How far would you walk for Whale?

[Peaster]

From some recent posts -

a) How far should I walk for a whale?
b) To stop a riot, use an Elvis or an Elephant?
c) To mine hills or to settle?

If you are willing to accept some assumptions, and a little math, here are some answers . But if combat formulas, for example, put you to sleep , then please read no further.

The assumptions are - that you mainly want a lot of shields per turn from your cities, with beakers counting less and you don't care much about city size. And the values are about

1 Shield = 1.2 Beakers = 2 gold = 1.4 arrow = 0.4 turns of labor (by 1 settler or ele)

a) 20 turns! I assume the terrain nearby is just grass, so Option 1) is to settle now, and build a new settler in about 20 more turns, which will also settle nearby. Option 2) is to walk 20 turns to the whale, and settle. With a whale and perhaps a forest, the new city will produce every 10 turns, matching the 2 cities of Option 1). I see some objections coming -

- 1) may require extra militia for defense/peace.
- 2) may cause more corruption/waste.
- 1) saves the distant whale for future settlers.

Conclusion: It seems unlikely that a settler couldn't find a good square closer than 20 turns. But in general, yes - I'd walk a long way for a good special.

b) Elvis costs one city square. I'll assume this is a forest, adding two shields per turn to the city. That's 0.8 ele/turn of labor, so it the cheaper option. A phalanx would be cheaper than the Elvis. If the Elvis square is ocean (102), then the cost is 30 per cent less, about the same as a phalanx or horseman.

Conclusion: Base your decision on whether the unit is needed elsewhere, but do not build ele's in advance just to use them as militia. Prefer warriors/Elvi's/horse in that order.

c) Mining hills takes 10 turns IIRC, which is a cost of 10/0.4 = 25 shields. Assume mines will add about 1.5s/t to production. Using interest theory (assuming 5 per cent/t) the future production is worth about 12 s right now, and not worth the labor costs (these should also be reduced about 30 per cent though).

Conclusion: don't mine hills, unless

- you don't want more cities or
- the current cities are truly pathetic (eg in swamps) or
- the settler needs over 8 turns to find other work

Warning - this is by an ICSer, playing for early conquest on Deity. Results may vary. Constructive criticism is preferred over silence.

[Elephant]

But silence is golden - which should equal 1/2 a shield?

Anyway, I brake at the assumption: "...you mainly want a lot of shields per turn from your cities, with beakers counting less...". I go for trade arrows over shields, knowing I can allocate them to beakers and gold, which I can use to buy shields. I can also use it to pacify citizens with luxuries, if need be. I've had cities with only 1 shield to build with per turn; the labor force is focused on trade, which ups my trade routes as well. I can also store gold in the treasury for later use, which I cannot do with shields.

As to the original subject, I'd go 8-10 turns to start my first capital with a Whale. Two would be even nicer, but not worth doubling the walk. I would not walk a settler that far to get another - early on I want the cities close to the capital to minimize corruption, allow quick settling and mutual defense. Also allows faster shipment of early caravans back to the wonder building city. Later on I'll spread out more, especially once Democracy eliminates worries about corruption.

[rah]

Beakers are king. Almost any trade special will work.
But it's nice seeing a whale on your opening screen.

I'm will to search a few extra turns to find a trade special.

Getting out of despotism as quick as possible is quite advantagous against real opponents.

[Peaster]

Elephant (Apolyton) = ElephantU (CivFanatics)?

Well, I am glad you don't really believe that stuff about silence being golden. Blank forums would be pretty boring.

@rah and ele: I know you guys are masters of civ2 and I respect your opinions a lot, but I need to be convinced about this trade arrow business. DaveV laid out ICS so clearly that I can easily get a handle on it, and am pretty confident that a shield is worth more than an arrow, at least in that system. Also the designers let us divide trade arrows into beakers and gold with the implicit assumption that 1 gold is worth roughly 1 beaker. So, it seems a shield should be worth more than either a gold or a beaker.

Another point - if you are going to use gold for rush-building, you are going to spend about 2.5 gold per shield. I understand your point (ele) about gold being easier to spend than shields, though.

