Tweet
(I apologize for the contiuned semi-threadjack!)
First, being founded one turn earlier is not unimportant in the early-game.
Second, by putting a city on the Desert, I irrigate a tile that I need to irrigate but that I do not plan on using, which is highly convenient in terms of Worker-turns. As you point out I still need to irrigate a tile, but I irrigate a Flood Plains, which can be put to immediate good use as a 3F/2C for Adrianople. You, on the other hand, need to irrigate a Desert tile, which I doubt you will use (only 1F...) before turn 80 or so.
Third, by having Adrianople only 2.5 tiles away from my capital, I ensure that it will suffer the least amount of Corrpution among all my core cities. This is important to keep Adrianople as small as possible but still capable of producing 2-turn Workers. In my city placement, I have a couple of cities as distance 3, less then where you have Adrianople at 3.5. I believe this means Adrianople would lose its fourth Shield to Corruption instead of its fifth. Again, a big deal for a pump city.
Why have they failed?
(Edit: I may have misunderstood the quote above. Are you saying that you only claimed that Granary-first was better than Settler-first given your chosen first ten moves of the game? If so, I agree, and please disregard the rest of this post.)
"Settler-first": Build a second city as quickly as possible in order to make most efficient use of bonus Food resources. Two cities and bonus Food means more Workers early on, which in turn means faster irrigation of bonus Food resources. It is critical for this strategy to work that, in the first few turns, Constantinople work the Wheat tiles and the Worker do a Chop Forest on the Game tile.
"Granary-first": Build a Granary as quickly as possible in order to maximize its Food-generating effect from each growth in Pop. It is critical for this strategy that, in the first few turns, Constantinople obtain high Shield production, which means leaving the Game Forest alone (for now) and having the Worker mine a Bonus Grassland.
The point of this whole discussion is to determine which of these two strategies, if perfectly executed with superb micromanagement and smart higher-level decisions, results in a stronger position later on in the game (at turn 40, or at Philosophy). There is nothing that Settler-first did in my tests that is so much more efficient than Granary-first, apart from building a Settler first. From my results, I feel confident in claiming that Settler-first is at least as good as Granary-first. I am happy with leaving it at that.
Originally posted by punkbass2000
I don't follow. How does 69 speed up your start, aside from being founded one turn earlier? It still requires one tile to be irrigated before the game.
I don't follow. How does 69 speed up your start, aside from being founded one turn earlier? It still requires one tile to be irrigated before the game.
Second, by putting a city on the Desert, I irrigate a tile that I need to irrigate but that I do not plan on using, which is highly convenient in terms of Worker-turns. As you point out I still need to irrigate a tile, but I irrigate a Flood Plains, which can be put to immediate good use as a 3F/2C for Adrianople. You, on the other hand, need to irrigate a Desert tile, which I doubt you will use (only 1F...) before turn 80 or so.
Third, by having Adrianople only 2.5 tiles away from my capital, I ensure that it will suffer the least amount of Corrpution among all my core cities. This is important to keep Adrianople as small as possible but still capable of producing 2-turn Workers. In my city placement, I have a couple of cities as distance 3, less then where you have Adrianople at 3.5. I believe this means Adrianople would lose its fourth Shield to Corruption instead of its fifth. Again, a big deal for a pump city.
Again, this was a simple error on my part. I misunderstood your comparison, I thought you were following my first ten moves, which is why I think our tests have failed.
(Edit: I may have misunderstood the quote above. Are you saying that you only claimed that Granary-first was better than Settler-first given your chosen first ten moves of the game? If so, I agree, and please disregard the rest of this post.)
"Settler-first": Build a second city as quickly as possible in order to make most efficient use of bonus Food resources. Two cities and bonus Food means more Workers early on, which in turn means faster irrigation of bonus Food resources. It is critical for this strategy to work that, in the first few turns, Constantinople work the Wheat tiles and the Worker do a Chop Forest on the Game tile.
"Granary-first": Build a Granary as quickly as possible in order to maximize its Food-generating effect from each growth in Pop. It is critical for this strategy that, in the first few turns, Constantinople obtain high Shield production, which means leaving the Game Forest alone (for now) and having the Worker mine a Bonus Grassland.
The point of this whole discussion is to determine which of these two strategies, if perfectly executed with superb micromanagement and smart higher-level decisions, results in a stronger position later on in the game (at turn 40, or at Philosophy). There is nothing that Settler-first did in my tests that is so much more efficient than Granary-first, apart from building a Settler first. From my results, I feel confident in claiming that Settler-first is at least as good as Granary-first. I am happy with leaving it at that.
I wonder if this is largely a result of me generally believing in granary-first and thus knowing the "optimal" strats with it, while Dom is more familiar with settler-first. I suppose we could try to compare my granary-first to Dom's settler-first, though that still runs into some problems, it could be interesting. I'm interested to know what contacts you had in 2110BC Dom, and when you acquired them w/o warriors. Same for huts, as well as overall exploration.
little absent minded in my old age now.
Glad it netted us a MGL, though 
Comment