Exploit... :)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

As an experiment with the hut theories, I wandered in the early game without founding until my NONs had located 3 huts. Ended turn.

Next turn, founded London, tipped 3 huts, got 3 Advanced Tribes. In 3400 BC. Too bad they're all so far away and corruption rich. Still, a moment.

Anyone else have one to share?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Augh, 4th AT. Now I have happiness issues!

Serves me right for getting greedy.

Serves me double right for playing Civ on the phone while drinking.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Something weird is going on. 1400 BC, I have 9 cities, and only founded 2 of them

[atomant]

good luck or bad luck.....?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

A bit of both.

Good luck in that I have been able to build lots of 'vans - there hasn't been the need to make the early compromise between expansion and caravan building.

Bad luck in that the cities are, of course, badly placed. And I was dealing with some barbarians, corruption and unhappiness. And despite having stockpiled a dozen caravans, the AI is nowhere in sight. And due to the corruption, I haven't been picking up new techs fast enough to keep pace with my WoW building capabilities.

/me shrugs

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Case in point: The Sioux just beat me to Philosophy, and that never happens.

475 BC and only 13 techs

[atomant]

in a similar situation, I would rather tip the huts before founding cities, non-units are good...especially horsies

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Oh, I'm ok with NONs - got 4 before founding London and the other 3 cities in 3400.

It's an odd game. Two AIs started building Adam Smith in the BC years - while still in Despotism. Three AIs have 4+ white techs that I can't get, just because I have nothing to swap. And despite all that, I'm way up on the powergraph and getting all the wonders I really want (HG, Mikes, Marco Polo).

I have the 4000 BC save if anyone's intrigued - alas, it's ToT

[Bloody Monk]

Hi Six,

13 Techs: Off-path jam-up from Huts?? Just wondering.

It would be interesting to know what the difference in total science (beakers) --Trade Screen-- was between your original city and after the four ATs.

If your 4 ATs had so much corruption as to be nearly worthless, perhaps burning down the cities to 'build settler' would have been a better choice. A twenty turn walkabout for the fresh settlers wouldn't have been any worse. If they came out supported, you would have known early on that you were all alone. Supported settlers would not be an attractive prospect either, so if that was the case, you probably wouldn't burn them all down or walk them very far.

(Might make for an interesting poll: Do you (always, sometimes, rarely, never) 'build settler' with unwanted, badly placed ATs??)

Quite an interesting situation, but it sounds like you are doing well in the game...and it will only get better as time rolls forward.

(BTW--If you fill in all the space with new cities, you will have created a monster, especially if you practice safe-micromanagement. Don't go there; it won't be fun.)

Monk

[atomant]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Hi Six,

13 Techs: Off-path jam-up from Huts?? Just wondering.

It would be interesting to know what the difference in total science (beakers) --Trade Screen-- was between your original city and after the four ATs.

If your 4 ATs had so much corruption as to be nearly worthless, perhaps burning down the cities to 'build settler' would have been a better choice. A twenty turn walkabout for the fresh settlers wouldn't have been any worse. If they came out supported, you would have known early on that you were all alone. Supported settlers would not be an attractive prospect either, so if that was the case, you probably wouldn't burn them all down or walk them very far.

(Might make for an interesting poll: Do you (always, sometimes, rarely, never) 'build settler' with unwanted, badly placed ATs??)

Quite an interesting situation, but it sounds like you are doing well in the game...and it will only get better as time rolls forward.

(BTW--If you fill in all the space with new cities, you will have created a monster, especially if you practice safe-micromanagement. Don't go there; it won't be fun.)

Monk

good call monk, if you are not gonna disband the cities, fill in the gaps... Focus on the size of your civ, steal the techs you want.... things ought to balance out... sooner or later...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
Hi Six,

13 Techs: Off-path jam-up from Huts?? Just wondering.

Hi Monk,

A bit of a jam-up, but nothing major. I was much more judicious in my hut tipping after founding (this game was started as a hut theory experiment - for the uninitiated, recall that if you tip huts in the same turn as you found your capital, the game engine thinks there are no cities on the continent, but >0 in the world - and your advanced tribe chances are much higher).

