Peaster vs. SlowThinker Fast PBEM duel

[SlowThinker]

88 AD

I resigned. :

I must admit Peaster is the best player in the world.

I am ready to start to analyze the game but please be patient, I will be slow.
I want also edit some parts of my log.

[Peaster]

Thank you for the game, ST But it cannot tell us who is the better player, because I had so much luck with huts and battles.

I will bring my log up to date, and start looking at your saves + logs. I wonder if we could do some analysis in an organized way...? Maybe we could start with general observations and then discuss the 1AD to 10AD period in more detail, etc.

Aside from hut luck, I thought the major factor in the game was HG, which allowed the Zulus to grow much bigger than the Americans could. This put pressure on you to attack, but I think the defender has an advantage in MP.... the attacker is likely to lose more units, and the defender can always build more cities. I am not really sure about this, but it seemed true in this game.

I thought you played better than me in several ways. Building cities on hills for defense and on mts for strategic reasons. Choosing maps + math for boats + catapults, because our map was too rocky for "normal" units like elephants. Grabbing control of the inland seas. Etc

Of course, anyone interested in the game is welcome to join the discussion now.

[SlowThinker]

But it cannot tell us who is the better player, because I had so much luck with huts and battles.

Please admit you are the champion of the world.

I will bring my log up to date, and start looking at your saves + logs. I wonder if we could do some analysis in an organized way...? Maybe we could start with general observations and then discuss the 1AD to 10AD period in more detail

OK. My log is finished up to about 55 AD, so we can go on.
But remember I will answer slowly.

thought you played better than me in several ways. Building cities on hills for defense and on mts for strategic reasons. Choosing maps + math for boats + catapults, because our map was too rocky for "normal" units like elephants. Grabbing control of the inland seas. Etc

... and letting coastal cities empty after a warning

but I think the defender has an advantage in MP.... the attacker is likely to lose more units, and the defender can always build more cities. I am not really sure about this, but it seemed true in this game.

I am not sure about that ...
But it is hard to say from our game because we both played not ideally - you had no patrols where you should have and a synchronization of my attack wasn't good.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

Please admit you are the champion of the world.

OK... I am the Champion! I will be ready to defend my title after our analysis and maybe a little break.

But remember I will answer slowly.

I am not in a hurry. But if I get ahead, you can post blank messages to fill in later. I was about to post my ideas about Fast - PBEMs in my log, but maybe this is a better place...

This was an enjoyable game and I think ST's Fast-PBEM idea is an improvement over traditional PBEMs. It moves faster, and either player can quit without causing much trouble. IMO it could be better with 3rd party help - eg a referee, or subs. Our agreement to only allow huts more than 8 squares from the starting sites was OK, but not enough to minimize luck, so maybe there should be no huts, or some limit on AT/nomads. We could consider including a couple of AI civs.

I thought HG became too important this time. Maybe the games should be played at Emperor or King level. Or maybe we should adjust the costs of HG, the Oracle, and/or temples a little.

[StuporMan]

Good Game Gentlemen!

It was fun watching your game, I hope this is not the last.

StuporMan

[SlowThinker]

It was? The most interesting part starts now

I hope too it is not the last one and more people will start playing.

[Peaster]

Thanks, Stuporman. I think it will not be the last one. I guess any interested players can post here or start a new thread. I will probably want to play again in about a month.

[Peaster]

POST-MORTEM, from 1AD to 10AD:

IMO the starting positions are pretty equal. I slightly prefer the American sites, but the Zulus get to go first. Later, I noticed a few huts were exactly 8 squares from my starting sites (thus not useable), so I assume ST had slightly better access to huts. But I have not yet gone into cheat mode to actually check this out.

Among the four starting sites, I prefer 1) Hradec, 2) Zimbabwe, 3) Ulundi and then 4) Cheb [...for long-term chances. Zimbabwe is not so great in the short term]. The Americans have 2 whales to 1, and Hradec is a bit less exposed to invasion by sea than Zimbabwe. The Zulus probably have a few more forests within easy reach, which may start to pay off around 15-20AD.

