SGOTM 23 - Lurker thread

There was an earlier version of my "build a railroad" scenario. You would have started on a big, twisted/blocked continent with two settlers far from each other with the goal to found both cities within 5 turns and to connect them by railroad before winning the game.

I changed the concept because the question where to settle the capital was way to important for the game result. And you wouldnt have enough info, so it was very random. But the map is basically do#I told you so"s to our teamates.:scan:ne. If someone wants to try it, here it is!

Washington, Emperor.

So.. how long until you finalize the results and we can congratulate the winners, and say our -I told you so's - to our teamates. And say... when are the sign-ups for 24?
 
Results are not even out and you are planning the next game. :eek::eek:
 
WastinTime came up with another interesting innovation that really sped our conquest. With Charismatic only needing 8XP for the third level, we promoted our knights to

promotions0014.gif
promotions0031.gif
promotions0030.gif


Think about it. If they end their turn in the conquered city, which is often the case with mounted, they'll heal 30HP that same turn. Then if they move toward the next target into enemy territory, they'll heal 15HP per turn. They can attack every three turns, for example, regaining 60HP for each attack. Since the knights were so dominant in this game, they won almost every battle and were usually fully healed.

We actually had two super medic healers, but they only add 15HP per turn and aren't really needed unless you're doing lots of warring before you get to knights, which we did actually.

We produced 1 @ 9/8XP knight per turn in our HE city, which had barracks+stable+settledGG+Vassalage for instant March-promotions. A second settled gg would have made Vassalage unnecessary.
 
WastinTime came up with another interesting innovation that really sped our conquest. With Charismatic only needing 8XP for the third level, we promoted our knights to

promotions0014.gif
promotions0031.gif
promotions0030.gif


Think about it. If they end their turn in the conquered city, which is often the case with mounted, they'll heal 30HP that same turn. Then if they move toward the next target into enemy territory, they'll heal 15HP per turn. They can attack every three turns, for example, regaining 60HP for each attack. Since the knights were so dominant in this game, they won almost every battle and were usually fully healed.

We actually had two super medic healers, but they only add 15HP per turn and aren't really needed unless you're doing lots of warring before you get to knights, which we did actually.

We produced 1 @ 9/8XP knight per turn in our HE city, which had barracks+stable+settledGG+Vassalage for instant March-promotions. A second settled gg would have made Vassalage unnecessary.

Nice innovation!:goodjob:
 
I'm guessing that the same would apply to march cuirassiers. For that matter you could have rax+stables+theo+vass+settledGG (11xp) for any leader. Mongols with Ker could omit theo or vass or settled GG. Who needs supermedics?
 
I think changing AI starting units (warriors for archers mostly here) is not something i like, if we take Hatshie as example her wonder cities were so easy to take for some teams.

I like games where attacking AIs can create uncomfortable situations, as well as fewer but tougher AIs.

Just some (hopefully constructive) feedback, last game with it's struggles was much fun to follow. Here i lost interest rather quickly, if i am honest.
And i think only honest feedback has some value, so i decided against covering that ;)
 
Interesting twists that would have made for more balanced games across of the teams might have occurred had Hatshepsut started with Copper in place of Horses and were she to have had Jerusalem-like defences in her Cities, making her less of a walk-over for the teams that beelined her early on.
I have a different take on this. Hatty was the only AI really able to help with the team's teching so imo it's likely that a focus on warmongering elsewhere to grab as many useful cities while stealing Hatty's tech might have been the best move. In particular, grabbing Lisbon, Istanbul and marble (for much earlier MoM) might have been the most powerful move. The Istanbul area was very useful for spamming units for Gandhi and Mao.

In any case, TA used HAs to capture Hatty's cities, just the same as Jerusalem, and we also didn't capture them nearly as early as PR.

Note also that TA never DoWed Stalin at all until the very end in order to capitulate him. That was probably a mistake by TA also. Stalin could have been a bonanza for worker stealing* early on, plus St Pete's was a super GP farm if captured early. In hindsight, I'd have like to have captured at least St Pete's and maybe Moscow, then left Stalin alone, except for worker farming.

*Verified in testing in the last few days. D'oh. He started with three excellent cities. Ofc he'd spam workers at the start.
 