I think I got Map Making in among my pre-founding huts, and Pottery was somewhere in the early mix.

It would be interesting to know what the difference in total science (beakers) --Trade Screen-- was between your original city and after the four ATs.

London was founded on a rivered forest, with rivered fruit, buffalo, and a hidden silk in the radius. So I was getting okay - not great, but okay - trade there. The main problem was that my second starting settler couldn't find a decent site near London, so settler #2 wound up with a whales/buffalo site fairly far off. Consequently my second self-selected city wasn't able to quickly send a settler to London to improve terrain. Fruit + forest = 4 sheafs in despotism. London grew slowly as a result - I didn't want to build a settler there due to the food shortage, and after Monarchy, I wound up working the unimproved buffalo for a time in order to get HG + Colossus in London.

All my ATs were producing at least one beaker initially. London was producing 3, IIRC.

If your 4 ATs had so much corruption as to be nearly worthless, perhaps burning down the cities to 'build settler' would have been a better choice. A twenty turn walkabout for the fresh settlers wouldn't have been any worse. If they came out supported, you would have known early on that you were all alone. Supported settlers would not be an attractive prospect either, so if that was the case, you probably wouldn't burn them all down or walk them very far.

I think - but I may be mistaken - that disbanded cities yield NON Settlers?

In any event, there wasn't the cash.

(Might make for an interesting poll: Do you (always, sometimes, rarely, never) 'build settler' with unwanted, badly placed ATs??)

Sometimes. Not usually in the early game - A third city when you have 2 down already is just too much of a boon to pass up. Even if badly situated. My early game is usually a rush to get 4-5 cities down, and a freebie means I start building Caravans that much sooner.

(BTW--If you fill in all the space with new cities, you will have created a monster, especially if you practice safe-micromanagement. Don't go there; it won't be fun.)
Monk

That's what I've done My ATs built lots of Settlers and 'Vans... after everything was roaded together and the gaps filled in, things worked out well!

@atomant - MPE helped the tech situation a lot. This monster is on a gigamap, so tech theft has been difficult, logistically. The only AI nearby is the Chinese, and even they were a Trireme "leap of faith" away.

[Straybow]

Do you (always, sometimes, rarely, never) 'build settler' with unwanted, badly placed ATs??

Rarely. I know I've done it a couple times but have only one distinct memory of a very distant city with nothing but plains and one buffalo. Inc-rushed a Settler and walked a half dozen tiles to a sweet spot.

But then, another time I was playing on a very large (105x95) map of Eurasia. Had started as the Greeks and found an AT in roughly the position of Herat, Afghanistan. Decided to stick it out. I had to irrigate from a river several tiles away, through hills, etc.

[Bloody Monk]

I think - but I may be mistaken - that disbanded cities yield NON Settlers?

Perhaps I have misremembered. However, I believe all settlers from HUTS are NON; but, when you 'build Settler' the nearest city rule governs. Therefore, if there are no other Civs nearby, then one of your cities will support the new Settler.

I found this out the hard way once (once) when I failed to notice it was supported and put the new Settler to work mining and the supporting city went to food deficit and disbanded the Settler a few turns later.

Sounds like things are working out very nicely in your game.

Monk

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk


Perhaps I have misremembered. However, I believe all settlers from HUTS are NON; but, when you 'build Settler' the nearest city rule governs. Therefore, if there are no other Civs nearby, then one of your cities will support the new Settler.

I found this out the hard way once (once) when I failed to notice it was supported and put the new Settler to work mining and the supporting city went to food deficit and disbanded the Settler a few turns later.

Sounds like things are working out very nicely in your game.

Monk

I just tested - you're right, disbanded cities produce supported Settlers. I guess that goes to show that I seldom disband - and when I do, it's usually an AT on a faraway island, 1 tile away from a sweet spot.

In any event - that makes disbanding cities in the very early game even more problematic.

Yup yup... the game's going well.

[rah]

If you open the hut with a non unit, there's no way to know but if you open it with an attached unit, always check prior to see what city it's closest too. If it's closest to an AI city then if you get a free tribe you know it's safe to disband the city since it will me a non-settler.