1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

SGOTM 13 - One Short Straw

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Succession GOTM' started by AlanH, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. AlanH

    AlanH Mac addict, php monkey Moderator Hall of Fame Staff Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    29,144
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England

    BtS SGOTM 13 - Napoleon's Revenge



    Welcome to your BtS SGOTM 13 Team Thread. Please use it for all internal team communication, turn logs and discussions. Subscribe to it to receive notifications, and do not visit the other team threads for this game until you have finished. Please also subscribe to the Maintenance Thread for this game, where teams and staff may post non-spoiler information of general interest.

    In a break with tradition, I am not going to copy the Game Details into this post. You can find them in the first post of the Maintenance Thread. If any changes occur in the game settings or rules, I shall post them in that thread, and edit that post.

    Please wait until your team leader/administrator/scribe has reserved a couple of top posts in this thread for game admin information. Then post here to let your team know you have arrived.

    Good luck, and remember rule #1 - ENJOY THE GAME!
     
  2. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
    SGOTM 13 ONE SHORT STRAW
    GAME SUMMARY

    Turnset 01: 4000 BC - 2900 BC (Turn 44) Mitchum

    Links: Warrior move ; !!!THE SPREADSHEET!!! ; Pre-Play Plan ; T1 Report ; T44 Report

    After going ever so slightly insane testing various openings to T82, we somehow agreed upon going with a PH capital and worker-first opening. The goals for the opening are getting at least 2 early explorer WBs, getting a second city off-island asap and getting LH+Granary in both capital and second city. Tech path: Fishing - Mining - BW. Builds: Worker - WB - WB. Worker: farm corn - mine SE GH - road corn - mine N GH.

    Stats: 1 City, 4 Pop, 1 Worker

    Tech: Fishing 3725 BC ; Mining 3450 BC ; Bronze Working 2900 BC

    Turnset 02: 2900 BC - 2275 BC (Turn 69) Dhoomstriker

    Links: Pre-Play Plan ; Updated Spreadsheet ; T49 Report ; T56 Report ; T63 Report ; T69 Report

    Revolted to Slavery and instantly whipped another WB, to be followed by another, a granary whip and another WB. We have the 3 WB quickly exploring the ring around our home island, in search of a second city site. We went with Pottery ahead of Sailing. This will delay our initial settler due to the galley bottleneck, but testing has shown that an early granary whip comes out ahead as soon as T80-85. We met Vicky in the east, and discovered the gold/fish/2clam island in the west - this will be our second city. The settler was whipped on T69, and the galley should be done on T71. One WB will probably net the fish next to gold, with another proceeding further west of there. Another is on its way east, to hopefully locate Vicky.

    Tech: Pottery 2625 BC ; Sailing 2275 BC


    Turnset 03: 2275 BC - 2025 BC (Turn 79) LowtherCastle

    Links: Pre-Play Plan 1 ; T79 Report
     
  3. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Courtesy of Ras

    Anarchy calculation:
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8650295#post8650295
     
  4. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Reserved for pre-game stuff. I'll copy and paste it shortly. Also, checking in.

    edit: I'll base the tentative playing order on the order that players check-in.

    edit2: Current active roster:
    Mitchum
    Dhoom
    LC (just played)
    shyuhe (UP)
    mdy
    bbp (not-playing)
    Others (MIA?)
     
  5. Mitchum

    Mitchum Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    11,744
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Checking in.
     
  6. Dhoomstriker

    Dhoomstriker Girlie Builder

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    13,408
    NOTE TO PLAYERS READING THIS THREAD: There are a lot of times where we have come up with questions that don't necessarily end up with conclusive answers. If you see such a case and you think that you have a better answer than the one that we came up with, please reply and let us know about it! Your feedback can only help to improve the Succession Game of the Month experience for everyone! Thank you for your help! :)

    P.S. Enjoy reading the novels! ;)


    I don't care about playing order, but I'm online, so I might as well check in.

    If someone has a preferred test game for us to start working with, let me know which one I should be using.
     
