Campo Challenge 1

[La Fayette]

1) No restart
When you start a new game, there is an option named 'Don't restart eliminated players' that you should activate if you want to play early conquest. Otherwise a new civ appears anytime you destroy one and this lasts until 1500AD IIRC.
You didn't do that and Marquis de Sodaq experienced that the Romans appeared as soon as he destroyed the Celts.
The same happened to me, so here is what I did: I played until I was able to destroy ALL enemy civs on the same turn. This happened in 1320AD. (playing longer would be a bore since there is no means to win the game before 1500AD when 'No restart' is not activated)

2) Your game
IMO there are no big mistakes in your game. You seem to have read the GL quite carefully .
Here are the main points that might be considered mistakes IMO (but some of these are mainly a question of personal preferences, I suppose):
- too many civs (you built twice as many as I did: costs you settlers, time and many red faces);
- no embassies (or Marco): difficult to destroy enemy cities when you don't even know they are no the map;
- conquering with musketeers + catapults: OK it works, but it is SOOOO slow compared to 4legged bad guys.

3) My game
Monarchy ASAP, then Trade (in order to build 4 caravans and get Marco ASAP), build no more than 7 cities, research Polytheism and start building barracks in all cities, then vet elephants.
Usually I know the whole map with help of Marco, but this didn't happen this time: at least 2 civs refused to trade maps (I probably had forgotten to be generous enough ). Still I knew enough to plan my logistics.
My only problem after that was the 'no restart' disabled: Romans replaced the Celts, then Spaniards replaced the Aztecs. I then decided to plan a combined attack of the last city of all enemy civs (it was fun planning that). 'Victory' in 1320AD.

[Campo]

ST, from what I understand 2.42 sav files can be opened in MGE but not the other way around.

Yes, 7 civs.

I played 2.42. I have MGE but usually play 2.42 because the AI isn't quite as annoying in the BC years. I like it more peaceful relationships when I'm first starting out.

My "challenge" goal is to learn though, which I think I can do from either version, so play whichever you prefer.

[DrFell]

Well I'm unable to play multiplay at Uni right now so I think I'll take up this little challenge

[Campo]

La Fayette,

I'm very impressed with your results. I'm not surprised that you won in 1320 -- but doing it by destroying all civs the same turn is outstanding!

Regarding your other points:
1. Sorry about the "no restarts". I didn't encounter that in my game, I guess because it was too late when I conquered the first civ. I have seen it occasionally in the past and never minded, but I agree it's inappropriate for a comparison game. I'll try to remember to turn it off.

2. Thanks, I'm glad I'm not a horrible player!
By "too many civs" I'm sure you mean "too many cities", right? I generally start with 10 of my own plus whatever I conquer. IIRC, I may have built 11 this time because of terrain, and I conquered the Celts early so I got a few of theirs. It did cause happiness problems. I'll try next game with 8.
Marco's is an ongoing issue for me. It's less critical on a small map because everyone is easier to find. There's always another wonder that seems more valuable and doesn't expire. I'll try building it next game.
You conquer with elephants only? No defenders? I tried a large-scale mounted conquest only once and it was a failure -- I lost dozens of Crusaders to pikemen in a river city. I suppose with elephants you were attacking warriors and phalanxes. What about the later years -- did you use Crusaders? How did you handle city walls and pikemen?

3. Is Marco's the only wonder you built? You can see I built a lot more, which is typical for me. I've had a feeling that I spend too much time in the early years building wonders; maybe I should forego that and start conquering sooner.

Thanks a lot for the feedback -- very useful!

[La Fayette]

1) too many cities
Sorry I wrote 'civs' instead of 'cities' (educated people call that 'lapsus calami', which is much nicer than 'silly mistake').
I use to build very few cities (as some kind of competition with my friends DaveV and the SGs, who love to build hundreds of them).
I guess most people would say that building 11 on a small map is all right.

2)Marco
Yes, it was the only wonder I built. I love Marco because it brings knowledge, and knowledge is power. GW and STWA also can be very useful for early conquest (but with 7 cities I needed only 280 shields to build 7 barracks - instead of 300 for STWA - and I could build them long before discovering Feudalism).
GW is very powerful against strong foes, but you don't need it if you are well ahead in technology and power (just like walls, in fact).

3) Units
I used elephants against the Celts and the Aztecs, switched to Knights as soon as I discovered Chivalry, then to crusaders when I got Monotheism. The power of knights is due to their better defence, but you must be prepared to lose a number of them when attacking walled cities. Losses become frightening if you have pikemen in a rivered walled city in front of you (in that case I switch to hordes of diplos to get the walls down, but it wasn't needed this time).
The sooner you attack, the better your chances are to manage to finish your conquest before your foes discover Feudalism.

[Campo]

Thanks for the clarifications. I downloaded your save games and will review them when I can (probably not until the weekend).

[SlowThinker]

Can't we be more detailed?

I almost finished the first goal - monarchy (I hope I will continue, but not immediately.). Tomorrow I will finish it and post a log (I have to reread it first) and (all) savegames.
I look forward to see logs of others, but first I should continue in my game.

