SGOTM 14 - Kakumeika

[mabraham]

OK no horses visible. We're on T13 with two turns to go on the worker. Nothing's happened. Three AI capitals are size 3.

It seems best to finish the worker, and then we could build a warrior next, or an archer next. The long-term survivability of an archer is somewhat attractive if we might need to scout a long way. However if we're moderately isolated then a couple of warriors will do most of the fog-busting that we need to do, and provide more MP value per hammer.

We've got four turns after the worker is built before the sheep is improved and we want to work it, and that's enough time to pump out a warrior and get back to growing while we build more warriors more slowly. That sounds best to me, but I'll do some experimenting now.

Teching mining and BW per plan seems right.

 

[Kaitzilla]

AWWW poor Toto!!
That's Civ 4 for you though. An archer survives with 0.1 hp left and stalls a major campaign at the worst moment.


I feel scouting is important at this point, and that would should probably make a warrior fast. We could trade 11 food for 11 hammers and pump out a warrior in 4 turns without forgoing any great tiles. PH,PH,PH,spices should do it.

Instead of growing to size 4, we could switch to building a worker the turn we grow to size 3. We'd be working all 3 good tiles. The worker could chop the 2nd worker, and then both of them could chop out another item. Growing to size 4 would only add +1 hammer per turn to worker/settler without a 4th improvement.

We have lots of forests and +20 hammers would sure be useful. I favor 3 warriors and then archers after. Warriors can bust more fog per hammer. If the north is full of tons of wilderness, we might end up with a barb problem if we don't build any archers.

 

[Manco Capac]

AWWW poor Toto!!
That's Civ 4 for you though. An archer survives with 0.1 hp left and stalls a major campaign at the worst moment.

What about the zombie 0.0 HP archer.... I hate when this occurs.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

OK no horses visible. We're on T13 with two turns to go on the worker. Nothing's happened. Three AI capitals are size 3.

It seems best to finish the worker, and then we could build a warrior next, or an archer next. The long-term survivability of an archer is somewhat attractive if we might need to scout a long way. However if we're moderately isolated then a couple of warriors will do most of the fog-busting that we need to do, and provide more MP value per hammer.

We've got four turns after the worker is built before the sheep is improved and we want to work it, and that's enough time to pump out a warrior and get back to growing while we build more warriors more slowly. That sounds best to me, but I'll do some experimenting now.

Teching mining and BW per plan seems right.

I agree that we should continue as we originally planned, even though it will be more difficult without Toto.

I'm curious about whether there are Horse, Copper or Iron plots on this map anywhere. That might help explain free Archery. An Archer may be the strongest unit we can have until Machinery (Crossbowman) or Feudalism (Longbowman).

I'm positive that we are not isolated, but the AI teams may be far from us by land. The land route may be much longer than a sea route (Optics/Astronomy). I also agree that the AIs may not have started with any Scouts.

Your modified PPP looks fine.

Rest in Peace Toto. Perhaps, the Good Witch of the North can resurrect him.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Manco Capac]

Two minor facts bug me:

I did some tests to see when barb units start appearing (seen via world builder).

In my test games, they showed up on T37 on one game and T33 on the other.

In frogdude's test game, they showed up on T39.

I tried a more standard test game and they showed up on T38.

What is the earliest date a barb city can spawn?

If we end up without start. resources, I don't want to lose the second city spot to barbs, hoping a barb city never spawns before T50.


Why our firaxis score exploded for the first five turns and then takes the same path as other teams?

 

[frogdude]

The original plan of 'grow/grow/grow' doesn't get this next warrior out for a fair while, so the plan of pumping out a warrior now (as in after worker) with square seems reasonable so that we can continue learning about the world.

We need to evaluate what the long term impact on development of our city is if we forgo these 11 food (and 3 commerce) to turn into 11 hammers. How much is our settler slowed down by?

