With what unit do you like to explore, initially?

[Theben]

For initial unit, of course I use the warrior.

Later when I get the chance I'll use chariots and/or horsemen to explore on their own, as well as the occasional "goody hut" archer/longbowman.

Once I have dips, ships, and explorers I use the following 2 patterns:

Explorer/ ship combo: Explorer jumps off ship to nab on-shore "goody huts". If barbs pop out I jump back on board. Otherwise continue searching land mass, trying to stay near ship.

Explorer/diplomat combo: Diplomat & explorer occupies square next to hut. The following turn the explorer jump on hut. If barbs (1 move) the explorer & dip beat feet outta there. The dip may bribe the occasional barb if a safe opportunity arises. If barbs (2 move) dip will bribe 1 unit on flat terrain and then any other unit. The new friendly units will now attack up to 4 of their former comrades. This means 7 barbs (dip took up a generation point) bribe 2=5 kill hopefully 4=1 remaining. I normally wind up with a small army out of the deal, hopefully NON-units. I probably should bring along another dip for certainty but I hardly ever do. Habit, I guess.

[Sabrecat]

Yeah, i hate it when they are right in your way and one or two squares away from being a good 4-special city. But hey, it's about 200 gold in thecoffers, so go bribe and enemy unit/city

------------------
SABRECAT

--The man who dies with the most toys is still nonetheless... dead.

[Fbitt]

Campo:
As I've usually already uncovered the map, I have my next group of cities planned out -- to take what I hope is maximum advantage of terrain, defensive positions, etc. Invariably, the advanced tribes are in the wrong spot and screw my plan up. Anal perhaps?
(If the tribe is on an island though I'll keep it ...)
This is SP on Emperor level (i've not tried diety yet); in MP (which I've never played), I'd prolly be overjoyed to get a free city.

Oh, i get adv tribes *a lot* on Emperor, as many as 3x in a row . . .

[Campo]

Fbitt:

If you're playing modified ICS, why do you hate advanced tribes? Why not just start another group of cities? Or is it the defensibility that concerns you?

[Campo]

East St Trader and War4ever:

I've never seen the phenomenon that you mention about multiple consecutive advanced tribes. I've recently moved to Emperor after a while playing at King. I get an advanced tribe in maybe a quarter of my games. Once I got two in the same game, not consecutive though. Other than that I've only gotten one per game.

I wonder why the difference?

[Ken Hinds]

Like Ming, I'll take an Advanced Tribe in a non-challange game whenever, where ever I find one. At worst it is a free 100 to 200 gold for no extra work other than selling the automatic improvements that came with the city. I very seldom have to disband the city and since they are usually a size 3 I can often get a WLxD by turning one to an Elvis. I try to make the HG my first wonder just for this reason.

About the only time I disband the city is if it happens to be on one of the single square islands with no ocean specials. Trying to build anything worth building 1 shield at a time just isn't worth the cash or effort IMO. I will just set the city to building settlers and usually the food level stays ahead of the building rate so that you get a perpetual settler machine. Just stop by every so often and collect and rehome at a new location or have them start building cities somewhere.

Ken

[Sabrecat]

i personally like advanced tribes. since i play on king, there isn't such a bad happiness rush early on. i especially love the fact that you can have an outpost for about every use.(especially a mountain fort)

I like to do this in multiplayer, when they have hordes of people and my cause is desparate, i just load settlers on a boat and head off to an island.(this works really well when you're playing bloodlust, and you put a city on the ice cap)

[Sabrecat]

i personally like advanced tribes. since i play on king, there isn't such a bad happiness rush early on. i especially love the fact that you can have an outpost for about every use.

I like to do this in multiplayer, when they have hordes of people and my cause is desparate, i just load settlers on a boat and head off to an island.(this works really well when you're playing bloodlust, and you put a city on the ice cap)

[Fbitt]

First post, and new lurker.
Quick observation: You guys play a totally different game than I do. It's boggling.

Just as a quick intro, I play solely on single Custom worlds, 100x100, wet, 4 billion years. Modified ICS/Wonders is a good enough descripter for my strategy.

