TJS1 -- Going on the Pill-age

BTW: when did we build Barracks in Copenhagen?! I just checked the saves, and it must have happened between the 1000BC and the 550BC .sav... Wasn't Copenhagen supposed to build our Navy? This game is strange indeed: we build Barracks in our worker-pump and in our Navy town, (towns which will never in their lifetime build a single military unit...), but in those towns where we actually want to build military, the Barrack projects get changed to something else... :crazyeye:

That was my doing, probably thinking that we needed military units more than we needed Galleys because I was feeling pressure from the Arabs. I really should have just gone with an Aqueduct prebuild instead of a Barracks and then an Aqueduct.
 
If you only spend 14 turns building an aqueduct with a city that has barracks, you only lose 14 gold. Yes, it's not great. Sure, you want to avoid doing that in general. But, if you only do so once or maybe twice in a game, it's not that big of a deal, is it?
 
Probably not. And we can still get some military out of Copenhagen -- we'll probably need it -- and let Reykjavik build some early Galleys.

@robbus: interesting thought about the "divided leadership"! :goodjob: And what I just realize: during Alexander's and Caesar's times, the scale of operations (both in terms of "number of men involved" as well as in "geographic extension") was much smaller, so it was still possible to have unified leadership. However, in Napoleon's times that was no longer possible. Military actions stretched from Madrid to Moscow, and the involved armies were probably 100 times larger than at Caesars times -- too much for a single man to handle without errors. (If the Roman Empire had to fight at opposite ends of its empire, e.g. in Gallia/Germania and at the Persian border at the same time, they had separate "leaders", who more or less operated independently of each other?!)
 
Probably not. And we can still get some military out of Copenhagen -- we'll probably need it -- and let Reykjavik build some early Galleys.

@robbus: interesting thought about the "divided leadership"! :goodjob: And what I just realize: during Alexander's and Caesar's times, the scale of operations (both in terms of "number of men involved" as well as in "geographic extension") was much smaller, so it was still possible to have unified leadership. However, in Napoleon's times that was no longer possible. Military actions stretched from Madrid to Moscow, and the involved armies were probably 100 times larger than at Caesars times -- too much for a single man to handle without errors. (If the Roman Empire had to fight at opposite ends of its empire, e.g. in Gallia/Germania and at the Persian border at the same time, they had separate "leaders", who more or less operated independently of each other?!)

Of course they were totally independent, but to use the civ3 analogy they were essentially playing separate games each. We (the Pill-agers) are playing on one "battlefield" only. Our hand-offs make me think of Robert E Lee' s instructions to take Culp's Hill at Gettysburg

" IF PRACTICABLE"!

What each of us thinks is practicable for our turns is variable. I played the turns up to 390bc and got freaking clobbered!

For me it was a difficult turnset because of increased Arab and Russian hostility plus the challenge of keeping the weak military deployed efficiently. BTW I did not know what a barbarian invasion looked like until 22 horsemen appeared IBT.:eek:
 
I'm really glad this SG is being a learning experience, but the last 2-3 pages of educational discussion notwithstanding, we've made very little progress on/ decisions about the actual game over the past week, and I would like to get things moving again. Here's how the roster currently stands:
  • Speedbird 95 --> Just played (8T)...?
  • Elephantium (after 2 skips) --> Up next...?
  • tjs282 --> On deck
  • Nathiri
  • Lanzelot
  • Robbus
  • Choxorn
Given that Elephantium is next in line, but has expressed dismay at Speedbird's unilateral (and arguably poor) decisions during his turnset-to-date, I think it's fair that he be given a major say as to what should happen now. Here's a non-exclusive list of options, in order of least to most radical:
  1. Tusker gets another skip, so he doesn't have to do any cleanup on his set
  2. Tusker plays 12T(?) from Speedbird's last uploaded save (from Post#341), doing all trading/gifting and necessary cleanup
  3. Speedbird finishes his turnset, making a start on damage-control (including Lanz's trading advice as detailed in Post#356), and posts his Turn10-savegame for Tusker
  4. Speedbird replays his turnset from scratch according to the team's input
  5. [We ignore Speedbird's turnset, and Tusker plays his 10T from Choxorn's save (Post#290) instead]*
If (1), that would mean I am up again (I can DL the last-posted savegame when I get home, and start playing Wednesday pm)

*Given 'standard' SG-procedures, I think (5) is probably radical enough -- and will add to the RL-time to completion -- that it should only be accepted by significant majority vote, say >=5/7 players.
 
