AUSG101 - Opportunist team DAR 1

[charlie_six]

I played a ctp2 pbem in these forums a couple years back. fun but kinda like hitting yourself with a sledgehammer on the fingers. I was looking for updates to civ, remembered these forums, saw this and asked to join

I guess my question would be.. would having a "WE ARE GOING MOUNTED!"(tm) (Theseus) rush now be better? I'm not saying even capturing cities, just "containing" japan to what they have, and backfill from the furs. You would have to be at war with them for a while till your cities are placed, but shouldnt be a weariness issue.

All you would need is like what ...3 horsemen? and the spearman with the settler would be fine. Then a spearman with every settler u send up there. You would build like normal, except for those 3 horsemen. You'd take a lil c/w ding but nothing says you couldn't settle the NW later vs sooner. Build a temple in the fur city using the ample woods(being chopped by slaves) and call it a day while your base citites are developed and you are ready.

Overall I guess my arguement is that the cost of getting that land is smaller, (3 horsemen and settler and a spearman), than the cost of getting that land later.

Of course then we'd have to bounce that off the value of that settler more near the capital, c/w loss ratio, value of shields now vs value of future shields..the axis of rotation, and the hyperbolic parabloid of the space time continum...but that im not doin hehe

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Theseus
Probably an outgrowth of many of us here in 'poly having spent close to 2 years just figuring stuff out and teaching it to newer players (sometimes again and again ).

Do I sense a new city placement thread going up sometime soon?

[Mountain Sage]

My turn to vote, and I feel humbled (well, sort of, being me...) by your achievements and DARs (expecially Dominae's).
My 'philosophy' of choosing a save is not only to compare the differents achievements (in this you all are very close), but also to reward a clear strategy.
In this respect, I must say with Charlie_six that Arrian's strategy of bottling up Japan looks very promising. Osaka should be their last city east.
Now, will you pump out another settler fast enough to achieve this? My opinion is that Medina should switch from barracks to settler to put a city N of Baghdad.
BTW, this is what I'm trying to achieve myself.
And here is the problem with the furs. Getting them seems a priority to me.
Threfore, my vote goes for Arrian, by as very thin margin.
Good luck.

[Arrian]

I'm kinda surprised I'm getting any votes, to be honest. Dominae's start... yikes. I may hate the tight city spacing, but I'm not sure it's possible to argue against its power, at least in the early game (which matters most).

I think my next several settlers, by the way, were planned for the coast SW of Mecca and the jungle S of Mecca, followed by a city by the lake in the east, to grab that iron. So I wasn't trying to cut Japan off (this would likely result in them attacking me, and I actually didn't want to fight yet), but rather to grab furs while I could.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Some counter-comments (which will hopefully alter you decision!):

Originally posted by charlie_six
Question: by having low research, is your goal to slow down the tech advances?(said in your tip you control pace), and if so why? just wondering

I saw that the AI's tech rate was rather low. Since the goal in the Opportunistic game is not research as quickly as possible (as the Spaceship people want to do), I felt it would be fun to see just how big a tech lead we can get here. However, I seriously underestimated how good the players' research rate is, relative to the AIs on this difficulty. So I researched Polytheism slowly to make some Gold. I knew I would get to it first, even on a 40-turn pace, but unfortunately the AIs will probably not even catch up by then! So it probably would have been better to just beeline for Monarchy.

The thing still nagging me is, what about the fur up by osaka? I just see a missed opportunity there, that outweighs having to do without 1 city at the core during this time. With a settler/spearman and say 3 military units-in one stroke
you could get the fur, sieze osaka, and confine the japanese to that penninsula, and settle the river network. With the current unit setup, you dont have that capability.

There are a few reasons I disagree here, although Theseus has already sketched them out.

1. Furs is just a Luxury resource. When you think about it, there are many many ways to keep your populace happy: Military Police, Wonders, Temples, Luxuries...and most importantly (early on) the Luxury slider. Although it is typically inefficient, the Lux slider is always available, and is better the more pop/Roads there are in your empire. So, between going out of my way expansion-wise to grab a Luxury resource and using the Lux slider, I'll always use the Lux slider first. It conveniently lets you focus on more important things.

