SUFFICIENT. You must remember to check the F4 -> Techs screen on each turn to watch to see if the AI still wants Code of Laws and Theology from us. If one of those techs disappears from the "Wants" column, then you should pause play and let the team know, as our plans may need to shift to accomodate this change in situation.

If you forget to check this screen every turn but notice that the AI knows the tech a couple of turns later, please pause play instead of trying to hide the fact that you forgot to check--it is better to let us know about the situation so that we can adjust to it as soon as you learn of the situation. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here, but it IS human nature to feel guilty about our mistakes and to want to hide things, even if the "mistake" is a minor one (whoops, I forgot to check that screen for 3 turns), so try to put that natural tendency aside and be willing to tell us that an AI learned the tech, but you're not sure when it happened within the last 4 turns.


So, if we find that an AI learns Theology, we'll PROBABLY want to start building The Apostolic Palace right away, but we should discuss this situation as a team if it happens, in case we determine that building The Apostolic Palace will be doomed to fail at that point and thus we won't waste Hammers into a Wonder that cannot even convert the Hammers into double-Gold (there is no Resource-based bonus for this Wonder like you would see for a Stone-based Wonder).

Piggybacking Research

Spoiler :

Another thing, somewhere outside this TS: a player saves beakers while researching a tech already completed by a player who he knows. It's only the contact or this will not happens if at war?

If you have contact with an AI (i.e. they appear in the list of Civs that we know), then anytime that you are researching a tech that they know, you get a small bonus on research of that tech. For our game, that should work out to roughly a 4% bonus on tech Research. Note that you'll only see this bonus if you are making enough Flasks per turn (i.e. 25 or more Flasks). If you're making less than 25 Flasks, due to not running Binary Science, then you will never get this bonus.

This bonus applies regardless of your Diplomatic status with the AI in question. So, if you are at war, there is no change to the bonus.

 

[havr]

It is no wonder that Blumbuz lost focus. Hard to keep focus in this game as, at the minimum, 4 hours a day are needed. Probably more.

I, for example, have no idea how I am going to play in the next TS.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

It is no wonder that Blumbuz lost focus. Hard to keep focus in this game as, at the minimum, 4 hours a day are needed. Probably more.

Probably, yes.

But the value of your approach to working on the PPP is that this workload of time can be distributed across different team members.

BLubmuz seemed to want to rewrite his PPP, creating even more work on top of that intial work, and very easily leading to things being missed and thus it being even more easy for mistakes to be made.

I, for example, have no idea how I am going to play in the next TS.

We'll figure it out as a team for your turnset, since you likely have few issues in playing using your own method for coming up a PPP.

A good PPP will actually:
a) Give you turn-by-turn ideas of what you need to do in each City, for each Unit, and what to do in terms of Civic, Religious, and Science Slider changes--basically, it will capture all of the decisions that came be made ahead of time, leaving you to focus on watching other areas of the game, instead of being responsible for watching every single aspect of the game
b) A high-level overview of what you are trying to accomplish, so that we can all understand WHY we're making the moves listed in part "a)"
c) A list of things to do and not to do "in case" something happens, such as which AI Demands to accept or refuse

I have no trouble in devoting time to help create and maintain such a PPP, and once we have a part "c)" done once, we can re-use it for future PPPs, just updating it as we go (there will be no need to say that we are allowed to give away Math as an AI demand if all AIs learn Math, for example).

So, worry not.

The only current dilemma for me is whether or not BLubz will accept this level of help. If he doesn't want it, then I won't spend my time giving it.

 

[BLubmuz]

The only current dilemma for me is whether or not BLubz will accept this level of help. If he doesn't want it, then I won't spend my time giving it.

I will accept any level of help, since my lost of focus is total.

Just prepare a PPP, possibly avoiding useless details (remember that even if i've lost focus i'm still a good player). Something i can print in a A4 page and read while playing.