  7. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
  8. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Ok, I've redone my PH-site test, without the copper. Here are the 2500 BC checkpoint and the settler/galley completion (2250 BC). Could have finished settler and galley a bit sooner, but I wanted to stay at pop 4 after the whip and didn't finish the chop yet.

    I sent the first WB scouting, and netted clam with the second, btw.

    Edit: Even though it's improved, I haven't used the PH mine in my testing.

    Edit2: Playing on from that save, the first problem I run into is being too slow to Writing (to sign OB towards circumnavigation).
     
  9. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Should I go ahead and pick up the save so that I can move the warrior onto the hill? It will better inform our test save and I don't think it's a debatable move at all.
     
  10. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
  11. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    :lol: duh... I forgot that Alan opened the thread early this time.
     
  12. RRRaskolnikov

    RRRaskolnikov Goldfish

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,231
    Location:
    Paname
    Checking in!

    @Shyuhe: sent u the "OSS library" in PM.

    edit: oh god, I missed three pages of discussion this we on the QT!!! @bbp: you are still up to compile it? :)D)

    edit2: commenting on some of LC's thoughts (just went throught the QT):

    ->"Fastest-finish CIV games, including conquest are almost always won by the the team that researches fastest. That's why the Russians win so often. They understand that and know how to research the fastest."

    From my limited xp in conquest games (still bc hof immortal standard finishes), what matters is to not research useless techs (since u want a maximum of gold -0% slider- to maintain several stacks) and start the conquiering as soon as possible (getting multiple production centers up and running is what increase -exponantially- the conquest speed).
    Now this will depends a lot on land shape: for instance, while 5 move galleons are cool, I would rather not have to research such an expansive tech as astro. And I can't see much reason to not build an early strong base on the continent (unless we can't reach the continent before astro). 3 moves roads should anyway be more efficient than 5 moves galleon to move our army (again it depends on coast shape).

    tl; dr: agree with principle, not sold on astro.

    -> pop rush: we shouldn't veto this as it's hard to optimize coastal/Seafood start without it. (building settlers/workers can halt growth, but then u aren't exploiting your food correctly)

    tl; dr: they should be whipped!
     
  13. RRRaskolnikov

    RRRaskolnikov Goldfish

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,231
    Location:
    Paname
    tx Shyuhe. :thumbsup: You should edit the list if we come up with some other good links which are missing.
     
  14. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    I am in the camp of leaving the astro bulb open. We should know well before then whether we need astronomy to reach the mainland. Based on the game description of this map being difficult for conquest, I think we will.
     
  15. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Agree on leaving the option open. I do think we can outline the map requirements in this respect before 1000 BC, with quick explorer WBs. In any case, we'll definitely know before we can get CS.

    Keep in mind that it is, after all, DS who calls the map "difficult". :mischief:

    PS: we still posting on QT?
     
  16. Dhoomstriker

    Dhoomstriker Girlie Builder

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    13,408
    Well, it will be the map layout that ultimately dictates whether or not we will need Astronomy.

    Here are some of the clues that we have been given.


    Nothing there is conclusive in saying whether or not we will need Galleons in order to conquer every AI. However, based on my understanding of the way that Erkon thinks, as well as the direction of the "What do you want" thread influencing how DynamicSpirit weighs-in on the subject, then my prediction is that we will be given:
    a) Sufficient land to win a Domination Victory without Astronomy
    b) An inability to reach at least one of the AIs for a Conquest Victory without Astronomy.

    However, my thinking is mostly a prediction and we shouldn't treat it as being fact-based.

    But, it does beg the following questions:

    1. If our chosen Victory Condition cannot be accomplished without requiring Astronomy, would we be more likely to change our approach and chase after the Victory Condition that can be achieved without requiring Astronomy, or would we be more likely to stick with our planned Victory Condition and head to Astronomy?

    2. Assuming that we at minimum have a backup plan in place to go for Astronomy, and maximally plan to go for it straight-out, will we aim to Lightbulb techs along the Astronomy path? Taking a Lightbulbing path means no early Bureaucracy, no early Monasteries, and no Macemen on Galleys.

