SGOTM 11 - Shaka, not stirred

[Paul#42]

@Andro & Abegweit: beat you

 

[Andronicus]

Do you mean, that our “monopoly” on writing will give to other civs discount on the research? So, you want to research CoL and Philo “in blind”?? You are brave man… Why scout waiting Egyptians then? Also may help following risky procedure: Borrow money from Indians and put back 100% research. (they may give 33 for 2 gpt, say. When money will over, borrow again, and again until Republic. That will slow down their research and in the case of aggression we gain something…

I have noticed klarius using this technique but have had mixed success when trying it in my own games. Paul is correct that it does speed up the AI research. This was obviously a "good thing" in the last SGOTM where there was essentially a science race to astronomy and chivalry and AI research was helpful. In this game I think we will want to get chivalry ASAP but keep AI backwards to get to domination quickly. Note many AI have early medieval age UUs (Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Vikings, France and Japan, with Ottomen, Russians, English and Koreans having later medieval UU).
My understanding of the technique is most advantage is gained late in the research cycle where cash in hand allows 0% tax and max science, then earlier tech research allows trading monopoly for profit with the AI being more able to afford the new tech because of the gpt payments.

Edit
good to see much activity
we lead the post count yet again
(but now well after midnight so goodnight)

 

[Paul#42]

Also may help following risky procedure: Borrow money from Indians and put back 100% research. (they may give 33 for 2 gpt, say. When money will over, borrow again, and again until Republic. That will slow down their research and in the case of aggression we gain something…

The second part about aggression might become interesting when we met some of Indias allies.

 

[Abegweit]

@Andro & Abegweit: beat you

Yep. A lot of cross-posting going on, all of it saying the same things.

In this game I think we will want to get chivalry ASAP but keep AI backwards to get to domination quickly. Note many AI have early medieval age UUs (Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Vikings, France and Japan, with Ottomen, Russians, English and Koreans having later medieval UU).

I agree totally. A slow AI tech pace is a Good Thing. If Ivan's theory about culturally-linked groups is correct, then we likely have Arabs to the north. Indians, Chinese and Japan would be to the east. Where the Vikings and French are is another question. I don't fear Vikings when we are on the attack but the French... One problem with the whole culturally-linked idea is the Americans. Anyway, it's fun to speculate.

AI wars would be a Good Thing too, but might be difficult to arrange...


On the question of Monarchy vs. Republic. A subtle argument in favour is the latter is our watery start. We don't have much productive capacity, which makes commerce more important. I think we'll need to unhook the iron a lot...

Edit re new cities: Our next city should be PurpleDot and RedDot after that. IMO, PD deserves a granary too - and it should be our last one for the moment (perhaps one in RedDot once we get the water to it). Should PD build granary-worker-curragh or curragh-worker-granary? Seems close between the two. I think curragh first although it sacrifices growth. RD should clearly go curragh-worker.

 

[I. Larkin]

Edit re new cities: Our next city should be PurpleDot and RedDot after that. IMO, PD deserves a granary too - and it should be our last one for the moment (perhaps one in RedDot once we get the water to it). Should PD build granary-worker-curragh or curragh-worker-granary? Seems close between the two. I think curragh first although it sacrifices growth. RD should clearly go curragh-worker.
I think it is a plan. Also, if we play Rep Gambiit "Borrowing money is a must". If we spped up Indians a bit it is statistically less important, but we may be ahead of bunch of AIs.
About DOT MAP. So we decided that (-2, 3) will go first, (4,-5) -- second and probably "ultraviolet" or pink? (-4, -2) third. Next (blue, yellow, light-orange) may be discussed later.

 

[Paul#42]

Our next city should be PurpleDot and RedDot after that. IMO, PD deserves a granary too - and it should be our last one for the moment (perhaps one in RedDot once we get the water to it). Should PD build granary-worker-curragh or curragh-worker-granary? Seems close between the two. I think curragh first although it sacrifices growth. RD should clearly go curragh-worker.

