Are we playing too conservatively?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I was just wondering if anyone else here was feeling the same way I was. I just think that the border treaty, and other things which I can't remeber right now is just to conservastive. I would have liked to see a more reckless phase of expansionism with 'jungle rules.' With all the great players on our team, I think that this unpredictibility and the chaos would benefit us. Right now, we are slowly eliminating the variables which the other team faces: they no longer need to choose between say expansion or granery, because their borders are guaranteed.

I think that it is safe to assume that the civ we are closest too has a civ on their western border and they are sandwhiched between us and them. Meaning that this border treaty has just freeded them up, given them less game elements to juggle, and has reduced the chances of them making a mistake.

I also think that all of those workers we have are slowing us down. This is the early ages. We don't need many city improvements. We should be pumping out settlers from every hole except for one city where we build a wonder (colossus in my opinion)

Anyhow, I just had to get that out of my system. Does anyone else feel like this, or am I just being too dangerous?

[Aeson]

I know I'm new to this game, but my initial thoughts when reading through the various threads and looking at screenshots has been roughly the same. I don't agree on the workers though, as the more the merrier.

Just looking at how Vox raced to that western Iron source city placement, I think the border treaty was too kind to them. They'll likely get both of those Iron sources, and (correct me if I've missed it) the road they are building seems to suggest they didn't have any of their own up north. If they do have Iron up north, it looks like an act of agression on their part to lock up all Iron sources. (do they know of our Iron?)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Workers are fine later on, as REX is winding down, but at the beginning of the game, we should build more settlers. Of course, now its a moot point because there is no longer a trade-off for either team. With guarantted borders, we can delay our city building just long enough to get sidetracked.

[nbarclay]

(1) Vox is not a credible competitor, either in terms of starting position or in terms of the skill of its players. I really don't care about giving Vox a few advantages here and there because when the day is done, we'll still be able to research faster and dwarf their production by a huge margin. In the meantime, a peaceful, cooperative relationship with Vox gives us advantages relative to other teams that do have potential to be serious competition.

(2) In my experience, workers are vital to getting the most out of cities. If a city has to work forests instead of mined grasslands to get decent production, it quickly wastes far more potential growth than the population cost of a worker. Workers make granaries practical, allowing one city to do the work of two in producing further settlers and workers - or of as many as five when comparing a site like Cyclone with sites that have no food bonus tiles. Workers connect cities so settlers and military units can move faster, and to reduce corruption a little. And workers make a significant difference in commerce, which is what lets us lead the world in GNP when EotS isn't suffering from disease.

Nathan

[Lawrence of Arabia]

1. But why give them those advantages? Lets play ruthless and take all of the advantages ourselves. We will destroy them quicker with less resources and then can focus on other things

2. I dont think most of us care about the stats this early in the game. Very tiny insignificant factors can make those rankings swing. Building graneries and workers means putting off our settlers until later. This means that we wont be able to settle the prime spots. Now I know that with this treaty, we have guarantted borders, so it really doesnt matter what we build. But my point is that Vox is facing this same reduction in game breaking choices, which makes it harder for us.
Workers are useful for roads, but we are industrious. One worker, building out towards to fringes of our civ, is enough to get the basic network down. All of this tree chopping and stuff is taking up turns that we could have spent increasing our road network. I know that it is more efficient that way, and lets use build the city improvments now to be able to rex more later, but if we had simply gone for the rex with no or one or two cheap city improvemnts, we would be in a much better situation with Vox. We wouldnt have had to set borders, because our economic might would have been so much bigger then theirs
ITs too late to change what has happened, but maybe we can prevent it from happening again.

Just some thoughts..

[nbarclay]

Aeson, Dissidentville is intended as a grab for extra jungle tiles, not as a grab for the iron. When Jon and I first discussed the possibility of Dissidentville going where they ended up putting it, the expectation was that we would end up having the stronger culture in the area to claim the iron. Since then, in the final border treaty, we actually moved one of our city sites right next to the iron where we'll be guaranteed to get it (since one city's first-tier tiles always trump another's second-tier tiles).

