SGOTM 11 - Shaka, not stirred

[Andronicus]

1) Z should be switched to a settler. Unfortunately, it is one shield short of building it in two turns. Therefore the goat should be given to U, allowing it to finish its granary sooner.

Not necessarily ...
Z can complete its archer on IT then build settlers on turns 4 and 9.without dipping below size 2. Building settler first wastes shields as U has 5th shield corrupt so giving it more than 4 not helpful (has 45 shields in bin, 3sh 1 turn, 4sh 3 turns is quickest to complete granary). This leaves shield wastage in Z and then have to build 4 turn archer as insufficient shields avail at size 2, resulting in first settler completing turn 2 and second on turn 11 - not much gain over 4 and 9 and wastes those shields.

2) the mine should be allowed to finish. It is only two turns away and it will be useful.

At this stage I agree

Below is my alternate dotmap

I suggest considering the following
Next settler (in 4 turns from Z) goes to black dot (settles turn 9) -> curragh, curragh, military (can work sheep after red dot settled until red dot completes worker)
5 turns later next settler -> red dot (settles turn 13) and builds worker, granary, worker/settler factory
Eastern worker completes mine, then roads to red dot then irrigates south of red dot then back to sheep to complete irrigating in 23 turns from now

End result
- first eastern curragh 17 turns from now, 2nd one no more than 8 turns later
- red dot becomes a powerful city with access to 4 BGs immed, 2 more later
- black dot provides a complete block to Indians so no chance of AI in our area pre-MM
- blue dot can be settled on coast as originally proposed by Abegweit without leaving 4 tiles not usable till cultural expansion
- yellow dot not on BG nor forest, is on lake (not important point as likely to be quite corrupt)

Edit - comparison with using original red dot
- first eastern curragh 16 turns from now
- both red dots equal corruption (distance 7.0)
- black dot less corrupt than original yellow dot (distance 7.5 v 8.5)

Summary - I think only advantage of original red dot is coastal location, later alt red dot much more powerful with more BGs in range. By settling black dot first negligible diff in curragh (1 turn later but 1 tile closer to Indians). Black dot provides complete blocking, red dot does not. Black dot compares favourably to yellow dot - less corrupt, although has plains to work rather than BGs - later city can use extra BGs - yellow dot wastes one by settling on it.

3rd option
If go with original red dot then yellow dot 1N of lake allows quicker irrigation to sheep (8 turns quicker - 23 rather than 31 turns) and its distance corruption is then the same as black dot, however loses ability to share sheep with red dot.
Both original red dot options require blue dot moved closer onto forest or leave an unused 4 tiles inbetween

 

[Andronicus]

pink dot is harder to connect, I'd prefer blue dot first.

Agree

another thing: How do we best operate our 8-turn-settler factory?

Assumed: We can't get 10 spt at size 4. If the forest (chop soon!) reveals a BG, it will be easy. We could get 2 archers and a settler then.

a suggestion
base: BG and CC for 3 spt, +2 fpt.
additional:
4 turns at size 4
1x6, 2x7 for an archer, 1x8 for a warrior (+2 on growth)
first turn: cow (2s), G (1s) = 6s, 3f
2nd & 3rd turn: goat (2s), 2G (2s) = 7s, 2f
last turn: cow (2s), goat (2s), G (1s) + forest on growth = 10s, 3f

4 turns at size 5
4x7 (last with +3fpt) for a settler.
first two turns: goat (2s), 2 G (2s) = 7s, 2f
last two turns: cow (2s), 2 G (2s) = 7s, 3f

we must make sure to work the cow on the last turn to benefit from the forest.
Any other suggestions (or mistakes) to get the gems (+4 commerce) in for some turns?