 

[mabraham]

On the four turns while the worker is improving the sheep, there are three reasonable choices that lead to archer on T29 after an initial warrior build (and it can't be done faster if I work the improved sheep pasture constantly when it is available, and then the cows pasture when it is available):

1. work four PFH to get max hammers fast; warrior done T19, archer done T29 at size 3 (4/26)
2. work two PFH and two spice to time the growth to size 2 a turn earlier (which allows an extra PFH turn later and no inefficiency growing to size 3) to net +1 +2 and earlier future growth; warrior done T20 archer done T29 at size 3 (4/26)
3. work two unimproved sheep, one PFH and one spice to time the growth to size 2 two turns earlier (and later work spices to grow to size 3 efficiently) and get earlier future growth; warrior done T23, archer done T29 at size 3 (8/26)

For a poly-warrior plan:

• work as for 1; warriors done T19 T27, third warrior at 14/15 at size 3 (4/26)
• work as for 2; warriors done T20 T26, T29 with 0 overflow at size 3 (4/26)
• work as for 3; warriors done T23 T27, third warrior at 13/15 at size 3 (8/26)

I like option B. A subsequent worker finishes T34 without requiring a chop, which is acceptable under the circumstances. Then we'll have a shoestring defence of one warrior scouting north, one warrior fogbusting the gems city site, one warrior lurking north of the capital and two workers positioned to chop out a settler. So that settler is probably a turn slower than a "grow lots, build only two warriors" plan

 

[mabraham]

Two minor facts bug me:

[...]

Why our firaxis score exploded for the first five turns and then takes the same path as other teams?

WW asked earlier about this. See #201

 

[mabraham]

If we end up without start. resources, I don't want to lose the second city spot to barbs, hoping a barb city never spawns before T50.

We'll be stopping much of the chance of a barb city spawning with our unit fogbusting the path for the settler.

 

[Manco Capac]

WW asked earlier about this. See #201

Seriously, I remember reading that post. Just I was lacking the context (I was truly sporadic back then in reading), thus moved on. Sorry.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I like option B. A subsequent worker finishes T34 without requiring a chop, which is acceptable under the circumstances. Then we'll have a shoestring defence of one warrior scouting north, one warrior fogbusting the gems city site, one warrior lurking north of the capital and two workers positioned to chop out a settler. So that settler is probably a turn slower than a "grow lots, build only two warriors" plan

I like two Warriors as well. First one also built fast to replace Toto after completing the first Worker. However, I'd build the second Worker much slower to increase population growth now that the built Warrior effectively replaces Toto in scouting duties.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[mabraham]

I like two Warriors as well. First one also built fast to replace Toto after completing the first Worker. However, I'd build the second Worker much slower to increase population growth now that the built Warrior effectively replaces Toto in scouting duties.

Sun Tzu Wu

I don't think building warrior-warrior-worker-settler is playable - though I was going to suggest it if Toto lived. We have to send another warrior scouting locally to the north, and a warrior to fogbust in front of the settler. Not building a third unit leaves us pretty naked. We can't send a scout far away, and I'd expect we want to send a long-range NW mission ASAP.

Growth is good if we are going to have good tiles to work and don't need to produce things right away. The option-B warrior-warrior-warrior-worker-settler plan sees us at size 3 working our three best tiles. A fourth population before the worker starts (which is possible if we max growth) is mostly working the spice while eating 2, which is a net of +1 production on the settler, and +1 per turn. Is that worth either not having a long-range scout, or leaving the local area unexplored or undefended?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Why our firaxis score exploded for the first five turns and then takes the same path as other teams?

Firaxis score is highly dependent on the current turn. All teams will have the same Raw Score until they gain points due to completing a technology, growing population, adding land via culture and completing wonders. Assuming all teams start with a Worker build, the first increase in Raw Score will be completed technologies, but most teams will research Animal Husbandry and that won't happen before turn 10.

Just try staring a game and mouse over your Raw Score. Your Firaxis Score will be shown as the Score you would receive by winning this turn. Make note of your Firaxis Score at turns 5, 10 and 13 (completion of Animal Husbandry). Between 5 and 10 your Raw Score should be the same and your Firaxis Score should drop dramatically, simply because winning on turn 5 is many times more impressive than winning on turn 10.

Note that winning before turn 10 is impossible, but that doesn't stop Firaxis from giving you an estimated score for winning before turn 10.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[frogdude]

I like option B. A subsequent worker finishes T34 without requiring a chop, which is acceptable under the circumstances. Then we'll have a shoestring defence of one warrior scouting north, one warrior fogbusting the gems city site, one warrior lurking north of the capital and two workers positioned to chop out a settler. So that settler is probably a turn slower than a "grow lots, build only two warriors" plan

Option B suits me. The archer plans are too slow. I'd rather have three warriors than 1 warrior + 1 archer.
As you point out, one warrior fogbusts/scouts north, one escorts settler, and one warrior 'goes long'.
In the long term, warrior 2&3 are not useless to us as they'll keep our cities happy. warrior 1 (the long range scout) probably will never come back as his mission will be to 'keep searching till you find the wizard'.


