Mad Professor
Deity
I agree that 1E looks like a good spot. The alternative is to go south, and settle a second city taking in the stone and deer.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
SGOTM 15 - Xteam
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
Why is there no gold on the deer hill bounded by a river?
There's also a forest on that tile, hidden by the resource bubble..
I might've found something out, that could have an impact on our grand strategy. This is a bit off-topic with regards to the settling decision but is interesting nonetheless. 
The high number of the GNP was really odd so i rolled a map with the given settings and simulated a bit. The high GNP average is due to the fact that all the enemy caps are pre-settled which i think everybody realised by now.
The rival-best number of 37 has to be the AI-Team, but they fell short of the number with just their two caps. So i added the mahabodi to the AI-Team, which still isn't enough. Besides the unknown starting locations which could add 1 or 2 points dependent on the tiles they work there are three possibilities to get to 37 i believe:
1. Every pre settled city is already in Buddhism.
2. No pre settled city besides the AI-Team is in Buddhism but they compensate with some culture buildings like monasteries, temples, maybe monuments.
3. A mixture of both.
My money is on 1 right now
--------------------------------
Settlermove:
1E looks very nice overall. The only disadvantages i see right now are:
1. Deer is a nice tile but requires hunting.
2. We have to build a quarry on the marble (and stone, but that is not urgent)
2,5. All our special tiles are in the outer ring and have a higher risk of getting pillaged.
I think i prefer 1E now, also given the fact that the wonder pace was a bit slower in my test games.
The high number of the GNP was really odd so i rolled a map with the given settings and simulated a bit. The high GNP average is due to the fact that all the enemy caps are pre-settled which i think everybody realised by now.
The rival-best number of 37 has to be the AI-Team, but they fell short of the number with just their two caps. So i added the mahabodi to the AI-Team, which still isn't enough. Besides the unknown starting locations which could add 1 or 2 points dependent on the tiles they work there are three possibilities to get to 37 i believe:
1. Every pre settled city is already in Buddhism.
2. No pre settled city besides the AI-Team is in Buddhism but they compensate with some culture buildings like monasteries, temples, maybe monuments.
3. A mixture of both.
My money is on 1 right now
--------------------------------
Settlermove:
1E looks very nice overall. The only disadvantages i see right now are:
1. Deer is a nice tile but requires hunting.
2. We have to build a quarry on the marble (and stone, but that is not urgent)
2,5. All our special tiles are in the outer ring and have a higher risk of getting pillaged.
I think i prefer 1E now, also given the fact that the wonder pace was a bit slower in my test games.
Htadus
A and L's dad
BTW, if you are correct, we desparately need to build the AP under hindu, or we can loose to Budhist block.
There's also a forest on that tile, hidden by the resource bubble..
That is why the gold is not shown. So we should mine that tile and get 2f3h1c tile untill hunting.
So, we settle 1E, research Poly>Ag, and build worker? How would the timing of worker completion and Ag mesh?
Mad Professor
Deity
The list of complexities of this setup is getting longer. How do you win an AP victory when everyone else in the game is another religion? Looks to me like our evil map maker has done everything he can to make the AP victory possibility a no-goer. At the same time he has made building the AP attractive so as to prevent an AP loss.
Back to more immediate concerns - Htadus' comment about mining the deer is a good one - it makes the tile worth something significant without us having to study hunting. It means we can put it in the fat cross of the capital and get something out of it almost as soon as our culture expands to it. We certainly want poly and Ag before hunting, and I think pottery is a priority as well since we're going to want som cottages fairly promptly. If we're not going to mine that tile to start with, it might be better to go south and put the deer tile near a second city.
I like the idea of having it within reach of the capital better though, and mining it until we want hunting.
The list of complexities is, indeed, going to be long. 
Hoping we do not meet too many AI too soon, with religious differences and Aggressive AI, we may need to be thinking about defending ourselves sooner. Doesn't look too favorable for AP not DIplo. Culture anyone?
Thinking the AP is mandatory.
Is the consensus to settle east? We can do that and post the save?
This game will require some thought.
edit - Nice work Undecided.
Hoping we do not meet too many AI too soon, with religious differences and Aggressive AI, we may need to be thinking about defending ourselves sooner. Doesn't look too favorable for AP not DIplo. Culture anyone?
Thinking the AP is mandatory.
Is the consensus to settle east? We can do that and post the save?
This game will require some thought.
edit - Nice work Undecided.
