SGOTM 22 - TTfkapr
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
soundjata
hole in cheese
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,544
I was thinking about this a little bit more and if we want to win, probably we need to start war asap.
Chariots ? maybe but they are just too weak Prets op but slow, HAs2ms we could use archery as well for garnizons, they are strong and fast and we porbably can get them faster then prets.
Problem with HAs is that uf Ai start with metal it could be though but overall this is just monarch ...
Or we can try something what i was intended to do in 1 of my games witch was like axe rush in to HAs( we can switch axes with prets but it will be slower but stronger i dotn think that we need more then this if its Pangaea).
So start rush with metal untis and use HAs for support ( they can rech our initial stack a lot faster) and just weak defenders with HAs then go for kill with CR(3) metal guys...
HA are an interesting option indeed. Kind of the trademark for Phoenixes
I'd say less risky than Praetorians (we know horses are near) but also less efficient:
- HBR = 373
; Horse Archer = 6
/ 50
- IW = 299 ; Praetorian = 8 / 45
Monument = 30
Granary = 60
Library = 90
TGW = 150
Pick 2 of the above.
Palace = 0 hammers. We need one more non military building for next city. Which means pottery, masonry, myst or writing is needed.
Agree prets are cheaper. If we have iron!! Would be hugely annoying to go for IW and have no iron. I normally go axes, prets when I do Romans for fun. HA will be weaked by all the jungle. Good to see some healthy debate here. Grabbing military resources could be key here but so will buildings. We can't just focus on military techs. We need a building strategy too or we will be pumping prets and have only 3-4 cities. We also need 7 world wonders. If we get G spy we can build SYard. Hmmmm.
Packers5280
Deity
I would favor praets over HA as if the nearest AI is through the jg, HA won't be any faster than praets. I favor brute force (praets) over finesse (HA).
As for the building, I like the GW more because it also counts towards the wonder count. We should get at least 1 ancient wonder, imo.
There is another option to the building list. Stonehedge. Since it provides a free building, its actually 2 buildings and goes for the wonder count per:
As for the building, I like the GW more because it also counts towards the wonder count. We should get at least 1 ancient wonder, imo.
There is another option to the building list. Stonehedge. Since it provides a free building, its actually 2 buildings and goes for the wonder count per:
This is a rush job. I am sure errors are present. Test game and screenshots.
soundjata
hole in cheese
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,544
Here's a test to T52
Research goes Masonry > BW > Archery > IW
Rome builds Barracks (partial) > TGW (T41) > Barracks > Archer 1 > Settler (chopped) > archer 2
T52 we settle city #2.
I like Fish city because it can provide us with invulnerable scouts (aka workboats)
The issue is we'll need one more building + a couple of extra archers before we can settle city #3
Research goes Masonry > BW > Archery > IW
Rome builds Barracks (partial) > TGW (T41) > Barracks > Archer 1 > Settler (chopped) > archer 2
T52 we settle city #2.
Spoiler :
I like Fish city because it can provide us with invulnerable scouts (aka workboats)
The issue is we'll need one more building + a couple of extra archers before we can settle city #3
soundjata
hole in cheese
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,544
IDK about Stonehenge, might be too much risk and failgold is not of much use early game.
Maybe we could chance it after TGW is built. Worst case scenario we can fall back on a monument so as to enable city #3 ?
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,725
Can't look at your save, but from the description it seems this wouldn't work. Capital needs 4 military units to settle city #2, you build only 2 archers.
Settling before BW would be much cheaper in hammers, but probably still slower. Will try some tests tonight.
I was also thinking of warriors returning to capital vs building more units. In theory we could build 4 more warriors or 4 archers? Or return 4 warriors to capital. If we plan on BW then returning the warriors is not really an option.
So ultimate question is what to do with the 4 warriors? Fog bust or search till they die? There is a small chance we may not be first to great wall? They could also worker steal/hassle nearby Ai to keep them at 1-2 cities. At size 6 warriors take 1 turn to build. 4 turns. Archers closer to 2 turns with a chop. This needs a lot more thought. Hmmm
@SJ - Do we want a granary too? One thought I had was more farms?? This would help some regrowth. The issue here is currently we have no happiness resources. It's going to be very difficult to whip an army of praets without some happiness issue. Unless we time a whip each 10 or so turns? Of course then you consider whip vs production. At size 6 with 5 mines you build a praet in 3 turns. If we want growth to S8 we may want some farms. With a chop that reduces it to 2 turns. So each 4 turns we would have 84 hammers. Assuming 1 worker. So 2 preats each 5 turns. Or 4 turns with 2nd worker. So to build an army could take 20+ turns with 3 cities. Without roads add another 10-12 turns to reach an AI. I assume barbs would not destroy the roads?