My problem at present is my complete lack of ideas and anything else. In any game (SGs or solo) i tend to plan and play badly at this stage, but for this one i'm completely lost.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

I will accept any level of help, since my lost of focus is total.

Okay, I'll try and come up with something, but I want to make sure that my test game is accurate. Did it seem alright to you? If you don't have time to check it out, are you willing to share the current version of the real game in either the thread or as an upload to the server?


Also, if you could clarify what you meant by the following comment, it would be appreciated:

Adding to this that i made a stupid mistake with that scientist, changing a 6 for a 4 (don't ask me how i did)

i tend to plan and play badly at this stage, but for this one i'm completely lost.

One part of the issue is probably the trading strategy. Since we want to avoid AIs getting Liberalism (for Free Religion, which, unlike in a normal game, we are not allowed to end the game with them being in Free Religion), we want to keep them "technologically stupid" on key techs that lead to Liberalism, which is probably different from how you are used to playing.

Code of Laws leads to Civil Service and Philosophy.
Civil Service and Theology lead to Paper.
Paper leads to Education.
Education and Philosophy lead to Liberalism.

The longer that we can keep the AIs from learning any of the techs that I just mentioned, the better.

 

[BLubmuz]

Okay, I'll try and come up with something, but I want to make sure that my test game is accurate. Did it seem alright to you? If you don't have time to check it out, are you willing to share the current version of the real game in either the thread or as an upload to the server?


Also, if you could clarify what you meant by the following comment, it would be appreciated:

At a first glance the save seems correct. I'll try to make the change Izzy/Sal and see how it works

My 6 to 4 mistake? Now the GPPs are 450. I verified that with the present rate we arrive to 464. But i reasoned on a 444, so only 6 GPPs for a GPerson 1 turn earlier.
Now we will arrive to 470, with 20 excess GPPs. I don't remember if this excess is treated like an overflow or if it gets lost.
In any case we can fire a Sci for 4, maybe 5 turns. But probably is better keep it hired to increase the chances for a GS.

One part of the issue is probably the trading strategy. Since we want to avoid AIs getting Liberalism (for Free Religion, which, unlike in a normal game, we are not allowed to end the game with them being in Free Religion), we want to keep them "technologically stupid" on key techs that lead to Liberalism, which is probably different from how you are used to playing.

Code of Laws leads to Civil Service and Philosophy.
Civil Service and Theology lead to Paper.
Paper leads to Education.
Education and Philosophy lead to Liberalism.

The longer that we can keep the AIs from learning any of the techs that I just mentioned, the better.

Rest assured that in any of my games i trade for Philo or paper/Edu until i arrive to Lib.
Often i bulb Philo (even if it's not much efficient) 'cause i know that once a player discovers it, the AI is much less inclined to bulb it and usually builds an academy instead. A nice bonus when i take the city

We can consider CS for Feud, but it's soon to discuss this.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

At a first glance the save seems correct.

Okay, good, thanks. I'll play ahead under that assumption, but if you keep checking for differences any find any (such as how many Great People Points there are in Delhi), please let me know about such differences.

I'll try to make the change Izzy/Sal and see how it works

Good luck. This part shouldn't affect too many of the Worker moves and builds, so I'll get started with the current test game and can go back and replay things if you can figure out how to make this AI-swapping work.

My 6 to 4 mistake? Now the GPPs are 450. I verified that with the present rate we arrive to 464. But i reasoned on a 444, so only 6 GPPs for a GPerson 1 turn earlier.

Okay, I see what you mean.

However, a spreadsheet would probably have helped you to spot a further flaw in that plan: getting 464 GPP would require 7 turns of GPP from Turn 149. You'd have needed to subtract one full turn's worth (38 GPP per turn) IN ADDITION to the difference of 6 extra GPP, otherwise you wouldn't have saved 1 turn, right? It's easy to miss these subtle issues if you don't have all of the numbers laid out in front of you in a spreadsheet.

Now we will arrive to 470, with 20 excess GPPs. I don't remember if this excess is treated like an overflow or if it gets lost.

GPP will overflow. They'll even keep the same chances of generating Great People if you hire the exact same number of Specialists before and after getting your next Great Person.

Spoiler :

What I DO NOT KNOW is if the probabilities for those "overflow" GPP will change their probability based on you changing the ratio of GPP by firing your Specialists the next turn. Regardless, it's a very minor detail--one that we should not worry about.

In any case we can fire a Sci for 4, maybe 5 turns. But probably is better keep it hired to increase the chances for a GS.

We'll probably stick with 5 Scientist Specialists hired, but I'll consider firing one if it means a considerable boost to getting The Hanging Gardens on time.


Tech Trading

Spoiler :

We can consider CS for Feud, but it's soon to discuss this.

We can also consider trading two cheaper techs.

What you might not be aware of (or others on the team might not be aware of) is that partial research into a tech, such as Feudalism, makes it cheaper for us when we try to buy it from the AI.

So, for example, the AI will not give you Monarchy for Alphabet. But, if you research part of Monarchy, say, about 20% of it, then they will trade you the remainder of Monarchy for the full value of Alphabet.

The AIs also "devalue" techs as they start to research them, which is a fact that you've probably seen more often--when they might only be willing to give you 20 Gold for a tech even though they have 300 Gold... and if you don't make the trade, they will learn the tech on the next turn.

 

[BLubmuz]

I've made the chanced in WB/notepad (to be accurate, i use the much powerful and free Edit pad lite).
The problem is that after that you need to start the game as a scenario and not as a saved game. So, everything in build and all the GPPs get lost. Not worth the effort to play the game from the beginning for what you gain.

And yes, i'm more than aware of the partial research/trade trick. I often use it in my games.

Please remember that my only problem in being a top player is that i play too much "aestetically" often sacrificing efficiency. But since it's a game and i like to have fun...

As i already said, i give my best in ancient/early classical era and in industrial/modern. The hole between those probably depends by my style or... ok, something wrong i can't address.

And i'm a maniac of roads (please see Romans). I guess i must abandon that habit, mainly see what CiV does with roads, at least according to the anticipations.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

I've made the chanced in WB/notepad (to be accurate, i use the much powerful and free Edit pad lite).
The problem is that after that you need to start the game as a scenario and not as a saved game. So, everything in build and all the GPPs get lost. Not worth the effort to play the game from the beginning for what you gain.

Okay, thanks for trying anyway!

And i'm a maniac of roads (please see Romans). I guess i must abandon that habit, mainly see what CiV does with roads, at least according to the anticipations.

Roads are good when any of the following are true:
1. You are able to build excess Workers
2. You declare war early and capture lots of excess Workers
3. You have many AIs on the same landmass as you to which you want to send your military units
4. A lot of your early Cities have been captured and were already improved by an AI or the Barbs, so the Workers won't have many improvements left to improve
5. Your Workers have nothing better to do

Unfortunately, none of the above situations apply to our game. The only way that we'll get into that situation is if we can "catch up" with our Worker actions, and the best way to do that is to try to leverage our existing Workers as best as we can. It's annoying to play that way, but it's the situation that we are faced with.

If you don't like being in this situation (I do not like it, either, by the way), next SGOTM you can build 3 Workers first before buiding anything else. Or maybe you can hope that we won't have a "don't declare war on too many AIs" kind of a game condition that limits the number of early Worker steals that can be performed.

And yes, i'm more than aware of the partial research/trade trick. I often use it in my games.

Good to know. It's too bad that you probably won't have many more trading opportunities in your turnset past Monarchy + Archery from Zara for Math + Alphabet (unless Saladin gifts him one of those techs or something), but that's just the style of game we're forced into by the game conditions (keep the AIs out of Free Religion).

So, as you start to play further, you see more and more how much of a devil DynamicSpirit was in setting up this game...