My log is detailed enough, I wanted to show the way how I am thinking when playing.
I usually see brief logs at Apolyton threads, but I would prefer some more detailed debate.
And what about to post savegames of all succesing turns, for example of the start only? I would like to see how others manage the game in detail.

Although I would be able to play more and more slowly , I took the game seriously enough, the way to the monarchy was about 20 hours. I always tried to evaluate every possibility, I never chose from different ways of playing accidentally or intuitively.

A couple weeks ago I found out some people here thinks I am a Civ expert. He, he, it is entertaining. So, don't take statements in my log too seriously. I never finished a Civ game and have played less than 10 starts of the game, usually not going over 0AD.

I had to run some tests: Now I know (or I don't know) how next cities are chosen for the first citizen with red/black hat, and from which distance of a city no barbs come from a hut (see Barbarian activity question thread).

In my sav games I keep the intended production in cities, including cases of future rushbuild. The reason is that you can easily see my intentions.

---

It looks monarchy will come in 2250. 6 cities of size 1 or 2.

[SlowThinker]

Short tales from my game:

3550 I met a Celt warrior, a little bit soon (??). I was very displeased, since I thought they will slow me down hardly. Boadicea required Bronze working, I gave it, then she proposed peace, I didn't trust her , but I accepted.

In 3550 I was supreme (unusual, very soon), she was neutral
3500 Strong/hostile
then I went (with a fear of a bad tech) to the hut, then, seeing my archer, she changed mood:
3450 Inadequate/Uncooperative,
3400 Weak/Uncooperative,
3350 Supreme/Uncooperative
and no other change
But why did I drop so fast to Weak and back??

---

La Fayette, I know you prefer arrows. In the game I didn't:

I had 40% science up to 2900, only then I shifted to 60%. In 2900 I was supreme, in Demographics window I was 1st in all rows but 3rd in literacy

[La Fayette]

SlowThinker
Perhaps you are now going to play one game past 1AD. I am so happy that I shall keep a bottle of Champagne ready and, if you feel like it, I drive to Praha and drink it with you.

Back to the game:
In the very early game, building a settler makes you lose one population point (as usual), so if your pop is 6 and you are supreme, building 3 settlers will bring you down to 3 and you will probably turn inadequate.

[Campo]

ST,
Did you see my game log? I hope that is detailed enough for you, because I don't think I could stand to put much more in.

I saved games about every 200 years BC and 100 years AD. (A few times I forgot so the saves are a little off.) Even that seemed like a lot to expect anyone to look at.

When we finish with this one, we could do another challenge where we save every turn for the early years (maybe the first 25 turns?), to compare how people start. That would be interesting.

[DrFell]

Out of curiosity should I be doing this game in a perfectionist style or is it my choice? I don't ICS when I go all out conquest, but I don't build up my cities much either which is why I was asking...

[Campo]

My preference would be something similar to my style, because I think I'd learn more from it. I'd call it early perfectionist/later expansionist. I started out trying to create and improved a core group of cities, and when they're well established then go out for conquest.

I don't think I'd learn as much from ICS or OCC because they're so drastically different from how I play, but anything in between would be helpful.

Of course it's all for fun, so feel free to do what you want.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by La Fayette
Back to the game:
In the very early game, building a settler makes you lose one population point (as usual), so if your pop is 6 and you are supreme, building 3 settlers will bring you down to 3 and you will probably turn inadequate.

No, I didnt finish settlers yet. And 3450 both my cities went to size 2. Probably others civs did it turns before.
Now I understand that in the beginning of the game power may change fast.

La Fayette,
Stay home, you will have to comment my game now.

Campo,
For ME, your log is very very undetailed

I saw it, also some of first saves (I was afraid to see squares that I didn't reveal in my game yet). I will comment your game after I will see more of it.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

SlowThinker, here is a detailed log:
-----------------------------
Henry VIII (Campo comparison)
-----------------------------
3950bc - Settle London on river, 2+? specials
3900bc - second settler finds advanced tribe (!)
3750bc - bronze working
3500bc - archer from hut
3450bc - ceremonial burial
3250bc - masonry from hut
3050bc - alphabet
3000bc - advanced tribe! what luck ; currency from 2nd hut
2850bc - meet aztecs, trade for map making
2650bc - meet celts
2350bc - code of laws
2150bc - aztec sneak attack!
1750bc - monarchy
1350bc - celtic sneak attack!
1200bc - mathematics
900bc - trade
725bc - writing
650bc - "acquire" mysticism from celts
450bc - advanced tribe! sadly, it is city #8...; meet japanese, trade for 4 techs
275bc - literacy
175bc - meet americans
150bc - annihilate celts
125bc - meet romans!?
100bc - annihilate romans
60ad - philosophy/monotheism
180ad - iron working from hut
280ad - searfaring
340ad - war with americans and vikings
660ad - bridge building
760ad - navigation
780ad - destroy aztecs
840ad - destroy russians
900ad - engineering
1040ad - invention; meet more romans

[SlowThinker]

Log - part 1

I send log and savegames to 3000BC only. I am in 2500, I have to finish to monarchy and process the log after 3000BC.

Read also my post here 23-04-2002 19:15