Turnplayer Thread #2.

[darrelljs]

Originally posted by mostly-harmless
What is the downside of having two archers?

Or even having some hammers socked away in a Archer that can complete after the Settler.

Originally posted by darrelljs
I would request in the future before making these kinds of decisions we discuss them first

I didn't realize we still had the opportunity to change; I'm guessing Zeviz posted the screenshot so we could discuss, so ignore this comment .

Darrell

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by darrelljs
I didn't realize we still had the opportunity to change; I'm guessing Zeviz posted the screenshot so we could discuss, so ignore this comment .

AFAIK we can still make changes despite having pressed end turn, as long as the turn is still active.

mh

[Zeviz]

EDIT: We've had several weeks to discuss this. Why are these objections showing up only when the turn is already played?

The only things I've seen posted in city management thread talk about max growth configuration. The possiblity of stagnating the growth while working mines wasn't even discussed. (We'll be throwing away far more hummers by never working the 3rd mine than we'll be by spending 6 turns in max growth. I am at work, so can't give exact numbers, but feel free to count yourself.)

As for build order, the consensus seems to be Archer->Settler, because that would already give us the biggest military on our continent. The reason for current configuration is to avoid putting 1 turn of production into something before going to Settler. I'll switch to a forest in 5 turns, to let largest possible overflow go towards Settler.

EDIT2: Yes, we can still make changes, but in the future I'd highly appreciate getting feedback during the weeks of pre-turn discussion, instead of after posting the turn report.

As for downside of having 2 archers, it's that this will delays the foundation of our 3rd city by several turns, and everybody agrees that several lost turns of development for new city are worth a lot more than 5 hummers we are trading for 5 commerce.

EDIT3:

This is what was posted in City Management thread a week ago by Sulla:

quote:
Originally posted by sooooo
I'd be in favour of, after the worker, going for max growth (that's size 4 in 6 turns) while building 2 archers (with one chop). 1 chop = 1 archer, and the other archer will be built in the 6 turns of growth. Then a settler at size 4.


This sounds like the best plan I've heard. That is, unless we decide to drop everything and rush someone with swords... (Or maybe, we claim iron with city #3 and rush with swords + cats anyway! )

After this, there were half a dozen posts in that thread by several different people, none of whom commented on this plan. So why are there objections after the turn report is posted?

PS The archer chop was decided against in the worker thread, so we are left with archer (at max growth) -> Settler as the only plan discussed.

[darrelljs]

Originally posted by Zeviz
EDIT: We've had several weeks to discuss this. Why are these objections showing up only when the turn is already played?

Sorry, I guess I missed and/or misunderstood the city management thread. I'll try to pay better attention in the future . To the matter at hand, I think we should:

1. Move the grassland river tile to the grassland river mine tile (net loss of one food, net gain of three hammers).

2. After the Archer completes, while waiting for size 4, throw some hammers into a unit (Warrior or Archer).

3. Switch to a Settler at size 4.

I realize this delays the Settler, but we don't really have a consensus site yet (and without Iron Working, I doubt we will). Further, both our Workers will be tied up a pink dot for some time, so founding early isn't exactly creating mega turn advantage. Depending on Iron Working timing, I'd even be willing to slow build the Settler instead of whipping (can the next person who opens the save get an estimate on the number of turns until we have Iron Working?).

EDIT: Actually, having just re-read the city management thread I did suggest putting hammers into a unit while growing to size 4 . I guess I never considered "max growth" meant working a grassland river tile instead of a grassland river mine (even though it does maximize growth) becuase, well, it's kind of nuts .

Darrell

P.S. Failing this, let's at least work the grassland forest instead of the grassland river!

[Zeviz]

Actually, we don't lose much production with current system over your suggestion, because faster growth allows us to switch to max production configuration much sooner. (And I've just double-checked and both Sooooo and Sulla are talking about growth in 6 turns, so if this is :smoke:, at least I am in good company. )

Can somebody with access to save file calculate total production in 2 scenarios:

Option 1 - working 2 grassland forests, switching to 3 mines after growth.