Last edited:
One of the most basic rules of an SG is that "everybody will make mistakes". So no replays, we'll just have to live with it.
And it wasn't all bad in Speedbird's turnset! The zero science run as well as the final trading round both worked out very well and certainly compensated for some if not all of the damage. (We have around 600g in the treasury going into the Middle Age, whereas with the original plan we would now have around 150. We would have reached the Middle Age maybe 1-2 turns earlier, but it would have taken us longer to do Feudalism & Invention, because of missing funds for covering the deficit...)

So my vote is to continue from the last known save. We are still doing well enough there to win easily.

As to whether Speedbird finishes his last 2 turns, or Tusker takes it from here, or you take over, I would say: the first one of you three, who posts his "got it" (and an action plan...) shall have it. We have waited now a couple of days, we have lots of input from many people, so I think we can move on.
 
I think lanzelots idea is reasonable....

I think speedbirds precedent is a good one: You play your turns you defend your choices.

Because there are stronger and weaker players here each of us taking our own turns allows for better learning.

I teach for a living and try to set the bar high enough to be achallenge but low enough for success. But that bar is at much different levels for each of us here.
 
I think speedbirds precedent is a good one: You play your turns you defend your choices.
That approach might work OK on lower-level SGs (say, Monarch and below), when the AICivs have no significant production advantages, and human mistakes (such as diverting production into less-than-useful items) will not leave the team so far behind that the situation cannot be fixed relatively easily during the following turnset. It might even be viable for higher-level SGs in which everyone on the team is comfortable and competent at that higher difficulty level (and therefore less likely to make 'beginner-mistakes' in the first place).

However, at Emperor the AI's effective 20% discount (on everything) starts offsetting its incompetence to a much more noticeable degree -- and as you note, we are not all comfortable/ competent at this level (yet). Mistakes may therefore take a lot more effort and care to rectify, which is why (I thought) we all signed up for this with the understanding that each turnset would be (at least roughly) planned out ahead of time, rather than each of us just doing our own thing -- especially when the higher-level players on the team were (strongly) advocating a specific strategy.

That said, I must admit that having written the above, I then looked back at the first page of this thread, and found that I'd written (in Post#1)
...aiming to follow a 24/48 schedule, i.e. every participant has 1 day to post a 'got it' (with a rough plan for their turnset, if they wish -- or questions to the team about what they should be aiming to do), then 2 days to play...
...so I guess I can't very well complain if anyone doesn't post a plan... :hammer2:
Because there are stronger and weaker players here each of us taking our own turns allows for better learning.
It certainly results in more mistakes being made; whether that leads to better learning, is up to each of us as individuals... ;)

Lanzelot(/Tusker):
I suspect part of the reason for the stall, was that no-one was certain whether Speedbird had finished playing or not. He offered his pre-trading save on the assumption that some/all of us would then try the gifting/trading, and then we'd finish the set using the best results; but only you and he actually did any trading, and neither of you uploaded a save afterwards...

I did DL his Post#341 pre-trade save last night, so (presuming that Tusker doesn't mind taking another skip?) this could be considered a provisional gottit; but it was quite late, so I haven't yet opened the save/ made any specific plans of my own (beyond executing those trades, getting Trondheim Settler-pumping again ASAP, getting 'Ducts/units built as/where needed, and trying to prevent the Arabs from doing us too much damage in the meantime...)
 
Last edited:
Speedbird really screwed us over before disappearing from view.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't feel disgusted. I think I can understand how him changing plans as he did without consultation ends up frustrating, and I do see other weaknesses in his save. But, if you're saying that the game is beyond repair in terms of the game itself, well I think the game above is still very winnable. The next player could have Trondheim put out a market and maybe put out a settler from Copenhagen to not waste it's growth potential. You could just settle the tundra towns slowly, or just lose the growth in Trondheim. I mean, I think the game is winnable either here. It's not like the AIs are in the modern age and you've just learned Engineering.
 
I took a good long look at the state of play last night (and :cry:d a little), but I think following Lanz's plan (on p.18) is pretty sound (some specifics of what I'm considering below). I also had a quick go at doing the trading, and got roughly similar results as suggested, so that's no worry.

