Trystero
Deity
But, I think, we would have been able to detect that in the turn 0 demographics.
SGOTM 16 - U'nu'sual S'us'pec'ts
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
But, I think, we would have been able to detect that in the turn 0 demographics.
I'm a little worried that this isn't going to give us enough warriors. We currently only have one and this plan would give us three more. Both city 2 and city 3 will need protection and the capital will need a garrison for happiness reasons. Also we need to explore down southeast and southwest. I'm totally game for leaving the northern tundra unfogbusted so that we can have a unit farm some XP up to 10 for the HE. But 4 warriors seems a little livin' on the edge.
Do we have a date for barb archers on Emp and a date for barb spears/axes? I'm sure this has been chronicled somewhere.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
Great information, added to the reference list.
I agree we should seriously consider slotting in 1-2 more warriors.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
What do you think Maple Sporks and Phoenix Rising did to equal our power 200 years before we researched Bronze Working? Did they simply go Mining -> Bronze Working and skip fishing? Or did they build units?
Phoenix Rising settled in place remember, so Bronze Working first makes sense.
Don't forget just how early it is, barbs cannot even enter cultural borders until there are 2*num_players+1 cities, in other words, barbs won't be able to enter borders until we build our city 3.
Also, I haven't aligned the builds. City 3 will finish its WB at about the same time as City 2 whips the lighthouse. It is then free to build a warrior or 2 while it grows.
Paris finishes its last warrior before City 3 is even founded, so it too could build a few if needed.
Here is a screenie of where I propose to finish, and the corresponding save.
I will write a detailed PPP if it is broadly acceptable.
It is 26 turns, so if that is too long, no problem. It just seemed a logical place to stop.
City 3 just founded (it has 3 food resources 3 hills and 2 FP's, it will be an awesome early city)
Sailing is just in, Masonry started.
All 3 cities have MP's, plus an additional fogbuster. Paris & City 3 do not need MP's yet, so this could be 3 fogbusters.
City 2 has just started Lighhouse, it needs to switch to settler in a few turns as we want to 2 pop whip it with 29 overflow into the GLH, but Masonry will not be in for a few more turns. So it will switch to settler when it has enough hammers in lighhouse. Once Masonry in, whip LH with overflow into GLH and grow back to size 4, then switch back to settler & 2 pop whip.
Please, if anyone thinks it can be improved upon, don't hesitate.
The thing I am a little unsure about is what Paris will build after the last Warrior. It could do another Warrior, a WB for exploring (the current placeholder) or another Worker to service Paris, as #1 & #2 will be servicing cities 2 & 3.
I will write a detailed PPP if it is broadly acceptable.
Spoiler :
It is 26 turns, so if that is too long, no problem. It just seemed a logical place to stop.
City 3 just founded (it has 3 food resources 3 hills and 2 FP's, it will be an awesome early city)
Sailing is just in, Masonry started.
All 3 cities have MP's, plus an additional fogbuster. Paris & City 3 do not need MP's yet, so this could be 3 fogbusters.
City 2 has just started Lighhouse, it needs to switch to settler in a few turns as we want to 2 pop whip it with 29 overflow into the GLH, but Masonry will not be in for a few more turns. So it will switch to settler when it has enough hammers in lighhouse. Once Masonry in, whip LH with overflow into GLH and grow back to size 4, then switch back to settler & 2 pop whip.
Please, if anyone thinks it can be improved upon, don't hesitate.
The thing I am a little unsure about is what Paris will build after the last Warrior. It could do another Warrior, a WB for exploring (the current placeholder) or another Worker to service Paris, as #1 & #2 will be servicing cities 2 & 3.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
Something for exploring is my vote. With this plan, we've basically stopped exploring. We will need to prioritize exploring soon. A workboat might be the right choice.
Won't Paris need an MP when it grows to size 5? Same for city #2?
Won't Paris need an MP when it grows to size 5? Same for city #2?
It is a tricky balance to maximise growth, as when we plant City 3 in 1720bc, we can only sustain a 50% tech rate and we still have to get Masonry.
If we build no more cities we will research Masonry in 1400bc (t65). With a few chops and whips, the GLH is finished in 1120bc (t72). In the test game, Great Wall has only just been built, so I think we are fairly safe on the date.
After 1400bc, Paris can just pump workers/settlers as new cities should basically pay for themselves. City 3 can build fogbusters.
As for the question about what to build in Paris after the last warrior, testing would indicate the exploring WB is the best, I was amazed at how much of the world it explored before the GLH was finished.
edit: x-post with Chris. Agreed regarding exploration, WB works well.
If we build no more cities we will research Masonry in 1400bc (t65). With a few chops and whips, the GLH is finished in 1120bc (t72). In the test game, Great Wall has only just been built, so I think we are fairly safe on the date.
After 1400bc, Paris can just pump workers/settlers as new cities should basically pay for themselves. City 3 can build fogbusters.
As for the question about what to build in Paris after the last warrior, testing would indicate the exploring WB is the best, I was amazed at how much of the world it explored before the GLH was finished.
edit: x-post with Chris. Agreed regarding exploration, WB works well.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
By the way, you haven't been using the horses in your tests, have you? We can't count on those being available.
City 2 needs its MP because of the whipping it will do. Paris will need it at pop 5, but it could build another warrior after the exploring WB. The WB is finished with a chop, so the overflow build the warrior in 1 turn.
...and of course I did not use the horses, at all.
If the real game does have horses, it will require a rethink on the micro.
Trystero
Deity
I went over neilmeister's micro carefully, and the plan looks good at striking a balance between expansion and getting units out.
I am also in favor of the WB for exploring.
I am also in favor of the WB for exploring.
OK, here is the actual PPP, in the correct format.
