Bronzeworking - Too important?

[Velociryx]

Just ran a test of Diadem's methodology on Monarch....got every wonder I remembered (d'oh! could have had Parthenon too, but just plain forgot it was there!).

One thing I have noticed is that this notion will need some adjustment if I am to work it into my style of play. First and foremost, we need another settler! BronzeWorking + Chop should do the trick nicely. Second, growth wasn't as bad as I had feared (at least not on raging barbs, cos I was able to snag 2 free barb cities, which was nice.

Still, I do see room for improvement here. I like the idea, and it's giving me a whole new series of goals (before, I only grabbed the wonders I wanted....now I can maybe grab them all...nice), but before I can really make use of it, I've got to mesh it with the rest of my playstyle.

-=Vel=-

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=1327_WonderBuilderTest0000.JPG

[Diadem]

*edit* This post is directed at blake. Maybe that wasn't very clear :P

I guess it all comes down to a fundamental difference in strategy.

You seem to like playing with large empires, with many cities. Individual cities do not matter to much for you, you have many, and thus you want civics that benefit large empiris.

My strategy is radically different. I build only a handful of cities. If I have 5 cities so I can build the national wonders I'm happy. I don't mind conquering a few more during wars, but I don't go out of my way to do it. In fact I often play OCC games. Only one city, now there's a challenge.

I have no small cities. I have no bad cities. Every city I have is big and strong. My cities run a lot of specialists, and often have super specialists as well. Representation is the perfect civic to me. +3 hapiness in my biggest cities usually means in *all* my cities. And the beaker bonus is huge. It can easily be a third of my total science output.

Why would I run Universal Suffrage? I do not own slow building cities. There's few things I do not build fast enough. The only thing I'd like to rushbuy are spaceship components, and those, you can't rushbuy. And Representation is just too immensely useful.

Free market is a very powerful civic for me. I don't easily give up a free traderoute per city. Since I only have big cities every traderoute yields quite a bit of commerce. I might give it up for State Property, if it was available, but going out of my way to research it while it's not clearly better than Free Market is just not worth it.

The bonus from Environmentalism though, that is huge. Every city suddenly has 6 health more. That usually equals 6 food more. Unless my city is limited by happiness, but environmentalism helps there also, since every forest now gives 1 happiness.

So for you the combination of Suffrage + State Property + Kremlin might work. But for me, it will not. I like the combination of Representation + Super Specialists + Oxford University way too much.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I quite agree that the essential differences are stylistic, however, given the state of the rest of the world out there (generally hostile), I find that MORE cities is superior to fewer, at least insofar as it gives me more land, more total population, and more places to build troops.

Like you, I don't (generally) build slow growing cities--I will on occassion, to lock down a few extra resources, or to close off terrain strategically, etc--but the fact that I have relatively more cities also gives me relatively more options (and it is increasingly easier to field larger armies than the AI opponents...which is important from a "walk softly and carry a big stick" perspective.

So the basis for my playing style revolves around claiming as much quality land as possible, as quickly as possible, on the thinking that I can do better with it than the AI in any case, and that land translates directly into power in every way it can be expressed in game terms.

For me to make use of the idea effectively, I see the need for a quick second settler, plonked down in a high food area. This second city can be used to drive the rest of the expansion needs for the empire, while the first falls into the pattern of wonderbuilding and becoming a GP pump.

The biggest weakness I found in the approach as it relates to my playing style is that I completed StoneHenge in the Capitol well before I had my library up....my first GP was a Prophet (and in fact, in the test I just ran, I got 4 Great People, none of them scientists, so no academy in the Capitol, and I could have really used that.

So...ways that I'll change/adapt this notion so that it better fits in with my playing style:

* Bronzeworking as the first course remains (chop second settler and relevant defenses early).

* Beeline to Writing (Library, and quick academy) (this may cause me to miss stonehenge, which is no great loss, IMO)

* Cherry pick techs from there, based on immediate worker needs and techs that unlock wonders.

* Evaluate two city sites, and pick the best one for the GP/Wonder pump, second city drives the rest of the expansion effort.

