Pre-1000AD landing

[La Fayette]

samson and solo
Thank you to both of you for discussing this in public.
I am not one of those who dream of beating you , but find it very interesting reading you.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[Edward]

samson,

In another thread someone (maybe you) suggested putting the Colossus in a different city than the SSC and setting up trade routes between the two. I think DaveV regularly uses internal trade at least in the early game. One of the biggest advantages to internal trade is that caravans aren't in too much danger since they only need to travel within your borders. Also the traveling distance is usually less and is all roaded. The second advantage in your particular case is that you're sure to be able to build your two cities up much more quickly (arrow-wise) than the AI. It would definitely be superior to a foreign trade if you only look at permanent trade route arrows (which you'd get in both of your super cities). You'd probably do very well on the single-time coin and beaker bonuses as well.

If you try for the "roads between cities" bonus, I believe some research was done in this area. The road must run along a very specific path. It's not enough for the two cities to merely be connected by roads. The "correct" path might be the one determined by the "go to" command. Or the "correct" path might be the side of a parallelogram (go purely diagonally - then purely horizontally or vertically). I can't remember which.

You and Solo have had some incredible results. Congratulations.

[solo]

samson,

Not much time today, but will ponder your questions.

Briefly, I like it when you have new ideas. Super Trade City could be the compromise we need.

More tomorrow.

somehow this appeared in front of your post. ?????

[samson]

Solo,

Great stuff. Especially liked your explanation of the overlapped helpers.
Good point about Darwin's, too, if we get one needed advance from letting
the AI build it, we're better off that way.

A question.
What map size is best for early landing?

Small map?

Pros: Cheaper research - the 20+ minimum tech cost is 19X
whereas on medium map it's 24X and on large map it's 30X. That's a lot
of beakers saved on small map. Earlier contact with other civs,
including the Purple (our key civ).
Cons: Fewer huts, lower trade bonuses, fewer good sites for cities.

Large map has the opposite advantages and disadvantages.
Medium is a compromise.

An idea.
What about two Super Cities? One is the SSC with COPES and INU and four
trade specials, population capped at size 12, maybe 16. It will pump out
a 1000+ per turn beakers by the end game at 90% science with no Colossus.
The other would be a Super Trade City. Here we build the COLOSSUS and SHAKESPEARE
on heavily rivered land with ocean access and a couple trade specials
if can get them. This city we boom up to max population, working all 21
squares. If we get 2 decent specials and 13 river/ocean squares, this joint
could have 120+ trade, while the big C is active and before automobile.
After superhighways, it goes to 160 maybe. At 90% science and a library/university
it pumps out 250-300 beakers. In addition, if we send our own caravans to this town
we get better trade routes than from size8 foreign cities. Plus, the first
caravans between the STC and SSC establish double trade routes benefitting
both cities. What about bonuses? Does the super-trade compensate for not
being foreign? What if we have roads between our cities and the STC?
If this would get us high enough bonuses, we could use a small map to
reduce beaker cost.

The lack of COLOSSUS in a size 12 SSC means a loss of 13 arrows and about 72 beakers.
But we gain 21 arrows in the STC directly from COLOSSUS and, oh let's say,
+2 arrows per trade route in each city. That's a net loss in the SSC of 7 arrows,
40 beakers. But we gain back about 50 beakers in the STC. What do you think?

samson

[hbourj]

1) To Samson :
I apologize to you, Samson. I feel I am a very little CIV2 player.
My knowdledge of this game is low, and I am not able to play so precizely as you do.

2) To Samson and Solo : I agree and joint myself to La Fayette, about thank you, for discussing this in public. It is a big mine of informations !

3) To La Fayette : Ces américains, ils nous épateront toujours !

[hbourj]

1) To Samson :
I apologize to you, Samson. I feel I am a very little CIV2 player.
My knowdledge of this game is low, and I am not able to play so precizely as you do.

2) To Samson and Solo : I agree and joint myself to La Fayette, about thank you, for discussing this in public. It is a big mine of informations !

3) To La Fayette : Ces américains, ils nous épateront toujours !

[Scouse Gits]

Just a brief point from a comparative amateur ...
If you have major trading going on particularly with your twin cities as discussed above there is a very serious possibility of entering the two tech/turn zone - if this can be achieved it will take the kind of fiendish nanomanagement that yourselves and people like Rib have proven themselves so adept at to take the most advantage from this ...