Not really in favour of Stonehenge. Although it would speed up the first GP. Would rather try for Oracle but at 1920bc for 1st city this seems unlikely. We need to do some tests on TGW dates.
So ultimate question is what to do with the 4 warriors? Fog bust or search till they die? There is a small chance we may not be first to great wall? They could also worker steal/hassle nearby Ai to keep them at 1-2 cities. At size 6 warriors take 1 turn to build. 4 turns. Archers closer to 2 turns with a chop. This needs a lot more thought. Hmmm
@SJ - Do we want a granary too? One thought I had was more farms?? This would help some regrowth. The issue here is currently we have no happiness resources. It's going to be very difficult to whip an army of praets without some happiness issue. Unless we time a whip each 10 or so turns? Of course then you consider whip vs production. At size 6 with 5 mines you build a praet in 3 turns. If we want growth to S8 we may want some farms. With a chop that reduces it to 2 turns. So each 4 turns we would have 84 hammers. Assuming 1 worker. So 2 preats each 5 turns. Or 4 turns with 2nd worker. So to build an army could take 20+ turns with 3 cities. Without roads add another 10-12 turns to reach an AI. I assume barbs would not destroy the roads?
Not really in favour of Stonehenge. Although it would speed up the first GP. Would rather try for Oracle but at 1920bc for 1st city this seems unlikely. We need to do some tests on TGW dates.
Thoughts on test game -
We know most of the Ai started with at least 1 free resource.
We know the live game has at least 120 more land compared to test game. Which is scary as the Ai could really be quite some way off. On test game closest Ai was 13 tiles away. Add in 120 more land and that could be 15-16 tiles away. BSP is not worried about us rexxing here.
Best food on live game was 14. Test game 8. Average food on live game is 8 average 5 on test game.
MFG- Live game best is 7. with average of 5. On test game it's 3 and average of 1. So this will make a huge difference to testing here. I like to gift one AI stone or marble on test game too.
My gut would be to replay first 12 turns and gift the AI at least 1 free resource each. If they didn't start with workers they may have had 2 resources. I don't know how Monarch Ai prioritise first builds. Archer first? Worker?
I wonder if a galleon chain approach might be quicker here? If we plan to war we need to do it efficiently and fast. Using just Praets will see high loses. Where going with pults and praets will reduce losses substantially. I think Seraiel suggested we wanted war losses of 5-1 for a phant rush.
Overall I think we will struggle to conquer map just with praets. The killer thing being distance and amount of land. On this test game the furthest Ai is 40+ tiles away. Could be worse on live game. We are going to be very limited on first city date too.
We know most of the Ai started with at least 1 free resource.
We know the live game has at least 120 more land compared to test game. Which is scary as the Ai could really be quite some way off. On test game closest Ai was 13 tiles away. Add in 120 more land and that could be 15-16 tiles away. BSP is not worried about us rexxing here.
Best food on live game was 14. Test game 8. Average food on live game is 8 average 5 on test game.
MFG- Live game best is 7. with average of 5. On test game it's 3 and average of 1. So this will make a huge difference to testing here. I like to gift one AI stone or marble on test game too.
My gut would be to replay first 12 turns and gift the AI at least 1 free resource each. If they didn't start with workers they may have had 2 resources. I don't know how Monarch Ai prioritise first builds. Archer first? Worker?
I wonder if a galleon chain approach might be quicker here? If we plan to war we need to do it efficiently and fast. Using just Praets will see high loses. Where going with pults and praets will reduce losses substantially. I think Seraiel suggested we wanted war losses of 5-1 for a phant rush.
Overall I think we will struggle to conquer map just with praets. The killer thing being distance and amount of land. On this test game the furthest Ai is 40+ tiles away. Could be worse on live game. We are going to be very limited on first city date too.
More test game thoughts. Barbs enter my borders 2320bc. 
I managed to build TGW 1 turn before this date.