Sounds workable to me.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

It's not really so much that individual cities "don't matter much," more that there is a heightened sense of security and vastly more options that come with having more cities....I've seen AI civs keep pace with me, tech-wise, with only 5-7 cities, so I recognize that it's entirely possible to run a good game with a small empire, however....if something happens, and you lose one of those 5 cities, you've just lost 20% of your empire. That can be somewhat daunting to recover from. On the other hand, if you lose one of 20 cities, you barely feel it, and can easily recover from the loss, and come back fast and hard. That's safe. That's strong. I like safe and strong.

-=Vel=-

[AgentTBC]

Diadem - I just ran through a test game on Monarch (not even Emperor). The Oracle was completed by an AI civilization in 825 BC. That is roughly when I expect it to be completed (the 600BC-800BC range).

Following your strategy, you have roughly 115 turns to complete the following in your capital: Stonehenge (120 cost), Pyramids (450), Oracle (150), 2xSettlers (200), Worker (60), 2xWarrior(30).

Total cost = 1010. And your military is complete crap.

That means your capital city needs to AVERAGE 9 hammers per turn over those 115 turns. That's average, including the beginning when you have 1 population and no worker.

You're averaging 9 hammers per turn in your capital city for the first 100+ turns in every single game? Do you restart if you begin without a bunch of clear hills and cows and such?

9/hammers per turn without chopping is extremely high. And thats on Monarch. On Emperor you'd have to average even more.

[Diadem]

@ Velociryx -> That above post of mine was directed at Blake. You posted in between and I hadn't noticed that yet. Sorry for the confusion.

You're of course free to reply on it, but don't read things in it I wasn't saying. There are two difference discussions going on here. The first about bronze working, the second about State Property vs Lumbermills. My post was mainly a bout the second topic, not the first.


You can easily adapt my strategy to suit your purposes and style. If you want more settlers build more settlers. If you want to chop more, chop more.

But the main idea remains the same: Do not build your first settler too early. Wait for your city to grow a bit.

If you chop heavily you can probably produce more than 2 settlers in a shorter time, making this strategy even more efficient. I'm not against chopping. I'm just saying you shouldn't overdo it, you shouldn't undervalue your forests when they are in your fat cross. Forests outside your fat cross, they need to die, of course.

[Diadem]

Originally posted by AgentTBC
Diadem - I just ran through a test game on Monarch (not even Emperor). The Oracle was completed by an AI civilization in 825 BC. That is roughly when I expect it to be completed (the 600BC-800BC range).

Following your strategy, you have roughly 115 turns to complete the following in your capital: Stonehenge (120 cost), Pyramids (450), Oracle (150), 2xSettlers (200), Worker (60), 2xWarrior(30).

Total cost = 1010. And your military is complete crap.

Your military is crap, but you don't need to much early on. AI never declares that early, and barbs don't come with axemen until a bit later. I guess you need a bit more than 2x warrior though. 4 or so.

So that's 1050 hammers in 115 turns.

You're averaging 9 hammers per turn in your capital city for the first 100+ turns in every single game? Do you restart if you begin without a bunch of clear hills and cows and such?

Say we have 1 plains-cow (3/3), 1 grassland-wheat (4/0) and 2 plains-hills (4/0. That's 9 food and 12 hammers on a size 4 city. And you can usually reach size 5, to add another 3 hammers with a grassland-hill.

I'd say that's more than enough

[Velociryx]

That's the part I think I disagree with. The key to the strategy is not that you delayed building a settler.....the key is that you found a way to make the eventual settler build very efficient, turn-wise.

You choose to do that by way of letting the city grow to reasonable size first, and that will certainly get the job done....if you don't mind paying the price that your eventual second city gets founded dramatically later, has fewer game turns remaining in its lifespan, and gets a slower start on pumping out military units, culture, etc.

And, your strategy is geared to that approach. It works, as you undoubtedly know.

The sooner you GET a second (or in your case, since you're happy with five, the sooner you get a 3rd, 4th, and 5th city as well), the sooner they can become productive for you. If this can be accomplished 20-40 turns faster by way of pop-n-chop--or whatever--without sacrificing any wonders you really, truly want, then I would contend that the faster approach = the superior approach, and I've got an ever-growing body of game-evidence that supports the position.

Having said that, however, I'll freely admit that (given the starting position), there's something to be said for allowing a robust production center to develop early, as opposed to focusing completely on horizontal growth, and with that in mind, I'm continuing to experiment with finding a balance there.



