TT01: Beating Demigod

lurker's comment: I think this belongs in OT discussions. Y'all have gotten way off the track of this game.

How's that? It seems that this discussion is going to last longer AND be more fun than the game! ;)

In other words I deny your purported absurdum as actually absurd.

I had not expected less of you. Mutual out-off-the-air-dropping-multi-valued consistency logic without definition of consistency goes a long way. And even if I promised, I don't. I'm done with this discussion. I wish you a lot of success in your reflections on logic!
 
lurker's comment:

AI Attitude has little bearing on whether they will declare war on you. Attitude is furious to gracious. War is war. Settling next to them won't change their attitude, but it might well trigger a war if you are gracious or not.

From looking at your map, I think you guys are stopping REX too early - it looks like you have more spots available. In any case, I think that turning amsterdam into a miltary factory is a bad idea - you have a granary, so if you aren't going to pump out settlers, pump out workers, which will allow you to either improve tiles or make your military cities bigger.

That's just my thoughts - stopping rex isn't a BAD idea - hitting a demigod AI early (while they are REXing and building AA wonders) can have large benefits.
 
We need more cities to support enough troops to even put a dent in the AIs. I suppose build an archer then a settler on and on for awhile. The tiny size of our "empire" has me worried. If anyone decides to attack right now, we are dead. It would be nice to get a worker pump going too, but probably not soon<sigh>
 
S. C. Kleene in his _Mathematical Logic_ on p. 195 writes:

"This method [Hilbert's] consists in a direct application of the idea of consistency, namely, that there be no contradiction or paradox consisting of two theorems, one of which is the negation of the other."
 
S. C. Kleene in his _Mathematical Logic_ on p. 195 writes:

"This method [Hilbert's] consists in a direct application of the idea of consistency, namely, that there be no contradiction or paradox consisting of two theorems, one of which is the negation of the other."

You don't exactly have a "teachable spirit" do you?????

It's the ETS thingy isn't it.
 
Ok, had a look a the save. I agree with finish the archer in Amsterdam and then settlers again. If the AI comes for us now or soon we're done. So I'm with the ones who argue for a little bit more of REX.

Buce, can you live with that?

Roster.

ThinkTank - warming up
Bucephalus - just played
TheOverseer417 - UP
DWetzel - on deck
killerkid - will join in August

We could use another player. Anyone of the lurkers wants to join?
 
It may be the weekend before I get to this. I am swamped, still need to finish CBob04 turn-set and I'm up in Rod-01 also. A skip or a swap might become necessary if I don''t finish those very fast.
 
It may be the weekend before I get to this. I am swamped, still need to finish CBob04 turn-set and I'm up in Rod-01 also. A skip or a swap might become necessary if I don''t finish those very fast.

Let me know if you want a swap (or a skip); I'll have plenty of time to play on the 4th.
 
A swap would be great, then I'll have the weekend to do a good job of it. If you don't mind.
 
A'ight. I'll take a long look at the save tonight then play either tomorrow or on the 4th.
 
Lurker's comment: I'm quite new to SG, but I've played one set in 'India stomps the World', and I'm following what you are doing, and I see similarities between both games.

I see a tendency to do this:
* settler factory as soon as possible.
* barracks as soon as possible.

And In both games it doesn't work out too well. In both games the settler factory is starting to produce ordinary units instead of settlers. That points to bad planning on both points.

First about the settler factory; I think a settler factory is most useful when you've got lots of terrain to settle. Without a granary you'll get your first towns in a lot quicker. On a really cramped map it can be crucial to get your first settlers to the best locations as soon as possible. What you don't want is the AI claiming the luxes and best river spots while you're building your granary (I'm not saying that this happened in this game).
I'm always playing 80% water maps, and there's never a lot of space there. I've learnt to be quite fanatical about getting my settlers out to the crucial spots as soon as possible. I often postpone the granary until after I've got a core in. And then it's not so much settlers I'm building with those granary towns, but workers. I've got the towns, now I need to improve them.