Can anyone explain why a would-be conqueror needs trade arrows so much? I understand the need for advances such as monarchy, trade etc, but they seem to come soon enough to me.

@rah - unfortunately I know nothing about real opponents. Maybe I'll try MP some day, though.

@ele - I think the guy asking about the whale
was assuming that it was visible and that all the nearby terrain was pretty bland, with no specials. Which is not too realistic. For practical play, I agree more with your 8-10 turn rule of thumb than with my own answer.

[rjmatsleepers]

Let's assume we are talking about your first city.

Moving your settler for at least five turns to found on a site with access to a whale seems to me to be a no brainer. If your current site is as bland as you suggest, it will produce one beaker per turn and hence take ten turns to discover your first technology. The whale site will produce two beakers per turn and hence if you can get there in five turns or less you break even by the discovery of your first tech and after that your in profit.

But you could be moving through turn after turn of plains, hills, mountains, jungle, swamp, etc. How do you know about this whale? Are you assuming the use of black clicking and hut-finder? I spit on such black arts.

In a real game, I'd actually settle on the first spot I could find with enough food to make it a viable site and discover the whale later.

Perhaps we are talking about founding a city on explored territory later in the game. Then it depends on the game circumstances. I don't play an ICS strategy, so I'm not founding a a city for the sake of founding a city. 20 turns is too far to make a station city. If I'm looking for production, forests give me 3 shields once I build a railroad and I can grow the city by celebration, so 20 turns for a shield producing city also seems a bit too far to go. Perhaps it's a colony city. I'd probably travel 20 turns for a whale site on a different continent, although I'd like it to be close to another civ so that I could take a van with me for trade purposes.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Peaster]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers

Perhaps we are talking about founding a city on explored territory later in the game.
RJM at Sleeper's

That's more of what I had in mind, really. You have a few cities, already in the best locations, and a horseman has found a whale, maybe 10-12 squares away. Do you go? And what seems more important to me is - how do you make an informed decision? My bland-grassland hypothesis makes the problem a bit unrealistic, but relatively simple to solve. If there is a river (etc) 4 squares away, then that could change the answer, but the same method can be used to make the decision.

You like beakers, too? I played for EL last night, just to see how EL players might think. I guess I can see the need for many beakers even in the opening, for EL.

But not just for monarchy. For example, getting it 20 per cent earlier (say 6 turns) might increase production by 25 per cent for that period. But getting 20 per cent more shields/growth in the 30 turns before monarchy would help more (at least for conquest, which I understand better).

Any other early conquest players out there? I studied the games of DaveV (very carefully) and Zenon (not as much so) who were the fastest 2 conquests in the August tournament. I didn't notice any trade routes. So, I am skeptical that EC players need them.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Mined hills

I seldom mine anything in the very early game - I'll do it later when I have a few cities down, just before switching to republic. And extra shields are often more useful than an extra city at that point, especially when unrest and corruption are factors. IMO.

However...
I am one of the devotees of the mined city square trick (for the uninitiated: put a settler on a hill/mountain, start mining. Before the mine is complete, use a second settler to found a city on the same tile. The result, when the mine is finished, will be a roaded/irrigated and mined tile - some call this a cheat). If the sweet spot of a 3 or 4 special group is a hill, I'll often start a mine and found there. In the early game, this city can produce a lot of shields at size 1 and 2, great for the construction of early wonders or Caravans.

I am still waiting for the elusive rivered hill in the middle of a 4-special sweet spot.

As for the other questions of this thread - I'd walk a long way looking for whales, or a good sweet spot. The advantage of walking is that it isn't truly wasted time - you can gather NONs, cash or techs with no fear of barbarians. Again IMO.

Elephant as martial law unit? No thanks. I seldom build Elephants to leave in my cities. A horseman will do well against most early barbarian units, and produces the same martial law effect, of course.

[Zenon]

I like playing both early landing and early conquest. But my opening strategy is not very different in both games until I have built MPE.

If I am sure I want to play EL I would walk in the beginning only to make sure I don´t found my city and spoil the SSC site. Otherwise the terrain would have to be pretty bad to make me walk more than 2 or 3 turns in the dark.