A lot of the town-builds are fairly screwed up with respect to food/shield balance: e.g. Oslo has 3f+5s in its boxes, and is slowly building a Settler (7T, but grows to Pop7 in 2T, at which point the town may well riot without LUX%). If I switch to a Worker now, it will build in 1T, but Oslo will drop back to Pop5 with 6f in the bin, making the pump-setup more awkward (unless e.g. I build Wealth for 2T). Cash-rushing the Settler next turn would cost 80g.

(Note to the world at large: this is NOT how a 4T Settler-pump should work!).

Alternatively, I could carry on with the Settler, but work the nearby (but unroaded) Forests, getting it to 2FPT+6SPT -- which should build the Settler in 4T (wasting 1f), provided Oslo gets at least 1s extra as it reaches Pop7 (I think it will, but I'm not 100% certain). That will drop it back to Pop5 with a full Gran and no food stored. Getting 5FPT+5SPT for 2T-Workers (Pop5-6) should then be feasible, but if not, then 2T of Wealth would get it back to Pop6, where 5FPT+5SPT definitely works (and the extra GPT/CPT is nice as well, right?)

Only problem is that while Oslo's working 2SPT+0CPT tiles, at SCI%=100, Feud would arrive in 10T instead of 9T -- but that should improve again once Oslo goes on Worker-pumping duty (when it can work more roaded tiles for lower SPT, higher CPT) -- and getting more towns settled should also help add CPT...

Meanwhile, back on the Fur-ranch (Trondheim)... I can actually get 11s over this IBT, before short-rushing CH and switching to Market (at 10SPT), then a Settler in another 3T (will waste a lorra lorra food, but that can't be helped). OTOH, if I can get Bergen onto Settler-pump duty instead of Trond, and Oslo doing Workers instead of Bergen, that does seem like a better option than holding Trond at Pop5-7 and continuing to build Settlers/Workers out of it, especially given our current unit-support costs (just getting Trond to Pop7, would cut those costs by 4GPT -- or 10%)...

Question: if Trond were to go off Settler-duty, and we're anyway planning to grow it by Worker-joins after Pop7, could/should I already start mining its irrigated tiles (to build a Rax -- then units) -- and sell off its Gran? Or should we wait until later to do that?

Cope and Reyk both need Ducts, yes, so I'll switch Reyk straight off. Cope will fill its Pop6-Gran this IBT and then stall -- too much food and no extra shields to be had for another couple of turns, means there's nothing I can do to speed up the 'Duct and avoid food-wastage at this point, short of cash-rushing (though spinning a 3rd Settler off, as Spoonwood suggests, seems like it might be worth it, just to avoid wasting all that food). Given their current position, it will be at least 4-5T before any Catapults can be disbanded into Duct-builds in either of those towns, so in the meantime I'll need to road+mine all their remaining unimproved tiles as well (especially if they're going to build Raxes and/or mil-units after the 'Ducts are done). Birka also needs shields to finish its Harbour for the seafood, then should probably also start a Duct, given how shield-poor it is at present...

Our military currently consists of 3 Spears, 4 Cats, 3 Archers, and a Warrior. I think I'll station the Spears in our western border-towns for now, and let the Dutch do our fighting (they're already building Horsemen, so I'd rather they threw them at the Arabs than us...). And if we're going to trash the Cats, then we will need to get some offensive replacements built. Stockholm's currently building an Archer, so getting its Plains irrigated for growth, and a Hill or 2 mined for shields, is also a high priority. Stavanger will get its Rax chop-finished in 2T (though some of the chop-shields will be wasted without MM), and will then also have time to build some military before it needs to start on its Duct...

On which subject, also rather annoyed at other apparent Worker (mis)management I can see here: e.g. the roaded Tobacco-tile near Trond still hasn't been mined (Cope could have used that shield!), yet Trond's high-commerce, high-shield river-Forest has just been chopped (into the Market we didn't need), leaving us with a completely unimproved Grass-tile with 2 Workers sitting on it! (One's just started a mine; I'll set the other to road, then help finish the mine in 4T instead of 5T.) Meanwhile, there's Workers doing things they don't need to on the fringes, like building a road to... Kufah(?), or roading a Forest(!?!) near Oslo -- when Aarhus still needs to get hooked, and its Floodplain irrigated.