Forest chop must wait - we cant spare the worker
What is CC? You say base, BG + CC gives 3spt, + 2fpt, that means CC 0spt - why not run 1 pop less then.
What are the G tiles you assign 1sh to? Are these our yet to be mined grass - if so it will be a while till they are all mined - higher priorities and all, meanwhile we need to MM Z to optimal production with what we have.
I think we need to keep producing a settler every 8 turns (max rate of growth) whilst maximising miliary production with whatever left. Due to the lack of developed tiles and need to share cows with B and tiles with U we gain little from growing above size 4 and as Abegweit points out, we lose a 1/2 settler for every 1 pop higher we run Z. Right now we need that settler every 8 turns.

I suggest I use the gems for B whilst building curragh when cows not avail -> extra 2 uncorrupted commerce over oysters, does slow growth, but that not critical until after granary built (worker to pop out between curragh and granary)

 

[Paul#42]

Forest chop must wait - we cant spare the worker
What is CC? You say base, BG + CC gives 3spt, + 2fpt, that means CC 0spt - why not run 1 pop less then.
What are the G tiles you assign 1sh to? Are these our yet to be mined grass - if so it will be a while till they are all mined - higher priorities and all, meanwhile we need to MM Z to optimal production with what we have.
I think we need to keep producing a settler every 8 turns (max rate of growth) whilst maximising miliary production with whatever left.

The whole setup is for the near future, like in ~15-20 turns (after 2-4 quick settlers). CC is city-center, that's no tile but the one shield and two food. Sorry, I thought CC was common .

By that time we should have a worker mining those two grass tiles.

dot map
Founding black dot first helps building the curragh but it is the weakest spot of all, before red dot is founded it does not even get 2 fpt!!

I still favor the old placements with red and blue dots in CxxC-fashion. But if we accept your new suggestion I would have a bad feeling about founding on the weakest spot first... Although it's 4 turns till then, that's a 2-turn delay of growth for a quicker curragh - okay, I can live with it although it feels bad...

I miss a dot at (3,0), 3NE of Z. This town could work four hills for some 10 spt in republic if it gets those two grasslands irrigated. Should be settled as #7 or #8.

 

[Andronicus]

dot map
Founding black dot first helps building the curragh but it is the weakest spot of all, before red dot is founded it does not even get 2 fpt!!

I still favor the old placements with red and blue dots in CxxC-fashion. But if we accept your new suggestion I would have a bad feeling about founding on the weakest spot first... Although it's 4 turns till then, that's a 2-turn delay of growth for a quicker curragh - okay, I can live with it although it feels bad...

Black dot is weak when first looked at, but it has a number of good points. It will make a low corruption town in future which can share the sheep when red dot not using to grow, otherwise using irrigated plains (up to 4) plus a mined desert giving it reasonable production at size 5. It will be some time till any town gets beyond 6, and harbour for using coastal tiles later are also avail. It will be slow to grow but it would not be a settler nor worker town. It also blocks completely AI access pre MMing.

I miss a dot at (3,0), 3NE of Z. This town could work four hills for some 10 spt in republic if it gets those two grasslands irrigated. Should be settled as #7 or #8.

Yes, Abegweit already suggested this site. I agree but as you say it needs to wait till out of despotism to make mining hills worthwhile and also to get use of 2 irrigated grass so can use 4 mined hills.

 

[I. Larkin]

Short question: Looks that we are team of four. Fifth member did not showed up yet. Will anybody care about that? Do we have "Team Leader" or we have "Democracy"? If "Team Leader" who he/ she is? If "Democracy" how we will make a decision if not all adree with that?

 

[Paul#42]

Good question.

Mark might have trouble to follow our fast and extensive conversation... But I'm sure he is there, somewhere out there. However I would love to hear his comments on the dot maps. EDIT: At least when it comes to his turns he will take his time for discussion or ask to be skipped.

Apart from that we used to have Andro as our captain, but he seems not to enjoy it to much (and was not available at the start of this game) so before the game started, Abegweit and I decided that Abegweit should be the team captain. As far as I noted, that is okay for Mark and Andro (and me of course) yet I do not remember if we made any kind of official election.

In the last game we took democratic decisions. We found a consense on every big decision. That's what Abegweit and I did on the settler factory (when to reach size 5) recently. If nobody objects, it's decided.

