Tweet
The Devel's Workshop III - Surviving & Thriving with Sub-Par Starts
Welcome to the continuing "Vel's Workshop" series of threads, where the goal of these discussions is to focus in on ONE SPECIFIC game aspect at a time, and outline step-by-step, illustrated examples of how to deal with/master that aspect. The hope is that by focusing in on one thing in particular, it can be mastered more easily, and then later combined with other elements to begin creating a cohesive whole, in terms of YOUR strategy.
Methodology
If you're new to the series, here's the long and the short of how it works. One or more save games are posted at some point during the workshop, and all participants play on the same board, and with the same stated goals. The games are set up using the following paramaters unless otherwise indicated: Epic, Continents, Random everything else, all victory conditions enabled, Monarch level. Civs too, are randomly drawn, unless a particular workshop intends to focus on a specific civ, trait, or UU, in which case, the appropriate Civ would be selected, and everything else left random. Accompanying the save is a step by step, illustrated guide for how the author (that'd be me) got through the particular workshop. Use this as a guide if you need it, download the save, and give it a go. Post your results here....what your experiences were...what you did differently, how it all worked out, etc. And the resulting discussions will help everybody!
This workshop will focus on sub-par starts, and finding some other way of dealing with them, rather than exiting to the main menu and starting again.
While that is a 100% effective method of dealing with a sub-standard opening, let's see if we can find some other alternatives.
Before we start tho, we need to define exactly what a sub-standard start is, and as you'll soon see, opinions apparently differ on this subject....
Defining the Term
So what makes a sub-par start?
I asked for help in generating poor maps, and I got several responses. Having looked carefully at a number of these games, I've come to the conclusions that opinions vary markedly about precisely what constitutes a sub-par opening. Some of the starts have utterly fantastic places for founding the capitol, and then wide expanses of wretched terrain, such that expansion would be problematic.
Others have relatively few resources at the capitol site, making for a slower start, but then, there's always the promise of better terrain elsewhere.
Two basic categories then:
* Type I - Few, if any specials & no river at the starting site (but the promise of better land elsewhere)
* Type II - Enough specials to make the starting city site attractive, but as far as the eye can see BEYOND that (after the city is founded), wickedly bad terrain to contend with.
In my opinion, a "Type I" start is far and away the worst of these to contend with. Even if the terrain immediately surrounding the capitol is awful, if the capitol itself has plenty to recommend it, I would not count it as such a bad start. Unusual, perhaps, but not truly awful, and definately not something that could not be overcome.
Speaking in very broad, general terms, there are two basic ways to "get around" a sub-par start, and they differ, depending on the TYPE of sub-standard start you have.
For example, the best approach to take when dealing with a "Type II" opening scenario is to plan for vertical growth. The city site itself isn't so bad, but it may take some time to scout out a decent second city site. This works especially well if you find yourself alone on a landmass. You can afford to take more time to select a second city site. If you find yourself with near neighbors, and you have a "Type II" sub-standard start, then vertical growth could be dangerous for you, as you may find yourself "cut off" from whatever good land might be out there. In which case, either rapid expansion (and a possible capitol bounce later), or early aggression (see below) would fix the problem. The point is though, that with a "Type II" start, you've still got options.
This is typically not the case with "Type I" starts. There are few options, because the land simply won't support anything slick or fancy. For most "Type I" starts, there is an inverse relationship between the quality and condition of your starting position and the level of aggression you must present to your near rivals.
That is to say, if your starting position is rich and wonderful (Devel I, for example), then you have many more options, including any number of peaceful ones (CS - Slingshot). On the other hand, if your starting position is leaning toward the bad end of the spectrum, then increasingly early aggression is the answer to your woes, with the necessity OF that aggression becoming greater and greater, the worse your opening position actually is.
If it sounds counter-intuitive, that's because it is, but it's also true. If you have little or nothing, then the quickest, most efficient way to get something better is not to try and make your marginal land pay dividends it wasn't designed to, but to use it to put together the best attack force you can, and go take someone else's milk and honey.
Thus, sub-par starts are fraught with a great deal more danger and uncertainty in the early game than other types of starts.
So before we even start playing this time, let's take a look at a few opening shots, and see if we can start identifying what they are, and what the implications of them might be.
I'm turning this into a poll, so that readers of the series can vote on which game we tackle first (or if some games get expelled from consideration). Just review the opening pics and cast your vote!
-=Vel=-
Welcome to the continuing "Vel's Workshop" series of threads, where the goal of these discussions is to focus in on ONE SPECIFIC game aspect at a time, and outline step-by-step, illustrated examples of how to deal with/master that aspect. The hope is that by focusing in on one thing in particular, it can be mastered more easily, and then later combined with other elements to begin creating a cohesive whole, in terms of YOUR strategy.
Methodology
If you're new to the series, here's the long and the short of how it works. One or more save games are posted at some point during the workshop, and all participants play on the same board, and with the same stated goals. The games are set up using the following paramaters unless otherwise indicated: Epic, Continents, Random everything else, all victory conditions enabled, Monarch level. Civs too, are randomly drawn, unless a particular workshop intends to focus on a specific civ, trait, or UU, in which case, the appropriate Civ would be selected, and everything else left random. Accompanying the save is a step by step, illustrated guide for how the author (that'd be me) got through the particular workshop. Use this as a guide if you need it, download the save, and give it a go. Post your results here....what your experiences were...what you did differently, how it all worked out, etc. And the resulting discussions will help everybody!
This workshop will focus on sub-par starts, and finding some other way of dealing with them, rather than exiting to the main menu and starting again.
While that is a 100% effective method of dealing with a sub-standard opening, let's see if we can find some other alternatives.
Before we start tho, we need to define exactly what a sub-standard start is, and as you'll soon see, opinions apparently differ on this subject....
Defining the Term
So what makes a sub-par start?
I asked for help in generating poor maps, and I got several responses. Having looked carefully at a number of these games, I've come to the conclusions that opinions vary markedly about precisely what constitutes a sub-par opening. Some of the starts have utterly fantastic places for founding the capitol, and then wide expanses of wretched terrain, such that expansion would be problematic.
Others have relatively few resources at the capitol site, making for a slower start, but then, there's always the promise of better terrain elsewhere.
Two basic categories then:
* Type I - Few, if any specials & no river at the starting site (but the promise of better land elsewhere)
* Type II - Enough specials to make the starting city site attractive, but as far as the eye can see BEYOND that (after the city is founded), wickedly bad terrain to contend with.
In my opinion, a "Type I" start is far and away the worst of these to contend with. Even if the terrain immediately surrounding the capitol is awful, if the capitol itself has plenty to recommend it, I would not count it as such a bad start. Unusual, perhaps, but not truly awful, and definately not something that could not be overcome.
Speaking in very broad, general terms, there are two basic ways to "get around" a sub-par start, and they differ, depending on the TYPE of sub-standard start you have.
For example, the best approach to take when dealing with a "Type II" opening scenario is to plan for vertical growth. The city site itself isn't so bad, but it may take some time to scout out a decent second city site. This works especially well if you find yourself alone on a landmass. You can afford to take more time to select a second city site. If you find yourself with near neighbors, and you have a "Type II" sub-standard start, then vertical growth could be dangerous for you, as you may find yourself "cut off" from whatever good land might be out there. In which case, either rapid expansion (and a possible capitol bounce later), or early aggression (see below) would fix the problem. The point is though, that with a "Type II" start, you've still got options.
This is typically not the case with "Type I" starts. There are few options, because the land simply won't support anything slick or fancy. For most "Type I" starts, there is an inverse relationship between the quality and condition of your starting position and the level of aggression you must present to your near rivals.
That is to say, if your starting position is rich and wonderful (Devel I, for example), then you have many more options, including any number of peaceful ones (CS - Slingshot). On the other hand, if your starting position is leaning toward the bad end of the spectrum, then increasingly early aggression is the answer to your woes, with the necessity OF that aggression becoming greater and greater, the worse your opening position actually is.
If it sounds counter-intuitive, that's because it is, but it's also true. If you have little or nothing, then the quickest, most efficient way to get something better is not to try and make your marginal land pay dividends it wasn't designed to, but to use it to put together the best attack force you can, and go take someone else's milk and honey.
Thus, sub-par starts are fraught with a great deal more danger and uncertainty in the early game than other types of starts.
So before we even start playing this time, let's take a look at a few opening shots, and see if we can start identifying what they are, and what the implications of them might be.
I'm turning this into a poll, so that readers of the series can vote on which game we tackle first (or if some games get expelled from consideration). Just review the opening pics and cast your vote!
-=Vel=-
Comment