Turn Discussion Thread

[azzaman333]

We're wasting more turns if SE turns out to be a dead end, which there's a 50/50 chance (I would argue greater) that it will be. Just because we made one poor movement choice doesn't mean that we should make several more bad moves in sequence.

Except there is no indication that there is land that wraps around our south.

There is no possible way that the path north could be a dead end unless there's an iceberg blocking us. And if you're going to argue for that, then it's equally likely there could be an iceberg to the south-east.

If we're in the north, which seems to be the prevailing assuming, the ice will be to the north, not the south. Therefore, it is not equally likely.

Aside from an iceberg, it's simply impossible for the path north to be a dead end, unless the land loops around to the north, then west, and then connects up again to the land we can see to our south. In which case that would put us on an island in the middle of a lake. There is simply no other way in which heading north could possibly lead to a dead end. And given that we can't see any hints of land at all to our north or west, I'm betting that we're not in the middle of a lake, and thus that we will not hit a dead end if we head north-east.

But we can't see any hint of land directly to our south either. So if you're happy to assume that there's no land north, why are you equally happy to assume there is land to the south?

 

[pindicator]

I don't think it will matter too much which way the WB goes, so much as we pick a direction and stick with it. The people advocating north also seem to be assuming the the bit of land we can see to the east is closely connected to the land we can infer is southwest of our island.

 

[AlphaShard]

I believe we are not north enough for iceburgs the trees are the solid green color for the middle of the map and not the lighter shade of green for the northern most region. The best reason to go north is to get the quickest best chance to find other civs. I suspect there is no star shap continent and that we have to islands to our east and west. It fits with taking the GLH away from the players. I am willing to vote north in case the two islands meet in the south and is one big island.

 

[azzaman333]

I hope there's someone directly to our south that we would've met faster without this change of direction so I can be right once again.

 

[AlphaShard]

Face it were all msking assumptions on where the other civs have started and where the land is going when in reality we JUST DON'T KNOW. So long as the boat is going into unknown territory we WILL find someone. This is not something to get THAT worked up over, we are exploring and eventually we will find someone whether the Civ starts are in a circle or grid formation we can't know.

 

[hell_hound]

Face it were all msking assumptions on where the other civs have started and where the land is going when in reality we JUST DON'T KNOW. So long as the boat is going into unknown territory we WILL find someone. This is not something to get THAT worked up over, we are exploring and eventually we will find someone whether the Civ starts are in a circle or grid formation we can't know.

The voice of reason

 

[champinoman]

I hope there's someone directly to our south that we would've met faster without this change of direction so I can be right once again.

lol, this made me laugh.

I'm happy with either choice. The only reason I am thinking about heading back north is that I'm secretly hoping that the map design I posted on turn 1 turns out to be correct to label it the "best map call ever".

Both ways have there own risks so it doesn't really matter which way we go because there is a 50/50 chance it'll be the wrong way.

 

[AlphaShard]

I agree even if the south dead ends there is still coast to go along and find other possible civ locations. I seriously doubt there is a giant iceburgs waiting to block our path, this isn't a tiny map.

 

[grant2004]

I think it's a great idea using space probes, however i think in all fairness it should be named Sputnik, the soviets were first up there after all Perhaps following this list?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_satellites_and_space_probes

And perhaps for galleys with warriors, using the names of human spaceflights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights

I like this, especially if we name our first warship the Enterprise

 

[AlphaShard]

I second the motion for our first warship to be named Enterprise. Were talking Frigate or gally/trieme?

 

[Trystero]

It does lose research in the short term, but we get more back in the long term. After writing we're not waiting on any techs to be done at a particular time (assuming we want two warriors for the galley, which I think is worthwhile). And it's not that 'long term', we're at -2gpt, so it's only a dozen or so turns until we've burned through the gold from each turn at 0, after which we're ahead of where we would have been otherwise.

My inclination would actually be to drop it to zero for the whole time between getting writing and finishing the library.

But that would delay us 1-2 turns on the near-future techs like Meditation and Priesthood, potentially costing us a religion and/or the Oracle (if we decide to go for it).

Yes, exactly. It depends on what we prioritize. I tried dropping the slider to zero between Writing and the library (3 turns) in my "let's grab The Oracle!" test (where I delay the revolt until slavery/HR). We save up about 80 gold for deficit research. We finish Monarchy and the pre-req techs a turn later but still have considerable gold in the bank for research at 100% on the slider. The Oracle, of course, also comes a turn later. This seems like the better long term course of action. By delaying Sailing for 1 turn and avoiding the early anarchy, we can get a galley with 2 warriors out by turn 52.