So in my perception we have a democracy and a team leader Abegweit. Every player has a sense of what he can decide on his own and what the team should decide. Every now and then we differ about that, me and Abegweit had such a short discussion after Abegweit's initial turnset.

Right now for example, Andro knows that I have a little different view on his recent dotmap but I made clear that he convinced me. As Abegweit, Mark and you did not oppose, Andro knows he can follow his plan for the next two settlers.

That's how our democracy (anarchy) works
I hope this answers your question...
Any suggestions and questions are always welcome...

EDIT: By the way, we have no "she" in our team - I would be really surprised if I was wrong about that

 

[markh]

Short question: Looks that we are team of four. Fifth member did not showed up yet. Will anybody care about that? Do we have "Team Leader" or we have "Democracy"? If "Team Leader" who he/ she is? If "Democracy" how we will make a decision if not all adree with that?

I did show up, but I am at work when most of the discussion is happening and I am quite too busy at work at the moment to throw in my comments during working time. I cannot run any tests or look at the save. In the evenings I was quite busy, too lately and more or less everything is said and I do not see any sense to just post "I agree to this this and that". I will take my turns after Andronicus. Not to worry.

 

[markh]

The dotmap is more or less how I would have done it. Maybe I would have moved the red dot 1 NW and the yellow one 1N, but I am not sure about this. I would have to play a little with it to be able to decide.
The other city sites in the West and NW are obvious.

 

[I. Larkin]

Thanks for explanation how "Democracy" in your team work. Thanks to Markh for quick reaction. Perconally I like Adronicus as a team Leader more, as his decison more "weighted". However, Abeweit entusiasm "to win" rise my compassion. Let's try to reach a concensus on basic questions:
1) How Zimbabwe should operate? a) Like a good 4-5 mashine 8 turn 1 Setlter + 2 Archers Factory, or stochastically, just to "pump settlers as soon as posiible? I am in favor of Factory.
2) Where the next City will be? (Sure, it depend on whole dot map, but simple question where? ( I am in favor of red dot, old version).

 

[Paul#42]

1) How Zimbabwe should operate? a) Like a good 4-5 mashine 8 turn 1 Setlter + 2 Archers Factory, or stochastically, just to "pump settlers as soon as posiible? I am in favor of Factory.

To work it immediately as I suggested in post #102 has two problems:
1. Letting Z grow would delay further expansion.
2. We do not have the grass-tiles ready and would use goat and cow more than necessary

So Abegweit convinced me (and Andro seems to think similar) that it would be better to spit out another 2-4 settlers before growing further and operating at sizes 4-6. By then we should have enough tiles developed to operate the SF as I described. If anybody has another suggestion how to operate it - his advice is welcome!

2) Where the next City will be? (Sure, it depend on whole dot map, but simple question where? ( I am in favor of red dot, old version).

I'm torn about that. See posts above... So I will not vote for any of both plans but accept the team's vote.

 

[Abegweit]

I have been struggling with the dot map for quite a while. The problem we are having is obviously simply due to the fact that there is no good solution. I have come to the conclusion that the position of BlackDot is correct. The city is on a desert instead of a plains and opens up several water tiles for exploitation. Well worth it. I don't think the choke consideration is too important, though, as it should be further up the peninsula. I'm less sure about the rest of the map though.

Here is Andronicus' once again. The only difference is that I have coloured orange one of the white dots in the south.

The following is slightly tighter build.

It signficantly improves the quality of both yellow and orange dot, especially the latter. It also gives us four more water tiles to work, tiles which cannot beaccessed from either blue or yellow. The disadvantage, of course, isthat it squashes a BG.

I think that Blue and Orange should definitely be moved. Red also as eight commerce is worth more than one shield.

 

[I. Larkin]

Last Version better, The advantage of red is that we found it first and start curragh soonner. Orannge better at first diagram, but we may discuss it later. I'd like to consider on north dot (0, +5) to avoid one more Aqueduct. But it is agan, later. Blu and red moves together. Sorry for poor drawing...
I think we must have archer in Zimbabwe first.
About 8 turns SF. I think we can extract more of Zimbabwe at size 5, but it is later.

 

[Abegweit]

In the last game we took democratic decisions. We found a consense on every big decision. That's what Abegweit and I did on the settler factory (when to reach size 5) recently. If nobody objects, it's decided.

Well, I would say that it's more like a consensus than a democracy. We come to agreement and if you don't say anything, it's your own damn fault. And if we can't come to agreement, then the person with the keyboard decides. The only purpose of a captain is to handle the few administrative details which might come up. Paul and I decided we needed someone to do that and I was chosen on the basis of seniority. We hadn't felt the need through 2 SGOTMs and it will probably be that long before it happens again.

 

[Paul#42]

Uh...

This is going to be a tough decision and I think we are doing well taking our time to plan thoroughly.

I favor an even tighter placement CxxC like in the very first draft, red dot north of the sheep, two other towns in second ring (RCP 6-8). I'll explain why: I do not like our home . I think other civs have nicer starts (can't wait to see ) and we will try to move our core at a given time. Not too soon, but I think we do not need to plan our towns to reach sizes above six. I would love to have as many towns as possible producing 6-10 shields each turn. I did not do the maths yet (I suck at it), but I feel we will need 2 rings of size-6-towns to produce warriors, archers and horses and lots of commerce to upgrade them and to be ahead in the tech race.

I never planned like that, in my games I establish my core to the bitter end, even if it sucks like in Cotm9 (Vikings) or Cotm10 (Mongols) - okay in Gotm 49 (Carthage) I moved...
That's why I'm not completely sure if my reasoning is right. Please comment on this and feel free to call it bullfeathers...

 

[Andronicus]

Uh...

This is going to be a tough decision and I think we are doing well taking our time to plan thoroughly.

I favor an even tighter placement CxxC like in the very first draft, red dot north of the sheep, two other towns in second ring (RCP 6-8). I'll explain why: I do not like our home . I think other civs have nicer starts (can't wait to see ) and we will try to move our core at a given time. Not too soon, but I think we do not need to plan our towns to reach sizes above six. I would love to have as many towns as possible producing 6-10 shields each turn. I did not do the maths yet (I suck at it), but I feel we will need 2 rings of size-6-towns to produce warriors, archers and horses and lots of commerce to upgrade them and to be ahead in the tech race.

I never planned like that, in my games I establish my core to the bitter end, even if it sucks like in Cotm9 (Vikings) or Cotm10 (Mongols) - okay in Gotm 49 (Carthage) I moved...
That's why I'm not completely sure if my reasoning is right. Please comment on this and feel free to call it bullfeathers...

Paul, would you like to post a dot map of your suggestions.
I dont agree with moving core. I would be surprised if it was advantageous in a quick (medieval ages finish) domination game. If we plan to move core then would we want to invest so much in infrastructure with granaries which pay off the longer that the city is productive and growing?
If India has territory like Celts in GGOTM9 it may have some merit, but if further away civ it would be very late before we could shift and unlikely to pay off.

 

[Andronicus]

One point worth repeating is any plan that has a city site in line south of sheep speeds irrigation to sheep by 8 turns allowing 8 extra food - this more than compensates for loss of 4 food settling black dot first and only accessing 1fpt tile for first 4 turns.
I appear to have only convinced myself about my alt red dot site. Of other options, I prefer the layout in Abegweit's post 131 - my only critisism of this is that 8 turn delay to get irrigation to sheep.
Consensus rules as always .

Was planning to play my turn this morning, with no definite decision on red dot I will delay 24 hours from now. Anyone with definite views please put forward your arguments.

 

[Abegweit]

One point worth repeating is any plan that has a city site in line south of sheep speeds irrigation to sheep by 8 turns allowing 8 extra food - this more than compensates for loss of 4 food settling black dot first and only accessing 1fpt tile for first 4 turns.
I appear to have only convinced myself about my alt red dot site. Of other options, I prefer the layout in Abegweit's post 131 - my only critisism of this is that 8 turn delay to get irrigation to sheep.
Consensus rules as always .