I gifted the AI some free resources and some extra pop at start of game. Mansa managed SH at 2760bc with marble at start. Although at that date he was the only Ai to have masonry.
I kept the 4 warriors inside my capital to save on archers. I avoided BW. We could in theory tech 99% of it then ditch BW till 2nd/3rd city? The 2nd border pop came just before I was ready for 2nd city. 2040bc with 2 cities and 5 warriors and a mostly completed granary. So 1 more warrior and I can build 3rd city. 5 turns?
1-2 farms would of helped with city growth but delaying TGW past 2320bc has big risks unless you fog bust well.
Overall going BW early means building 4 archers with your capital. Actually going myst is not a terrible thing. Monuments are cheap buildings compared to libraries. It gets the 3rd city out quickly.
Downside to this approach is we miss out on worker stealing. Chances are with raging barbs it would never make it back alive anyway. Although we might slow down an AI.
2000bc and no one has Oracle yet. When the Ai do build a second city the 10-15 tile distance could be closer to 7-10.
Sorry for clogging up thread.
I managed to build TGW 1 turn before this date.I gifted the AI some free resources and some extra pop at start of game. Mansa managed SH at 2760bc with marble at start. Although at that date he was the only Ai to have masonry.
I kept the 4 warriors inside my capital to save on archers. I avoided BW. We could in theory tech 99% of it then ditch BW till 2nd/3rd city? The 2nd border pop came just before I was ready for 2nd city. 2040bc with 2 cities and 5 warriors and a mostly completed granary. So 1 more warrior and I can build 3rd city. 5 turns?
1-2 farms would of helped with city growth but delaying TGW past 2320bc has big risks unless you fog bust well.
Overall going BW early means building 4 archers with your capital. Actually going myst is not a terrible thing. Monuments are cheap buildings compared to libraries. It gets the 3rd city out quickly.
Downside to this approach is we miss out on worker stealing. Chances are with raging barbs it would never make it back alive anyway. Although we might slow down an AI.
2000bc and no one has Oracle yet. When the Ai do build a second city the 10-15 tile distance could be closer to 7-10.
Sorry for clogging up thread.
Army of prets cats and we's can be stopeed only by castle (engi) maces arent problem xbows too- becouse ,we are imperialistic (more GG's) somekind of C3(4),CR3 pret wont be stopped by weakened xbow or mace, we's are defending untis for this kind of issue.
And yea we can be stoped by distance but every1 have to travel it.
I looked up this map again and, we need IW to clear up this jungle in north to get elephants,allso we need calendar, hbr and monarchy, preety though decision where to go 1st.
When i weak up this morning and looked on this well this isnt bad plan to go for IW then for HBR, and then rpbably monarchy since we need it badly.
If we decide to go for IW we need archery (and probably mansonry) befor it, so we can start produce some archers to settle 3th city if we dont start with Iron,hmm this meens mistycyzm too we need 1 more bulding for 3th ( GW,monument ?).
I dont think we need grenary like mentioned above,we dont have enough
stuff, would be nice if Iron is somwhere near this gems spot, tahts preety good spot for 3th becouse it have +1 and a lot of forest to choop.
Well overall its preety though decision, main gold for next player should be to find victim.
About this warriors well if we manage to get 2 WM guys its no problem we can move them to capitol when we want to settle city and then move them again for scounting duties.
Its allso should be goal for next player to get WM warrior ( best if you can get 2).
Edit:
Better monument then Lib. Why ?
Make a queestion why you bulid Lib
-border pop
-reserch boost
-gps
we dont need reserch boost atm this is monarch
we wont be working GS tahts for sure
border pop we can get with monument too.
So Lib at this point a game is i dont want to say useless but theres no reason to do this. A lot of for like marginal benefit.
And yea we can be stoped by distance but every1 have to travel it.
I looked up this map again and, we need IW to clear up this jungle in north to get elephants,allso we need calendar, hbr and monarchy, preety though decision where to go 1st.
When i weak up this morning and looked on this well this isnt bad plan to go for IW then for HBR, and then rpbably monarchy since we need it badly.
If we decide to go for IW we need archery (and probably mansonry) befor it, so we can start produce some archers to settle 3th city if we dont start with Iron,hmm this meens mistycyzm too we need 1 more bulding for 3th ( GW,monument ?).
