TT01: Beating Demigod

[ThinkTank]

I'm fine with moving yellow dot to the spot that you propose. What about the rest of the dotmap?

A further point I want to add regarding the 'Settler factory': Aside from us not having much expansion room, I don't think that we can afford to ignore Amsterdam's potential for producing military; currently, it represents 50% of our cities, with only the next settled city (wherever we decide to put it) a likely candidate for a military pump. Two cities producing military? and frankly Rotterdam isn't looking good for shields, in the early game at least.

IMO, Amsterdam should finish it's granary, knock-out a Settler then build barracks, after which it should be used primarily as a military pump, only creaming off Settlers as growth allows; I feel our expansion is going to come at the point of a sword, this game.

I agree that in this position, REX will be vey short. I see a couple of additional considerations. First, with 3 cities I cannot imagine we can build enough military to make a dent in anything. Second, leaving land unsettled is a certainly going to attract AI settlers, boxing us in further and making our position worse. Third, Portugal is pretty much boxed in by Persia, and Persia by both Porugal and the Vikings - with the attitude of Xerxes, good chance they start beating each other up soon.

In all, I would argue for 3 to 4 settlers in Amsterdam before we put it on military-and-an-occasional-settler like you suggest.

 

[Bucephalus]

I'm fine with moving yellow dot to the spot that you propose. What about the rest of the dotmap?

I'll take a look, but IIRC your tighter map was about right, I think.

I agree that in this position, REX will be vey short. I see a couple of additional considerations. First, with 3 cities I cannot imagine we can build enough military to make a dent in anything. Second, leaving land unsettled is a certainly going to attract AI settlers, boxing us in further and making our position worse. Third, Portugal is pretty much boxed in by Persia, and Persia by both Porugal and the Vikings - with the attitude of Xerxes, good chance they start beating each other up soon.

Well, three cities making 3-turn Archers could have a 12 man SOD built in 12 turns, so I think that's not altogether true. I agree totally that it's far from ideal, but any other cities that you put down will offer little more than unit support for a long time, so three, maybe four, is what you have to play with. You may well be right about our neighbours fighting one another (some up to date military intelligence would be helpful here - Curraghs are OK for making contacts, but Warriors give us the 'lay of the land', and there is still a lot of fog over the AI lands) but I would say that is all the more reason to put together a stack of Archers - if the AI are fighting, then any excess units that they started with will have long since gone - they will be 'weak' compared to us.

I'm not saying not to build Settlers, but on this map, with this start using one of your two best cities as a 'Settler factory' exclusively is unwise. If we plan for and execute an early Archer-rush, we could expand almost as quickly by conquering foreign cities, with the added bonus of removing rivals as we go.

If you want to win by 'conquest', it's never too early to start, especially on a crowded map. The AI starting bonus is not that great on DG, and is quite easy to catch up with a dedicated military build; and of course the AI uses units so badly that numbers mean little. If this continent is as small as it seems to be, all we really need is IW (to know where the Iron is), HBR (so we can ride those oh-so-close Horses), and Writing (for alliances). I would build nothing but Barracks, Archers, a handful of Spears, and Workers/Settlers as numbers allow.

Just my opinion, though, and I won't get to build more than one Settler in my set anyway, so there is time for our options to become clearer.

Edit: I've just checked your dotmap, and wouldn't change a thing other than the one change that I proposed, which tightens the gap with the blue dot as well as Amsterdam.

 

[DWetzel]

I like that revised (red) dot location given the surroundings. We could, potentially, even cram in a town 1N of the fish if need be (if we get too boxed in).

I still think grabbing the dyes needs to be the city we settle after Red Dot. Grabbing those luxes MAY keep AI settlers away, allowing us to at least get a few more cities in.

We could in theory plop a city right on the horses, at least right now, but I don't expect to have that opportunity. The land through Persia (which I assume is Public Enemy #1) isn't exactly horse-friendly anyway.

 

[Bucephalus]

.

