The Immortal Challenge 3: The Gathering Storm

[uberfish]

Churchill isn't financial to get 3c water tiles and there are no fish here, so there's little incentive to settle on the coast. I'd probably move 2N or possibly 2N1E if the warrior or blue circle spots something interesting next move. This gains more hills and increases the amount of land claimed by the palace's cultural expansion.

 

[Hackapell]

This is a relatively odd strategy, so take it with a grain of salt.
Move the settler 1N1E into the forest.
I know this wastes a forest worth good hammer, but not only do you get what seems to be 4 plains hills, you keep both the lake and the food resources to encourages growth.
Sounds Crazy, I know, but it just might work.

 

[Melior Traiano]

I started up the worldbuilder to do some tests on this. A drill 4 rifleman versus an unpromoted rifleman shows a 78.7% chance to win, so the calculator does include first strikes.

A drill 4 redcoat versus a combat 2 rifleman shows 87.7%, and a combat 4 redcoat versus a the same rifleman shows 89.6% chance to win. That seems like a typical situation to me, and it looks like drill really isn't anything special in the open field where the redcoat has the advantage.

How about when attacking a city? A rifleman with city garrison 2 and a 25% bonus for being fortified will defend a city with no cultural defense. The drill 4 redcoat has a 28.9% chance to win. A redcoat with drill 1 and combat 3 has 34.1% chance to win. The combat redcoat, which you can build, has better odds than the drill redcoat, which you would have to upgrade. A redcoat with city raider 3 has an 88.0% chance to win this fight. Now that's an upgrade worth doing. A redcoat with drill 1 and pinch has 29.9% chance to win. You can draft a unit with those promotions, and it has better odds of winning than the drill 4 redcoat.

So I really don't see any reason to do a mass upgrade of drill 4 crossbows. First strikes are good for minimizing damage against weak enemies; a drill 4 redcoat would be great for defending a city against lots of musketmen, but I don't think it's practical in a real situation.

While it is true that the odds of winning a fight are not changed much using a Drill 4 unit, the other factor to consider is that the Drill 4 unit will probably emerge with less damage taken than a Combat 3 unit. (Because Churchill is Protective, it takes the same XP to get to Drill 4 or Combat 3.) In other words, I think in a game situation, a Drill 4 Redcoat can engage in more combats than a Combat 3 Redcoat before having to sit out to heal. I'll admit, I haven't tested this rigorously in any way, but seeing Drill 3/4 Redcoats mow through the opposition while taking little damage themselves makes me suspect that the Drill Redcoats are superior all-around to Combat Redcoats. And if you factor in the Drill promotions mitigate collateral damage from the pesky suicide siege units the AI likes to use, it just makes the Drill 4 Redcoat that much more impressive.

 

[Yeekim]

Definitely move 2N.
You will lose:
1 turn;
1 food in the lake (no lighthouse);
up to 3 health (no harbor);
ability to build ships and some wonders in capitol;
possible bronze or horses in your fat cross under the hut (no, I did not check - I just feel in my bones )

You will win: 5 useful tiles. Because sea sucks. Even with lighthouse, it produces just enough food to feed itself - and 2 commerce is nothing really.

Easy decision, all in all.

And thank you for keeping up the great work!

 

[nullspace]

Quite extensive tests have been made which show that the revamped combat calculator still does not accurately reflect the odds of winning with Drill. For that matter, when the number of test subjects grow large, the calculator does not accurately reflect the odds of winning with Combat either. It's strange, and no one knows for sure yet, but it's quite safe to say that Drill generally lets you win more battles than the odds show.

And no spoilers, please.

I guess I was putting too much trust in the combat calculator. I've never really tried drill promotions, except on tanks that are fighting enemies that are bombed to half strength by aircraft. They still seem to get damaged. If you do it, it will be interesting to see how well it works.

Sorry about the spoilers, but I only revealed what you can now see in the new screenshot, so nothing is spoiled anymore.

I think 2N of the start position is best. You still get both food resources, 3 hills for production, and lots of land. For tech path, I recommend agriculture then animal husbandry so you can hook up both resources and see horses. You don't really need slavery or chopping if you have a size 5 city with two big food bonuses and 3 mines. And chariots are just fine against barbarians. I'd plan on a CE rather than a SE. Churchill doesn't have good traits for a SE, and if you want to do a big upgrade to redcoats, you'll need lots of cash.

 

[Elkad]

Moving - 6 coastal, 1 ocean.. The only resource that could be hiding out there is oil, and moving your capital a space or 2 wouldn't preclude using it (your culture will extend to cover it by then). Yeah, you'd lose the benefit of working the tile, but that is a long way off.

Not moving - How long before your happiness cap extends beyond 13 land tiles (plus specialists)? Thats 9 more happy faces needed (from buildings/resources), quite a lot. I'm only a prince player, but seems on Immortal, smaller cities are the way to go.

If moving is the order of the day, 1NE (moving the settler E then N)seems a better choice than 2N. You see more tiles on the first turn, and retain the option to move back to your starting location and settle on turn2. If 2N is bad, running back to the start would mean settling on turn3.

Edit. Oops, I opened this thread last night and went to sleep, and didn't refresh it this morning (so I hadn't seen the warrior move). 2N gains you a forest, at least 2 hills, and a bigger lawn. Trading 3 starting cross tiles that possibly hold a hidden resource (non forest/water) for a better location seems a reasonable gamble.

