SGOTM 14 - One Short Straw
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
GLH
If GLH was the wrong move, I guess I'm mainly to blame for it. After reading through the Ducks' opening, though, I think that our main weakness in this game was being too short-sighted in the opening. Duckweed basically outlined the game in his very first post. Their early testing on Oracle and GLH (prior to even settling the second city) went all the way to Astro. mdy's plan from the last game was largely about getting cities 5-7 settled and growing fast enough to get gpp on a tight schedule. We kinda forgot about this, I guess. It felt like two weeks of me and ZPV arguing about the Alpha beeline, followed by weeks of single-mindedly trying to shave turns off the GLH and Mids builds, followed only then by any longer term planning. Without the longer term planning, it was difficult to see that we paid for the wonders with under-expansion and that this would cost us a full 15t off Astro.
Having said that, I think that GLH is not at all bad here. Domination is clearly the way to go, over conquest. Conquering an extra 3 AI / 30 cities has to be 15t of extra game play. Settling 15 cities is nothing in comparison, considering the length of the military supply line. The economic problem was really severe, though. There's about 50t from our Astro date to where we eliminated 5 AI. I'd roughly guess that we had an average of 18 coastal cities during that period (no idea if that's actually right). Even without international TR's, that's close to 2000g. Since we had international TR's for a good chunk of time, it's probably closer to 2500g, which is roughly the equivalent of 5t or so of our highest cash loss prior to destroying Shaka and Genghis. I think 2000-3000g less could easily amount to a premature crash in our game. I know it's probably possible to do more razing and resettling on a similar timeline, but it's also hard to anticipate the economic problem.
I don't know...
If GLH was the wrong move, I guess I'm mainly to blame for it. After reading through the Ducks' opening, though, I think that our main weakness in this game was being too short-sighted in the opening. Duckweed basically outlined the game in his very first post. Their early testing on Oracle and GLH (prior to even settling the second city) went all the way to Astro. mdy's plan from the last game was largely about getting cities 5-7 settled and growing fast enough to get gpp on a tight schedule. We kinda forgot about this, I guess. It felt like two weeks of me and ZPV arguing about the Alpha beeline, followed by weeks of single-mindedly trying to shave turns off the GLH and Mids builds, followed only then by any longer term planning. Without the longer term planning, it was difficult to see that we paid for the wonders with under-expansion and that this would cost us a full 15t off Astro.
Having said that, I think that GLH is not at all bad here. Domination is clearly the way to go, over conquest. Conquering an extra 3 AI / 30 cities has to be 15t of extra game play. Settling 15 cities is nothing in comparison, considering the length of the military supply line. The economic problem was really severe, though. There's about 50t from our Astro date to where we eliminated 5 AI. I'd roughly guess that we had an average of 18 coastal cities during that period (no idea if that's actually right). Even without international TR's, that's close to 2000g. Since we had international TR's for a good chunk of time, it's probably closer to 2500g, which is roughly the equivalent of 5t or so of our highest cash loss prior to destroying Shaka and Genghis. I think 2000-3000g less could easily amount to a premature crash in our game. I know it's probably possible to do more razing and resettling on a similar timeline, but it's also hard to anticipate the economic problem.
I don't know...
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,727
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,727
The logic is interesting, but based on an incorrect assumption.
"... how can you know that a unit is been killed, if you never even have seen it? "
Based on the information we supplied at the outset, you could not assume you would receive an in-game notification of his death.
In order to meet Neil's commitment to keep you informed, I added code deliberately to check each save to see if the Wizard was still there, and added a status message to the submission reports to tell you whether he was alive.
"... how can you know that a unit is been killed, if you never even have seen it? "
Based on the information we supplied at the outset, you could not assume you would receive an in-game notification of his death.
In order to meet Neil's commitment to keep you informed, I added code deliberately to check each save to see if the Wizard was still there, and added a status message to the submission reports to tell you whether he was alive.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,474
Does that mean that you are able to write code to determine the fate of an individual unit, as opposed to simply checking the event log for a reference to the death of a Great General unit?
I am able to parse the submitted saves fairly comprehensively. The event log is certainly included in the parsed data, but I can also get down to individual tiles, units, cities etc. when necessary.
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,727
That's interesting, AlanH. Thanks. 