In particular, grabbing Lisbon
Lisbon fell off of the table for us as Joao settled on top of an Iron Resource (Churchill did the same annoying thing, too)--I'm not sure where the AIs settled in other teams' games, but I remember seeing a screenshot of an Oporto being located 1 E of Joao's Iron, which would have made a world of difference, as then one could have declared war, Pillaged the Iron, and had a lot easier approach of dealing with Joao. In the end, we made good use out of Joao by getting him to trade us Machinery and Feudalism due to being Friendly toward us and by having him build The Colossus for us to capture.


Istanbul and marble (for much earlier MoM)
We could have used an earlier MoM, but our plan was because Hatty was trading Stone to Mehmed for Mehmed's Marble, we'd get Mehmed up to Pleased status (at which point he would trade Strategic Resources with us), use Spies to Sabotage all of Hatty's Stone Resources (to cancel the AI-AI Resource trade without Hatty spamming Units when we weren't in a position to go after her Cities), and get Marble in trade from Mehmed. The plan almost worked, as, even though a couple of our Spies failed at their Sabotage Espionage Missions, we stopped that Resource trade between the two AIs, only to find out belatedly that Darius had Culturally stolen Mehmed's second source of Marble. We lost our Scout that would have revealed this fact to us during our first war against Stalin, during which time we efficiently took several of Stalin's Cities. Had our Scout stayed alive, we likely would have sent our navy to the Black Sea sooner (as it was, our southern navy was mostly wandering back and forth, not having a true mission at that point in time due to not having revealed the path from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea) and would have gone to capture Marble from Mehmed proactively by seeing that Mehmed no longer possessed two Marble Resources, so as to get Marble in trade from Darius when Darius' Cultural Borders predictably overtook both Marble Resources, as we ended up doing, but only after a long and protracted second war with Stalin that was in part launched due to wanting to get our war ally of Mehmed up to Pleased status, and also in part launched due to just barely failing to take Moscow in the first war due to some bad luck in Stalin's random Unit-production choices (or, dare I credit an AI and say that it was his brilliant tactics? :lol:).


The Istanbul area was very useful for spamming units for Gandhi and Mao.
It was also a great location for spamming Islamic (Apostolic Palace Religion) Missionaries to the AIs for our Apostolic Palace Victory, although we ended up delaying that plan by whipping other items instead of putting Missionaries as a priority, as we were still focused on an Espionage Cultural Victory, believing that if most AIs gave Stalin-like resistance that Conquest would not have been the fastest Victory Condition for the map, and thereby preferring the predictability of determining the turn on which to win a Cultural Victory rather than the harder-to-predict timing of an Apostolic Palace Victory (of which the timing is still somewhat controllable with some planning, but it becomes harder to predict the timing that far in advance to know exactly when you'd have completed the Railroad and be ready to win).


In any case, TA used HAs to capture Hatty's cities, just the same as Jerusalem, and we also didn't capture them nearly as early as PR.
We used a northern navy and went for London and York, then German coastal Cities, and finally Stalin, eventually getting the wonderful Great Person Farm out of St. Petersburg of which you speak, although we were light on Horse Archers due to simultaneously building The Great Lighthouse and were using a lot of Chariots instead, even at a cost of delaying Granaries just to get enough Units to ensure a guaranteed successful initial attack on London.


Hatty was the only AI really able to help with the team's teching
That part of our game went brilliantly, with us stealing these techs from Hatty:
Code of Laws, Philosophy, Mathematics, Construction, Monarchy, Theology, Calendar, Aesthetics, Civil Service, Literature, Music, Drama, and Nationalism (yay, Drafting and The Taj Mahal).


In hindsight, I'd have like to have captured at least St Pete's and maybe Moscow,
We almost did exactly that, but when we got to the gates of Moscow, Stalin had whipped what we felt was just one too many Spearmen, so we failed to score Moscow in the first war, making for a much tougher challenge. Had it been a whipped Swordsman or Axeman, I think that our game would have played out significantly differently, with us having broken Stalin's back in the first war and possibly not needing a second war, allowing us to go for Mehmed many turns earlier and thus starting our Golden Age chain a lot sooner in the game.

We'd played a game with a very lean army and efficient warring, so we didn't want to risk throwing it all away at the gates of Moscow.