Go for it guys!

[solo]

Edward,

Great to see others joining in the discussion with very good ideas. I know there has been a lot of research done about trade and how to maximize the benefits. Some have derived formulas to predict the gold payoffs. However, my experiments with internal trade have always been disappointing, but maybe I am doing something wrong. In general, I’ve noticed that the best payoffs always seem to come from demanded cargos to distant cities on separate continents, with city size and connecting roads being less of a factor. The continuing trade bonus is also, on average, higher. Meeting demand and receiving that bonus is much more likely, too, with so many recipients to choose from. I believe the payoffs are good enough to justify the risk. I have had my share of caravans hacked to death by the Mongols, but have found that delivering a caravan by boat to a coastal AI city is relatively risk-free and can be done quickly. For inland deliveries, a timely gift of technology often assures the safe passage of a caravan to the targeted AI city. Letting the AI build Colossus, and trading with that city can be very profitable, too, payoffs being about twice the usual amount.


samson,

MAPS:

I prefer a medium map over a small one, the main reason being the extra supply of huts. Look at the games with the earliest landings, and check how much of a factor huts were. Just in your own game, suppose you had only gotten 4 techs from huts instead of the 8 you did get. That would have meant at least 8 more turns learning techs, and a launch date of 1020 instead of 880. What a difference! I’m only accounting for a few techs here. Less gold, plus fewer free units and advanced tribes would have added at least a few more turns, and you might have been hard pressed to land before 1100.

(We try to do our best, LaFayette and hbourj, but too much of the credit goes to “les petite cabanes“, where all we have to do is “frappon” and exclaim “abracadabrant!“)

Check out some of the results in OCC #22 on a giga map, where huts permitted several pre-1000 AD landings, and these were after the 20 turns used to make spaceships. Granted, Paul started us with a few spies and transports, but it was the huge supply of huts that made the difference. The advantage of many quickly accessible huts was taken to the extreme on my large river map in OCC #23, which yielded my 14 BC landing, starting with just 2 settlers. With 2 extra spies to start the game, Ribannah did it before 500 BC! When the two of us tried the same map with huts removed, landings were much later, Ribannah doing the best at around 1200 AD. I came in 6 turns later in the 1300’s.

Other reasons for picking one size over another have hardly as much impact, except maybe the need to quickly find the key civ. If it is the last one found, this could take too long on a large map. Game-generated large maps have more water than anything else, too, so the proportional increase in huts is not as much as it is when going from small to medium. So my choice is medium size maps.

SUPER TRADE CITY:

The more I consider this idea, the more I like it. If 300 beakers are possible, then many 1-turn advances are likely by city science alone, and caravans can be delivered in bunches for the occasional delight of 2 advances in 1 turn. I was trying for the same 300 beakers, with 6 or 7 helper cities supplying about 50 beakers each, figuring a size 8 limit would minimize the overhead, but this may be even more efficient. Let me list some reasons I can think of for and against your STC idea:

against:

1) In your game you could devote all resources to the SSC. Will it be possible to get the STC to size 21 with all improvements in time to get 300 beakers and 1-turn advances? Without the chance of 1-turn advances, a STC may not be worth the trouble. Can it be done in time and will it do the job? If it comes up 50 beakers short, it might just as well be 250. This is the crux.

2) More cities producing caravans allows more choice in commodities being made for trade, and also supplies more caravans. When the SSC and/or STC can only produce food and/or crummy commodities, will this jeopardize trade? Can they produce enough caravans to cover all needs?

3) Is there enough of a gold/beaker payoff to make internal trade worthwhile? I haven’t done much at all, so it’s hard for me to make an estimate. I feel dubious about this though. Distance between the cities and being on different continents are a bigger factors than whether they are connected by roads, I think. I think a small island site would generate better trade payoffs and benefit the most with a harbor. It’s also easier to build boats than making a long road.

4) If foreign trade just boosts the AI learning curve by 1 more useful advance each per game, this would mean a few more free techs, chopping many years off a landing date. Their potential, albeit dim, should be fully fertilized and exploited.