We also (still) have an irrigated Grass and a mined BGrass near Cope -- should if anything be the other way round, so we get 3 FPT to support the Hill-mine, for more (GA-)shields (iGrass + mBGrass = 0 + 2(+1) = 3 GA-shields; mGrass +iBGrass = 1(+1) + 1(+1) = 4 GA-shields) -- or both should be mined (mGrass + mBGrass = 1(+1) + 2(+1) = 5 GA-shields...). If we're going to build 70-shield Zerks, we'll need all the SPT we can get! -- so if I have Worker-turns to spare after dealing with Cope/Reyk/Birka, I'll also make a start on fixing those issues.

Once my 2- (or 3) initial Settlers are ready, I would like to found the 2nd-ring Blue and Black Tundra-towns ASAP -- seems much more important to get those (near-)core towns up than a(nother) disconnected eventual 4th-ringer way over on the west coast (even if it does snag us 2 Wheatfields, that does us little good if all it can then build is 10T Warriors/ Workers...). The 2nd-ring Tundra-towns can get Grass-Forests chopped into Harbour-builds, then start building Galleys (or Ducts now, Galleys later?). Founding the first of those towns will also get us the FP-popup, but I guess we'll wait for a handy MGL to do that... ;)

If I/we do carry on Settler-pumping from Trond, and it's safe to push further west to the Orange Sugar-town spot (and the Wheat, if the Russians don't beat us to it), I guess those would be the next-best sites to Settle; if not, then the 3rd-ring Pink and Red Tundra-towns...
This is going to be sooo much fun...:sarcasm:
Personally, I'm still too disgusted to play this game again.
I can understand that, but hopefully you will feel better about taking over my save instead...
I am still in
That's the spirit! Good on yer, me ol' cobber!
 
But, if you're saying that the game is beyond repair in terms of the game itself, well I think the game above is still very winnable.
Exactly. There were some annoying mistakes, but the potential of our position is still great, and we have a big pile of cash to mend some of the damage, so the game is still an easy win.

Question: if Trond were to go off Settler-duty
Still too early. We should grow "homogeniously", so before going really big, we need to wait for the Aqueducts in Copenhagen and Reykjavik. And also we need many more Workers.
After the Market, I would say 3 more Settlers and then 5 more Workers from Trondheim. With our two ships, we can send the Settlers from Trondheim to their final destination instantly (meaning we spend only one turn upkeep for them). During that time, Bergen and Oslo can build approx. 20 more Workers, and then we have enough for the big push.

I have been thinking very long about what to do with Oslo... :( The least evil is probably to set it up like this:

oslo.png


Wastes a lot of food and shields, but afterwards it can at least operate smoothly as a 2-turn WF. (At size 5, it can't be a WF, because corruption eats one of the shields gained by the forest on growth! So we would only have 4+4(+1) = 9 shields. Otherwise I would have said: short-rush a Spear, let Settler finish in 2 turns and then do 2-turn Workers at size 5, but that's impossible...)

All in all it looks now we can't be ready for a GA in 20 turns. :( So I would relax the research speed a bit and rather use some of the cash to speed up the two Aqueducts a bit. And perhaps we even manage to get ducts done in Birka and Stavanger before GA?!
Spinning off another Settler in Copenhagen will delay the Aqueduct even more. Rather spend some cash to speed up the Aqueduct.

BTW: Aarhus is badly misplaced. Lots of hills, but no food to work them. One tile further NW and it would have two more BGs and an additional floodplain to compensate all the hills and deserts. Should we settler-disband it, while it's still early?

aarhus.png
 
But, if you're saying that the game is beyond repair in terms of the game itself, well I think the game above is still very winnable.

That's not what I'm saying. You're right that the game is winnable, but will it be fun? The amount of damage control we need to do from Speedbird's set and the prospect of seeing similar problems the next time around has sapped my enthusiasm. I don't fancy playing "try to clean up the problems" every turnset.
 
That's not what I'm saying. You're right that the game is winnable, but will it be fun? The amount of damage control we need to do from Speedbird's set and the prospect of seeing similar problems the next time around has sapped my enthusiasm. I don't fancy playing "try to clean up the problems" every turnset.

Perhaps Speedbird and everyone else has learned something about communicating in a succession game from everyone else's dismay here? Then again, Speedbird seems quiet, so it's hard to tell what he/she thinks now.
 
