Will you switch to the Big-and-Small map?

[uncarved block]

OK, went ahead and looked at four of the ALC saves from Peter, Act 2. Just some quick impressions on the state of that world.

AD 370: Most of the AIs had two, maybe three, Workers, and were still expanding like mad. Sisiutil's land doesn't look that much more developed-- but then he was running a SE. If the general rule is "work as few undeveloped tiles as possible", the AI is breaking it, in spades.

AD 670 (turn 218): Worker situation not much better. Mao has three Workers, and unless it's some new animation, one of them is fortified on a Flood Plain. Shaka has three Workers, and one of them is headed off to nab some Horses up the coast. Again, if the ratio is one worker per city, Shaka is running one for every two, or less. Over-expansion is kicking in too; there's a bunch of AI island cities that are working undeveloped tiles, and look like they will be for quite some time.

AD 1090 (turn 254): Assuming those three Spies in Chinese territory are from Mao- and I didn't see much of a Chinese navy- he has three of them on his isolated island, and is building two more. He has five Workers.

AD 1340 (turn 288): All the AIs finally have what looks to me to be the "normal" number of Workers, and those island cities are getting developed. Problem is, the game is already well out of reach, tech wise. Tokugawa has a couple cities that could have been monsters, if all the Jungle around them had been cleared a hundred turns earlier. Almost every AI has a couple cities with undeveloped Grasslands, some of them around population 8-10 sized cities, well capable of working them. Even on Noble in Warlords, I got used to seeing Cottages on every speck of land, whether it made sense or not, so this is quite a change. (If Monarch has always been this way, let me know.)

The first impression, and this is subject to change, is that the AI has slowed down tech wise because it is emphasizing expansion in terms of cities ahead of expansion in terms of improved tiles. Tack on distance maintenance, espionage spending, and an occasional increase in unit maintenance, and it's no surprise the AI (with a few notable exceptions) is having troubles making it through the second third of the tech tree with any ease.

At least that's what I see. Could very well be wrong.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

InvisibleStalke, I've never seen that in one of my games-- is that something in Solver's patch?

Did a little poking around in Sisiutil's latest ALC, to have an example most folks can check right at hand. Gandhi was a tech leader, but he still had tons of undeveloped tiles in the heartland, especially around the city of Vijayananagara. Indian Workers, when the saves were made, tended to be building for Hammers and not commerce-- and there seemed to be less Workers than usual, but that could be because of war with Toku. Forgot to check the other AIs- do that tomorrow, maybe- but if the AI is prioritizing military (and Spies) over Workers, that may help explain a bit.

I'm not running Solver's patch yet - although it looks really good. I have been pillaged myself by the AI and thought that might be an explanation. Lack of workers seems to be the answer from your previous patch though. I remember how effectively the Warlords AI swarmed workers into a new city - it wasn't unusual to see 10 workers bringing up an instant city.

Maybe the AIs just need to build 2/3 the troops and 3x the workers?

I suspect its not consistent though - jungle starts always massively slowed down the AI in warlords too. And in my current game, the AI's seem to be doing a reasonable job of staying up with me in tech. The overall tech pace is slower, but probably only have a similar lead to what I would have in Warlords. I have democracy on Saladin who has Military Science on me. The others are only 3-4 techs behind.

 

[Tomek]

I like to play using the map that is most common on these strategy forums. In warlords that was usually continents, with some pangaea mixed in I guess. Toward the end it seemed like people were leaning more towards fractal.

But now with BtS, I'm curious if people will be switching to the Big and Small map as the map they usually play on??? If so, I will switch to it as well when posting games here and stuff.

One big "pro" for the Big and Small map is that it is a map with large continents that most players start on and then there are a bunch of islands. This means that there is land beyond "two big blobs" to settle (better than continents), but doesn't completely lack for land/production/etc. (better than islands). The biggest "pro" for it I think is that it gives the opportunity for colonies to really factor in, in a way that I don't think they would/could on continents and pangaea maps. I think you would rarely see colonies on these maps, but on Big and Small you are pretty much guaranteed to get some colonies!

What will you do?

hi Futurehermit,

big and small is the thing I like most. Continent or Earthlike maps are for me not very interesting because of two reasons:
1) shore line and deployment land on the map is predictible and boring
2) it decreases the role of the navy

My favourite map is archipelago snaky continents option, but big and small I like most

rgds & rspcts