Announcement

**La Fayette** · June 25, 2001, 08:11

(this is a portrait of La Fayette, #1 to say WOW)

(this is a portrait of samson, solo and ribannah discussing about landing in 500AD on a big map ... without hut tipping, of course)

**solo** · June 25, 2001, 08:18

Wow! A great result and some different, but very successful ideas. I'll have to print out and study this log. Believe me, it took a long time finding such a good start, but once found, I was happy to share it.

You may want to try the start I used in my 776 game, which is the best I've found so far on a medium map. You may also want to try samson's ideal small map start in the "another early" thread. I just managed 336 AD using that. You might be able to get Space Flight with it in BC years!

Many huts on hills increased the chances of nomads, but good hut technology can really make up for a slower start, too, saving many turns of research. You also made great use out of Marco Polo's.

It's the ease with which you built so many wonders and such a fast ship that I want to figure out! Nice going!

**samson** · June 25, 2001, 16:49

Hey, Ribannah, glad you could join in the early landing fun. Congrats on this game, nice job.

I studied this in some detail and it definitely made me rethink some of my ideas. The growth strategy both you and Solo used does seem appopriate in this situation: medium map and an SSC site that can't get you there by itself. Amazed at all the techs you tipped from huts, but hey, that's one of the advantages of playing on a medium map. And like Solo, I'm astonished at all the stuff you built.

**Ecthy** · June 25, 2001, 17:38

well done

I never make it to AC before 1850.... just managed to get my spaceship built in 1844.... could have made it to AC by 1860 (16 turns flight)... NO, I had to improve it.... launched in 1846 with 18 years flight time, thus making it arrive by 1864... the carthaginians arrived in 1862. shoot me.

**Scouse Gits** · June 26, 2001, 03:55

Great game Ribannah!

Interesting to see you built Marco Polo. Was it worth the four caravans?

--------------

SG(2)

**Scouse Gits** · June 26, 2001, 05:56

Really well done - great game ...

**Ribannah** · June 26, 2001, 08:18

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Great game Ribannah!

Interesting to see you built Marco Polo. Was it worth the four caravans?

--------------

SG(2)

Thanks

Yes, I think it was. Not only did it get me several techs in trade right away, but it also lowered by beaker requirements when I pushed the Carthagians to the front of the tech race. It could have taken me a long time to find them, or to wait for the purples to become key! And later in the game, by monitoring the AI's advance and picking my research accordingly, I could trade for several more techs, too. With a little more luck I could have traded for a few more, twice did they discover a tech I wanted to trade on the same turn as I did.

**Ribannah** · June 26, 2001, 08:45

Originally posted by solo
You may want to try the start I used in my 776 game, which is the best I've found so far on a medium map.

Solo, I'd love to try that map, could you provide a link?

**solo** · June 26, 2001, 15:23

Ribannah,

It can be downloaded from that thread, but I will try to provide it again here just for you!

I've had a chance to go over the log of your game some, and really like the way you are able to build up such a strong economy quickly. I would be interested if you could provide a little more info about your game, namely:

Your settings for taxes, science and luxuries at various stages of the game, and the amount of gold per turn taxes were bringing in at these times. Estimates are good enough, but I would appreciate anything you are willing to provide here.

Also, if I counted correctly, you got 8 free techs from huts, which is only a few above average on a medium map. However, Marco Polo's allowed you to trade for an additional 11 techs. Getting 19 instant techs in the first half of the game allowed you to build up your economy while still acquiring techs at a decent pace. By the second half of the game, when techs from huts and the AI were no longer dependable, you had your science developed well enough to take over research at a tech per turn pace! In addition, you had an economic powerhouse! A very well thought out and executed strategy!

I also like using embassies, but usually use exploring diplomats to set them up. I've had that happen much too often, too, where the AI & I discover techs on the same turn! They are only good for so many during a game, and it's a shame to have one or two opportunities wasted in this way. Another irritation is when they study things off the tech path towards Space Flight, especially things like Communism when you have MP or Theology when you have Oracle!

So far we have 3 distinctly different, yet viable methods of early arrivals:

1) samson, with the pure science bare bones approach. No one learns the tech tree faster!