Mad Professor
Deity
I think that's what I'd do...
Like to learn how Hawk sees it, but 1E looks optimal to me.
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
Sorry, been a little tied up.
1E, start Poly looks right to me.
Then we can run some tests of the start. I should have time for testing over the next couple of days.
1E, start Poly looks right to me.
Then we can run some tests of the start. I should have time for testing over the next couple of days.
Htadus
A and L's dad
I too like 1E but lets hold off doing any settling just yet.
Lets test a few games to determine how much time/turns we have before settling and founding Hindu. I am guessing that neal gave us good starting area regardles of which way the warrior went.
But it would be a shame to loose out on a better site because we did not take a turn or 2 to learn more about the surrounding area.
Lets test a few games to determine how much time/turns we have before settling and founding Hindu. I am guessing that neal gave us good starting area regardles of which way the warrior went.
But it would be a shame to loose out on a better site because we did not take a turn or 2 to learn more about the surrounding area.
Let's consider what it would take to cause us to settle in another place?-A commerce resource, gold, gems or silver?
- Can't think of another thing actually.
The problem with testing for another site is that we have no idea what else is out there. I understand the idea of seeing how long it takes our opponents to research Poly as a means to give us an alarm clock, but how much do we sacrifice in development of the capital and loss of beakers?
With the deadline of having to found Hinduism, not too keen on taking a hike to see what might be better?
Be interested to hear CP's take, as a map designer, on the likelihood of something better popping up nearby? If, as you say above, that Neil gave us similar starting areas no matter where the Warrior moved, then East should not be a whole lot different than any other direction? If this is the case, getting the city up and running would seem the primary concern for us?
Am willing to listen and would like to hear about a search plan for a better site based upon what we see currently? What is the cost in terms of turns and lost development?
Htadus
A and L's dad
Sorry, I was in hurry to comment but not enough time to explain.
What I would like to test is how many turns can we delay settling and still found Hindu.
Here is what my thoughts are.
Both stone and marble sites are ideal to settle on if there are enough food available.
Right now we do not know if there are enough food nearby. Even 1E is just marginal for growth until both food are inline. The deer tile is not too useful until Hunting or BW.
What if we can settle on T1 or T2 or T3 and get a great place to settle? The fear in this game is loosing Hindu.
We know that settling on eiher of the tiles will give us fast expansion regardles of tile improvement.
So how about consider this?
T0: Send settle south to marble.
T1: War to stone. See what we got and decide what to do. If both sites are bad then run settler to IE tile.
T2: settle 1E.
So for testing we delay settling 1E untill T2 and we know htadus dropped us behind by 2 turns.
What I would like to test is how many turns can we delay settling and still found Hindu.
Here is what my thoughts are.
Both stone and marble sites are ideal to settle on if there are enough food available.
Right now we do not know if there are enough food nearby. Even 1E is just marginal for growth until both food are inline. The deer tile is not too useful until Hunting or BW.
What if we can settle on T1 or T2 or T3 and get a great place to settle? The fear in this game is loosing Hindu.
We know that settling on eiher of the tiles will give us fast expansion regardles of tile improvement.
So how about consider this?
T0: Send settle south to marble.
T1: War to stone. See what we got and decide what to do. If both sites are bad then run settler to IE tile.
T2: settle 1E.
So for testing we delay settling 1E untill T2 and we know htadus dropped us behind by 2 turns.
Concur that only gems or precious metal would merit another capital site. The deer on a forested hill is not unlike a cow -- it's an excellent tile. One of my concerns as a map maker was to avoid creating a situation where the player would settle in an inferior position for the right reasons or in a superior position for the wrong reasons. The latter was usually not a problem, but I did move fogged resources occasionally to avoid it.
Trying to create multiple nearly-equal capital placements was something I chose to avoid as not a good use of my time (but our map maker might think otherwise). So, if this were my map, settling either 1E or on the marble would be what I would expect good players to do, and I would have avoided creating a situation where settling otherwise gained an advantage.
Trying to create multiple nearly-equal capital placements was something I chose to avoid as not a good use of my time (but our map maker might think otherwise). So, if this were my map, settling either 1E or on the marble would be what I would expect good players to do, and I would have avoided creating a situation where settling otherwise gained an advantage.
Mad Professor
Deity
Sorry, I was in hurry to comment but not enough time to explain.
What I would like to test is how many turns can we delay settling and still found Hindu.