Disbanding my warrior worked out well; I had a small advantage after 6AD, when we both had 3 cities. I had 5 extra shields (counting ST's extra warrior as 10 shields), and 7 extra foods. ST had 7 more gold, and about 2 more beakers. According to my Civ2 value system, I am about 18 gold ahead at this point. I am probably a little behind in exploration, which is not included in my system.

By 10AD, the Americans have passed me in the major stats. I think this is mainly because of their better specials and because my forests aren't being used yet (at size one, I prefer grassland). But I will be first to make a 4th city, so it is not clear who is ahead.

BTW - I think the first 10 moves are usually the most important ones. I am much more willing to micro-manage during this phase, trying for a 5 or 10 per cent edge in growth/etc.

ST - Please post a reply (even a blank one, if you don't have much time).

[SlowThinker]

ST - Please post a reply (even a blank one, if you don't have much time).

What is your idea? That we will edit and re-edit our two posts and so concentrace our debate about the start here?

IMO the starting positions are pretty equal. I slightly prefer the American sites

Huh! I must found a reason why I lost...

Of course Hradec itself (whales) is better than Zimbabwe (Silk), +1 food is great, but the surrounding area is better around Zimbabwe. Hradec area lacks forests and so peroduction of Settlers is slow. There are some forests SW but especially for the 2nd city I have no chance to discover them because they are not visible from the river system. I found the 2nd city on Wheat which is not bad, but Monarchy was easily accessible and with Monarchy Wheat and its food lost its value. (The main value of food is not city growth but that it allows to build Settler after getting to size 2).
But to compare if the whales of Hradec surpass the forests and rivers around Zimbabwe needs a detailed analysis.

I think Ulundi is better than Cheb because it can expand. I got my weaker position near you stronger one and this causes I will be hardly able to expand from Cheb. (Therefore I decided to build on hills). The Cheb area will be good only to harrass the Zimbabwe area.

After the beginning I estimated the disbanding of the warrior gave you almost no advantage. I would weigh it a bit better if I knew that Monarchy (and so easier unit support) was so close.
But I will try to do more precise computations now (not exactly now).

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

What is your idea? That we will edit and re-edit our two posts and so concentrace our debate about the start here?

Yes. If I go on to discuss 10AD to 20AD, you can still come back and edit your previous post, to say more about 1AD to 10AD. So, the whole discussion will be in some kind of order.

Huh! I must found a reason why I lost...

What do you think of my reasons (less luck + HG) ?

I agree with most of your comments about the sites, but I guess any difference in values of the starting positions was small, less than one hut.

a) The main value of food is not city growth but that it allows to build Settler after getting to size 2.

b) After the beginning I estimated the disbanding of the warrior gave you almost no advantage.

c) But I will try to do more precise computations now (not exactly now).

a) Yes, in the beginning, when you mainly want more cities. But later on, size 2 cities get an extra worker, which can often double shield production (eg replace 1 grass by 2 forests). So, I often break the rules of ICS and leave a productive city at size 2 for a long time... if I have enough other cities to use for growth.

But my remarks do not appy well to Kladno in 10AD, which has no good source of shields IIRC. Actually, our whole map seems pretty low on forests... maybe something to do with the climate or age.

b) I had just finished studying a similar situation with Grigor and RJM in the Theory Contest thread, and was pretty sure that disbanding was the right decision. Maybe it was not a major factor in our game, but a 5 per cent edge in 6AD should lead to a 5 per cent edge in 60AD, etc ... maybe an extra city.

c) I am eager to see how your calculations go. IMO such work is worth the effort.

[SlowThinker]

If I go on to discuss 10AD to 20AD, you can still come back and edit your previous post, to say more about 1AD to 10AD. So, the whole discussion will be in some kind of order.

I am not sure ... also we won't see that a post were edited ...
Maybe you could be patient and wait until we finish one part?

