Vel's Strategy Thread

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Jcg316
A balanced method with selective, intelligent chopping is going to out perform that same balanced method without chopping as it maintains higher total yield, significantly as there is nothing that even comes close to chops.

Agreed... when it comes to hammers. The jury is is out on whether maximizing early hammer production is optimal.

And further (and I *think* Jcg316 agrees), it is yet to be determined what the best use of early hammer production would in fact be, and whether that can be meaningfully generalized anyway.

[vee4473]

Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things. I was addressing the idea of putting the hammers into cities. Not whether chopping itself was a bad strategy...just that putting them into settlers may not be so powerful.

It is true that chopping will yield high hammer returns, but since where you put those chopped hammers matters as much regardless of how you got them, the lucky oportunity is only as good as where you decide to put the hammers.

Which means that while you are chopping your way to 4 cities, your neighbor could very well be chopping his way to 6 warriors, which would ruin your day as they march out of the black into your wonderfully new and undefended cities.

[Jcg316]

I've been saying numerous times about it not being about expansion but a general way to speed starts. My point overall is how effective chops are compared to not using them. For whatever reason you use them they can get you from five to over 10 turns in front of those who don't.

[vee4473]

right, this locust approach has pertained to city expansion up to this point. That is what I was referring to.

I think we are in agreement by the way!!

And chopping can get you many turns in front of those who dont use them, yes indeedy.

But, in front of them in what respect.

My whole point has been that there are so many aspects to what "getting ahead" means in this game, that when you say you are ahead, it may be in terms of what you are trying to achieve, all the while the AI is ahead in another way that can pull a victory out from under you.

While you thought you were ahead the whole time...and maybe you were, just not in the way that would have meant victory.

I only meant that to say that early chopping, or any chopping, is not game breaking by any means simply because having those shields doesn't automatically mean that you will use them correctly.

[Jcg316]

It seems more beneficial to hammer costs as they seem lower in total cost. For example 100 for a settler to 40 for a swordsmen. Even stonehenge is only 120.

Plus you can build units like catapults immediately with the tech instead of having to wait for them to finish. Problem is having to have iron for swordsmen or got lucky with the copper. Praetorians, or regular swords, on a balanced map gets around that and starts with mining and Jaguars don't need Iron but no mining.

Oracle might work and Stonehenge is easy but the 30s don't even really dent the pyramid cost. I think you don't get extra hammers with stone but not sure.

[Alexfrog]

Oracle might work and Stonehenge is easy but the 30s don't even really dent the pyramid cost. I think you don't get extra hammers with stone but not sure.

You do. You also get the industrious bonus.

I was getting 75 production per chop with these.

[Dog of Justice]

Early chopping is extremely powerful, regardless of whether it's SP or MP. 7.5 hammers/turn is HUGE at that stage of the game if you've got the forests to chop; that's only 8 turns to pay for itself. How long does it take a settler to pay for itself?

The more I think about it, the more I suspect you want to build as few settlers as you can get away with, since workers are such an insanely good deal in comparison.

Hmm, what civ has the best military unit that can be consistently built this early in the game?... Aztec Jaguars?... I'm pretty sure Barracks + 6 Jaguars will beat the crap out of 3 quick settlers...

[Theseus]

Yeah, I was just watching a movie, and the whole time, in the back of my head I heard this droning: chophammerultraearlyrush... chophammerultraearlyrush... chophammerultraearlyrush... chophammerultraearlyrush... chophammerultraearlyrush... chophammerultraearlyrush...

[Dactyl]

After reading the Dog of Justice entry, I decided to try something. I started up a Prince level game as the Incans and decided to find a civ and do a six-Quechaca rush. I found the Greeks and built five Quechaca units. I was going to chop to get the units, but I didn't have to because they were popping out every fifth turn.

Adding them to the Quechaca unit that had been exploring I attacked Athens which was defended by two archers and a warrior. I took the city, losing only two of the Quechaca units. The Greeks were out of the game, and it has given me a big leg up because of two factors, one, since it was the Greek capital, it had resources, horses and sheep, next to the city, and, two, it had already started to do some development.

It seems to me that this kind of rush can be effective, but perhaps risky. If I had failed to take the city, I would have been mired in a very early war, which would have impeded my development.

[Verrucosus]

In his opening post Vel has stated that the most important objective in 4000 BC is to get a second city. That is what the discussion has focused on. It seems that usually building a worker first and choprushing the settler is the fastest way to do it. You can compromise speed for health (no chopping) or safety (escorts first), but those are relatively minor points.

Is there someone who would argue that getting the second city is only a secondary objective and that stuff like research and religion could be important enough to justify delaying this first step of expansion? If so, that would be an interesting point of debate. If not, we should perhaps leave the refinement of choprushing for now. (I plan to see a movie tonight and I don't want to experience the "Theseus syndrome"!) After the second city is established there is clearly a case for balancing further expansion against other concerns. I'm particularly interested in how to combine it with terraforming, early culture and a more solid defense.

[Krill]

IF you have a really good capital, say, and more mediocre surrounding terrain, I don't see the point of rushing to expand into that subpar land. It is better, in an economic sense, to build an early worker, maybe even two, and get the capital up and running asap. Maybe try to nab a wonder or two...

[Verrucosus]

No objections about the worker, obviously, but a wonder before the first settler? Wouldn't that delay expansion too long even with a developed capital? I know Stonehenge is rather cheap, but its effect depends on the number of your cities. Besides, if the surrounding terrain is just mediocre, isn't it even more urgent to expand before the other civilizations limit your expansion to the immediate vicinity?

On that note, does anyone consider exploring such a priority as to research hunting and build scouts or is it something you just do with your initial warrior as you go along with other stuff?

[Krill]

Depends, as said. Imagine if it were the Oracle, and you were and industrious civ? 150 shields for the wonder, but you only need to com up with 100. That would be easy to build in less than 10 turns...and what if the free tech was Metal Casting? Cheap forges, very soon from the start...

And to be frank, I find it easy to just capture some AI cities if they settle right up against my border, so long as I know I have a metal, or horses...but then, if I don't have them, I would not value the start so highly, and would probably build an earlier settler anyway. That is why I said you would need a good start....

[EscapedGoat]

You do. You also get the industrious bonus. I was getting 75 production per chop with these.

Does anyone else here see how powerful this is?

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Alexfrog
You do. You also get the industrious bonus.

I was getting 75 production per chop with these.

Please explain.