2. What are thost important things? Well, the creating of production centers (cities). The effects of a Luxury resource are duplicable. The "effects" of cities are not: accumulation of Food and growth, accumulation of Shields and production. These two are the most critical in the early-game; Commerce is the least important at this stage. A city founded off toward the Japanese would suffer higher Corruption, would be harder to hook up with Roads, and would be a pain to defend.

3. Strategic resources break this rule. If you're being out-expanded (say, on Deity), and you see that you might not have that Iron, I highly recommend sending a Settler out there (no matter how far) ASAP. I'm on the fence concerning whether you should do this to deny the AI a Strategic resource. Furs are not a Strategic resource, so their denial value to me is rather low. I like to keep my core tight-knit for the first hundred turns of the game.

4. The Japanese are not very strong. It's great to deal with things preemptively, but in this case I felt it was not necessary. With 5 cities (and a Granary) to their 2-3, I doubt the Japanese will be causing any trouble in my game. You mention that taking care of such problems early is more efficient that later on, because you can use fewer units to accomplish the same goal. This is definite merit to your argument (hence the Archer rush). However, it's not about efficiency. 3 Horsemen at this stage of the game is a sizeable chunk of your production capability, but 12 Horsemen will cost less, relatively speaking. If you focus on growth and your economy early on, it does pay off later on (in any way that you choose). This is why the optimal strategy in Civ3 is not simply to constantly rush your neighbors.

5. (Elaboration of #2) A city by the Furs would be productively useless for the most important stage of the game (the early-game). Early on, I rather have cities that do something beyond just sit there. Those cities could, for example, start building a real army with which to utterly crush the Japanese later on.


Your comments definitely got me thinking, though. They just seem more appropriate for a Diety-level game, where real estate is a lot more critical.


Dominae

[Konquest02]

I plan to get my vote sometime tonight, but I have to say that it's very difficult to come down with the best played block of turns. Discussion is great and should be encouraged...

Keep up the good work guys!

--Kon--

[vmxa1]

Some nice insights and an interesting debate gentlemen.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
Dominae, I've been meaning to ask: did I understand correctly that you delayed popping huts to get the first tier tech trades done with nearby AI civs first?

If yes, were you not concerned that they would beat you to the huts?

As per Aeson's scouting thread, the key thing you're looking for in early exploration is Contacts. Goody Huts are great (especially around the capital, where a free Settler is really unfair), but are not as important as the advantages you can get by early discovery and trading with the AIs. With a Hut you get a tech, say, 25% of the time, essentially for free. When trading with the AIs, you can very often get the same tech via trade plus a couple of others, for free. So the goal when scouting is to uncover as much land as possible in order to spot those colored borders fast. Sometimes this means that a detour to grab a Hut is not a good idea.

This is all great, but I only actually applied this reasoning once in my game. On the western edge of the continent there is a Hut in a Hill/Mountain range, close to the Japanese. As I was proceeding North I saw this Hut, but grabbing it would take some time and I wanted to benefit from flat land (if you step through my log you'll see what I mean). I ended up contacting the Japanese a couple of turns later, and when I doubled back, the Hut was still there!

I'm not sure how that AI works in this case, but it definitely does not beeline for every Hut on the continent. I might even venture that the AI avoids Huts with "bad" outcomes.

So, in short:

1. Around the capital, always pop Goody Huts if Expansionist (if not, make sure you have some defense ready!).

2. Further out, only pop Huts if they're conveniently located along flat land (when Expansionist), or if you have reason to believe that you have Contacts with most of your continent's civs.


Dominae

[Arrian]

2. Further out, only pop Huts if they're conveniently located along flat land (when Expansionist), or if you have reason to believe that you have Contacts with most of your continent's civs.

I would add another caveat to that, Dominae:

Or if a nearby civ is also expansionistic (and are therefore likely to have a scout running around popping huts early in the game).

-Arrian

[Nor Me]

In respone the charlie_six and Theseus:

The arcane art of city placement: There are reasons for everything I've done. Firstly, this is RCP which, of course, is to reduce corruption. All my first cities will be at a distance of 3 or 3.5. The reason they are this close is so I can palace jump. I need to be able to use those cows after I've abandoned Mecca.