Here is what my thoughts are.
Both stone and marble sites are ideal to settle on if there are enough food available.
Right now we do not know if there are enough food nearby. Even 1E is just marginal for growth until both food are inline. The deer tile is not too useful until Hunting or BW.
What if we can settle on T1 or T2 or T3 and get a great place to settle? The fear in this game is loosing Hindu.
We know that settling on eiher of the tiles will give us fast expansion regardles of tile improvement.
So how about consider this?
T0: Send settle south to marble.
T1: War to stone. See what we got and decide what to do. If both sites are bad then run settler to IE tile.
T2: settle 1E.
So for testing we delay settling 1E untill T2 and we know htadus dropped us behind by 2 turns.
Well I think the deer mined would be quite useful actually - the catch is we'd need BW to mine it wouldn't we since there's a forest on the tile? That makes it unimprovable until BW or hunting.
I'm nervous about the delay though - Undecided did some testing along this line - I remember him posting a list of hinduism dates? A couple of them were rather short. I don't imagine modifying that with buddism being already founded would slow the hinduism dates any? In fact it would seem to me to make it even more dangerous. Having said that though, my sense of "fairness" on the other hand leads me to guess that mysticism might have been removed from the AI's starting techs... That's my head talking though, not my heart!
CP, thanks for the outline of your thinking. I'll have to remember that if I play another of your games - would like to if I get the time... I'm inclined to agree with Leif's reasoning that while we might find another nice spot west, north or south, we are unlikely to find one that is significantly different in the long term. Mmmm - a grassland river gems (with no jungle) - that would be nice, but I'd amazed to see it.
There are two possibilities, imo:
(-edit: Forgot to add one turn for the AI as they'll will likely switch to buddhism on the first turn if i am correct and nobody is spiritual)
1. No opponent starts with myst; no changes at the starting areas of the AI.
Myst has 78 beakers. Normal opponents make 9bpt-12bpt. The Team-AI has 2x the output but suffers +50% beaker increase for their techs iirc.
-> we'd have atleast 4-5 turns to settle worst-case.
2. Single opponents with myst; changes to starting areas.
Poly has 156 beakers and we need 12 turns if we work a commerce tile. This would warrant some changes to the starting areas otherwise we could loose poly or there would be no point for the mapmaker to present choices in the beginning because every turn increase the chance of defeat.
I think everybody would agree that 1 is way more likely than 2 for several reasons. But our start will already be slower than usual because of the poly requirement. Because of this i'd like to settle 1E and if some food tiles show up next to the stone and/or the marble i am happy that the future settling decisions got a bit easier.
(-edit: Forgot to add one turn for the AI as they'll will likely switch to buddhism on the first turn if i am correct and nobody is spiritual)
1. No opponent starts with myst; no changes at the starting areas of the AI.
Myst has 78 beakers. Normal opponents make 9bpt-12bpt. The Team-AI has 2x the output but suffers +50% beaker increase for their techs iirc.
-> we'd have atleast 4-5 turns to settle worst-case.
2. Single opponents with myst; changes to starting areas.
Poly has 156 beakers and we need 12 turns if we work a commerce tile. This would warrant some changes to the starting areas otherwise we could loose poly or there would be no point for the mapmaker to present choices in the beginning because every turn increase the chance of defeat.
I think everybody would agree that 1 is way more likely than 2 for several reasons. But our start will already be slower than usual because of the poly requirement. Because of this i'd like to settle 1E and if some food tiles show up next to the stone and/or the marble i am happy that the future settling decisions got a bit easier.
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
I agree... this start was very ambiguous as to which direction to move. I would think the mapmaker would be reluctant to put a pot of gold in one direction. This would reward a random decision.
Given the decent site 1E, I'm inclined to settle immediately. If there is a commerce tile, we'll just have to snap it up with our second city.
Have to say, given the marble and stone, have to wonder if culture is possible. We could build a gang of wonders in one city. However, having said that, hard for me to believe culture would beat military. Maybe it depends on isolation.
Given the decent site 1E, I'm inclined to settle immediately. If there is a commerce tile, we'll just have to snap it up with our second city.
Have to say, given the marble and stone, have to wonder if culture is possible. We could build a gang of wonders in one city. However, having said that, hard for me to believe culture would beat military. Maybe it depends on isolation.
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
There's some nice cross-posting going on
After reading all the cross posts, I still agree...
... I think!