I dont think we need grenary like mentioned above,we dont have enough
stuff, would be nice if Iron is somwhere near this gems spot, tahts preety good spot for 3th becouse it have +1 and a lot of forest to choop.Well overall its preety though decision, main gold for next player should be to find victim.
About this warriors well if we manage to get 2 WM guys its no problem we can move them to capitol when we want to settle city and then move them again for scounting duties.
Its allso should be goal for next player to get WM warrior ( best if you can get 2).
Edit:
Better monument then Lib. Why ?
Make a queestion why you bulid Lib
-border pop
-reserch boost
-gps
we dont need reserch boost atm this is monarch
we wont be working GS tahts for sure
border pop we can get with monument too.
So Lib at this point a game is i dont want to say useless but theres no reason to do this. A lot of
for like marginal benefit.I agree granary seems to add little to our capital. The big plus is it is one of the cheaper buildings hammer wise.
We need
2 buildings, 4 units and 4 pop for 2nd city.
3 buildings, 6 units and 6 pop for 3rd city.
4 buildings, 8 units and 8 pop for 4th city.
Etc.
My gut now is should we just try for Oracle after 2nd city? Hmmm. It could be possible? Would we rather have Praets over 3rd city?
So buildings for 3rd city would be TGW, Palace and monument? Or try a failed attempt at oracle? 10 turn build. At size 6 we have an unhappy face.
Ideally long term we will need construction. So we will want alphabet to time with gspy. Too many Ai start with myst to make SH viable. They nearly always go for this before oracle.
We need
2 buildings, 4 units and 4 pop for 2nd city.
3 buildings, 6 units and 6 pop for 3rd city.
4 buildings, 8 units and 8 pop for 4th city.
Etc.
My gut now is should we just try for Oracle after 2nd city? Hmmm. It could be possible? Would we rather have Praets over 3rd city?
So buildings for 3rd city would be TGW, Palace and monument? Or try a failed attempt at oracle? 10 turn build. At size 6 we have an unhappy face.
Ideally long term we will need construction. So we will want alphabet to time with gspy. Too many Ai start with myst to make SH viable. They nearly always go for this before oracle.
Hmm
Allrigth this is my bad if we go for GW we should go Mansonry-wheel not oposite after AH,
bulid GW then settler, road with worker.
Well Oracle is temting like very teempting its 3th bulding and 2nd wonder allso we can Oracle monarchy witch is huge with this rules,
Allso we need Mistycyzm, and i dont think that if we deley IW for Orcale our "rush" will be a lot weaker.
But thigh is that we are deleying attack preety havly.
...
Question should be rush or economy.
Its kind of decision 2 city rush or 4 city fullout war...
Edit:
And we cant make this call without knowledge where our victim is.
So whos next ?
And what about this test save ?, You are palying real game then make same moves in test game ?
Allrigth this is my bad if we go for GW we should go Mansonry-wheel not oposite after AH,
bulid GW then settler, road with worker.
Well Oracle is temting like very teempting its 3th bulding and 2nd wonder allso we can Oracle monarchy witch is huge with this rules,
Allso we need Mistycyzm, and i dont think that if we deley IW for Orcale our "rush" will be a lot weaker.
But thigh is that we are deleying attack preety havly.
...
Question should be rush or economy.
Its kind of decision 2 city rush or 4 city fullout war...
Edit:
And we cant make this call without knowledge where our victim is.
So whos next ?
And what about this test save ?, You are palying real game then make same moves in test game ?
Well oracle is big risk due to PH. Although I am not convince the Ai will flock to Oracle too early.
4 cities over 3 could be pretty big. Oracle is nice in fact it gives us 2 buildings for price of 1. (If we get it.) Monarchy will be huge as at size 6 we face unhappiness. Overall we would have to heavily delay city 3 if we go early BW. Building 6 archers would be a huge pain. 150 hammers!!! Not really fond of teching archery either. Unless we have to.
The alternative is to fog bust much better and skip TGW. This just seems a lot of work given start. I would love to see some more test games here. Especially from our stronger players here. I don't play civ 4 enough to beat Deity yet.
I suggested packers next? If someone else wants to play next happy to make it volunteer system to start or I can do a rota. Overall Soundjata and Elite are unlikely to play next. If Packers is unable to play I can step up.
Shulec played.
Packers To play
Gumbolt on deck
Yeahh
Revent
Soundjata
Elitetroops
Draft order really. Not sure how much of revent we will see in first few weeks.