What direction/order each of these next batch of warriors go is debateable.
It would be to have a warrior follow in Toto's footsteps to find out whether that is a peninsula or a landbridge out west.
However, having some northern scouting would also be handy.

From a meta-game point of view, I think we want us to be isolated just so that we get some equity back with the other teams with regards to not contacting other AIs early. If we turn out to be truly isolated (ie island) then we won't have lost too much on the field from our misfortune.
However, my gut instinct is still guessing that there is a landbridge of some sort.

 

[mabraham]

From a meta-game point of view, I think we want us to be isolated just so that we get some equity back with the other teams with regards to not contacting other AIs early. If we turn out to be truly isolated (ie island) then we won't have lost too much on the field from our misfortune.
However, my gut instinct is still guessing that there is a landbridge of some sort.

I agree that we "want" to be isolated to minimize the consequences of our loss, but for the moment there's no reason to assume isolation. Thus wanting a long-range scout.

 

[Manco Capac]

I just tested myself the B option (I don't wanna presenting my position anymore without "feeling it") and wow...everything sync so well, few overflows.

I definitely like three warriors plan b.

I assume after the third warrior out, by switching to worker, you changed to spice tile in order to sync the worker's first chopping...if ever we plan to chop at T33. Otherwise, we have to mine the PH to avoid loss of worker turn. Compared to sheep, corn and especially cows, the PH is weak -wise (for a settler).

I will verify again if I didn't make any stupid mistake (or missed something in earlier PPP's), otherwise I change my post.


Anyways, , mabraham. I can't keep up with you. You are too fast.

BTW, just a small comment, is it necessary to put your preference choice asap?...I mean...for some reason, I feel your authority (your PPP's are so well-tuned and detailed)may influence some players who may take the devil's advocate position. Dissensions are so scarce...

 

[shulec]

I hope Toto tasted good!

Chalk up one "told you so" for Sun Tzu Wu.

Anyway, moving on... I like option B.
1. The archer is a waste of hammers. (1-3)
2. The first warrior one turn earlier does not balance the third warrior (and then builds after that) one turn later. (A)
3. The added food can be quickly made up once our food resources are improved (C)

 

[mabraham]

Anyways, , mabraham. I can't keep up with you. You are too fast.

BTW, just a small comment, is it necessary to put your preference choice asap?...I mean...for some reason, I feel your authority (your PPP are so well-tuned and detailed)may influence some players who may take the devil's advocate position. Dissensions are so scarce...

Ehhh, sorry about being fast. It's my birthday, so I took the day off. Then I didn't have anything to do when Toto was dead

Seriously, though - I'm always keen to discuss alternatives, and I'll usually test a range of them. I'm always open to other ideas with a good balance of risk and reward.

There's no rush, either. We have to make sure our recovery from here is as strong as it can possibly be. The earliest I'd consider playing is 24 hours from now, but I hope someone comes up with a good dissenting point of view before then

 

[Manco Capac]

Ehhh, sorry about being fast. It's my birthday, so I took the day off. Then I didn't have anything to do when Toto was dead

Seriously, though - I'm always keen to discuss alternatives, and I'll usually test a range of them. I'm always open to other ideas with a good balance of risk and reward.

There's no rush, either. We have to make sure our recovery from here is as strong as it can possibly be. The earliest I'd consider playing is 24 hours from now, but I hope someone comes up with a good dissenting point of view before then

During youth, we wish to grow up to experience things, older, we wish to stop time. Which category do you belong?

Sometimes, hidden intention/preference forces people to scratch their head deeper and harder and to chew over the test itself. Not I am jugding team mates at all in their decisions, but as for me, I don't want to opine anymore lightly. That would be the greatest lesson a "spammer" like me needs to learn in SGOTM's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh right! I just verified again your PDF and forget what I said in regards of spices...BW timing...the settler is out at turn 39 as I just did. Looks like my turn-set will be quite unidirectional.
I tried the mined PH possibility after growing at pop 4 and work on a warrior (can be an Archer...) until 13/15 and if I want to sync the settler at T41 without overflow (65 plus 35 corresponding to second chop with one worker and 15 "organic" production). There is the possibility to make the settler out one turn earlier, but at the cost of one worker turn for making the second worker moving onto the currently chopped forest by Eiffel. The Wheel is finished at T41.

I am feeling more oriented now. I am catching up...

 

[Walter_Wolf]

Happy birthday mabraham.

So, you are a horoskope LION. I wonder if it has anything to do with Toto's faith . (kidding)