Master builder poll

[Tiberius]

Spiffor, sounds good, but I have my doubts:

How long can you do this? This whole strategy depends entirely on whether we are alone or not. We can do this for our second settler, but after that? Should we discover that we are not alone, we must build mercenaries. Simple as that. We can't continue to build warriors when some other guys could have archers!
I'm sorry, I'm kind of tired and can't follow all the math, so maybe I'm missing something. Please let me know if I misunderstood something.

[Spiffor]

Tiberius : no problem, you understood
I never wanted this to be our default for eternity, but I felt it was better in the very early game, for our second settler, and maybe our thirs if we really discover no neighbour.

[Tiberius]

Well, then shouldn't we discover that we are not alone by the time our first settler is built, I agree with this procedure.

[ZargonX]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Spiffor, sounds good, but I have my doubts:

How long can you do this? This whole strategy depends entirely on whether we are alone or not. We can do this for our second settler, but after that? Should we discover that we are not alone, we must build mercenaries.

This has been my point all along. We must explore our extended surroundings before commiting to an extended path. Granted, I think we're flexible enough to work with whatever comes up, but I think that as a matter of time, it's not worth investing massive energy into plans that may not even be valid.

Call my crazy or lazy, but I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by ZargonX
This has been my point all along. We must explore our extended surroundings before commiting to an extended path. Granted, I think we're flexible enough to work with whatever comes up, but I think that as a matter of time, it's not worth investing massive energy into plans that may not even be valid.

Call my crazy or lazy, but I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.

As if I you took the words from my mouth.

[Spiffor]

Sure, but I wanted to warn about the risks of building a merc too early (major problem being the lack of scouts). The whole production plan + math just meant I got a little carried away .
I did this because I had some time, and I don't expect you to do it if you don't want to : this game is intended to be fun

And it's always better to have a plan handy when we're still not sure about the one responsible for city planning (again, here speak bad memories of the SP DemoGame, when we hadn't a city planner for 2 months ; I designed a plan so that the government didn't have to poll on every single issue)

[lmtoops]

Wow...I also have been gone on an extended weekend and found this interesting discussion.

May I suggest to all (Spiffor, Delmar, Vondrack,...) that we use our intellect and energy to combat the future. Let's put and end to this discussion of the past.

I was very sceptical about the plan of 2 warriors + 1 settler, but upon further review I suppose it has more positives. You probably would not go wrong either way. But exploring our territory would give us knowledge to base future decisions. The first warrior can be exploring while the second is being built. Further exploration can be done by both warriors until the settler is built. Then we will know the best placement of our second city.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Hah. Then don't.

Even though the rest of your post worries me a bit, this part gives me some hope that after all you do have the right attitude.

[delmar]

When I play a game, I usually keep building the exact same escort/settler combo in my capital for a long time. I find this a good aproach because it allows me to optimize the surroundings of the capital to that particular task, and then the worker can move on to build the road system and to improve the surroundings of future cities. Consequently I feel that it is worth investing time into detailed calculations such as what the heck will happen if I irrigate or mine the cattle. I suspect that this small piece of information would have been useful at the beginning of my post that analyzed the possibilities regarding our capital.

Edit: An additional, Demo Game specific advantage of this aproach would be that we could agree on it once and never discuss it again. This just occured to me and now I am a bit scared by the thought that we might need to discuss and vote about every single unit our capital builds for the next 2000 years.

Scouting is also very important. For this reason I usually build a few warriors while the worker finishes the tile improvements that are necessery for the aforementioned optimized setup. If I feel that the warriors produced during this period are not sufficient for scouting, then I build further warriors in the second city. This is often not necessary because I find sea in one or more directions, limiting the scope of scouting by warrior. In any case, I wouldn't delay the start of the escort/settler production much after the optimized setup is ready for the sake of building scouts, as having more than 4 units per city for a prolonged period indirectly means that we can't keep our research set to 100%, which I consider an extremely important thing this early in the game.

Some voiced their opinion that a strategy this early is useless because it will change anyway. I don't agree with this statement, as I can hardly imagine any situation where I wouldn't want to build settlers for a long time and obviously the settler can't go alone so there must be an escort as well.

