The UNREAL Walkthrough

[lilnev]

It's clearly not "best in all cases". It is stronger than I expected, however, and I think it's an open question whether it's best in some cases. If so, I want to understand how to recognize those cases, and how to execute the strategy properly. Forcing the strategy, with a good leader but random start positions, seems like a good way to figure those things out.

Fortunately, this little experiment will be interrupted in a few days by BtS.

peace,
lilnev

 

[frob2900]

It's clearly not "best in all cases". It is stronger than I expected, however, and I think it's an open question whether it's best in some cases. If so, I want to understand how to recognize those cases, and how to execute the strategy properly.

Forcing the strategy, with a good leader but random start positions, seems like a good way to figure those things out.

Yes, that's true, and would be very interesting to know. A related question that I myself have wondered about is how much it worth going out of ones way to leverage the industrious trait. Often when I'm industrious without stone/marble I tend to ignore early wonders unfortunately much (if I have forest then stonehenge, oracle or possibly pyramids may be worth it, but everything else is too much chopping).

In those cases I can't shake the feeling that early expansion/war is better than turtling for wonder production and it would be rather interesting to recognize whether or not pursuing wonders is worth it.

Unfortunately I feel that the wild card in all this is your opponents. Even if your start looks deliciously good, sometimes the other continent is populated by Roosevelt, Huyana Capac and Bismarck, and you end up missing most wonders despite high production/industrious.

 

[madscientist]

I am currently playing a similar game. Lous XIV on Prince/Marathon Speed/Huge map, random terrain produced a snakey/fractal where I can trade/meet most prior to optics but only have Shaka (or did) on hte same land mass. Got a great start on coast where I got 6 hills, banasa, 2 seafood, phants, corn, sugar, inland lake. A perfect capital for an industrious civ on a map will lots of coasts and not that many hills. Also stone was not far off and got ot with my third city.

Given this ideal start I was able to build almost all wonders (pyramid/greatlighthouse/etc) in the capital (Prthanon/colossus ended up in military city). Used first great person (merchant) to bulb metal working, settled the next 2 great engineers, 4th G (scientist) I built the academy in capital. I settled everyone else. The capital is a monster in production, food, and science (350 beakers/turn). A few cities are for production including a beast of a military city, the rest are mostly cottage spammed (half my empire was shakas who cottage spammed). I think OBSOLETEs approach worked well here, another industrious civ with a great production capital and settled GP, great for the capital. But the rest of the empire really was best using cottages. Up to researching constitution but I cannot see how I coyuld lose this game.

So my take is settling GP into a highly productive capital works (some of you know this but settling GP is not something I ever really did except at the end for space part production). Ind helps alot but my guess is other traits would work, but there has to alot of production in the city.

 

[madscientist]

Even if your start looks deliciously good, sometimes the other continent is populated by Roosevelt, Huyana Capac and Bismarck, and you end up missing most wonders despite high production/industrious.

And to followup, none of my 10 opponents are industrial which even more so illustrates this approach can be used with prime starts.

 

[lilnev]

Two more tries, with Stalin this time (Ind/Agg) -- immortal, standard normal continents temperate medium. Not such good results.

First game, I had a coastal start spot with no production. So I moved inland, wandered ~6 turns before finding an OK spot with food and Stone, but still only mediocre production. Feeling behind, I skimped on fogbusters and the barbs punished me, repeatedly pillaging my tile improvements. I sent an unescorted settler to a peninsula that I though would be safe, but one of the two foggy tiles did indeed contain a hostile. Screw this, reboot....

Second game, a decent start site with Gold, but no Stone/Marble to be found. I also had three neigbors, not a lot of space, and mostly jungle. Stonehenge, didn't try for Oracle (1320 BC), got beat to Pyramids by 2 turns in 1000 BC. Damn. Barely got a third city down before the last of the land disappeared. Second city got beat to the Parthenon. Actually all the early Wonders -- Parthenon, ToA, Great Lighthouse, Hanging Gardens, and even the Chicken Pizza -- had gone by 500 BC. Teched to Alphabet, back-traded for Math and IW, then to Lit for the GL. Beat by zero turns, around 1 AD. So I'm rich but probably dead. Tech to Construction, build a bunch of cats, and take some land from my weakest neighbor. Fortunately the other two neighbors decided to fight each other instead of dogpiling on me, so I've still got a chance. But I'm behind in tech, and too small. Hopefully the diplomacy will hold, and I'll get a chance to jump on one of them when they're weakened. Needless to say, Wonder-spamming was wildly unsuccessful in this instance.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Breunor]

It's clearly not "best in all cases". It is stronger than I expected, however, and I think it's an open question whether it's best in some cases. If so, I want to understand how to recognize those cases, and how to execute the strategy properly. Forcing the strategy, with a good leader but random start positions, seems like a good way to figure those things out.

