Early Landing Comparison Game #2

[Elephant]

Giving away Monarchy also gets a few Militaristic civs out of Despotism when they refuse to go to gifted Republic. And trading for Chivalry avoids having to get Horseback Riding too. I am researching Nuclear Power right now, there are three civs researching Chivalry but it looks like I may have to do it myself. Another lesson in Solos warning about too much tech gifting...

[Zenon]

Solo,

I think you asked exactly the right person to contribute on the early Monarchy approach. SG (2) has a very good opening under Monarchy and I am looking forward to read his advice. If I can contribute anything I´ll be happy to do so.

Solo, SG(2), Elephant,

I agree with everything that has been said here. I´d like to add that I think that the main problem in early Monarchy is the delay to trade (and MPE), not the tech pace in general. Celebration is also no problem. Like SG(2) I went to republic in 825 in my last game, plenty of time to grow the SSC. But trade is the key to everything. If there are reasonable trading opportunities early Republic will get an advance that is likely to hold throughout the game.

Trading opportunities should also be added to SSC quality, map size and home continent size to determine the right approach. They are just difficult to forsee at the start.

Zenon

[solo]

Zenon,

I agree 100% about your observation about the importance of trade, which is why the section on Trade dwarfed all others in my guide.

It's interesting to note that when comparing our games in #3, my discovery of Trade and my landing date preceded these events in your own game by about the same number of turns.

Also, when comparing #3 to the first two games the main reason for a much better date in my #3 game was the discovery of Trade so many turns earlier.

I think a little black clicking at the start will tell you if you are isolated (as was the case in #3), which should be enough info to base one's choice on which early government type to go for.

I also eagerly await SG(2)'s words about early Monarchy. He has mastered the art of extracting all possible tribute, and produces the the most impressive and well-developed empires in the short time span alotted, making my minimal group of cities look anemic!

Thank goodness he spends just enough extra time concentrating on these things!

Elephant,

Some more good points I forgot. Thanks for adding them in.

[Elephant]

I finally finished over the weekend: launched a 15-6-3 in 1580AD, landing 1596AD. I got very sloppy in the late game; I was so fascinated with the tech-a-turn from only 8 cities I neglected to prepare my cities for building spaceship parts. I'll prep my summary and log for posting this evening.

Thinking about #3 also was a distraction... I start tomorrow!

[DrSpike]

Haven't finished this game yet so I've not read everything.......but I'll stick my oar in about the Monarchy/Republic debate.

I remain eminently suspicious about Monarchy openings with the sort of land usually picked for these EL games. I think what attraction it may have is predominantly a result of the no huts rule, since this removes the incentive to explore in republic and makes more tech trading desirable given no freebies from huts.

However I think republic can be tweaked to be nearly always the best choice given great land. More on this soon.

[Scouse Gits]

DrSpike ... I think a period of Monarchy is desirable on some maps. It works better on big landmasses and large maps.

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

SG(2)

[DrSpike]

Don't get me wrong.........I don't like early republic. It's just that these maps are picked in such a way that they favour early republic.

I agree that monarchy is relatively more desirable on big maps and maps with large landmasses........but I think so far (after only 1 and a half no huts games though - half of what others have played) that "Sololiquy" Republic can be tweaked to make it the percentage choice even under those conditions.

I'm sure others have made tweaks to the classic approach as well......it is clear that no huts has consequences slightly more subtle than just requiring a few additional techs.

[solo]

Dr. Spike,

I don't quite get what you mean about how the maps used so far favor early Republic. Maps are randomly generated, and the first one found with a a decent SSC site is used for a comparison game. So far, 2 out of the 3 medium map starts have been on large continents, one map having two AI and the other having 4. If anything, these maps should favor early Monarchy. Only the map for #3 seemed to really favor early Republic.

Perhaps I do not understand the criteria you are using to judge map selections. If not, please elaborate.

Perhaps it is the no hut rule that acts more to favor early Republic than the starting position players find in comparison games. The no hut rule was implemented to level the playing field, by reducing the amount of luck and forcing players to rely more on their skills. A side effect of this rule is the lack of NON units, which may be more valuable to an early Monarchy for extracting tribute. Another side effect is that Trade becomes more important and early Republic benefits more than Monarchy when there is more early trade.