I want to notice that for you the disbanding was natural because your warrior managed to find a good spot for next city.
I forgot the possibility to disband but still I would not decide to do it probably. Reason is I saw no good spot for my 2nd city and so I was tempted to explore in place of disbanding.

What do you think of my reasons (less luck + HG) ?

You managed to build the HG because you were ahead already.
I didn't study the hut outcomes but any nomad may be a good help...

Yes, in the beginning, when you mainly want more cities. But later on, size 2 cities get an extra worker, which can often double shield production (eg replace 1 grass by 2 forests). So, I often break the rules of ICS and leave a productive city at size 2 for a long time... if I have enough other cities to use for growth.

Do you want to say you prefer food over shields??
Maybe you wouldn't leave cities of size 2 if you had enough of forest and Peat around. I want to say city usually stays on size 2 because there is more food than shields and you have no shields to build settlers in time...
Replace 1 grass by 2 forests? But you should work the forest probably in size-1 city (unless the food box is close to be full).

[Peaster]

ST "Why did I lose?"
P "What can we learn from this game?"

Luck makes these questions pretty hard to answer. I doubt you made any major mistakes in the first 50 turns that caused your defeat. I haven't analyzed very far yet, but MAYBE you should have

* built cities faster (fewer warriors?)
* invaded the Intombe area with the bribed Archer + your Dip ASAP to cause trouble.
* aimed for fewer but stronger attacks (more vets ? bigger stacks ?)
* stolen my tech

IMO the main points of the game are that I outgrew you (mainly from hut luck), that having HG is almost enough to win the game, and that most of your attacks failed - which was also partly bad luck. Maybe we can decide later how much so.

I don't have easy answers about food vs shields. In choosing city sites, I want both. I value shields a bit more, but want to add at least 2 food per turn while at size 1, to get to size 2 quickly. I see food as a good way to increase shield production. Compared to other players, I probably do not value arrows very highly (though I am happy to settle near gold).

I almost never have workers of a size 1 city placed on forests. IIRC I hardly even used my silk special until approx 10AD, preferring grass (with river + shield). So, in that particular situation, I chose 1 food over 1 shield + 1 arrow.

In DaveV's theory of ICS, the growing size 1 cities
produce military units (and the workers go for food), while the size 2's make settlers (workers go for shields). I follow that advice, but I also try to make settlers mostly from cities with high food production, and military units from cities with high shield production.

For example, Naples and Ippus are stable high - production size 2 cities in my 85AD save, NOT making settlers.

[SlowThinker]

invaded the Intombe area with the bribed Archer + your Dip ASAP to cause trouble.

I agree.
Although I managed to bribe the archer, it weakened my economy - I needed 85g for the bribing + another shields + gold for the diplomat.
And yes, I should visit your cities with dip+archer likely. I was content that my weaker part was safe against your stronger one, but my cities were on hills. I was afraid I would lose both units easily in your strong area, but I could move on hills and mountains only.

built cities faster (fewer warriors?)

I will analyze that but I guess this was OK.

stolen my tech

It would be effective only
-if you had some important tech (horseriding were important because I would get PT easily but you had other 5 techs, so my chance to get horses were small. I thought about a possibility to send 4-5 dips but I rejected it)
-if my tech cost would be over 100 beakers (the dip costs 75 gold and I have to move it towards your city)

aimed for fewer but stronger attacks (more vets ? bigger stacks ?)

I made a mistake in my first attack.

[Peaster]

So, where were we....? I have had many PC problems lately, but can continue the analysis if anyone is still interested. Are you still looking at the first 10 years, ST?

IIRC I was looking at the 2nd decade, and decided that I popped 3 huts with average results, and that ST had not popped any yet (can that be right?). Also, (IIRC) the Zulus were starting to catch up in production, maybe because they had more decent terrain to work with (though fewer whales). It seemed fairly balanced though, at 20AD.

Maybe if you point out all the mistakes in my memory of the game, I will take another look, and try to write something a little smarter .

[SlowThinker]

There is a lot of thinking I have to do about the start, but I have no time now...