Fortunately, this little experiment will be interrupted in a few days by BtS.

peace,
lilnev

Lilnev,

You are about a 10x better player than I am, but I'll take a stab at this anyway (at least you can respect my age)



Here are some of my take-aways. First, I had absolutely no discussions with the game designers, nor know any of them, but I think I understand some key design concepts. I'm almost positive that designers would say something like: 'We designed the choice between lightbulbing and settling to be a difficult choice, which stronger players will know which is best based on circumstances. Of course, if one is always better, then it isn't a game choice, it's just a 'sucker play' to induce weaker players to do something stupid.'

OK, so when is one better? Clearly, since settling works every turn, the longer one settles, the greater the benefit. On the other hand, lightbulbing can give a big tech early. bBt the key here is for a long-term economic strategy, settling should be superior.

The wonder spam produces a lot of great people, and gets them early.

Very few people have mentioned what is, to me, a key to wonder-spamming, which is by not building settlers, and not needing a lot of workers, the capital city can produce wonders. That is why he gets them before the AI even at high levels, and of course the right leader and resources help. Not only aren't turns taken up, but population growth isn't stopped. The settled capital tries to make up for not having so many cities. Clearly, culture flipping cities can occur with so many wonders.

So, I disagree with pretty much everyone on the board about the 'key' to the strategy. To me, the key is that he isn't building a lot of settlers, so his capital city, which is his richest, builds the wonders, gets great people, and settles them. At some point, with a tech lead, he goes on the offensive.



So, best characteristics:

Industrious and/or philosophical leader
Stone/marble nearby
Good capital, rich in food and production
Nearby lands NOT as good. This to me is a key point. If the nearby lands are rich, getting those settlers out may be better
Relatively peaceful neighbors

Worst case(s) for me to try it

Financial leader
My UU is good for early warmongering; I want to set up an ability to expand
Ability to get an early religion, will want to build a shrine and spread maybe
Nearby lands are rich and fertile
Poor production resources nearby
Good strategic resources nearby (If I have iron, copper, and horses, and my neighbors don't guess what I'm doing)
Nasty neighbors


We will never get everything in our favor, but the more like the favorable and less like the unfavorable I get, the more likely I will employ it.


I didn't mention barbarians, because it's a maybe. IF barbarians are very strong, then it is harder to pull off UNLESS I get the great wall, in which case it is easier to do these things while the barbs kill the AI. Of course, in that case, again, every strategy is better! If the barbs are weaker, it's easier to get away with fewer troops.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[lilnev]

Yeah, I agree with everything you posted.

I noticed that in obsolete's last (insane = immortal) walkthrough, he didn't even build a second city before launching into Wonders. I was always squeezing out a settler first. He also used a GE from the GW to build the Pyramids, which is not certain (Stonehenge and Oracle contributing GP points), nor will it work in BtS (GW now gives Great Spy points). Without the Pyramids for Representation, I don't think it would work on Immortal -- where does the research come from to push through CoL, Philo, CS? I was generally putting out additional cities to either claim commerce bonuses (Gold etc) or work cottages, and still struggling for beakers.

In general, I don't think I'll pursue a hard-core approach to this unless I have Stone. A somewhat diluted version could run off Marble, grabbing Stonehenge (still cheap enough), ToA, Oracle, GL, NE, but skipping GW and Pyramids. That would give you enough time early to get another settler + worker out to create some cottage cities, while still generating a decent flow of gpps. Also, it remains to be seen how BtS will affect things, moving Parthenon back to Aesthetics and adding GP-generating Wonder, and forcing a choice between tech trading and the rush to Lit.

peace,
lilnev

 

[Roxlimn]

It's possible that going for GW early in BTS is even more powerful for this strategy because an early GS can allow you to tank you research and still keep up in the tech race through spying and trading.