We eventually did take down Moscow in the second war, but at a cost of our army being engaged for about an extra 15 turns against a foe that had a significantly larger army than ours, with the capture of Moscow only happening after we'd pretty much ruined Moscow itself, only really gaining us the full use of St. Petersburg and other nearby ex-Russian Cities.

Drafting of Musketeers definitely bought us our end-game army relatively inexpensively, thereby enabling us to get Feudalism and Machinery in trade from Joao since we didn't need to tech Guilds early on, and gave us the rough equivalent of Knights (a bit weaker overall, but no intrinsic weakness to Spearmen/Pikemen).

Going for Education allowed us to tech Liberalism for Railroad, thereby saving us Flasks even with having to tech 2 extra techs, and we built a 1-turn Oxford, but we hadn't been proactively planning our building of Universities and I don't think that we started that planning until we were one turn away from learning Education, so I think that we spent 11 turns building our Universities.


Yes, I do believe that if taking down Hatty had been as hard as it had been to take down some of the other AIs, there would have been a much more significant initial investment to take her on, making for more comparable games to teams that went for other AIs, with the cost not only being having to self-tech the techs that Hatty would have otherwise teched but also losing early-game Units, rather than the opposite effect of getting easier Promotions for veteran troops on top of easy Wonder captures for only really the cost of having to self-tech more techs.

We also had to struggle hard to get our second Great Person for our first Golden Age, which would have come naturally without much effort just by owning Alexandria with The Great Library.

Sure, we read the map wrong and didn't believe that Hatty would be so easy to take on, really believing that she'd have an army of Archers, Spearmen, and War Chariots in high Cultural Defence Cities, which wouldn't have made sense for our rag-tag army to take on given that we were also building The Great Lighthouse. The Jerusalem lure for spare AI Units built by southern AIs (including Hatty) clearly worked in favour of the teams who went for the southern AIs early--there was no such AI-Unit siphon for Russia's Units.

We also underestimated the cost of an Espionage Cultural Victory, so we dumped far too many resources into that failed endeavour, and while we built a ton of Spies, we didn't use them effectively for Support City Revolt Missions after the first one failed at very high odds of success.

The top-ranking teams played excellent games and I am truly happy for their successes; the map was great and was one of the better SGOTM maps; that said, I think that it could have been an even better map with a more-challenging Hatty, forcing teams to pay a high investment cost to get the large benefits that came from owning her Cities early on.
 
The challenge of any SG is to maximize the scenario starting from unknowns. There's no wrong scenario, there's only faster and slower finishes. The desire for Hatty to be more powerful doesn't fit the scenario. Egypt's a coastal desert nation.

We started with 3 exploring units and only three directions to go. Exploration immediately revealed:
1. Lisbon was on flatland and defended by a warrior and Hatty was across the water.
2. Berlin was on a hill and defended by an archer and warrior.
3. Stalin was the AI with three cities.

Further exploration led one safely (Athens spawnbusted the path) to Istanbul to the southeast and with Writing to the marble and beyond to Mao, showing the route for GLH-powered coastal cities to the Orient.
 
WastinTime came up with another interesting innovation that really sped our conquest. With Charismatic only needing 8XP for the third level, we promoted our knights to

promotions0014.gif
promotions0031.gif
promotions0030.gif


Think about it. If they end their turn in the conquered city, which is often the case with mounted, they'll heal 30HP that same turn. Then if they move toward the next target into enemy territory, they'll heal 15HP per turn. They can attack every three turns, for example, regaining 60HP for each attack. Since the knights were so dominant in this game, they won almost every battle and were usually fully healed.

We actually had two super medic healers, but they only add 15HP per turn and aren't really needed unless you're doing lots of warring before you get to knights, which we did actually.

We produced 1 @ 9/8XP knight per turn in our HE city, which had barracks+stable+settledGG+Vassalage for instant March-promotions. A second settled gg would have made Vassalage unnecessary.

We also used a Flanking II + Mobility Knight on the last 2 turns to get thru some forest.

I was fortunate enough to get to play the late game knights and use march for the first time. What I ended up doing more than C1+medic+march was:
Try to get our 9xp knights up to 13 xp and heal them using promotions: Combat I, II and III. (usually just 2 battles gets you there)
Then you can add March without Medic. Making Combat3+March Knights.

It was more the 5xp knights that I would try to get to 8xp and make them C1+medic+march.
 