We could in theory plop a city right on the horses, at least right now, but I don't expect to have that opportunity.

Founding a city that close to an AI border is viewed as an aggressive act and an unfriendly civ like the Vikings may well DOW over it. When we go for the Horses it needs to be with a few units, I think.

The land through Persia isn't exactly horse-friendly anyway.

I'm not sure how you know that - I see nothing but fog.

(which I assume is Public Enemy #1)

If you mean 'biggest threat', I'd say that depends totally on whether they have Iron; my guess is that Ragnor will prove stronger. If you mean 'first target', I'd say that depends on a lot of things like land, resources, relative strength, on-going wars etc. We won't know about the land or resources until we scout around a bit; other factors can be gleaned by Embassies and observation. My point is that if we have a capable military - early - we are well positioned then to choose whichever target makes sense at that time.

 

[Spoonwood]

Founding a city that close to an AI border is viewed as an aggressive act and an unfriendly civ like the Vikings may well DOW over it.

Can you back this up in some way? Bamspeedy's article on AI attiude here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=44999 reads:

"Making a ‘culture attack’ (building a city right on their border and rushing culture to try and flip their city) does not affect attitude."

I agree about the tighter spacing for this game. I don't agree about delaying settlers. Building settlers from anywhere but Amerstdam, at least for a while, doesn't seem to make much sense. Getting 10 cities, or close to 10 cities out, comes as key in my mind so we can start the FP. The sooner we have our cities built, the sooner they start to grow. They all already have bronze-working, so an archer rush already works out as somewhat difficult. The more cities we have, the more force we can bring to the battlefield. War may come early, but I don't see it coming until Amsterdam has cranked out quite a few settlers, as the AIs still has room enough to expand, and they generally don't start declaring until they've neared or finished their expansion phase. Amsterdam will grow slower if it hits size 7. Having it building a good number of settlers slows down our growth empire-wide, at least until we take enemy cities. I simply don't see the point of delaying guaranteed growth for a chancy military tactic... at least not yet.

 

[Spoonwood]

I don't think I'll want my turns when they come back around.

 

[ThinkTank]

... if we have a capable military - early - we are well positioned then to choose whichever target makes sense at that time.

I see your point. I need to think a bit more, but for now I think you can play your turnset without us having to decide.

I don't think I'll want my turns when they come back around.

So are you saying you are resigning from this SG?

 

[ThinkTank]

I simply don't see the point of delaying guaranteed growth for a chancy military tactic... at least not yet.

Point is, going for REX in this position may also be just that, a chancy military tactic. This is more or less a call on experience, which I trust that Buce has, but I don't have experience in playing positions that are as crowded as this one.

 

[Bucephalus]

Can you back this up in some way? Bamspeedy's article on AI attiude here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=44999 reads:

"Making a ‘culture attack’ (building a city right on their border and rushing culture to try and flip their city) does not affect attitude."

There is no contradiction between what I say and Bamspeedy's article; founding on the Horses would not be building 'right on the border'. It would in fact overlap the inner 9 tiles of the Viking city; since their city was founded first, they would retain all nine tiles, with our city having only six (if there is any flipping to be done we would be on the receiving end). And any experienced player will tell you that settling thus is considered 'aggressive settling'. It's probably in an article somewhere, but I have neither the patience or the time to look for it.

 

[Bucephalus]

I don't think I'll want my turns when they come back around.

That seems a little churlish. Doug, it is normal in a succession game that sometimes the players have a differing view of how to play it. It is resolved by discussion, which usually brings some kind of concensus. I've given my opinion, but I have no problem if the team consider it in error; I can play the game any style that we choose, builder or fighter.

I suspect from reading some of your other posts that you lack experience on maps other than huge; playing outside your comfort zone is a great way to learn the game, and this game will bring you different challenges than you are used to if you stick around.