 

[cabert]

It's possible that going for GW early in BTS is even more powerful for this strategy because an early GS can allow you to tank you research and still keep up in the tech race through spying and trading.

there is a thread in the RB showcasing how the super early great spy is overpowered (tech stealing over 3000 beakers from the techleader, not counting the trades that opens).
This should be nerfed obviously.

 

[UncleJJ]

It's clearly not "best in all cases". It is stronger than I expected, however, and I think it's an open question whether it's best in some cases. If so, I want to understand how to recognize those cases, and how to execute the strategy properly. Forcing the strategy, with a good leader but random start positions, seems like a good way to figure those things out.

I agree with this appraisal and in the right circumstances this strategy can work at the highest levels. We need to think about how BtS will change the way it is done, espionage and Apostolic Palace could change the early game significantly. It would probably be best to go with the flow and accept the AP religion and gain all the diplomatic and production benefits.

Here are some of my take-aways. First, I had absolutely no discussions with the game designers, nor know any of them, but I think I understand some key design concepts. I'm almost positive that designers would say something like: 'We designed the choice between lightbulbing and settling to be a difficult choice, which stronger players will know which is best based on circumstances. Of course, if one is always better, then it isn't a game choice, it's just a 'sucker play' to induce weaker players to do something stupid.'

OK, so when is one better? Clearly, since settling works every turn, the longer one settles, the greater the benefit. On the other hand, lightbulbing can give a big tech early. bBt the key here is for a long-term economic strategy, settling should be superior.

The wonder spam produces a lot of great people, and gets them early.

Very few people have mentioned what is, to me, a key to wonder-spamming, which is by not building settlers, and not needing a lot of workers, the capital city can produce wonders. That is why he gets them before the AI even at high levels, and of course the right leader and resources help. Not only aren't turns taken up, but population growth isn't stopped. The settled capital tries to make up for not having so many cities. Clearly, culture flipping cities can occur with so many wonders.

So, I disagree with pretty much everyone on the board about the 'key' to the strategy. To me, the key is that he isn't building a lot of settlers, so his capital city, which is his richest, builds the wonders, gets great people, and settles them. At some point, with a tech lead, he goes on the offensive.

Another good appreciation of what is probably going on in these games and why obsolete is winning regularly. The only point I can add is that it can often be better to delay your expansion anyway. Sometimes it's better to not axe rush the AI capital but let them build a shrine for you or cut down all the jungle for your troops to sweep through and capture developed cities when you have CoL and Currency. The gold and hammers the AI has spent building stuff up are effectively "yours" anyway, you just don't have to pay any maintenance until you take them over. So an early axe rush or a war with trebs and maces, is not necessarilly a better option in the long term. If you're going for a space victory (as obsolete seems to prefer) it is the launch date that counts not the number of beakers other approaches produce in the mid game. The production behemoth his capital becomes, which is cranking out spaceship parts in a few turns is central to closing the gap on larger civs.

 

[MrFelony]

lilnev, one of the things about the new GW is that you can settle a great spy and get 12 spy points. this opens up the possibility to know what your neighbor is researching, seeing his cities, and stealing a tech or two (or three lol). and it also gives you 4 science (with rep i think), which saves you probably 10 turns beelining to liberalism not to mention the techs you've stolen . however, i would probably still like that GE

Another good appreciation of what is probably going on in these games and why obsolete is winning regularly. The only point I can add is that it can often be better to delay your expansion anyway. Sometimes it's better to not axe rush the AI capital but let them build a shrine for you or cut down all the jungle for your troops to sweep through and capture developed cities when you have CoL and Currency. The gold and hammers the AI has spent building stuff up are effectively "yours" anyway, you just don't have to pay any maintenance until you take them over. So an early axe rush or a war with trebs and maces, is not necessarilly a better option in the long term. If you're going for a space victory (as obsolete seems to prefer) it is the launch date that counts not the number of beakers other approaches produce in the mid game. The production behemoth his capital becomes, which is cranking out spaceship parts in a few turns is central to closing the gap on larger civs.

this productive capability is exactly why i almost beat the civ who got the Space Elevator before me...but check out this gem. of course this wasn't sustainable and was during a golden age. but i needed the internet so bad i even chopped it

Spoiler :