-=Vel=-

[cal_01]

Blake: I seem to remember saying that exact same "going commie" quote to someone here!

Anyhow, to Vel and Di: I've been playtesting for a while now with civs on Random (to get a good test sample), and it seems to me that an early settler in the higher difficulties is very important because of a few reasons:

1. The AI will often get their first settler ahead of you.
2. The AI gets culture bonuses (I once had Louis/France -- creative -- lay down a city, and it expanded its cultural borders two turns after without any religion in the early game.)
3. Sans chopping, it's pretty much guaranteed that the AI will out-expand you.

For myself, I typically go Mysticism as my first tech (Haha, yes, bear with me here) and then go Mining-Bronze working. During this time, I would have gone Warrior, Stonehedge to wait for the city growth, then switch to Worker. After the Worker's completed, I should have Bronze Working. Then I switch back to Stonehenge and start chopping forests (first nearby forests, then outside my city borders) for a background settler (switch to settler during the chopping turns. yes, i realize it's debatable whether it's an exploit or not, but i see it as a game feature). This way, my city can grow to size four or five once my settler's done. Typically, I can get about two settlers out before Stonehenge is done.

Stonehenge is chosen because of the culture growth, which I feel is essential since I don't have to build missionaries/culture buildings to expand my borders.

As for my cities, I tend to place them offensively as to limit the land that an opposing civ can access. For example, if I'm playing continents, I'll build a city near some resources to choke off a route to the rest of the continent.

As for the techs after Bronze Working, it depends on the situation; I may go Wheel/Pottery/Writing or Agri/AH/Writing, but it really depends on the situation. OTOH, I may go after Priesthood if I see a nearby Stone resource.

I should add one more point: On a map with little to no forests, it may be better to skip Bronze Working until much later. A high food output with the upper tech tree may be more useful than going for production, since extra food helps both city growth and settler/worker production.

[Velociryx]

Good notes, Cal....quite different from my own starts, since I regard StoneHenge as generally unnecessary. With regards to bronze, even in situations with few trees, I find myself making for the tech early, because invariably you'll have high food specials, which can easily make slavery pay as an early game means of getting those precious ancient-era hammers.

The hallmark of my early game plans is formed around the basis that there are only four hundred odd turns IN the game. Total. That's it.

In order to make the most of what turns I've got, I need to get those cities up and functioning (even at the risk of hurting research short term), so they can have as much of those 400-odd turns of useful life as possible.

Everything I do in-game revolves around the fact that the clock is ticking from 4kbc.

That's why speed is of the essence, even at the expense of some growth in the short term. It's worth it, because if I get 3-4 extra cities out 20-40 turns faster than my rivals, I can turn that into some MASSIVE advantages.

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

Something about great prophets and great scientists. If I do decide to quickly build a wonder in my capital, I'll instead use another city to generate the first GS, be that by building a library or using caste system. This way the GS is still guaranteed.

[xxFlukexx]

Nothing wrong with Diadems strategy, but it depends on one thing, the resources. If you have good resources(a food and a good hammer resource like cows) then you can grow to size 4(happy limit on Emperor+) and be a production powerhouse.

Does it work everytime? Hell no, you want horses/cows in a preferablly plains square, and 2 plains hills(without forests) squares, and one food resource, that's a good many reloads to get that.

Can you nab all 3 wonders(stonehenge, pyramids, oracle) with one city? It'll be close, On Emperor completion of the Oracle is usually complete by 1240b.c. to 1000b.c. anything after that means you are lucky. You can do it and grab all three wonders, but after that, it'll be plain luck as how many decent cities you can get after that. Oh and yes I've seen the AI declare war by 1000 b.c. another lucky thing you want is not to be next to an aggressive AI if you are doing an exotic CS slingshot or one city build on Emperor+.

The problem with this on Emperor games like cal_101 says is that the AI will get their second and third city out before yours, even if you chop. And the AI is in love with settling around resources and if those resources are right next to your capital, that's fine with him and you have very few places to grow.