It's not always sensible to found the best eventual sites first. My 3rd city Damascus is behind in terrain improvement and has not always been able to work improved squares. On the other hand, Baghdad and Najran are able to use squares improved for Mecca and Medina when the latter are small due to building settlers and workers. This means that they are better sites in the short term so should be built first.

I'm surprised that it's Najran rather than Baghdad whose placement is being questioned. Najran has access to bonus grassland on rivers. It was only founed in 270BC so has been around for 4 turns. It was originally building a warrior because there was a barbarian camp just outside it. But the Americans destroyed that (allowing me to sell them the alphabet for 50 gold. That opportunist enough for you?) so I changed to a barracks for long term military gain. Najran's placement allows me to see whether the Carthaginians get contact or not.

As for horses, Medina's next build would likely be a temple and the next city would be 777 of Mecca so I'd have a choice of which to link up. Medina would be building settlers at this stage of the game so it wants the flood plains.

My long term plans for city placement were build cities at 777, 332 and either 44 or 411 of Mecca. Eventually Medina would build the FP. Then Mecca would be disbanded when a palace jump could be set up. In the end Baghdad would probably go too. This would allow Medina and Najran to work 12 decent tiles each and make them both good cities.

It does really make sense!

My plan for securing the fur is simple: kill the Japanese. charlie_six, you especially seem to overestimate the AI. Dominae, BRC and I have good starts and unless you lot manage to irrationally pick Arrian, we'll be playing from a good position. This is Monarch and there are plenty of good players on this team. We will be in a position to outproduce the AI by a decent margin.

It looks like my start is peaceful. But I certainly don't plan on continuing that way. It's designed to maximise food which will eventually mean the most production and commerce. There is no question of not conquering Japan and America relatively soon.

I'd expect from this position, the most important question is not "how much will it cost to conquer Japan?" but "how much is gained by conquering Japan?" If the Japanese build a city on those furs, then I'd hope for it to build a temple of reach size 2 so it could be ours. I'd probably even consider gifting them Monarchy before the attack to stop them pop-rushing. I think that the gain from taking cities is bigger than the cost of building more units to take them. while hitting a japanese settler team now would give us workers, it would be better not to slow down their expansion by making them build more units early.

In the end, we should aim to have the most productive empire earliest. What position the Japanese and Americans are in is secondary to this.

I think that this will be the position for all three teams. Is there so much difference between what's needed to launch an interconinental invasion amd aiming for the spaceship?

But the iron is another question as that makes a difference to how easily they will fall.

[Arrian]

Dominae, BRC and I have good starts and unless you lot manage to irrationally pick Arrian, we'll be playing from a good position.

Ouch! While I do think that you guys may have outplayed me, I don't think my game lacks a "good position." I think we're all in good positions, and I do feel I did several things right:

1) Early contact with Japan, and the worker purchase
2) RCP, albeit a wide ring.
3) Early temple, with a barracks ready next turn.
4) Good tech trading + money hoarding.

So, while I have no problem with a different save getting picked, I am a bit surprised at your comment.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Nor Me
and unless you lot manage to irrationally pick Arrian, we'll be playing from a good position.

This is why we're judging another team, and not our own!

Gotta love that honesty, though. Personally I think Arrian's game is a fine start...and there's still enough time to correct the things I dislike.




Dominae

[Nor Me]

Arrian, I was going to use a smilie, honestly but I forgot. I'm just surprised especially by MS's bias. It's just a good thing he's on the spaceship team. I'll be sure to critise him appropriately.

Yours is a good and indeed a winning position. But with your luck and skill, it could have been better, couldn't it? But I'm not judging so you don't need to take my comments seriously.

[alexman]

Arrian has a good plan and execution, but the lack of Granaries hurts, IMHO.

Dominae has an amazing start, based on excellent decisions. However, I feel that picking his save would load the dice too much. The initial scout move along with the Settler in 3850 is too lucky to be considered a "normal" game.

BRC has a solid, well rounded start, and I cannot find any flaws in his game. He could have been close to Dominae's position if he had similar luck.

Nor Me also has a solid start. His game is closer to what I would have done, and his use of Granaries and a tighter city placement gives him the edge over Dominae and BRC, I think.

So my vote is for Nor Me.

Edit: I see now I'm not supposed to vote here. Whoops!

[Theseus]

alex, what do you mean about Dominae's initial scout move?