D'accord. Definetly curragh first.
btw our dotmap denies the already known fact that we have Oysters on the coast there. I will send an unemployed warrior to look for any other bonus just out of reach of PD (and in range of PD+1NW '(-2,4)')...

Also, if we play Rep Gambiit "Borrowing money is a must". If we spped up Indians a bit it is statistically less important, but we may be ahead of bunch of AIs.

I really do not understand that. If you pay 2 gpt for 33g and really pay it back, you get exactly 7 beakers less. Where's the clue?
It makes sense in the final 16 turns of research for Republic - and gets you some fix costs for your anarchy... So better for the last (16 - anarchy) turns? Is that what you mean?

 

[I. Larkin]

D'accord. Definetly curragh first.
btw our dotmap denies the already known fact that we have Oysters on the coast there. I will send an unemployed warrior to look for any other bonus just out of reach of PD (and in range of PD+1NW '(-2,4)')...

Well, better to have "all City defended" to prevent India declare. Or borrow money. (But it helps less). The sence of gambit with borrowing money is that I belive (but it is the matter of belive, no proof), that "bright future" or comfortable live will compensate future losses. Like when you buy house you take Mortgage...

I really do not understand that. If you pay 2 gpt for 33g and really pay it back, you get exactly 7 beakers less. Where's the clue?
It makes sense in the final 16 turns of research for Republic - and gets you some fix costs for your anarchy... So better for the last (16 - anarchy) turns? Is that what you mean?

And then take second Mortgage...

 

[Paul#42]

Take off

0) 2550
our empire is in great shape
switched Ulundi to granary

1) 2510
worker mines BG
warrior heads for purple dot.

2) 2470
zzz

3) 2430
work the gems for one turn to max commerce. (writing in 25 turns )

4) 2390
zzz

IBT
Z builds settler. Now barracks.

5) 2350
send warrior as MP to U.

IBT
barb warrior approaching on S-SE of U from S ((0,5), coming from (-1,6))

6) 2310
settler to purple dot.

IBT
barb warrior to (1,4)

7) 2270
founded Bapedi on purple dot. Starts curragh, works cow (Z works BGm, goat; U works BGm, g)
Granary in U in 29 shields, 8 turns - 3x3 + 5x4. Growth in 10.
Barracks in Z in 11 shields, 5 + 6.

IBT
barb warrior loses to reg warrior (2/3)

7) 2230
B works oysters; Z works cow, BGm (to ensure forest on growth by +3 food); U works goats, BGm.

IBT
gems connected. Z built barracks. Now archer.

8) 2190
B works oysters; Z works cow, BGm, gems; U works goats, BGm.
worker on plain NW of B.

IBT
three Egypt workers enter the hills!! Cleo has the same techs, but just 25g.

9) 2150
worker irrigate plains.
forgot to move scout 2 from his post. He can explore again or help produce the curragh.

After flight check
Not too much action this set
Our archer should go to the "training camp" S of Ulundi.
No movement of the Indian spears. Looks like the "chinese wall" in the Mongol Cotm... But less frightening
F4 shows no connection between Cleo and Gandhi. Because we lack Writing / embassies?

Here is the save

 

[Andronicus]

Ack, posted just as I'm about to go to work - will have to wait till this evening to look at save

 

[I. Larkin]

Good turns, Paul. It is difficult "combined Micro-management"...
I think we may borrow money. Actually Barbs are already. We may send our archers for 25 gold. Scout should return to haelp localized Barb. Camps.

 

[Andronicus]

I note our save is 2110BC (11 turns - you notated turn 7 twice) but your log only includes to 2150BC, is something missing?

 

[Paul#42]

I note our save is 2110BC (11 turns - you notated turn 7 twice) but your log only includes to 2150BC, is something missing?

Oh s**t. Sorry, I messed up my unimportant turnset... I'm sure nothing of interest happened in that lost turn...

I should not play by 1 am if I have to work the next day...

Looking at the graphs, I wonder if team X-nuts founded their second town on the hill to carry water to the cow. Territory graph shows they have 2-3 tiles less meaning they settled one tile closer. Settling the hill should be the only way to explain that, right?