I realize that one of the major issues at hand is what that certain "escort" should be, and that it seems to depend on many yet unknown things. For example whether we are alone or not. My answer to this question would be that we should shoot for a strategy that will work in most cases. Specifically I wouldn't dare to count on being alone, therefore I would not even consider a strategy that needs changing if we meet another civ.

I don't know whether the 2-warrior escort is good enough for the case where we are not alone. I never build many warriors, only 3-4 for exploring and suppressing early unrest in the capital, for the simple reason that their upgradeability sucks. An exception to this rule would be if I wanted to have a bunch of swordsmen, which I usually don't. Therefore I am tempted to say that the 2-warrior version is inferior.

At the same time I can see the adventage of having 2 warriors in each city permanently, for supressing unrest and for basic protection. They might be also useful, after upgraded to swordsmen, to take out enemy units before they can attack.

If we find (later on) that 2 warriors are not enough for protection, then we can build a city (or two) optimized for producing Mercenaries.

[quantum_mechani]

Wow, a lot piled up while I was gone.

Kloreep: I don't think the three tile method would help anything as the main advantage of the two tile system is the one turn defense reinforcements.

Delmar: I agree with most of your ideas (especially the city spacing ), but if you really need someone to micromanage to that degree you should run for Master Builder next election. BTW, I belive that long term grasslands are equal to plains.

[delmar]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
Delmar: I agree with most of your ideas (especially the city spacing ),

Yes, I noticed that city spacing thing, too. I am a bit surprised that some folks are on one hand afraid that someone will steamroll us before we can say "Numidian Mercenary" and on the other hand are worried about not being able to use all the 20 tiles around a city. Well, all I can say is that we will have what the majority wants...

but if you really need someone to micromanage to that degree you should run for Master Builder next election.

I addressed the question whether I should run for MB position or not in this thread. In short, I am more and more convinced that I shouldn't.

BTW, I belive that long term grasslands are equal to plains.

Because?

[Tiberius]

The winner is ZargonX.

Believe it or not, I’m happy somebody finally voted ZargonX so he could win the contest.
I was worried that I should forfeit while being in advantage in the poll, which would have been quite a strange situation. I’ve realized that I won’t have time for this. Due to some family and work arrangements, I’ll be offline starting with dec. 20 until the beginning of the new year (with the exception of maybe a few days). Also in january I won’t be able to post on a daily basis, maybe once or twice a week. This could change at the end of january, but until then don’t count on me on a regular basis. This of course exclude me from any executive position.

I want to thank everybody who voted me. I am confident I would have done a good job. To quote Zargon, who said it better: “I think at this point in the game the MB can afford to make some choices without providing a full dissertation on why they did so. We all know how to play this game, and I would trust every one of you to make a good decision, and I hope you would trust me, too.” I’m a little worried that I wouldn’t have the time to run some of those much needed simulations (like the road-mine or warrior-warrior-settler issues) so it is better this way, that my RL gave me the excuse .

Thank you.

PS You should find somebody to update the “Guidelines for the President/VP” thread after dec. 20.

Edited: I removed any reference to delmar. I thought he was the one who voted Zargon, while apparently he didn't.

[delmar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
The winner is ZargonX.

Believe it or not delmar, I’m happy you voted ZargonX

Believe it or not, I didn't vote because nobody promised what I asked for.

And as for the implied accusation that I hate you, I don't.

I think you might have missed one important part of one of my earlier posts, so let me quote myself:

"Keep in mind that I am only 1 of the 18 citizens here, so in theory you can feel free to ignore anything I say (until I post a vote and win ). This is something the other candidates should keep in mind, too. Don't be scared if you think that I won't be happy with you, because it just doesn't matter."

[Tiberius]

If you didn't vote, please vote ZargonX, so the poll could officially end with his victory.

[Tiberius]

Delmar, I wasn't assuming you were hating me. I assumed that you childishly voted against me because I didn't approve you playing style. I apologize for that.

I am very close to follow your advice and ignore whatever you're saying. It is not because I have anything against you, but your posting style could be sometimes truly annoying. You have good ideas and good intentions; only if you could post them in a more attractive style. The majority of people around have a RL and little time to spend reading and answering posts, especially very long ones, filled with all kind of speculations and sometimes accusations. You seem to assume that no one except you have a strategy, while confusing strategy with nitpicking.

Just my 2 cents.