1. Technologies
Hunting->Animal Husbandry->Sailing->Masonry(place holder)
Using binary research, we get:
- AH the turn our worker arrives on the pigs
- Sailing the turn city 2 is ready to start lighthouse
2. Dealing with AIs
Set Brennus espionage rank of 1, so no ep's get wasted if we meet anyone
3. City placement and builds
Placements:
City 2 will be to the north to get Fish/Pigs/Deer.
City 3 to the west to get Fish/Sheep/Deer.
Builds:
Paris: finish settler->warrior->warrior(part)->worker->settler->warrior(finish)->WB
City 2: WB->warrior->lighthouse
City 3: WB
4. General micro
See spreadsheet
5. Civics and religion
Revolt to Slavery when first settler produced on t38.
6. War
N/A
7. Bigger picture
edit: Actually, there is one downside to building GLH in City 2, as this is very likely to be our GP farm. Long term having an extra GM appear occasionally is probably not a bad thing anyway.
1. Technologies
Hunting->Animal Husbandry->Sailing->Masonry(place holder)
Using binary research, we get:
- AH the turn our worker arrives on the pigs
- Sailing the turn city 2 is ready to start lighthouse
2. Dealing with AIs
Set Brennus espionage rank of 1, so no ep's get wasted if we meet anyone
3. City placement and builds
Placements:
City 2 will be to the north to get Fish/Pigs/Deer.
City 3 to the west to get Fish/Sheep/Deer.
Builds:
Paris: finish settler->warrior->warrior(part)->worker->settler->warrior(finish)->WB
City 2: WB->warrior->lighthouse
City 3: WB
4. General micro
See spreadsheet
5. Civics and religion
Revolt to Slavery when first settler produced on t38.
6. War
N/A
7. Bigger picture
edit: Actually, there is one downside to building GLH in City 2, as this is very likely to be our GP farm. Long term having an extra GM appear occasionally is probably not a bad thing anyway.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
Looks good to me as-is. I'd like to see someone test out having city #3 on the river, instead of on the coast, but I won't have time to do that test.
What are your stop conditions?
What are your stop conditions?
Stop conditions:
- meeting someone
- finding horses
- barb archers/warriors looking scary
There is no rush, I am happy to try a different test. Which river tile is that ? I can't see the dotmaps you put up before. Silk ? PH ?
- meeting someone
- finding horses
- barb archers/warriors looking scary
There is no rush, I am happy to try a different test. Which river tile is that ? I can't see the dotmaps you put up before. Silk ? PH ?
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
The question is "should city 3 be the closer inland cottage city (built on silk) or the more distant sheep/fish/fur coastal city?"
The problem with City 3 has been that when I originally went south for the Clams, it just sucked and took ages to grow or produce anything. I felt Clams was better than inland, as it could be improved by a WB from Paris on the turn it settled. Don't forget, we are building the GLH, if 2 cities are equal except one is coastal, build the coastal city.
Considering that currently the plan has us settling City 3 on the coast in 1720bc (t57). If we built it closer, it would be settled t56 probably.
It would have reduced maintenance (a quick sloppy test shows the difference starts as 1gpt).
Unfortunately, we aren't going to research Pottery until after Masonry, so it won't be in until about t72 -73 or so.
In the mean time, silk city only has unimproved FP's and PH's to work. Don't get me wrong, this city will be a great commerce city, but it will never really contribute much to production.
Putting it where is has Fish/Sheep/Deer and 3 hills, it is another monster city. It will pump units/workers/settlers like no tomorrow.
Considering that currently the plan has us settling City 3 on the coast in 1720bc (t57). If we built it closer, it would be settled t56 probably.
It would have reduced maintenance (a quick sloppy test shows the difference starts as 1gpt).
Unfortunately, we aren't going to research Pottery until after Masonry, so it won't be in until about t72 -73 or so.
In the mean time, silk city only has unimproved FP's and PH's to work. Don't get me wrong, this city will be a great commerce city, but it will never really contribute much to production.
Putting it where is has Fish/Sheep/Deer and 3 hills, it is another monster city. It will pump units/workers/settlers like no tomorrow.
ChrisShaffer
Board gamer
I thought the idea with the commerce city was to farm it up, grow to 13+ population, and then lay down cottages? For that, we only need agriculture, which we have.
Also, comparing to clams doesn't work, because the fish/sheep/deer will have to build its own workboat - there's no way to have it be improved by a workboat from Paris the turn it is settled.
I can (easily) be persuaded that fish/sheep/deer is the better choice, because it can produce more faster.
edit: p.s. are we actually using either deer? If we aren't going to camp them, maybe skipping hunting and beelining tech is better than the 20% discount on Animal Husbandry?
Also, comparing to clams doesn't work, because the fish/sheep/deer will have to build its own workboat - there's no way to have it be improved by a workboat from Paris the turn it is settled.
I can (easily) be persuaded that fish/sheep/deer is the better choice, because it can produce more faster.
edit: p.s. are we actually using either deer? If we aren't going to camp them, maybe skipping hunting and beelining tech is better than the 20% discount on Animal Husbandry?
Sorry, I must have missed that regarding the commerce city plan.
I think I would prefer to simply have it working cottages and a mined PH.
I meant to compare Clams city to Inland, my bad.
Yes, coastal city builds it own WB, but it should whip it 8 turns after starting. By which time it has improved sheep and fish nets the next turn. It does indeed grow super fast.
I think I would prefer to simply have it working cottages and a mined PH.
I meant to compare Clams city to Inland, my bad.
Yes, coastal city builds it own WB, but it should whip it 8 turns after starting. By which time it has improved sheep and fish nets the next turn. It does indeed grow super fast.
Similar threads