Perhaps we should play this by ear and see what happens with the early religions. But, the risks involved in pursuing The Oracle (by my modeling) are primarily slowing the development of Canopus. We could try building another Worker in Sirius to assist in chopping, but my concern is that delays our expansion plans.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I think it's a great idea using space probes, however i think in all fairness it should be named Sputnik, the soviets were first up there after all Perhaps following this list?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_artificial_satellites_and_space_probes

And perhaps for galleys with warriors, using the names of human spaceflights? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights

Sounds like a cool idea to me.

Face it were all msking assumptions on where the other civs have started and where the land is going when in reality we JUST DON'T KNOW. So long as the boat is going into unknown territory we WILL find someone. This is not something to get THAT worked up over, we are exploring and eventually we will find someone whether the Civ starts are in a circle or grid formation we can't know.

We won't find someone if we end up in a dead-end. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. SE risks a dead end, while NE has practically no risk of a dead end. I don't see what the appeal is of taking an unnecessary risk.

I second the motion for our first warship to be named Enterprise. Were talking Frigate or gally/trieme?

Well, the first warships available in-game are Triremes...

 

[azzaman333]

Perhaps we should play this by ear and see what happens with the early religions. But, the risks involved in pursuing The Oracle (by my modeling) are primarily slowing the development of Canopus. We could try building another Worker in Sirius to assist in chopping, but my concern is that delays our expansion plans.

I agree we shouldn't decide for certain yet. However, slower development in Canopus is a suitable risk for Metal Casting/Code of Laws/(unlikely) Feudalism

We won't find someone if we end up in a dead-end. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. SE risks a dead end, while NE has practically no risk of a dead end. I don't see what the appeal is of taking an unnecessary risk.

Only if it's a star shaped map. Otherwise the risk does not exist.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Only if it's a star shaped map. Otherwise the risk does not exist.

You're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Island chain map - Can get around either NE or SE.
Single central continent map - Can only get around NE, not SE.

Thus:

NE - Safe bet for passage regardless.
SE - Only works for an island chain map, otherwise a dead end, hence the RISK.

The risk of heading SE exists because we do not know what type of map we have yet. But heading NE should work regardless of the map type (unless we're in the middle of a huge lake, which there is no evidence for, and in any event, in which case SE wouldn't work either).

NE is the only sensible direction to head in (aside from SW, but we already decided to head anticlockwise later). SE is not a sensible direction to head in, because of the risk of a dead end.

 

[champinoman]

I have to agree with LP with that analysis. I don't like the fact we are wasting 0.5 of a turn of movement but when we consider the risk analysis its better to accept that 0.5 with the knowledge that we wont run into a dead end.

Of course there is a chance of a dead end but I think it is less probable than the alternative.

 

[azzaman333]

You're completely misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Island chain map - Can get around either NE or SE.
Single central continent map - Can only get around NE, not SE.

Thus:

NE - Safe bet for passage regardless.
SE - Only works for an island chain map, otherwise a dead end, hence the RISK.

The risk of heading SE exists because we do not know what type of map we have yet. But heading NE should work regardless of the map type (unless we're in the middle of a huge lake, which there is no evidence for, and in any event, in which case SE wouldn't work either).

NE is the only sensible direction to head in (aside from SW, but we already decided to head anticlockwise later). SE is not a sensible direction to head in, because of the risk of a dead end.

That runs on the assumption that we're in the north. We have no idea whether we actually are.

No matter which way we go, we will uncover valuable information. Why waste the half-turn on a hunch that we're in the north and there's a pangaea to our south?

 

[Lord Parkin]

That runs on the assumption that we're in the north. We have no idea whether we actually are.

No matter which way we go, we will uncover valuable information. Why waste the half-turn on a hunch that we're in the north and there's a pangaea to our south?

Because there's strong evidence we're in the north (land visible below and to the east of us), whereas there's no evidence we're in the south (which would require a really weird contortion of land to the north and west of us to work, something like a "picture frame" of land surrounding islands in the middle). So let's go with the way the evidence is pointing, that there's land visible to our south and east but not to our north and west, and thus that we're very likely above the equator in this map.

 

[Trystero]

The trees also suggest we're in the north. Notice the more temperate style trees visible to the south on the other island.

 

[AlphaShard]

The trees also suggest we're in the north. Notice the more temperate style trees visible to the south on the other island.

I was saying the same thing in post 763.

 

[BLubmuz]

The trees also suggest we're in the north. Notice the more temperate style trees visible to the south on the other island.

They also suggest the map is heavily edited. But i discover nothing.
If you notice, in the same "parallel" we have conifer and temperate forest.

If we suppose the conifer in our island are manually added to let us chop, we can suppose the temperate forest visible in the island (or whatever it is) SE is just generated by the script.

This can put us in a sort of "mediterranean latitude".
If this is the case, LP can probably be right.