I would suggest to slow down a bit to let not Klarius decide upon our graphs. (Not that he should need it... )

 

[Andronicus]

Looking at the graphs, I wonder if team X-nuts founded their second town on the hill to carry water to the cow. Territory graph shows they have 2-3 tiles less meaning they settled one tile closer. Settling the hill should be the only way to explain that, right?

Another explanation is that they may have settled Ulundi 2E of Zimb. I considered this as my prefered site but didnt say anything as Ulundi already built. Norther location has advantages of boat access to the north and can use 2 hills for later improved productive power

I would suggest to slow down a bit to let not Klarius decide upon our graphs. (Not that he should need it... )

Perhaps that should read
I would suggest to slow down a bit to let us decide upon klarius' graphs

 

[Andronicus]

On the question of Monarchy vs. Republic. A subtle argument in favour is the latter is our watery start. We don't have much productive capacity, which makes commerce more important. I think we'll need to unhook the iron a lot...

If we have iron avail
With all those mountains one would hope so, similarly it will be disappointing if no salt and all that useless desert

 

[Andronicus]

Had a good long look at the save and I have a few points for discussion

Most critical to decide is dot map. I have not seen any comments on my suggestion to shift red dot to 1S of sheep. This has advantage of shortening irrigation required, it has immed access to 4 BGs but is not on coast. Another town could sit to the NE on the edge of the desert sharing the sheep. This would allow blue dot to go back to Abegweit's original site and shift yellow dot 2S from Abegweit's site. I have a dot map I can upload if people want (just wary about too many dot maps confusing everyone)

- for Ivan - I think the locations I am talking about are red dot going to (-7,2) blue dot to (-7,-2), yellow dot to (-10,1) and NE desert town (-5,5)

Whether decision is to go with original red dot or my new suggestion, I think we all agree red dot should be next town. One downside of my new suggested site is not coastal so no curragh. I am not strongly opposed to original site, just would like us to consider the alternatives before committing.

Checking our known neighbours - we cannot see alliances because we have no embassies. India have 3 cities, Egypt 4. India has lots of cash (112g). Egypt has wines connected.
Question - if workers become avail do we buy them.
I strongly favour buying workers as a solid investment and as a way of handicapping the AI. At present we would cripple ourselves given the usual emporer asking price of 6gpt, but as soon as we can afford them I think we should be on close lookout (I expect they will become avail once barbs start appearing.


Scouts
not much left for them to do - NW one can bust the remaining fog, then both return
Then - disband for shields or hold till galleys can transport to other continents? I favour disbanding, shields now are useful, it reduces likelihood of unit costs and building more later if required is not onerous.

My spreadsheet suggests I should be able to build 2 settlers in Z, curragh and worker in B and granary, rax and worker in U during my turnset.
Z and U should build military mixed with settlers or workers, B will need a granary after the worker, red dot's build depends on placement - curragh then worker, granary if coastal, ? granary first if not

 

[Paul#42]

dot map. I have not seen any comments on my suggestion to shift red dot to 1S of sheep. This has advantage of shortening irrigation required, it has immed access to 4 BGs but is not on coast. Another town could sit to the NE on the edge of the desert sharing the sheep. This would allow blue dot to go back to Abegweit's original site and shift yellow dot 2S from Abegweit's site. I have a dot map I can upload if people want (just wary about too many dot maps confusing everyone)

- for Ivan - I think the locations I am talking about are red dot going to (-7,2) blue dot to (-7,-2), yellow dot to (-10,1) and NE desert town (-5,5)

I am a little torn about that .
pro north of sheep
If moving, we would leave the CxxC-pattern there. With towns operating at sizes 4-6 it is not too important to get one town with five good tiles. Being on the coast is important now, too. We need that curragh on the east coast. Waiting til yellow dot is founded and its forest chopped might take too long (~10 turns later). And if founded south, the desert town (-5,5) would be less productive and less corrupt (RCP7) than red dot (RCP 8).
pro south of sheep
Otoh that red dot south of the sheep might be producing 10 shields at size 6 - and still grow. Great for casual workers or settlers. Plus it is operable earlier. And the yellow dot could build the curragh with a chop, the red dot north of sheep can't. The town at (-5.5) would be on a desert but would also lose two shared BGs.