Option 2 - working a forest and a mine, switching to 3 mines after growth.

EDIT: Doing calculations from screenshot seems to indicate that switching from river grassland to mine will generate either 0 or 8 extra units of production depending on when the city grows. Can somebody check how many turns it will take the city to grow when working the mine?

[darrelljs]

We are 24 food from growing it appears. So the choice is (discounting cow/capital/grassland forest, which are not under contention) 6 turns of no hammers followed by 2 turns of 10 hammers (all three mines) vs. 8 turns of 3 hammers. 24 > 20.

Actually, working both grassland mines would be 12 turns to growth, which might be unacceptable from a Settler timing perspective, but I'm betting from a hammer perspective it is superior:

currrent config = 6*0 + 6*10 = 60
proposed config = 8*3 + 4*10 = 64
all mines = 12*6 = 72

Not even close. Grassland mine is the best production tile in the game, even with a Granary (unless your city is under size 5). Depending on Iron Working, I'd probably slow grow while building units, then build a Settler without whipping, then whip a Worker and slow grow while building a Granary.

Darrell

[Zeviz]

Thanks for doing the calculation. 60 v. 64 is close enough that it doesn't make a difference, but allows us to invest more production into a Settler, instead of unpromoted archer (a.k.a. Quecha fodder).

72 production is more significant, but the problem is that we have nothing to do with it, unless we decide to build barracks. (Any production going into unpromoted archers would be wasted, considering that our neighbor's army consists of quechas.)

So the choise is: Archer->Barracks at max production vs. Archer at max growth -> Settler at max production. I prefer option 2, but completing barracks early could also be useful.

[darrelljs]

I think 4 hammers are important, especially this early! I would certainly hate to lose 12 hammers, so I vote we build Warriors while slow growing to size 4, then switch to a Settler. I guess a Barracks would be okay, but I usually focus on units this early in the game.

The only thing that woudl change my mind is if we would get Iron Working before the Settler completes in this path, but that doesn't seem to likely. Or, do we want to grab Iron with city #4 (or bank on having it already in our territory)?

Darrell

[Zeviz]

If every 4 hammers matter, what about the 6 hammers and 12 food you'll lose by delaying a settler for 6 turns? (Or 2 hammers and 4 food you'll loose by delaying for 2 turns.) And this is more than just 4 food + 2 hammers, because a city that is founded later will also grow later, so the second population point will also start producing later, etc.

As for the suggestion to build warriors, it's far too late in the game for a warrior rush, and they are useless otherwise. I could understand investing in a Granary, but we are 2 techs away from that.

[darrelljs]

Warriors are useless?! Let's see, fog busting, HR happiness, city garrison, Quecha killing. Yeah, they suck . Settler now vs. later comes down to whether we want to wait for Iron to found our third city. If not, then I think working the grassland forest is better than the grassland mine.

Anyway, like I said if this was a private game I'd build troops while working the grassland mines until size four, slow build a Settler, then whip a Worker. Further discussion is pointless, unless someone else has anything to add we're just saying the same thing over and over again. You're playing the turns; do what you think is best.

Darrell

[ruff_hi]

I'm as guilty as this of anyone but we seem to be mixing up our threads. I'll post a thread purity proposal so that we can discuss.

[Zeviz]

Pink Dot has been founded, staking our claim to the south-western corner of our continent.

It's configured for max growth now, but that's vetoable. I'll switch to Barracks next turn, or I might keep working on Archer until it's almost ready and then switch to either Barracks or Granary.

[Zeviz]

Workers work. Scouts scout. Cities grow.

The only notable event this turn is that we've found Imperio's horses. They are on a river 4 tiles from their capital. So we are the only civ on the continent stuck with no military resources.

[Sullla]

Just for clarity, now that sooooo is back have we determined who is going to be playing the turns? It looks like Zeviz has done a fine job, so I'm only asking to make sure there's no confusion. I think it's best that one person be "the guy" to play the turns, just like in succession games.

[sooooo]

Hi, I'm happy for Zeviz to continue. I enjoyed my 40 turns but I'm ready for a break. I'll be available to step in later though if needed.