Short Term Plan for Warrior Exploration

[Mudhut]

I presume we'd then continue counter-clockwise, which would look like this:



Note that this is 10 moves in the future. IF we accept the proposal above that we want warrior 1 to stay within 2 squares of EotS from this time until warrior 2 is born, then we can't do any more exploring from this time on. There are no more squares we can reveal by moving withing a 2-square radious of EotS.

Do we really need to be this timid? I'm lacking multiplayer experience, and so really feel out of my depth here.

[Aginor]

Here's what I can tell you so far about safety/paranoia (1/3 simming complete):

Maps are generated with the same settings as our map (Prince, Continents, Temperate, Standard, normal sea levels). 'Spaces to nearest rival' is the longer of the two axes (horizontal and vertical) from the nearest civ.

This should NOT be interpreted as 'fewest possible moves to get from Civ A to Civ B', though this generally is the case. In some cases, I have had outliers where the initial Settler points are eight or fewer spaces apart, but due to terrain it would take more than eight moves to get from Civ A to Civ B. The data is recorded purely 'as the crow flies'. Maps which isolate one civ on a separate island were not discarded, as the isolate did not seem to deviate significantly in the minimum distance from other high-end outliers located on the same continent as at least one other civ.

1) 11,12 and 13 are by far the most frequent datapoints on 'spaces from nearest rival'. While I don't have a spreadsheet up yet, I'd say that the value was within this range over half the time, eyeballing the data.

2) The smallest value was 4 (and they really were 4 apart, with the one civ blockaded on a tiny peninsula by the other). 6,7,8, and 9 all also happened to civs at least once. The sub-10 values were 13/105 cases (with the 7 on the same map as the 4's, hence it only occuring once).

3) The high end of the distribution had the rest of the cases. Most of these were distributed from about 16-18, with some 14s and 15s, a couple of 10s, and a couple major outliers in the twenties.


The upshot of this is that while a rival could be 10 spaces or fewer away from us, more than likely the distance is actually a bit greater than that. A promoted 2xWoody could only hit us from the south and east, and it's not terribly likely that anything will come from that way, since it's all tundra down south of us. Again, eyeballing maps we're probably the civ furthest south by a few tiles on this one - but there's a good chance that there's someone either slightly north and well east or mostly north and either slightly west or slightly east from us. Or, there may be someone north and someone east. While it's possible that the continent stretches on well to the west, my best guess is that the desert is towards the middle of the continent and that our east-west rival is to the east.

With that in mind, it may indeed be best to start poking around east of the city.

[notyoueither]

You also have to take into account a scout moving towards us and popping a warrior from a hut. A favoured tactic of some for an early AI takeout.

Keeping the initial warrior safe is an old lady's game, but old ladies stay safe.

I recall a PBEM I had an opportunity to peek at. Dominae had a really nice start... that Theseus walked into and occupied by pure blind luck of picking the right direction and just going.

[notyoueither]

That being said, in an emergency we can get 3 or 4 hpt.

From turn 7 we can complete the first warrior in 2 turns. I don't think we need to be too over-protective.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I recall a PBEM I had an opportunity to peek at. Dominae had a really nice start... that Theseus walked into and occupied by pure blind luck of picking the right direction and just going.

Ah, good times.

A Woodsman II Warrior could indeed catch us with our pants down, but it's unlikely that it could raze our cap unless it surprised us from the South. We have a 3 Hammer tile that we can switch to in emergencies, that gives us a Warrior in 4 turns - most likely 3 since we will have accumulated three Hammers by the turn after next. Once our capital reaches size two we're almost always two turns away from a Warrior, maximum three (when we are building our Scout).

We also have to think about diplomacy - does anyone really want to Warrior rush? You really need to bring two Warriors to an opponent's cap to have a good chance at accomplishing something noteworthy, otherwise you're just poking the bee hive (the Skirmisher hive, I should say!).

So I think it's extremely unlikely that we will be caught with an undefended capital. This is not to say that our Warrior should explore too far away, mind you.

The question we have to focus on now is: do we want to guard against the worst-case scenario of a Woodsman II Warrior arriving from the South?

[Arrian]

I think the only thing to the South is tundra/ice.

-Arrian

[ruby_maser]

Hmm, Excel - lent...

It had to be said. Don't mind me. I'm just biding my time until we've got an enemy to lie to. I want enemies!!!

Until then, I see no diplomatic solution to this problem.

[Mudhut]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Keeping the initial warrior safe is an old lady's game, but old ladies stay safe.

So the question is: are we old ladies... or young ladies?



I hereby commend to all the Arrian plan of 3-9-9-7-7-8, at which point we can decide between:

The Old Ladies Plan of 7-4-4-1 (staying close-ish to the capital)

The Young Ladies Plan of 7-7-4-7 (or something like that, moving further away from EotS).

Please speak up if you agree, Dejon needs to be able to tell what the consensus is for when he has to play the turn.

[Mudhut]

And the graphical display of these options:



So we have the Arrian plan (in yellow) then the two options of how to proceed after that:
-Old Ladies Plan (pretty in pink)
-Young Ladies Plan (bold in blue)

Note that the blue YLP sees pretty much everything that the pink OLP sees (plus more!), but takes slightly longer to get around because it's going further out.

Me, I favour the YLP. Be brave! But that's just my opinion. What do you prefer? Speak up people, the next turn awaits us!

Also, I might put this into the starting post as well, in case people start getting a bit lost.

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Mudhut
... in case people start getting a bit lost.

*cough* Err, no fear of that...just because you're splashing easter colour all over the place and there's so many number patterns in this thread some might think you guys are looking for primes.

We're due to get the turn soon, so I hope we're leaning to a consensus of some fashion, or at minimum have a direction for next turn. ( )

[notyoueither]

I think there's a consensus to move 3 this turn.

[Aginor]

Agreed on 3 - it moves towards enabling us to determine between OLP and YLP...we'll have some info on just how easy and probable it would be to gank us with that hypothetical raging Woody II.

[Hot Mustard]

9 next turn?

[notyoueither]

Anything other than 9 better have some very persuasive arguments.

[Mudhut]

So, 9 it was (in 3840 bc).

I have updated the graphic post-3840 move as follows:



In the 3800 thread, nye has 7 as his suggested next move. This conflicts with the Arrian Plan, which would have us going 9.

[Remember that we are going to see most of this area anyway, when we get our cultural pop in two turns time]

I support nye in this -> we don't see anything extra by going 9 (except for the tops of hills, if they happen to be there), may as well keep things nice and safe. 9 would make us four moves away from the capital; 7 is just two moves away.

We could then return to the Arrian plan by going 9 the following move. Does that sound acceptable to everyone?

[Also: updated first post so info is easy to find]