About the barracks; barracks are good for quality units, but in the early game quantity is more important then quality. Because what do you need units for then?
* exploration
* first line defense + settler escort
* MP
* looking strong in the eyes of the AI
* blocking AI settler pairs
For all these things regular units will do, and the more you've got, the better. It's only when you begin to fight wars that you need vets.

I've got a few pictures below that illustrate how useful ordinary units can be, and how you can even claim land with them.
I'm Korea in the expansion phase. North of me are the Russians, south of me are the Hittites (Yeah, sorry guys, I play with a color mod, I hope it doesn't confuse you). Until now I've put a few towns in south, but just to the northwest there's an unclaimed area that still has a couple of good spots. In the first picture, 1300BC, there's a Russian settler pair already present in the area (you can only see the Warrior). I'm using a curtain of units to prevent them from going to the river, because that's where I want to settle (you can see my settler coming from the east). The Russian settler pair is backtracking because of my units, and in the second picture, 1000BC, you see where I've pushed them to: Orenburg ends up up way northwest.
You can also see a couple of Hittite settler pairs in the second picture. I might have deterred those from going to those river spots as well because of the presence of my units. I now managed to settle the area with Ulsan, Pyongsong and Inch'on. My settlers weren't there earlier than the AI's, but my units were.
 
I don't know if I disagree or agree with you in general Optional, but interesting thoughts.
 
A few quick thoughts after looking at the save:

1. Do we really want that barracks in Rotterdam? I'd much sooner see it spew out a random settler than that barracks, or (probably better) another worker. No shields invested so we can do what we want. Rotterdam seems like a poor choice for a barracks town, given the lack of shields. I'm pretty certain a worker is best; we will have plenty of roading/mining to do over the next couple turnsets.

2. I could MM the archer in Amsterdam to spew out next turn instead of 2 turns from now (move from unworked wheat to the forest). This seems wise to me; Amsterdam has plenty of food but shields are at a premium. After that it could pop a worker in 2 (staying at pop 5) then the settler factory should be ready. Keeping the population low should have the pleasant side effect of allowing us to lower the lux slider to 10% (with the archer as a second MP).

3. Thoughts about changing The Hague from a warrior to a curragh? Of course, this would negate my clever comment about the lux slider, but it would allow us to start exploring the southern seas (in particular, that island near Lisbon), which could be useful.

4. Thoughts on next city placement? I'm assuming it's grab the dyes next; after that the FP wheat?

5. We get our money back from Portugal in 3 turns, I assume the plan is to just hoard that until something useful comes up?


My plans will be:

A. Don't get killed.
B. Get the settler factory finished and fully operational.
C. Continue exploring.
D. Continue developing land (including hooking up cities to our road net).
 
1. Do we really want that barracks in Rotterdam? I'd much sooner see it spew out a random settler than that barracks, or (probably better) another worker. No shields invested so we can do what we want. Rotterdam seems like a poor choice for a barracks town, given the lack of shields. I'm pretty certain a worker is best; we will have plenty of roading/mining to do over the next couple turnsets.

I didn't have enough time to answer this as thoroughly as I wanted to before.

While I agree that, given the team has decided on a policy of continued REX, now is probably not the time for a Barracks, but to say it will never be a suitable Barracks town is eronious IMO. If the intention is to build a solid core, then beeline to Cavalry, then I agree; but surely we are not heading that way, are we? IMO, the AI is going to be at it's most vulnerable during it's own expansion phase, building mainly Wonders, Settlers and regular escorts, Once that phase is over they will begin to stockple units, and I don't believe that we have enough suitable land to compete as effectively as we could now. And if we do envisage AA warfare, Rotterdam can make 5 or 6 shields which is enough to generate Swords/Archers at an acceptable rate.

What I'm concerned about is that there appears to be little thought of strategy beyond the immediate expansion stage; this is not how I play the game. Where you plant your cities, what you build (and when), what you research - all of these things are governed by your game plan, something which we appear to lack.

I know this isn't SID, but DG can be pretty unforgiving of bad strategy, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom