Campo Challenge 1

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Campo, we played almost identical games! At least in a general sense. Throughout the series of saves, you have about 10% more people than me (after ~2000bc), and I have about 5x as much gold. You and I were the first to discover 14 and 13 techs respectively - almost an identical list at that. We both built the same 5 wonders. We are both researching at 7 turns/tech. The main difference is that I am closer to finishing off the AI civs. There are 18 non-english cities in your game, only 12 in mine. I have 10 more military units, as well. Plus a heap more gold for bribing.

I agree with LaFayette, you may have built too many cities in the bc years. Otherwise, your game seems to be going very well. I got 3 advanced tribes, which surely made it easier for me at the start. Perhaps focus on reaching the 7 and 14 city thresholds, and spend more shields on caravans and military units.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I suppose a savegame would be good...

1100ad, where I stopped.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Campo
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.

I'll play one game in both styles as a comparison.

[DrFell]

Ok, here's the first game. I went for quick and dirty on this one, just built about 6 cities with barracks in them all and started conquering with elephants (went horse->monarchy->poly then 70% tax). Later on around 500bc I researched trade to build marcos with 4 caravans. The only units I used in this game were elephants, diplomats, warriors, phalanxes, and caravans. The offshore romans slowed things down a bit as did the restarting civs (whites restarted 3 times, so did light blues, the last 2 incarnations were near my units so I just wiped them out right away). Next I'll try a game in the 'perfectionist' style.

[DrFell]

Here are the saves:

[Campo]

ST, I suspect that I'd have to dictate a log of all my thoughts in order for it to be detailed enough for you. I dont' think I could stand to write out a longer one.

Marquis, your comparison is very interesting. It gives me some reassurance that I'm not too bad a player (although "not bad" is a far cry from "good"). I'll examine your save game in detail over the weekend. In the meantime, what units did you use for conquest? And please tell me the secret of how to get 3 advanced tribes from huts! That would have helped a lot. I'm happy if I get one a game (on a small world), and I don't think I had any in this game.

DrFell, I'll check out your game this weekend too. What year did you finish -- or more to the point, what year would you have finished if I had disabled civ restarts?

[DrFell]

Well, I finished officially in 100AD. Without civ restarts it would have been over around 300BC if I'd played in exactly the same way (probably about 500 bc if I'd know they wouldn't restart, as I deliberately spread out my units to catch any restarting setts, which slowed my conquest down).

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Campo
Marquis, your comparison is very interesting. It gives me some reassurance that I'm not too bad a player (although "not bad" is a far cry from "good"). I'll examine your save game in detail over the weekend. In the meantime, what units did you use for conquest? And please tell me the secret of how to get 3 advanced tribes from huts!

I conquered the Celts and Aztecs with two catapults escorted by a two phalanx. March one phalanx in and fortify, with the others a step behind. The first phalanx draws the fire of the enemy's strongest unit, but that unit is dead or in the red when I step forward to squash the city.

I punished the Americans, Romans v1.0, and Russians with crusaders and bribed barbarians. That central unoccupied zone was a barb breeding ground. I continuously patrolled with diplomats. If I were to continue, I'd keep rolling the crusaders out, nobody on the map can defend against them.

As for the advanced tribes - I used my top-secret "hut outcome determination formula" to ensure happy results. That is, I had my fingers crossed. I noticed you got one from the same hut I did - on the island with the spice.

[SlowThinker]

Only 1 load of my game?
I forgot that some people are lazy here...
Scouses, I will unzip the log for you.

(I don't want to publicize my game, but I would like to know if you will accept the way of detailed analysis of games. I would welcome it very much.)

I will add the continuation to the monarchy, but I must test riots due to number of cities first.

_________________________________
A note: I realized it looks like ICS. But I didn't think about ICS strategy when playing, I just wanted to play as best as possible. I plan to stop expansion when 2 additional citizens would riot when building a new city.

[SlowThinker]

Log up 3000BC (from Campogame_SlowThinker_3000BC.zip)

version: MGE (load Campogame_SlowThinker_3000BC.zip for savegames)

4000
Settler1 moves W, Settler2 S :-) did anybody play otherwise?

3950
Which settler will move first? Settler1 moves first: SW (there may be a special, I want to know its type first).
To explore or to build? There are rich squares around, I wouldn't find anything better (three good squares for a city is enough in the beginning). To go for huts? A lucky hut (horsemen) would give me 20 shields, but one turn of delay is about 5 resources*2cities=10 resources.
(1 "resource" = 1shield=1food=2trade. Later, when monarchy will be closer, I will evaluate trade/beakers higher, but now, I can rushbuild only.
I will use the term "resource" more times in this log).

