Lizzy's rise to greatness

[Dinner]

I too would like to see more defense of our homeland.

[mzprox]

I think we should try to collect the xp from the wolf, but we should avoid the fight with the lion. Sure we would get a promotion if we win, but tere is a good chance to lose the warrior or making him sit in place for 4-5 turns. I'd move him SW and then sending back him west exploring south a bit.
Right now thereis only one defender near our cities, I placed him to be able to reach both cities in two steps, still risky if we can't spot an approaching rival warrior in time.

some info from demographic: our production is quite good, gnp average, one civ is still at 6000 pop, that is a single pop2 city. no idea what would they be doing.. we have a pop 4 city and built 2 workers, 2 warriors and a settler so far

[Dinner]

Wild animals around both so stick to the defensive terrain. Maybe the hill south for one and the forest north for the other?

[Hercules]

Maybe Belle E or S. I would be keen to go to that hill E/SE..

We should be able to withstand a lion attack on a hill. If the lion moves towards Belle we should still be able to find a hill defence.

Apollo I am not sure. Either N or SW. We should be able to withstand a wolf attack.

[OzzyKP]

Something is wrong with the map. Instead of trying to understand how the formulas work i made several test games (emperor, torodial) and checked how different map size affect maintenance. The result is that smaller maps have bigger maintenance (which is kinda logical) BUT: as it turned out our map settings in regard of city maintenance is between tiny and duel size.. (in tiny the cost would be 1,67, duel 1,82).
We have "only" one gold difference right now, but basically this means that maintenance costs will be higher in the game about +30%. Those civs which have the means to reduce it gain big advantage.

Have you tried making the map torroidial? I believe that increases the maintenance as well.

[mzprox]

I moved the warriors as you suggested. Found fur and wine, neaither is within our reach unfortunately for some time. Also a wolf and a lion.

[Dinner]

They look good.

[Hercules]

I agree with warrior moves.

[Calanthian]

Apollo should go NW, and then he can either fortify or turn back.







and Bellerophon SE

[mzprox]

I looked back at the test maps (t43 and t50) and in particular our second city. In one the distance from palace cost was 1.41 and in another the distance from palace cost was 1.69. I didn't find a 1.13 and in both cases the maps were Huge and Emperor.

Yes there is a difference but maybe not as large as we thought.


Edit: I did find 1.13 in the test game t36 at post 57. Interesting this variation.

the bigger the city the bigger the maintenance, my numbers come from pop1 cities.

[mzprox]

t33

just some shots:


Seems Belrophon has reached a sea east. Capital started to work on 3rd worker while the second is on her way to aurora. I played many different games, but there were no alternative plan for this.
After the worker we should build a settlers and buld city3. I agree with Cal that it should be a cottage city while city 4 would grab the horses. Now seeing the high maintenance cost I think we shoul delay the 4th city by 6 more turns, this would allow us to strengthen our economy.
In my last test game which i liked the capital grew to pop6 after the second settler, every new pop could immediately start working on a +3 comerce tile, so basically for 6 tuns we would increase our income considerably ( the settlers for the horse city was produced in Aurora at pop4 so the capital could finish a library asap)
we have some turns to decide on this as in the next 10 or so turns the development is the same in the different paths.

[mzprox]

Something is wrong with the map. Instead of trying to understand how the formulas work i made several test games (emperor, torodial) and checked how different map size affect maintenance. The result is that smaller maps have bigger maintenance (which is kinda logical) BUT: as it turned out our map settings in regard of city maintenance is between tiny and duel size.. (in tiny the cost would be 1,67, duel 1,82).
We have "only" one gold difference right now, but basically this means that maintenance costs will be higher in the game about +30%. Those civs which have the means to reduce it gain big advantage.

[Calanthian]

As long as we have not met anyone that risk is very, very small.

Who sends a force of a couple units in a random direction in the hope to destroy somebody he has not even met?
Besides: before turn 60 we have Bronze Working and horses..

Thats why we should not let our science rate drop and should choose the cottages over production.

Agree, but the horse city should be closely after that.

[Dinner]

Even anyone comes at us early (like with a chariot rush) then we're ****ed because we have no bronze, no iron, and no horses.

[mzprox]

The decision on where and when to plant cities is not simply commerce vs production, but if we choose production we must be sure that we can use it for useful stuff.
Right now it seems that if we go fo the horse city then we could build chariots sooner, then more settlers and then we need more workers and more units to defend ourselves and we must build these because there are hardly anything else to build. and all these just increase the maintenance cost slowing our science even more. And I think we should not allow that. There are too many usefull technology which would allow us to use our production better.. we need them all and as soon as possible. bronzeworking for chopping, mathematics for better chopping/hammam, code of lawas (courthouses), currency (more tade, turning production into wealth), a religion/org religion civic, monarchy(wine and civic), calendar(for the spice), etc.
Thats why we should not let our science rate drop and should choose the cottages over production.