In spite of these advantages for an early Republic, I do not think a strategy of using early Monarchy should be discarded quite yet. I thought it was the better choice in the large map game for #3, but failed to take full advantage of some possibilities I noticed after my game had been completed. I have thought up a new way of using early Monarchy that I may try in a future game. Much depends on how the openings go, and which techs are available from the AI.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by solo
Dr. Spike,

I don't quite get what you mean about how the maps used so far favor early Republic. Maps are randomly generated, and the first one found with a a decent SSC site is used for a comparison game. So far, 2 out of the 3 medium map starts have been on large continents, one map having two AI and the other having 4. If anything, these maps should favor early Monarchy. Only the map for #3 seemed to really favor early Republic.

Perhaps I do not understand the criteria you are using to judge map selections. If not, please elaborate.

Well perhaps it was just the way it turned out but map 1 had a SSC with good specials and another few sites on whale and fish + a bagload of rivers. I was impressed with Monk's Monarchy, but I believe if the same player played that map in a skilled manner with the 2 openings the republic would win every time. If you played my 1AD from this game you would land around 1200 or even earlier.

Perhaps it is my prejudice, and after studying SG's monarchy opening after playing games 2 and 3 I will change my mind.

Reading the rest of your post I can see we view the effect of no huts slightly differently, which worries me given your pedigree.

To me the sololiquy early rep. is the best way to play with huts. Without huts there are no/less exploring units finding civs in republic, partly because of no units from huts, and partly because there is less incentive to explore without huts. I see the Monarchy/Republic debate as a choice between aggressive exploration and expansion with attempts at getting a lot of tribute in Monarchy and what I believe will become the standard no hut Republic with MPE and no early exploration. I have 2 MPE openings I tried whilst replaying the start of 1 a few times.......I have selected 1 for map 2.

It is my belief that the MPE republic will beat the monarchy opening most time there is good land, which there nearly always will be because you select the maps so that there is a good SSC. I may well be wrong on this, but that is my thought so far.

[DrSpike]

In contrast to my closing thought above think of a situation where you play the first map bar none. Now you have no guaranteed SSC and a Monarchist aggressive expansion and exploration becomes far more alluring.

[solo]

I agree about MPE, and believe it's very powerful when used with early Republic.

I think terrain, good or bad, has an equal effect on both Monarchy and Republic.

Maps with adequate SSC sites are chosen for comparison games to give each one at least a nominal chance to produce the next record. I think players would lose interest if lousy starts were used.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by solo
I agree about MPE, and believe it's very powerful when used with early Republic.

I think terrain, good or bad, has an equal effect on both Monarchy and Republic.

Maps with adequate SSC sites are chosen for comparison games to give each one at least a nominal chance to produce the next record. I think players would lose interest if lousy starts were used.

Well point 3 may well be true but in making that choice you are removing the main scenario in which a Monarchy opening is most attractive. It may well be that it is still attractive......but right now I'm sceptical.

I disagree with your second point........bad terrain affects an early monarchy strategy less IMO than it does an early republic strategy. With no clear SSC site one should IMO add more cities and explore/expand more aggressively (probably in Monarchy, maybe with HG) at the start.

[solo]

You could be right about Monarchy being the better choice for poor sites, and if enough players agree, a future game may be played using the first start generated, in order to limit the chances of a having a good SSC site.

[DrSpike]

Hehe its a tricky one. For now the games should probably focus on maps where the 1000AD barrier with no huts is beatable. I for one wont rest until I have beaten it.

But I do believe complete ELG mastery includes getting good times on maps where there may be no SSC. When the game is slowed down in this manner I think different approaches would be necessary. I could even see two distinct monarchy variants here........one that bails out early into republic and another that expands much more and attempts to catch up in the late game with many turns with multiple techs.

Of course if I am wrong about the balance of strats on map 1 say then there is no real need to jeopardise getting good times.

I wonder what others think.

[Elephant]

I think we have identified Early Republic as the most common strategy for the best games (which is why I am struggling to learn it), but I do think that Early Monarchy has its place if you have determined, say by 3000BC, that you are on a large continent, likely with other civs, or if you find another civ nearby. The other situation that I may have overgeneralized from the first two games was that Early Republic may have been a better choice for the first game, since there were several rivers and hills, allowing more shields, while Early Monarchy seemed like a better choice for the second, with no rivers or hills around unless you moved westward.