So, I want to settle this turn. I don't want to build on a shielded grassland and so there is only way where to build.

A sidenote:
This is first time that I thourougly speculated about the use of granary:
One granary-yes or not?
Cons-I guess it will slow me down 5 turns (settler production delayed 20 turns; that settler would represent 1/4 of economy of my empire; 20/4=5), and I won't be able make partial rushbuilds to 20 shields (Pottery as the 1st tech).
Pros- 10 saved food for every settler built (the city with granary will be specialized to settlers production) and/or the 5-sized city in 80 turns: then I can use the famine trick (better to say cheat), but 80 turns is a little bit late for monarchy helping.
Unfortunately, deity is extremely unbalanced, the shields are too important. Just do settlers and settlers. I don't believe the granary pays off, even with rich squares.

A sidenote: I didn't study the Xin's 5-size strategy very closely, but I think that adding Settlers to the city should be more expensive way than use of a granary. I don't think the 5-size strategy should be effective.

Decided.
Settler2 builds first-I plan to work on Iron, I don't want to lose 5th shield when size 2. (From the other side, the coal position might be closer to the center of my future empire...).

science 40%, choosed Bronze working, 10 beakers needed, going for Monarchy as the 5th tech
preparing plan, some rushbuild counting...

3700
Bronze working done, next 18 beakers
Warr1 in York7, Warr 2 in London.
Warr1- how to explore? SW from coal is ocean, and so to move Warr to SE is not interesting. Moving NE. And then? A special may be NE, going there.

3650
How to explore? Warr2: would you explore to E or SE? There is water on 34,38, and there can't be a special: I needn't see that square, I go diagonally.
I think there can't be a ground square on 33,39. I never saw this kind of strait, except for poles. But I am not sure. your opinions?
Warr2 moved, whales(If I would know it when I founded London... :-( ). I know the specials/huts grid completely now.
Next city? Around whales at Warr1, or around a possible special E from Iron, 38,30 ?
One of warriors can continue exploring, which one? Warr2 will explore E from Iron, the next Warr3 will be able go in front of Settler from London (because London will drop to size 1 and won't need martial law) to explore the position around 31,27

3550
A big problem: Celt Warrior, Boadicea requires Bronze working, I give it. Peace with Celts.
Everything changed: Warr2 must return, and I will go for huts in city area and hope for mercs.

3500
An archer from a hut: ideal. I can cout myself lucky.
York: to finish Warrior (4 shields lost due support) or start Settler (3 shields+2 trade lost due disorder)? The Warrior choice will slow down Settler in York by 1 move only, and then London will be able to build Settler immediately, without building an additional warrior. I finish Warrior.

3450
both cities size 2, London will work on iron

3400
York will work on Coal
Do you want I explain I prefer shields over food?

3300
Cer. Burial done, next tech 27 beakers
Celts don't want exchange techs (After this step I realized that it was risky. They needn't have any monarchy tech)

3150
Nottingham founded(3rd city)
I decided to take the hut at Nottingham.
(If there will be a bad tech, I will need about 90 additional beakers for Monarchy (besides there is a chance to exchange one tech and to lower number of additional techs to 1), if I will suppose 10 beakers/turn in the final stage, then Monarchy will come 9 turns later. I guess Monarchy increases the production by 1/5 (I mean 20%)
(Two-sized city that works on shielded Grs has output 6.5 resources: 3.5 from the first square, 1.5 from the others(2 food eaten). The monarchy will add 1 resource on the irrigated city square. 1-sized city production goes from 5 to 6. Mon. also brings new opportunities (irrigating and mining new squares)), and so I will lose almost 2 turns (9/5).
On other side, a 20-shield merc brings 20 resources, OK, little bit less, I wouldn't build him exactly now. My production is about 20 resources per turn now. I gain almost 1 turn).
I think the chance to get a bad tech is less then 50%. I will grab the hut.
I start to be afraid a little. Phalanx or Barracks in London or not? I will wait for the hut result. (I set prod. to warrior for the moment - I would lose 2 shields if changing barr. to warr.; warr. to barr. wastes 1 shield only)

3100
Hastings founded(4th city)
Hut E from Nottingham: Archer

3050
sneak attack by Celts: Warrior put my Archer into red (vet status). Archer returns to York to heal.

3000
Plan:
The area E from Nott. is slowly accessible, and so I won't build a city there, Nottingham will produce warriors for martial law 5 turns later. (BTW, these affairs weren't prepared well. The coordination is bad, Warriors wait a little bit too long and eat the support shields ...)
Last two cities to the limit of 6 (then there are +3 new red hats fot each city) will be build in the W area.