2) My system using more growth and focusing on vigorous trade.

3) Your economic growth, used to finance later research and everything else you care to buy.

Both samson and I are coming up short economically in the games with pre-500 AD landings, so it would be interesting for you to give his small map start a try, too. I suspect that the economy can not develop fast enough in the time available, but you're mastery in this area may prove this supposition wrong.

I would like to try a game focusing on economics, as you did in this game and most others, to get some experience with this style of play, so feel free to offer any advice.

By the way, were you able to locate a copy of 2.42?

solo

Attached Files

ab_b4000.sav (68.0 KB, 76 views)

**samson** · June 27, 2001, 15:46

A comparison of Solo's and Ribannah's detailed logs for this start revealed some interesting data which I thought I would post.

Total Production
Solo: 8970 shields
Ribannah: 16560 shields

Worker Years
Solo: 5925
Ribannah: 4937

Production per Worker Year
Solo: 1.51
Ribannah: 3.35

In other words, Solo averaged 1.5 shields per worker per year over the course of the game while Ribannah averaged more than twice that much. Part of this comes from the fact that Ribannah built factories and Hoover Dam in the late game. But when Ribannah's late game production is discounted to remove the factory/HD bonus, she still averaged 2.6 shields per worker per year.

Yet despite this seeming disparity in productivity, both players launched spaceships in the same year. Ribannah's faster ship landed 21 years earlier but this is only, in effect, 1.05 turns earlier. Since both accomplished the same task in virtually the same time, it would seem that Ribannah's higher production rate is balanced by Solo's more focused efficiency. Perhaps somewhere between these two data points lies a strategy which could produce an earlier launch.

**solo** · June 27, 2001, 19:01

samson,

Interesting analysis, but you have to consider that for some reason it is very important for Ribannah's delicate ego to beat me in games with comparable starts. So I find myself deliberately holding back just enough in my production to allow this. Please adjust your equations and findings, accordingly.

solo

**samson** · June 27, 2001, 19:37

I've always thought you were a bit of an "overbuilder", Solo, but Ribannah makes your game look positively skeletal. I probably need to try this one, and then analyze my own stats.

Seriously, I didn't mean to offend either of you with this comparison. I tried to map out each of your games and see how you arrived at almost identical outcomes by such different routes. I was trying to support my "limit" theory. To discover such a difference in per capita production was startling. But it is probably attributable to infrastructure: more banks, more stock exchanges, more income, more expense. In essence, R built a lot more stuff than you did, but it didn't advance the launch date.

In constrast, my "bare bones" approach would probably fail to even reach that date - given the lack of rail bonus and higher cost of research. Additional emphasis on trade (foreign in your game, domestic in R's) was needed, as well as the infrastructure to support it.

**solo** · June 27, 2001, 20:56

samson,

Yes, please give it a try too! It will be fascinating to see how the three approaches compare with the same start.

Offense? Why? This game is just too much fun to ever take offense. If you can't kid around a bit, the fun goes away.

**Ribannah** · June 28, 2001, 13:34

Originally posted by solo
.... you have to consider that for some reason it is very important for Ribannah's delicate ego to beat me in games with comparable starts ....

That goes without saying

The reason I needed a stronger economy was that I was playing MGE and therefore could not count on the AI's to provide me with the necessary coins for rush-building. Nor were there any interesting commodities in demand by the AI cities, so my empire had to be self-sufficient.
After automobile, I got 1 tech per turn with the science rate at 50-60%, and that was without counting caravans. Luxuries were at 10%. During the final turns, I made about 1500 gold a turn.
It may not have been enough to accomplish an earlier launch date than Solo's, but I'm pretty sure it was advancing MY launch date. I played most of the OCC games in similar manner. Still, I may have overdone it. But this was only my first attempt, basically for lack of good randomized starts.
I only really looked at Solo's log after I was done and the equal launch date from such a different approach is surprising indeed.

Announcement

Medium Map landing: 935 AD (Deity,MGE)

Medium Map landing: 935 AD (Deity,MGE)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment