SGOTM 15 - Xteam

[zamint3]

Check out the scoreboard. What in the name of Pete has OSS done to create that score line?

Settle Delhi I guess.

Maple Sporks didn't settle on T0, don't know if OSS settled T0 or T1, did I read somewhere that you can not uploade a save from T0?

Edit: I reproduced Htadus' game building AP T100 and Mids T95 (500bc), using Undecideds map - hopefully neil is more generous with military resources.
Trying now with leif's map.

 

[leif erikson]

Settle Delhi I guess.

Yes, forgot that the graph is score over time. They must have settled and saved?
You're correct that you cannot upload a save for turn 0.

 

[Undecided]

If i knew that this save would be used for simulating ~ 100 Turns i would have added some possible city sites in the vicinity.
Will update the save when we'll get new map info.

Building AP for denial value is fine by me. The wonder date will heavily depend on the leader compostion of the AI-Team. If we get two religious nutjobs as the leaders, we might see a very fast theology and AP.
Also if by chance we aren't going to get a priest for theo we could bulb it with the artist from music as a backup plan. This could work if the tech/wonder pace turns out to be slower.
We would need drama and monarchy besides all the stuff we would've needed for the GPriest bulb.

 

[leif erikson]

Got frustrated playing and, on the restart, forgot Poly first, researched Agriculture and then Poly. Got Hinduism, but sweated it out.

I can see why it take a while to get to AP, research rate.

 

[leif erikson]

Have run several test settling on the Marble using Undecided's save. Best one would have been AP on turn 98, if I had remembered that the city had to be Hindu to build it, delayed me two turns, so 100. Next turn, Justinian declared war and would have done significant damage.

In another game, I got 3 Great Prophets and no Great Engineers. Finished it turn 108.

I also seem to be able to complete a number of other wonders. In the turn 98 game, built Stonehenge, 'mids, Temple of Artemis and AP. Completed 'mids and ToA on Turn 98.

The biggest impediment are Barbs.

edit - next up, settle 1E.

 

[The-Hawk]

I've been debating doing some testing, but honestly, I question the value until we open more of the map. The real game is bound to be different. Should we make a decision on settler move and then do some testing once we see more under the FOW?

 

[Htadus]

I've been debating doing some testing, but honestly, I question the value until we open more of the map. The real game is bound to be different. Should we make a decision on settler move and then do some testing once we see more under the FOW?

You beat me to it Hawk. Yes to more exploration before testing.

 

[leif erikson]

In the middle of testing the 1E spot now. It makes a better, long term, capital imho. With the test game, the real weakness is no, really nice, second city site. So, how do we decide 1E versus on Marble?

 

[The-Hawk]

So, how do we decide 1E versus on Marble?

Arm wrestling?

I like 1E still... hate to lose the marble's extra hammer and commerce on a commerce poor start. Really hard to test though. I guess the real question is do we potenially burn a turn to send the settler down to take a peek.

 

[leif erikson]

The early advantage is with settle on Marble, imho, due to:
- extra initial hammers in capital.
- no need to quarry tile.
- allows ready second city east of Stone.

In the longer run, it does not have enough food to support specialists and does not have enough hammers to be a production city, really. It is mediocre.

1E requires more time to get set up but does provide more of everything one you get it humming.

As I said earlier, would be really nice to know what is around for city sites, but

 

[Cactus Pete]

I don't see how 1E can be a bad choice. Among many positives, it won't put us in a position where there's pressure to settle a second city, which allows us to know where more resources are before settling number two and is compatible with a two-worker start with fast workers.

 

[Htadus]

There are not many options on the decision. Either settle on the best possible location we know at this moment and hope to get a super second city site or try yo see what is over the marble this turn and what is over the stone nect turn before making a decision.

Back to my original question, do we want to risk settling 2-3 turns late or ...

xpost with CP.

Why 2 worker start with fast workers CP? I thought 2 warrior/worker/settler will be the most optimal for this setup.

 

[leif erikson]

Having slept on it...

Having made the mistake of playing Agriculture first and still getting Poly, I think we have some turns if we wish to use them, although I would not go past turn 2 or 3. Think it also depends upon what wonders we think we want/need.

In the settle on Marble trials, it seemed possible to get Oracle, Stonehenge, 'mids, Temple of Artemis (+100% trade routes) and AP. Settling 1E did not develop fast enough to do all this. We would need a good second city site, founded quickly, to do all this. Once we start building Oracle and 'mids in the capital, there isn't much time for settlers and pop-rushing delays production.

If we find any food resource south of the Marble Hill, I think it will be worth settling there. Should there be further resources north of the Stone, that makes it even more attractive.

I am leaning towards a trip to the Marble hill and a further decision from there?

edit - forgot to ask about this:

Don't forget spies, Kakumeika used a few nice tricks last SGOTM.

What tricks did you learn?

 

[Htadus]

leif, not sure what Kaku did but we can focus our spy points on a potential friend target to get a force a civic or religion change. So it is likely that is what they did.

I am for seeing what is over both of those hills. So on T1 war on stone too please.

 

[zamint3]

leif, not sure what Kaku did but we can focus our spy points on a potential friend target to get a force a civic or religion change. So it is likely that is what they did.

Exactly - building no less than 3 Trojan Horse Cities...

I don't see how 1E can be a bad choice. Among many positives, it won't put us in a position where there's pressure to settle a second city, which allows us to know where more resources are before settling number two....

I tend to agree, (putting my money on a 2nd city on the river W of corn).
1E will make a great long term capital with 3 food tiles (counting the flood plain), 4 grass hills, marble and stone and 7 river grass.

Tested both Undecided and leif's maps, and it does look like the wonders tend to go a little slow.
I settled 1E and had no problem getting AP around T96-T100. I don't think we need ToA, but it's great for some fail gold!

 

[Cactus Pete]

Why 2 worker start with fast workers CP? I thought 2 warrior/worker/settler will be the most optimal for this setup.

That may well be true if settling on marble (haven't tested that yet), but on 1E (which I have tested) the best approach seems to be:

warrior first (building him with only one hammer until city grows to size two,
then using deer to complete him quickly and then build fast worker.

That way, fast worker comes in same turn Agri is researched, so starts farming corn and then flood plain while Masonry is researched.

After Masonry, BW in time to chop settler.

2 fast workers are really powerful early -- see save below

SAVE at 2360 BC: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=312132&stc=1&d=1327612432

Will try to test settling on marble tonight.

 

[leif erikson]

Will try to test settling on marble tonight.

Looking forward to your opinion on this.

 

[Cactus Pete]

Tested settling on marble . . .

Two warriors before fast worker does seem optimal if we go that route.

Can get 2 workers and a settler out significantly faster, but there are drawbacks (save is attached):

There is no good second city site, given no further resources showing up, though it would seem likely that something will.

Capital is not nearly as powerful, unless there are other resources south of the marble. Problem is, if there are not, then it takes two more turns to found on 1E. Moreover, if other resources are available in the south, then a second city that has the marble in the fat cross will be available to us if we settle 1E. There are multiple hills to mine for 1E, so capital could give up marble if hammers are short for such a second city south of marble. (Same would be true for stone.)

So, like 1E better (especially the high hammers per turn available) and question whether exploration is worth the turns.

Save: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=312189&stc=1&d=1327645083

 

[leif erikson]

Thanks for all the opinions.

This afternoon, plan to settle 1E, unless there is real opposition with good reasons why not, and post the save for further review.

 

[Undecided]

Just to clarify, this means no marble-hill-trip right?