Right now we are far from ready to play on as we have no real strategy yet.
4 cities over 3 could be pretty big. Oracle is nice in fact it gives us 2 buildings for price of 1. (If we get it.) Monarchy will be huge as at size 6 we face unhappiness. Overall we would have to heavily delay city 3 if we go early BW. Building 6 archers would be a huge pain. 150 hammers!!! Not really fond of teching archery either. Unless we have to.
The alternative is to fog bust much better and skip TGW. This just seems a lot of work given start. I would love to see some more test games here. Especially from our stronger players here. I don't play civ 4 enough to beat Deity yet.
I suggested packers next? If someone else wants to play next happy to make it volunteer system to start or I can do a rota. Overall Soundjata and Elite are unlikely to play next. If Packers is unable to play I can step up.
Shulec played.
Packers To play
Gumbolt on deck
Yeahh
Revent
Soundjata
Elitetroops
Draft order really. Not sure how much of revent we will see in first few weeks.
Right now we are far from ready to play on as we have no real strategy yet.
Dont think about it like we have to settle 3th city, we just conquer 3th city.
If we rushing we cant(dont have to) settle too much we are just conquering witch is cheaper then bulding and this 150
its less then settler cost witch is i dont rememebr rly 180 ? 210 ? .Edit.
Its a point of early war that you dont settle cities you just take them from ais.
Bonuses are like i mentioned its cheaper sometimes
New cities have improovments allrdy.
And you weaken oponent.
Allso you can get free workers.
Edit 2
O yea i forgot that we can dont have Iron in Capitol oh well... so yea we need this 3th city. sry
I considering some scenarios and just sometime cant recall waht i was thinking about ealier.
The other issue you forget is we can't settle a 3rd city without 6 defenders in Rome. With BW we can't use warriors. So even if we do a rush on another Ai we still need to build 6 more units before we can capture an AI capital. In effect keeping the 6 warriors early on still means replacing them x turns later if we use BW. This is one argument for going HA. Of course BW will provide decent chopping hammers. 6 forest just about allows for the 6 archers required. So there is a trade off here.
Of course we could send off a stack and build the archers afterwards? BSP knows how to torture us.
Of course we could send off a stack and build the archers afterwards? BSP knows how to torture us.
Hey guys. Sorry for lack of input. My mother just had a back operation which means I have to run a business on top of uni and job at the same time which has significantly increased my workload. However, I should have time to pop around
-With the way it's looking, it may be that we have an isolated or semi isolated start and 3 AI's have a coastal capital.
-No tech trading/brokering also means we will have a lot of work to do and can't just beeline certain techs and backfill by trading.
-I think the mapmaker WANTS this to be a builders game (since only space and conquest are selected) it seems plausible that this game will get close to the space age.
-Cottages, was the consensus not to build them in the capital? Assuming this is a long game, cottages may be more beneficial in the long run but could hinder our early REXing.
-Early war will also be tough because for every city we take, our capital needs to be double the size AND have twice the number of military units. Early game, having that many units in our capital whilst warring will be a significant proportion of our army that has to be stuck inside the capital.
-On a finishing note, scorched earth strategy may also be tricky to follow through early on because of raging barbs which could become a huge problem.
-With the way it's looking, it may be that we have an isolated or semi isolated start and 3 AI's have a coastal capital.
-No tech trading/brokering also means we will have a lot of work to do and can't just beeline certain techs and backfill by trading.
-I think the mapmaker WANTS this to be a builders game (since only space and conquest are selected) it seems plausible that this game will get close to the space age.
-Cottages, was the consensus not to build them in the capital? Assuming this is a long game, cottages may be more beneficial in the long run but could hinder our early REXing.
-Early war will also be tough because for every city we take, our capital needs to be double the size AND have twice the number of military units. Early game, having that many units in our capital whilst warring will be a significant proportion of our army that has to be stuck inside the capital.
-On a finishing note, scorched earth strategy may also be tricky to follow through early on because of raging barbs which could become a huge problem.
I didnt forget that and this was my point.
Or bulid like eg. 3 archers 3 prets conquer city and send another wave of this 3 prets.
We can and we should marching take us some time while we can bulid archer witch cost less then settler.
Or bulid like eg. 3 archers 3 prets conquer city and send another wave of this 3 prets.