If I understand what Vox has said correctly they do have another iron supply in the north. And I told them we have another iron supply besides what they've seen in their explorations, so they know they wouldn't be keeping us from having iron even if they would grab the iron there. As I understand it, what will end up happening unless the treaty is violated is that each civ will end up with two sources of iron.

As for how generous the treaty is or isn't, if I remember right, we'll have close to double the land tiles Vox does (assuming they've told us the truth about the lands north of the chokepoint - if they haven't, they're dead). They'll have enough coast and sea to have a somewhat decent research base, but their industrial base won't offer us any real competition.

[nbarclay]

Why give Vox those advantages? Because we get advantages too. We get the advantage of being able to REX and start a wonder without worrying too much about military matters. We get the advantage of tech exchanges that let us keep up with the rest of the world, and very likely pull ahead in the fairly near future. We get the advantage of focusing on building high-value cities in our core instead of sending early settlers to sites that would be almost completely corrupt to try to get there before Vox does. We even get Vox selling contact with us to other civs and giving us a share of the profits to the extent that those profits include tech!

I'd be interested to see what sequence of moves you would come up with for the first 50 turns that would have put us in a stronger economic position than we're in now. I wouldn't be shocked if it's possible given how terribly unlucky we've been with disease, but I seriously doubt that you can come up with something that would put us in a stronger position without building any additional workers. And remember, claiming jungle cities but leaving Vox in a position to come in with immortals and take them away from us is not a viable option.

Nathan

[Aeson]

Ok, I guess I was looking at the wrong border proposal as the final one. Splitting the Iron sources does seem much more agreeable. Still not sure why they would found Dissidentville where/when they did though.

Do we have any idea if they have Horses or not?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

We could have been able to REX and start a wonder without giving them anything. And we would still not have to worry about the military. We do not need high value cities in our core right now IMO. These structures sap gold which could be used elswhere. By converting growth into gold, we can become even more prosperous because we increase exponentially.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Aeson
Do we have any idea if they have Horses or not?

Not sure but I did see this in one of the messages:

end of horse number one (yes, a horse - even if we don't have any...)

Whether or not that is a true indication, is unknown, at least to me, perhaps they have revealed more in other threads....

[notyoueither]

I agree we have played conservatively to this point, however I believe this suits us much better than others.

We remain peaceful and build. We end that phase with 12 or 13 cities all relatively close to the capitol, thanks to the base of the beaker. That suits us just fine. With every turn we grow stronger relative to Vox, and maybe some of the civs on the crowded continent.

One thing though. I keep envisioning Immortals coming down that road. Keep a close eye on that Mil Advisor, and designate 1 city, two later, to Barracks and Vet units. I believe we are planning this.

[Aeson]

One thing though. I keep envisioning Immortals coming down that road. Keep a close eye on that Mil Advisor, and designate 1 city, two later, to Barracks and Vet units. I believe we are planning this.

Definitely agree. (that's what I invisioned the first time I saw that road as well). Spearmen fortified on a Mountain (4.5) have better defense than the Immortal's offense. A few place strategically could at least force any invasion down onto the flats where WC's can effectively deal with them.

What's the military advisor say currently as far as strong/average/weak?

[notyoueither]

Sir Ralph has been checking every few turns. Always has been average.

He checked it last turn. I asked him too.

[Harovan]

He says average, I check this every 2 or 3 turns. And I wholeheartly agree with a barracks and vet units, I keep demanding this since long, but get outvoted.

We have a barracks in Hurricane, but a plan to build a wonder there got the majority, so the barracks is useless except for upgrades. Now that it seems, that the GL isn't worth as much as it was, we should build some vet units there.

[Harovan]

Oh... I almost forgot, the last check (last turn) said, that our military is strong. We finished a chop assisted vet spearman this turn.