I agree with Diadem that people chop forests too much without thinking. On Emperor+ You start out with +1 healthy, just one. That means if you chop all your forests and start next to fresh water you will only have +3 healthy. If you found a 2nd or 3rd city not next to fresh water, that city won't be useful for a long time. Once you hit Pyramids or Hereditary rule you will be pushing your +healthy cap so those forests might be giving you another pop or three in cities. Then when we get to the period of State property and lumbermills railroads you are building factories and looking at coal plants and getting very near or already breaking your healty cap. I would rather run Free market and use coal plants and use forests with lumbermills than State Property and have healthy problems maybe not build coal plants. I love State Property, but compared to Free Market, it's a good hit to your economy, it's usually like lowering science by 10% and keeping the same income.

My general ruls is that if you have 2 forests in your fat cross, axe them, 3 forests is keepable, 5 forests is juuuuuust right(+2 healthy) Chop anything beyond the 5th forest. Of course all forests get axed in my capital to fuel early settler/wonder push, but beyond that, I like to save forests.

Lastly, there's an annoying part to forests that when someone attacks and puts something on there they gain +50% defense and it can be very difficult to root troops from forest tiles.

Although I must say, once you hit Emperor+, building too many cities early just absolutely kills you, the maintenace penalty seems super charged and I seem to get civic upkeep insanely fast without using any civics. I'll probably be doing what Diadem is doing soon as I just can't get a good base of cities comparable to the AI and not be completely behind in tech.

[AgentTBC]

I think Fluke nailed my caveat exactly. Either I get bad luck with my starting positions or other people reload until they get a very good starting position, because I only rarely get the kind of start that Diadem was talking about with things like plains/cows AND a grassland/wheat AND a couple of unforested grassland or plains hills.

More often I'll start with only one resource in range, or if more than one resourse the second will be a fishing resource that takes a lot of time to get active.

I can get Stonehenge/Pyramids/Oracle but it takes a bunch of chopping to do it unless I reload the starting position over and over. I try to play everything but absolutely disasters like the one yesterday where my capital city started in the middle of jungle and had a green face from pop 1.

[Diadem]

Perhaps I am presenting my arguments a bit unclearly.

My main argument is that many people built a settler way too early. By doing this they really hurt their early hammer production, and they need to chop heavily to make up for it.

This, of course, does not mean that chopping is bad. If you both delay on building a settler and chop, you'll have even more production, of course.

But, since you don't have to chop as heavily with my strategy, you can think about other choices. Such as saving your forests for later use, which has advantages as well.

When all is said and done, the best strategy is usually to chop a bit, but also save some forests. But that also depends on your starting position. I play Great Plains maps often. If you start in the plains area, you simply won't have any forests to chop. You'll have to make due without it.

I recently played an OCC game where I started in the middle of a huge forest. OCC means only one city, so I did not have to worry about places for further expansion. I saved all the forests in my fat cross, but I chopped away every single tree outside it that I could find. Great fun

[cal_01]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good notes, Cal....quite different from my own starts, since I regard StoneHenge as generally unnecessary. With regards to bronze, even in situations with few trees, I find myself making for the tech early, because invariably you'll have high food specials, which can easily make slavery pay as an early game means of getting those precious ancient-era hammers.

The hallmark of my early game plans is formed around the basis that there are only four hundred odd turns IN the game. Total. That's it.

In order to make the most of what turns I've got, I need to get those cities up and functioning (even at the risk of hurting research short term), so they can have as much of those 400-odd turns of useful life as possible.

Everything I do in-game revolves around the fact that the clock is ticking from 4kbc.

That's why speed is of the essence, even at the expense of some growth in the short term. It's worth it, because if I get 3-4 extra cities out 20-40 turns faster than my rivals, I can turn that into some MASSIVE advantages.

-=Vel=-

Good point concerning Slavery and high-food spots; I typically use that once my horizontal growth has stabilized for libraries and other buildings.

However, there's a small problem with this: often times, I need a Granary to run the high-food-slavery engine efficiently. True, I can sacrifice some pop to rush it, but I guess that's some food for thought since you need more investment to make it work.

Though, there's something funny about all this: one pop typically gives you two warriors! Zerg rush!

I've been thinking about this the other day: how about focusing on early techs until Construction, then go heavy on production to start a conquest? It's kind of similar to my old beeline for Impact Rovers in SMAC/X.