I'm surprised more teams didn't use Musketeers more heavily. Gunpowder (via Oracle Theology -> bulb Paper and Education) can started and completed much sooner than Guilds. Musketeers have no obvious counter, whereas Knights have strong counters in Spearmen/Pikemen. The upgrades of earlier mounted units, Stable's +2 XPs and a slightly higher base strength are a Knight's only advantages over a Musketeer. Musketeers can be drafted.

Unallocated focused on getting to Gunpowder quickly (after we whipped a large force of Horse Archers) and whipping a large number of Musketeers. We got Guilds much later and built only a couple Knights. What did others teams do on the question of Musketeers versus Knights and why?
 
Musketeers were strong here. Especially mixed with nationalism. Drafting is great when you have 30-40 cities. I don't think any Ai got engineering on our game. Even then knights still had 60-70%+ odds versus spears. C2 or c3 knights had even better odds. LB's were more the units holding up the knights.

With Monarch AI they were always going to struggle versus knights.
 
What did others teams do on the question of Musketeers versus Knights and why?
I think the biggest factor in the decision to go knights was Banking. We knew from the start that we are aiming at at least 20 cities by 1AD, which makes Banking very strong. Other than that, HAs do a fine job until Knights and your experienced army upgrades to knights once you get there. Musketeers have to be built from scratch, or drafted. Although we didn't upgrade many HAs to knights. Got cuirs before we had the cash to mass upgrade and upgraded fresh knights to cuirs instead.
 
We beelined Mercantilism. Research took precedence for fastest finish because of the Monarch level.

xpost w/elite


Yeah, fitting strategy to difficulty level was key here, and in my personal opinion that is where Unusual Suspects failed.... we had started with tech to make chariot rush viable for at least 2 AI deaths, but deviated into a builder strategy, which also could have worked if we had committed from the start. Just keeping too many options open at the begining, not ready to commit. I think if we had really thought about what a crowded map at Monarch level entails... well, next time.:lol:
 
The challenge of any SG is to maximize the scenario starting from unknowns. There's no wrong scenario, there's only faster and slower finishes. The desire for Hatty to be more powerful doesn't fit the scenario. Egypt's a coastal desert nation.

True, but we had more creative & brilliant sgotm games.
Bspollux imo made the best one, Willy & the lady favors.

Beating on Monarch AIs & having Railroad as known research goal feels like a step backwards for me.
That opinion might not be popular, but oh well.
 
BSP is trying to make the challenge more about the teams rather than unlucky RNG from runaway AI. We saw what happened on the goldmember map to PR. An over powered stack of nearly 30+ units was ready to wipe out map if they reached rifle status 1-2 turns later. Not forgetting the Toku map where the English Ai chirped up with a stack of 22 Redcoats.

Same was true of the previous map. Only 2 teams managed to complete the game. Even TTFKAPR depended on a bit of luck late game with huge stacks roaming the map.

Sure it is only Monarch Ai but the challenge is to beat other teams not to see see if teams can actually beat the map. Question is where is the balance between difficulty level and giving teams a winnable map that does not depend on luck.

Fine line between the 2. On the last map having 13 Ai would of made things slightly harder but most teams should of found the start easy enough. Horse nearby gave easy military options. Where a deity map many teams may have struggled. Maybe Emperor would of been more interesting? Hmmm.
 
Beating on Monarch AIs & having Railroad as known research goal feels like a step backwards for me.
That opinion might not be popular, but oh well.
You're obviously welcome to your opinion and I'm not trying to dispute it so much as give my view as one of the participants. Yes, it was "a step backwards" in terms of ease of winning the game, but I thought it was "a step forwards" in terms of balancing multiple strategies within the game. This might not have been perceptible to the audience, but it was quite challenging to optimize:
  • exploration,
  • REX,
  • warring,
  • tech path,
  • research,
  • happiness,
  • economy,
  • AI attitudes, and
  • dealing with Monarch AIs.
BSP not only created that, but he managed to design it such that it was fair to all, despite several settling choices, tech path choices, and the importance of exploration. Having RR as an endpoint made it all the fairer, imo.

I've played in about two dozen SGs and this was one of the most challenging and thus pleasurable. If anything, I'm more likely to get bored, but not this time.

Just my 2 cents as a player.
 
Back
Top Bottom