Barracks, yes or not? Vets are about 2times more powerfull, i.e more than 2times effective use of shields. But you can "train" them in battles (not in your cities! I mean send them to a defensive terrain near AI activity, fortify and let the stupid AI make them veterans). But this way is costly (shield support). I prefer barracks, but...
In the moment, I don't know, how many phalanxes I need, I have to explore first. I plan the 5th city on 25,33 (to stop Celts, both shield and food, good as the canal), the 6th on 29,25 or 25,27 (hills). On hills I can defend with Warrior only, and so I might not to need too many of phalanx.
Conclusion: Now, I will wait with barracks. Phalanx is more flexible, I can switch to settlers and back.

What about taxes? My "production" is 24, I wanted to think about the tax change when the production would be 20. (See thinking in 3150). It is the right time now, but first I must build cities nr. 5 and 6 as soon as possible (settlers production in York and Hastings).

Hut at Hastings: I will grab it, same reason as in 3150.

[Campo]

As for the advanced tribes - I used my top-secret "hut outcome determination formula" to ensure happy results. That is, I had my fingers crossed. I noticed you got one from the same hut I did - on the island with the spice.

Marquis,
Ah, so your secret is revealed. I'll ready my fingers for the next time.

I had forgotten about my island advanced tribe. It was certainly welcome, but it came later in the game and so wasn't as significant as an early tribe would be.

ST,
Now I see what you mean by a detailed log. I read every word, and I'll do so again over the weekend when I can match the log to your save games. I must admit that you think about the details a lot more carefully than I do.

I'm surprised the Celts sneak-attacked you so early. They kept approaching me (I think around Nottingham) and I had to insist they withdraw, but they never attacked.

This may be a stupid question, but what do you mean by "merc"?

[La Fayette]

DrFell
Dirty but beautiful.
I bow.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Campo
I'm surprised the Celts sneak-attacked you so early. They kept approaching me (I think around Nottingham) and I had to insist they withdraw, but they never attacked.

Don't forget I play MGE.

Originally posted by Campo
This may be a stupid question, but what do you mean by "merc"?

Mercenary unit

[Scouse Gits]

Dr Fell
A 'tour de force' indeed - pun most certainly intentional
I too bow at your feet

SG[1]

[Campo]

Some observations to those who posted saves of this game:

Marquis,
- Do you remember if you conquered Philadelphia and then lost it to the Vikings? If not, how did it happen that you conquered Boston and New York, but not Philadelphia in between? Just curious.
- It's interesting that Rome in your game was founded about 8 squares away from in my game. I'd have thought that the AI would be more consistent at that stage of the game.
- I notice that you had fewer settlers than me, I think a lot fewer. Is that typical for you? I was irrigating more than you did, for city growth; I think that was the main reason for the difference.

Lafayette,
- Do you always use such a high percentage of entertainers? In 780ad you averaged more than one per city, and most of your cities were population 3. By 1320 there wasn't as high a percentage, but still a lot more than I ever have.
- I noticed the Pyramids and King Richard's Crusade in Washington -- I assume the AI built them.
- Why did you leave the barbs in control of Cardiff and not take advantage of bribing for unsupported units? I'd have expected you to either use it for NON units or else conquer the city.

SlowThinker,
- I'm curious about where you founded London. With the iron and coal visible, did you consider that it might be a 3 or 4 special city if you founded it in the "sweet spot"? Do you feel it's important to found that quickly?
- Also, as you asked in your log, I indeed would like to hear your thinking about shields vs. food. I thought from your log that you were working the iron and coal, but I see from the save games that's not correct.
- It was interesting to see your thinking process. Some of that is going on in my mind, but not in so much detail, and not all consciously.

DrFell,
- You did manage to shave a few years off my time. I'm impressed.
- I see you settled your second city faster than I did. And it looks like Nottingham was an advanced tribe?
- I'm surprised you weren't building a settler in London at 3600bc.
- Horseback Riding was your second tech -- did you research that or acquire it through hut or swap?
- I see you captured the Celtic city of Kells with a settler. I can't ever remember doing that in any game. After that you had two undefended cities very close to the Celts. I'm surprised they didn't go after them.
- It also surprises me that you had a happiness problem with just 5 cities.
- Polytheism before Monarchy! I've never been in that situation.
- In AD1, what was the point of all the fortified elephants and the two fortified diplomats east of York?
- Is it too easy for you? I assume you never play a small world map because it's no challenge. Do you play only MP anymore?

Thanks for the lessons. I've learned a lot from this.