Was planning to play my turn this morning, with no definite decision on red dot I will delay 24 hours from now. Anyone with definite views please put forward your arguments.

Agree with waiting. Unfortunately it seems that we are coming to an impass. If there is no agreement by then, I think you should simply do what you best. One alternative is your position on Red and mine on Blue and Orange. Your Red is better in the short term; mine in the long. Will there be a long?

I remain convinced that your BlackDot is right. But then this is related to my belief that Republic is the way to go. If monarchy, the additional commerce is not as useful.

 

[I. Larkin]

I think we have to build red dot (3, -7) first ASAP, (second diagram at post 131). Location is perfect, though contradicts our "basic instinct" to save BG. Before we go to the sling better to know more civs. In this sense very old red dot (4, -5) was the best. However in despotism this spot have very little value. Also, it damage "skin" (whole structure) so much, that now I think thet Abeweit version 2 is the best. My correction to that that we may delay with building of the black dot (5, -5). It may wait until water come to the area, say.
Another point (though smaller importance) shall we build Archer first or wich to settler as Abeweit ask?

 

[I. Larkin]

Zimbabwe = {CC, BG, Cow, Goats, Forest, Forest, GL, GL, Gem}=
{{2, 1, 3}, {0, 2, 1},
{1, 2, 1}, {0, 2, 0}, {-1, 2, 0}, {-1, 2, 0}, {0, 1, 1}, {0, 1, 1, {-2, 1, 4}}
I checked Pauls calculations about 8 turns SF. We may have 2 Archers + Settlers instead of A+W+Settler. The point, that when Z grow from 5 to 6 we have 2 Schields more, to finish settler. Matrix for Zimbabwe above. notation are: {fsspt, spt, gpt}. Do you need more details?
4 turns at size 5
4x7 (last with +3fpt) for a settler.
It looks that you forgot BG at your calculations. We have extra 4 Shields for first Archers. So we may share Goats with Ulundi.

 

[Paul#42]

Zimbabwe = {CC, BG, Cow, Goats, Forest, Forest, GL, GL, Gem}=
{{2, 1, 3}, {0, 2, 1},
{1, 2, 1}, {0, 2, 0}, {-1, 2, 0}, {-1, 2, 0}, {0, 1, 1}, {0, 1, 1, {-2, 1, 4}}
I checked Pauls calculations about 8 turns SF. We may have 2 Archers + Settlers instead of A+W+Settler. The point, that when Z grow from 5 to 6 we have 2 Schields more, to finish settler. Matrix for Zimbabwe above. notation are: {fsspt, spt, gpt}. Do you need more details?
4 turns at size 5
4x7 (last with +3fpt) for a settler.
It looks that you forgot BG at your calculations. We have extra 4 Shields for first Archers. So we may share Goats with Ulundi.

Th BG is included in what I called base, together with CC as they will be "worked" every turn for 3 spt and +2 fpt. You are certainly right that we could build A, A, S in 8 turns, first archer in three (6,7,7), second in two (8+2,10) and settler in three (10, 9, 9+2) turns.

In that approach, other towns (U, B) will get the cow and the goats only 2 (cow) and 1 (goat) turns at size 4 and you would have to work the forest twice at size 5 to get 10 spt. I thought my approach is more balanced with more benefit for all three towns.

Plus I hope that we have Iron around, that's why I would build "mixed arms". I know you tend to prefer archers over swords anyway.
But basically we can have between 30 and 40 shields per cycle apart from the settler. However I think the 40 is too expensive because of the use of the forrest. If the forrest (if we finally get it chopped) reveals another BG, it's easier of course... But that takes us 1+4+6 worker turns - and some luck
Suddenly I'd love to be back in Civ 2 with those regular BG / G-Pattern... Or was it back in Civ 1?

EDIT: Anybody afraid of MM-hell?