 

[Solver]

I'd also settle 1N of the lake. I oppose moving to the plains hill tile - you don't know what you'll get there, and if the spot isn't great, you lose too much time. The starting tile won't give a productive city, particularly once you chop the forests away. Settling 1N of the lake will retain both food resources and the fresh water bonus, while giving you a least 3 (I really suspect it's 4) Hill tiles to work for production and more land to improve.

Also, Iron might be hiding somewhere here. If it's a Grassland Iron 1W of the Settler, you'll still get it by settling above the lake, but if it's in the hills, you gain a metal in capital radius by moving.

 

[EEE_BOY]

so, definitely 1N to the lake.

as there are three more hills, pig needs to be hooked up for either food or faster production of settler(worker).

 

[Ecofarm]

In regard to drill vs combat promotions. Drill is often underestimated because the game does not calculate odds properly. This is for 2 reasons. 1st, a defensive reason: when a damaged unit attacks an undamaged unit, it receives a penalty (the computer does not assume the attacker will be hit by one of the strikes). 2nd, a general reason: damaged troops do less damage per hit/combat round. This means that if strikes hit, the opponent will be doing significantly less damage each combat round. Thus, even one first strike hitting can cause drastic changes in win percentages (4+ strikes hitting is just silly). IIRC, the game merely adds X% for each strike and possible strike - a terrible, but apparently unavoidable simplification.

 

[Jorunkun]

Consensus seems to be that staying on the coast makes for a mediocre capital in the mid to long term. Agree that 2N with two food ressources and four hills is better.

However, I still think the plains hill - with a bit of luck - will be the best choice: The bonus hammer is pretty big in the early game, and chances are that the hilltop location will reveal one or two other ressources. You are in the temperate region, so I think that with the corn already secure, you will have no problems finding enough tiles for early growth. And even if the land to the east is poor, you can always irrigate around the lake.

If you settle 2N, your capital will be at the fringe of your empire. Settling on the hill, you make room for one more coastal city with strong growth potential and the ability to build ships, and you put your capital in the centre. It's a much more assertive move.

 

[CivSetä]

2N, please. We need more production, one mine is not enough. You probably want to build some early/mid-game wonders in your capital?

 

[EEE_BOY]

"However, I still think the plains hill - with a bit of luck - will be the best choice: The bonus hammer is pretty big in the early game, and chances are that the hilltop location will reveal one or two other ressources."

well if u play on prince level u can count on luck. on immortal, better to rely on what u have seen.

 

[Bhruic]

2nd, a general reason: damaged troops do less damage per hit/combat round. This means that if strikes hit, the opponent will be doing significantly less damage each combat round.

That's only true for subsequent combat, not the same combat. Damaging a unit in combat doesn't make it any less effective for that combat, it just takes away HP. It won't get weakened until combat ends.

Bh

 

[Solver]

Spoilers for settling on the plains hill.

Spoiler :

That puts a desert tile in the city radius, another five Plains hills (0F2H) in the fat cross, and a Desert Hill (0F1H) tile in the cross, too. That makes for seven tiles with 0 food.

There's also a Plains Wine in the cross, which will be 2F with a Winery. So overall, it's a pretty horrible place to settle the capital, not nearly enough food.

 

[dutchfire]

First strikes might not increase the chance to win, they do increase the chance of losing, but hurting the opponent a lot, and winning without getting hurt a lot.

 

[cabert]

First strikes might not increase the chance to win, they do increase the chance of losing, but hurting the opponent a lot, and winning without getting hurt a lot.

right
drills aren't overall best for one single fight, but drilling CBs give your stack relative immunity to melee weapon, drilling riflemen give your stack relative immunity to cavalry and drilling MGs give your stack relative immunity to riflemen/grenadiers.
Also, if you're ready to sacrifice one unit to really hurt the top defender in a city (or any tile), drilling units are just brilliant. Even if you have lower odds for each round of combat than with combat promotion, you have a bunch of free trials where soem damage can be done.
I use drill catapults to get the top promoted LB down of his hill. Then, when he is hurt, the next catapult faces another LB and can inflict colateral to the top dog . Then it's assault time .

 

[ungy]

With what we see now I think I'd skip moving the settler to the plains hill as per my earlier recommendation and I think move 2N. Then move the war to the corner to check for seafood. If there is a resource, I would lean to moving settler 1E turn 2 and settling there to leave room for a later city to get the resource.

 

[Ecofarm]

That's only true for subsequent combat, not the same combat. Damaging a unit in combat doesn't make it any less effective for that combat, it just takes away HP. It won't get weakened until combat ends.

Bh

Is not damage, in each individual combat round (which can be seen in the display box), determined by current round strength and not base or starting strength?

 

[Solver]

No, damage is determined based on the units' strengths the moment they start combat. Otherwise, the order in which units hit each other would become extremely important, and the combat would be much more random than now.

 

[Tyrant Roger]

Like many others, I vote 2N. This keeps you on the lake and health could be an issue as the capital grows. I expect to find a strategic resource nearby given this poor start and 2N increases your odds of it being in your BFC.

Thanks again for continuing this great series.