So I would relax the research speed a bit and rather use some of the cash to speed up the two Aqueducts a bit.

I think Lanzelot has suggested short-rushing, similar as to how he talked about rushing a spear and then changing the build to a settler (though he didn't advise that move in that case). For anyone who doesn't quite get short-rushing, every single building which is not a wonder, and every single unit can get used for short-rushing. You don't have iron hooked up, so you have:

1. A worker for a 10 shield short-rush.

2. A spear for a 20 shield short-rush.

3. A settler for a 30 shield short-rush.

4. Possibly granaries for a 60 shield short-rush.

5. A courthouse for an 80 shield short-rush.

Just keep an eye on a city building a duct and see if you can save a turn or three by short-rushing.
 
Should we settler-disband it, while it's still early?

The more I think about it: tjs282, did you hear anything from Speedbird? Did we scare him away? I would welcome it, if he stays with us. He did some mistakes, he got his dressing-down, and for me that puts an end to it, I don't bear a grudge. I'm sure, he's learned a lot now and will do much better next time. But if it is clear, that he won't continue this SG, I wouldn't mind replaying this turn set. Building and rushing things we don't need, messing up the settler factory (not a single Settler built during this turnset :cry:), worker-mismanagement (including aborting almost-finished useful jobs, roading a forest on the fringe, while important first-ring towns are still lacking improvements), misplaced towns (in it's current location, Aarhus has food for 5 citizens -- what a waste for a town on a river. :( And even with the Dutch floodplain, that we will get eventually, it'll max out at size 8).
So contrary to what I said earlier: if Speedbird left us, I would like to replay that turnset, and then you could take it from there.
 
Last edited:
Regrettably Speedbird messaged me that s/he is out . I shall miss h/er/im.
I am struggling to keep up with the rest but will do my best.
 
Been involuntarily offline all evening*, so I didn't see any of the above until now, and therefore didn't start playing yet. I also got a PM from Speedbird announcing his/her retirement.

Having spent the time looking over the save, I am OK with going ahead from this point, with the team's collective agreement. But with Speedbird gone, I am also much less resistant to the idea of simply memory-holing the last 8T, and playing from Chox's last save instead. What does everyone else think?

*
Spoiler Rant :
It would appear that Kabel Deutschland cut us off temporarily, yet again. Guess that level of service is only to be expected, given that they're the only ISP serving our neighbourhood... Free-market capitalism, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways...


Erm...


Hmmm...


Still thinking...

(in it's current location, Aarhus has food for 5 citizens -- what a waste for a town on a river. :( And even with the Dutch floodplain, hat we will get eventually, it'll max out at size 8).
If we don't move it, you mean? Because moving it NW, will get plenty of food -- after we 'irrigate green' ;)
 
Last edited:
But with Speedbird gone, I am also much less resistant to the idea of simply memory-holing the last 8T, and playing from Chox's last save instead. What does everyone else think?

I hope I wasn't too harsh on him?! But yes, in that case I also favor taking it from choxorn's last save. And with Gandhi finished and still lots of time before COTM131 is due, could I suggest that I get a "forward-skip" and try this turnset? I could play tonight.

If we don't move it, you mean?
Exactly.
@robbus: is it clear to you, what we have been talking about? In the current situation, Aarhus has only one food-tile, the floodplain, which will provide 4 food (after irrigation). All the other tiles are 1-food tiles (or less), so at the moment we can support 5 citizens there: the floodplain and 4 hills would provide exactly the 10 necessary food for feeding the 5 citizen:
2 (city center) + 4 (1 floodplain) + 4x1 (4 hills) = 10

Lateron, once we have captured Utrecht, we can use another floodplain to support 2 more hills, so we get a total of 8 citizens:
2 (city center) + 2x4 (2 floodplains) + 6x1 (6 hills) = 16

So Aarhus would max out at size 8, quite a pity for a town on a river that could grow to size 12 without needing an Aqueduct. And even more a pity, if you consider that Oslo or Bergen might eventually build/rush the Forbidden Palace, so Aarhus would become a fully productive city!

Edit: I'm assuming that the two plains between Aarhus and Oslo will be needed by Oslo, once it gets to size 12. Of course a 2nd ring city (especially with FP) will get preference over a 3rd ring city.)
 
Back
Top Bottom