So, imo the curragh in yellow dot could come just 5 turns later (10 turns later founded, five turns quicker built). So I conclude: I very slightly favor the southern site.

Question - if workers become avail do we buy them.
I strongly favour buying workers as a solid investment and as a way of handicapping the AI. At present we would cripple ourselves given the usual emporer asking price of 6gpt, but as soon as we can afford them I think we should be on close lookout (I expect they will become avail once barbs start appearing.

Of course we would buy workers - yet I do not want to pay 120g or 6 gpt for them. If we can get them cheaper (as part of a tech trade) we should take them.

I favour disbanding, shields now are useful, it reduces likelihood of unit costs and building more later if required is not onerous.

I favor disbanding, too, but only if it speeds up a building (eg curragh in a corrupt town) or we have to pay upkeep otherwise.

My spreadsheet suggests I should be able to build 2 settlers in Z, curragh and worker in B and granary, rax and worker in U during my turnset.
Z and U should build military mixed with settlers or workers, B will need a granary after the worker, red dot's build depends on placement - curragh then worker, granary if coastal, ? granary first if not

Sounds nice! I wonder if we should let Z grow to size 5 before getting settlers out again? At least one archer would be nice to clear the barb camp S of U. (And to give the barracks a sense...)

 

[Andronicus]

I wonder if we should let Z grow to size 5 before getting settlers out again? At least one archer would be nice to clear the barb camp S of U. (And to give the barracks a sense...)

Archer completes on IT before building 2 settlers. We dont need to grow to size 5 yet as dont have enough developed tiles to utilise (would just be using unimproved grassland). I plan using Z between sizes 2 and 4, MMing to grow without wastage every 4 turns. When Bapedi uses the cow Z has very few effective tiles to use given need to retain 2fpt surplus.

 

[Paul#42]

I am a little torn about that .
pro north of sheep
If moving, we would leave the CxxC-pattern there. With towns operating at sizes 4-6 it is not too important to get one town with five good tiles. Being on the coast is important now, too. We need that curragh on the east coast. Waiting til yellow dot is founded and its forest chopped might take too long (~10 turns later). And if founded south, the desert town (-5,5) would be less productive and less corrupt (RCP7) than red dot (RCP 8).
pro south of sheep
Otoh that red dot south of the sheep might be producing 10 shields at size 6 - and still grow. Great for casual workers or settlers. Plus it is operable earlier. And the yellow dot could build the curragh with a chop, the red dot north of sheep can't. The town at (-5.5) would be on a desert but would also lose two shared BGs.

Thinking about it and playing with CivAssist II I changed my mind:
Red dot north of the sheep I rate higher because it also strengthens blue dot. Red dot south strengthens the weak desert town. It raises corruption in both red and blue dot. I prefer red dot in (4,-5) on RCP7 and blue dot in (0,-6) on RCP6 and yellow dot in (2,-8) (not on the BG (3,-8)) on RCP9.
I like to have the more productive towns closer to the capital.

Hope I did not mess up the coordinates

 

[I. Larkin]

Thanks for using coordinates. Normally x first and y second. But I manage...
I think red (4, -5) is the best location. Actually our SFs not so efficient, but we already have barbarians... Very probably it will be our "last" (I'm kidding) City. And we need curragh out of it. I think ( good for blue-1,-7) and Yellow (+1, -8) to bring water to plains faster. However pink dot (-4,-2 ) is preferable after red because of less corruption. I agree, that at some point we may let Zimbabwe grow to size 5. It is optimal size for it (10% Lux). Ideally settler may go at size 6, to have pop 4 after it. But we have to have tiles developed...

 

[I. Larkin]

I favor disbanding, too, but only if it speeds up a building (eg curragh in a corrupt town) or we have to pay upkeep otherwise.

I think scout may be still useful to locaote Barb camps. They are fast. Anyway they should go home and work somehow...