I also don´t base my opening on a more trade based or more shield based strategy. If I have the choice I want to have both grassland and forest close to my cities. Hills are no favorites, they take to long to mine.

Generally I use what specials I find. Trade or shields, both are valuable and it doesn´t make sense to walk for a long time, just to find a different kind of special. I think this is what most players do.

What is most important for me in both games: to expand quickly, get Monarchy at the latest before I found my 5th city, have as many specials in my city limits as possible. Trade specials often are in the limits of several cities and help each city with the delivery bonus in an EL game.

Once the build up phase is complete there is of cause a huge difference. The EL Game is trade based and the conquest is shield based only.

Walking 10 turns for a whale? Only if the terrain is very bad or if the city placement has an additional strategic reason. I want to have my cities close together to avoid corruption and allow early roads to connect them.

Zenon

[Peaster]

@6000 - The mined city trick sounds pretty cool. I never heard of that.

@zenon - I have studied your August conquest game a little more. I like your opening style. It doesn't seem far from ICS to me. I rarely build the Pyramids or Mike's, but it worked well for you, so I will give that a try.

About the whale, we have a discussion going on in the GOTM 45 spoiler thread, which seems related. There is a choice in that map of settling in a swamp (near a whale) or irrigating the swamp first, which takes 15 turns. From testing (and from the math) I think irrigating first is slow but better.

I agree that beakers and specials are important. But which is better (for conquest) with a size 2 city - a forest or a fish ? I'd ignore the food aspect, and pick the forest, but maybe I'm alone on that.

[Bloody Monk]

If this is a Conquest game and you absolutely must settle in a swamp, mining may be a better choice than irrigating. I'd rather have the shields (from the resulting forest).

As to the primary question, I agree with Zenon. Only if there was nothing in between (very unlikely) would I delay things by walking a dozen turns for one whale. If it was a multiple special site or a strategic chokepoint, that might tip the decision. But, and in general, I think building quicker and closer is better.

There is also the situation that rah has often mentioned in a small rock game -v- other humans where staking out your territory early and filling in the gap later is the way to go. But, that is not a worry against the AI: here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Monk

[rjmatsleepers]

Re: Walking for whales

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

As for the other questions of this thread - I'd walk a long way looking for whales, or a good sweet spot. The advantage of walking is that it isn't truly wasted time - you can gather NONs, cash or techs with no fear of barbarians. Again IMO.

True, but under the strict early landing rules, there is no hut tipping, so walking your settler a long distance has a much higher opportunity cost.

RJM at Sleeper's

[solo]

I am another that believes it's better to found the initial cities earlier rather than search for whales or other elusive specials. Great sites can be found by exploring units, and used later when expanding. Meanwhile, progress is being made towards Monarchy and early city growth.

[rah]

But trade specials will get you to Monarchy considerably quicker, which can make expansion quicker. In an SP game 4 to 8 extra turns is nothing, but in MP it's a big advantage. So wandering a few turns can be beneficial, unless you don't find anything

[Bloody Monk]

Yes, rah, a few turns in the beginning is often more than made up for by finding a special, but later in the game, which seemed to be the focus of the question, I think the calculus comes up differently, especially a dozen turns.

Echoing what solo said about dropping the first cities quickly--especially for Early Landing games-- having the SSC further down the list is a very good thing. Since most of your research will have been completed by the SSC, many beakers, from the next few cities,that would have been wasted had the SSC been the first city, are now carried over for the next turn. So finding that 4-special site later in the game is not a bad deal at all.

Monk

[solo]

It mostly depends on the starting position. If there is:

1) Some grassland or a food special
2) Accessible river or ocean tiles for trade arrows

I will build a connecting road (for an extra arrow or 2) and then found two cities immediately afterwards. They will usually be size two by the time a choice site might be found. My new citizens can be put on additional trade producing tiles. The total arrows will usually be the same or exceed a trade special site founded later and this assumes that wandering does locate a good trade special in enough time to make it worth the trip.

If the initial site lacks any potential for quick growth or some trade, then I'll wander, too, but in most cases there is enough usuable terrain to get things going earlier.