Personally, I hate Advanced Tribes. They are always in the wrong spot. However, if they are far enough away from my core, I'll built a settler there before it gets to 1 -- and presto I have a NON settler, which I can then use to improve my frontier city for rapid growth. Else, it will turn into a tiny SDI-city . . .

[Ming]

Well War4ever... We look forward to your return to MP. Another good player is always welcome (At least I just passed you in the standings of the Apolyton Baseball League)

Any advanced tribe I get in either a SP or MP game is welcome. I don't care where it is. I have been known to disband the city if there is a "great" location nearby...

In the early part of the game, any additional city is just a bonus. So what if there is corruption, or if it leads to unhappiness somewhere... It is still another city that can multiply. In MP games, a city far away may help you extend your border, and give you more space to "fill in"... So keep those advanced civs or nomads coming

[War4ever]

EST ..... the big thing i noticed with huts, is that if you tip them all in a row, which is luck, you can get about three in a row along a river bed and if the first is a tribe, your correct, more tribes will follow.
Although i dont' always like the initial location of advanced tribes, as they often miss the specials by one square in every direction kinda how the ai plants its cities, if you get another tribe for support, you can quickly have a new base of operations, which is often close to a rival anyways, especially if ocean is seperating the two of you. So although corruption is rampant, you have a lookout point which is better than pumping out settlers just to get there in the first place. Plus it allows you to place your cities accordingly.

As for initial units, MP games you need to pump out warriors in hopes of tipping huts for the four legged creatures, of course any unit will do. I like dips as soon as possible as it makes incremental buying cheaper than that attrocious warrior code that often comes from those cursed huts. However Monarchy is key as is early republic

Hi Ming..... still no go on the MP front, way too busy but don't forget the hordes..... we will be back....

[East Street Trader]

Well, SG(2), I guess I'll add another point to the pro collumn - IME when you get one you're very likely to get another the next time you tip. If they are not too far apart geographically they get to provide mutual support.

But I can still empathise with Tonic. Yeah, it's hard to imagine an advanced tribe for a second city as bad news. But what if it's not the second but rather the additional city that triggers the extra unhappy chappy? And what if I get that unhappy chappy in the exact city I least want him (AND maybe don't notice his appearance ). And maybe I've got other troubles taking up my time and resources. That might be one of the times I start wondering if all the extra hassle is worth it.

Used to come up to a pairs event in your fair burg (held in the Adelphi if memory serves). But that was long ago indeed. Only other visits were to sit some exams and to see whether Spurs (with Glen Hoddle in his prime) could actually win at Anfield. Anyway, in the sadly unlikely event that my steps wend your way in the future I will take you up on yr kind offer.

[Scouse Gits]

EST: Come up north - we'll find you a game. Too much bridge talk will get us thrown out, unless we can persuade Ming to be our fourth.

Back to advanced tribes. If you are lucky enough to build your second city this way - your research rate can halve - and you still have a settler. In some tests I conducted recently, there seemed to be a 50% chance of a tribe (with only one city built) on grassland/plains, provided it is at least three squares away from the capital. However, you do risk barbs!

tonic - sure, far off tribes can be a long- term investment, but they pay for themselves if you sleaze from their base. A modest continent with five cities churning out ironclads on the Mongols' doorstep is never bad news.
------------
SG (2)

[tonic]

SG(2): I have usually got my faraway free city in despotism or monarchy and it's damn frustrating not to get any benefit from it even when you've stashed out scarce resources to build a courthouse! The extra dough cancelled by the cost of maintenance. It sure is a long-term investment but in the meantime you have to put up with some disincentives.

[East Street Trader]

Not sure that we do differ, SG(2).

I certainly don't disagree with anything you say above.

What I said in the earlier post which caught your eye was that "advanced tribes can be quite a problem too". I didn't mean that they are outright bad - just that there are factors which (subject to the exact circumstances) make them less of an excellent outcome than they usually are.

Now, just occasionally the problems posed by the exact circumstances DO make them an outright bad outcome. I can remember times when the city was such an obvious short or long term liability that I have taken action to disband even at a strategic cost greater even than the loss of the city itself.

That we will not disagree on the proposition that circumstances alter cases I am confident.

PS Noticed in another thread that you and honoured alter ego play bridge. If you ever come south do you play in the Young Chelsea? Happy to make a more corporeal acquaintance if so.