5) An almost ideal SSC is needed, and an excellent, well-positioned STC site on the same map will be hard to find and develop quickly. A lucky start on a lucky map is even more critical for success.

for:

1) The STC idea solves the problem of happiness control in a neat way. This alone may justify its use over helper cities. If it is well-positioned, all boats can be assigned to it as well, once Shakespeare’s Theater is built. ST is on the tech path and also saves 2 camels vs. Michaelangelo’s. Even the person playing the game is made happier, after considering all these benefits.

2) 300 beakers are more efficiently achieved, as only one set of scientific improvements are required, more than justifying the cost of an aqueduct, sewer, etc.

3) A smaller, but highly efficient SSC is another benefit. All of the science is not concentrated in one spot, and there is greater flexibility.

4) Smaller space contractors derived from advanced tribes can still function as effectively as they did before.

While we are looking for ways to maximize speed through the tech tree, it’s well worth considering that free techs are always a better deal than the ability to acquire techs a little faster. The more free techs with the start, the better. This really hit home for me when comparing my 1056 game to yours and with my earlier 776 game, where I started with 6 free techs instead of 2. Free techs also come from huts and from the AI through trade. I believe that any technique or choice that maximizes possibilities in these areas are of more consequence for early landings than ideas used to maximize science. Time is the biggest problem, and free techs are instantaneous. In this game luck plays as much as a role as skill, and when going for early landings you have to grub for every legitimate advantage the game provides, by maximizing the possibility of lucky events, and exploiting good luck for all its worth.

[samson]

Solo,

A lot to respond to here and I don't have much time, but I'll start anyway.

The STC

I've played with this a little. A size21 city with the Colossus and Shakes, 2 decent trade specials, some river and ocean can definitely crank out 300+ beakers after Superhighways. Furthermore, it can sustain that even after Colossus is obsoleted by Flight if a Research Lab is built.

I have a model game running now with an SSC and STC in the late stage of development. The SSC, size15 with a temple and colosseum, at 90% science puts out 950 beakers. The STC (post Colossus) is at 310 beakers.
One advantage to this is clear. In my game, end stage, my SSC was at 1100+ beakers but I was always falling just short of getting one turn advances -- so I was running at about 60% science and stockpiling cash. By splitting into two super cities we gain some extra beakers, but more importantly we can run at 90% science. If we fall short one turn, the STC picks up the advance on the next turn and the 900+ beakers of the SSC are banked for the next advance.
If nothing else, we can get 2 advances every three turns, eliminating the end-game inefficiency of the SSC.

As for developing the STC. First priority would still be the SSC and its Science Wonders - Cope's and the INU. But the caravans to build Colossus and Shakes can simply be routed to the STC when the time comes to build them. Each city would be on its own time table, with some attempt to coordinate the WeLove! days.

The city site for the STC does not have to be ideal. In fact a penisular location with 14 ocean squares and a couple of whales might work just fine -- no rivers to bridge to get the trade arrows up. If we can get extra citizens for scientists great, but we can get to 300 beakers without them. I think we can find a good STC site in almost any game. It could even be a small offshore island and would give a great trade bonus.

I also tested the domestic trading aspect of this idea. It doesn't work well. A caravan from the SSC (size12) to the STC (size21) paid less and produced a lower trade route than the same caravan delivered to a size3 foreign city 4 squares away! Yikes.
Could be different if the STC was offshore though.

So anyway, the trade aspect may not work that well, but the idea of two super cities for science purposes still looks promising.

We still would need to use helper cities to produce caravans for wonders and trade.


Map size.

I am playing a small map game now. The lower cost of advances is significant and may compensate for the lack of huts. Not sure yet. The game is now at 2000BC and I've got 23 techs, compared with 21 techs at the same point in the game posted above -- only 1 of those techs came from a hut and 2 from trade. I am, however, extremely strapped for cash and almost out of places to look for huts. I'll try to finish the game in the next day or so and compare it with the medium map game.

That's all I have time for now. Thanks to others who commented, and I will respond to more points later.

samson

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by samson

An idea.
What about two Super Cities? One is the SSC with COPES and INU and four
trade specials, population capped at size 12, maybe 16. It will pump out
a 1000+ per turn beakers by the end game at 90% science with no Colossus.
The other would be a Super Trade City. Here we build the COLOSSUS and SHAKESPEARE
on heavily rivered land with ocean access and a couple trade specials
if can get them. This city we boom up to max population, working all 21
squares.. What do you think?

samson

I have tried the 2 Super Cities in several games a few months ago. Wasn't dreaming of records, so my experience is perhaps no use to you.
Nevertheless, here are a few points:
Main problem was locating the Trade City (either growing one of the helper cities close to the SSC or building the STC on a faraway island, trying to get the benefits of early 2 continents trade).
Choice #1 provided quite safe and easy growth of the STC, but rather disappointing trade bonuses compared with average foreign trade.
Choice #2 demonstrated that a fat city is not easy to grow faraway from the capital in Monarchy, but things went much better after switching to commie or demo (I don't remember precisely what happened under Rep when I chose it).
Safety from enemy attacks was achieved by choosing 'one square' islands (easy to grow with a whale in the radius).
Perhaps I give this another try since you remind me of it, and let you know if I notice something of interest.
Thanks again to both of you.

[solo]

samson,

Duhhhh! I stand corrected! With two cities, 2 advances every 3 turns works, if 1 advance per turn is just out of reach.

From your latest post it sounds like using a SSC and STC is the way to go, and by concentrating on science you seem to be doing much better than a game focusing more on trade. I've never seen very successful games before, where trade did not play a key role, and to tell you the truth, it irks me just a little to see how well you are doing by almost ignoring it! But I go with what works, and so far this looks great!

In your current game I'm worried that you will not have enough caravans and cash to build a timely rocket, but will have to await your result to see what happens. I predict somewhere a bit over 500 AD, unless some disaster befalls.

I guess credit for the STC goes to Edward, where the idea was first mentioned in this thread, and of course to samson, who immediately realized the potential and took off with it. Nice work!

I think the thing to do now is work in a better way (I say hopefully) to make trade a key player in the overall strategy.


LaFayette,

Thanks for your input about STC's, especially about the differences between a local and faraway site. Your results, and samson's game so far, suggest that local, internal trade is not the answer. The nearby small island internal trade idea should be tried, as should an idea of trade with the AI, while keeping the 2 super cities close together. This may supply the extra cash needed to finance the spaceship and to sustain 1 turn advances using 2 super cities.

Anyone else out there with experience with 2 super cities? Especially the trade aspect?

[samson]

Solo,

A point of clarification.
My current game was not a test of the two Super Cities idea. It was a small map game, to see if the research speed vs. techs from huts made a difference. I got Space Flight in 540 AD, 5 turns ahead of the game posted above. Only two techs came from huts, maybe 6 from trading. The research time was a big difference. But I ended up with fewer helper cities and the SSC was underdeveloped at only 14 pop. I built APOLLO but have no chance of bettering my previous landing, since few caravans remain. There just isn't enough production and cash. Only got one ally. I guess medium map is the way to go. More huts, more space for us and for the AI to develop.

The test I did with an STC and SSC was just a model, cheated up from an old game. Those beaker numbers will be valid though. I'm going to try the Super Cities idea in my next game -- not for an early landing , but just to get experience developing 2 super cities and to check out the trade and science.

I agree that trade should play a part in the overall strategy -- to generate cash and to get more 1 turn advances. Still, 500AD is going to be very tough. It means SF by 360AD at the latest and a lot of freights that don't go out for trade. Or a heck of a lot of cash.

samson

[solo]

samson,

I still like those beaker numbers, and the fact that two cities can probably get the 1-turn advances.

Sounds like you were just testing how well the science would progress, and Space Flight by 540 mostly by science sounds very encouraging.

Did you try leapfrogging any techs, and if so, how did that go?

all,

I'm looking for a suitable start to test out many of the ideas above, and appeal to others if they have any candidates they would care to forward to me at:

pmh@mediaone.net

My preferences are all standard options, but am mainly looking for a start having:

1) 4 or more starting techs leading to or with Monarchy and Trade.

2) A SSC site having 4 trade specials, preferably including 2 gold and two others high in trade arrows, too, such as spice, silk and wine.

3) Another site nearby as close in quality as possible to the SSC site, with access to the ocean.

That should be easy enough! Thanks in advance.

[Scouse Gits]

Starting Sites

There are some 15 starts on our website - home page button above - that might be of interest and I know that SG2 has a colossal archive of other 'interesting' 4000BC situations - good luck ....

[EOL]

SG's - I have a collection of good/interesting start positions I could email you if you're looking to increase the size of your database (normal size random map, 7 civs, restart on, raging, deity).

EOL