 

[Spoonwood]

Bucephalus,

I know in a deity-level game I settled near Zulu cities and they didn't attack me. There doesn't exist any contradiction between your statement and Bamspeedy's, but there could exist an implication which gives us a contradiction there. I'd like more than the intuition of experienced players, as I've already seen that some experienced players still have some incorrect ideas about how the game works.

I think you've made too quick of judgements about my playing experiences and why I've chosen to withdraw here.

 

[ThinkTank]

... and why I've chosen to withdraw here.

I don't think you indicated in any way why you withdraw, and while I respect your decision, I am curious to know why.

 

[DWetzel]

Might check out the "Always Peace" thread for (some) elaboration.

PS: Anyone want to join me there to finish that one out?

 

[Bucephalus]

On a game related matter, TT - what do you want to do about 'demands'? I've played in some games where it's left to the player's best judgement, and others where there is a pre-agreed response.

 

[Bucephalus]

there could exist an implication which gives us a contradiction there.

Maybe English isn't your first language, but this makes no sense.

 

[ThinkTank]

On a game related matter, TT - what do you want to do about 'demands'? I've played in some games where it's left to the player's best judgement, and others where there is a pre-agreed response.

In principle, I think we should cave to demands unless we are (1) ready and (2) willing to stand for the military consequences of a refusal. Right now, I'd say both criteria are off.

 

[ThinkTank]

Maybe English isn't your first language, but this makes no sense.

I think he was suggesting something like this:

(1) A and B are consistent (i.e. do not imply a contradiction).
(2) B implies C
(3) A and C are not consistent

This does make some sense, but it is logically invalid. In fact the following argument schema is valid:
If A and C are not consistent, and B implies C, then A and B are not consistent.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Demands for me, the code is, "will giving in cost us something we can't afford to lose?" If they want 53 gold and we dont want a war, fine, give it to them. If they want a city that is very important to me winning, hell no! Even technology can be given away without killing us. I guess that's where I stand. If it stops us from winning, refuse. If it is mostly harmless, give to them with fingers crossed behind your back (As in you get it now, but you'll pay it back in blood, eventually) If we avoid surpluses, we can hope to avoid most demands until we can fight back. Odds of us getting a monopoly tech will be slim anyway.

 

[Ansar]

lurker's comment: Agressive settling sometimes triggers wars and sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time, though, it does (and it happened to me in my current game - using Start #1 (which is a very nice start, by the way ) happen most of the time. Also, if you agressively settle and then surpass the adjacent town in culture, the agressiveness and bitterness towards you is still in the AI and most likely will attack you.

If they want a city that is very important to me winning, hell no!

The AI doesn't demand cities.

*walks away*

 

[Spoonwood]

I don't think you indicated in any way why you withdraw, and while I respect your decision, I am curious to know why.

More or less I've learned I just don't like the way succession games work. I sort of go into detail in the always peace thread on this.

Bucephalus,

Bamspeedy's statement about how culutral attacks don't affect AI attitude could imply that settling near an AI city won't affect an AI's attitude. If so, then I don't see how the AI regards settling by their city as aggressive. If the AI doesn't regard settling near their city as aggressive, a war won't happen due to settling near their city.

Thinktank,

(1) A and B are consistent (i.e. do not imply a contradiction).
(2) B implies C
(3) A and C are not consistent

This does make some sense, but it is logically invalid. In fact the following argument schema is valid:
If A and C are not consistent, and B implies C, then A and B are not consistent.

Let B=F, C=T. In such a case B->C. Since A and C are not consistent, A can't match C. So, since C=T, A=F. But, B=F also. So A and B are consistent, even though A and C are not consistent and B->C. This completes the counterexample to present schema.

I don't know how you got the first schema... it also works out as logically invalid.

Yes, I've withdrawn.

Ansar,

Also, if you agressively settle and then surpass the adjacent town in culture, the agressiveness and bitterness towards you is still in the AI and most likely will attack you.

Bampseedy's article indicates the contrary on exactly this point. "Making a ‘culture attack’ (building a city right on their border and rushing culture to try and flip their city) does not affect attitude."