    3. If we do go for a Lightbulbing path and thus skip Bureaucracy for quite some time, would we also skip building an Academy with our first Great Scientist, or is building one still a very strong play in even a non-Bureaucratic capital, especially in one where we will have only modest production and not an overly large amount of Commerce? One consideration is that the sooner that you can get your Great Scientists to Lightbulb techs along the chosen path, the sooner that you can get your Galleons out, and the sooner that you can self-tech Civil Service after Lightbulbing. The other consideration is that there are a number of non-cheap techs that should be researched along the way (Calendar, Currency, probably at least one of Metal Casting, Machinery, or Compas, if not more than one of them--where the others of them might be Lightbulbed or Oracled), etc... in which case an Academy could actually be an overall savings... I just don't have the experience to know which way to go for a case like this game.

    4. If we aren't going to plan to aggressively Lightbulb Astronomy, would we consider going for early Civil Service, or would a partially-Coastal Bureaucratic capital be a bit too weak to bother?

    5. If we only have one nearby neighbour that can offer us Foreign Intercontinental Trade Routes (for whatever reason--being semi-isolated, being far away from the AIs, having a Barb City blocking Trade Routes to other Civs, etc), would we consider attacking this AI to be a better play than keeping this AI alive in order to get slightly better Trade Routes? It'll probably only be +1 Commerce for each Trade Route, since we can equally get Domestic Intercontinental Trade Routes.


    Not all of these questions may have immediate answers, but they should at least give you something to think about.


    Another Thought on Land Reachable by Galleys
    Another consideration is that Huts and Random Events were originally going to be enabled, but were disabled at the last minute, presumably without making major alterations to the map's layout of land. Huts, in particular, being "not near the start but also not being too game-breaking" make me think that there would have been islands with Huts on them that would require you to build Caravels in order to get to them... which implies that there will at least be some land that would require Galleons to be able to settler or capture it... which reduces the amount of land available for a Domination Victory pre-Astronomy.


    Settler-spamming for a Domination Victory using Galleys might be quite Inefficient
    And even if 100% of land is reachable by Galleys, will we really be able to have the logistics with just Galleys to be able to send out a ton of Settlers at the end of the game for a Domination win? Unlike a military conquest, where you can chain your Galleys towards a particular target, spamming Settlers implies that you will be sending Settlers and Galleys in a ton of different directions to remote areas--meaning that you will probably not be able to leverage much Galley-chaining at all in the Settler-spam stage of a Domination Victory.
     
  17. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Just thinking:

    CS also unlocks maces...

    Oracle MC could be quite awesome with IND, btw. Esp if we find some gold/gem/silver, but even without - we can use a cheap production boost early. Also, MC leads to maces...

    Also, Bureau+Forge+(HE) with a some hill mines = lots of maces...
     
  18. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    I totally forgot that we can't build maces without CS :lol: Another consideration is that we can instead use the GS's to bulb towards liberalism for astronomy. It'll take 4-ish (philo, 2xedu, liberalism) but with a decent GP farm that shouldn't be hard. I think someone mentioned that galleons may be better for troops logistics with the added movement points too.
     
  19. babybluepants

    babybluepants Chieftain GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    Vancouver
    @Dhoom,

    I wouldn't read all that much into anything particular DS has stated. If anything, I doubt he even really had the map designed when posted some of those. Huts and events sound to me like just options that he didn't care about either way.

    I think we'll be able to evaluate what's an optimal way to finish later in game (as regards potential settler-spamming, conquest vs. dom, etc.) Settler spamming tiny islands by galley doesn't sound very good. In my limited HOF experience, you need to be grabbing 15-16 tiles on average with each settler (without galleys) for that approach to be efficient in terms of turns and hammers. Otherwise, you may as well invest in units and wait for AIs to settle more. We might need a limited application of it, if there are larger uninhabited islands.
     
  20. shyuhe

    shyuhe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Gone fishing for the summer
    Also in case any one forgot, vassals are off = no colonial maintenance (yay!). Not that we should be teching that far anyways. And state property for the instant return will probably be better.
     

Share This Page