Turn 28, 2920BC

[notyoueither]

Unfortunately, settling in a fp changes the tile to desert, and it dosen't change back after razing.

In fact, we are assuming that was a fp tile.

I can show you a map with two desert along a river that are not fp's.

[Mudhut]

Wow. I am (again) amazed at the depth of knowledge on these boards. I wouldn't have even known that it was possible for it to be desert until after i had built the new city and was going "how come my workforce won't assign to the floodplain square....?!"

If it was a desert tile to begin with, then it would make perfect sense. So maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I really wasn't serious about razing it -> the population (and not having to build a settler!) will be more important to us at this stage of the game than any relocation benefit.

[Blake]

I don't think I've ever seen a desert river tile in a normal map - I'm not saying it can't happen, to know for sure would require digging through the script and proving it works correctely...
I've seen desert river but only in scenarios and with the Great Plains map script.

We need to get a couple of skirms there asap... and bait them to attack us. If they attack us, they can be certain to lose 1 archer for every skirm they take. That's better than the other way around, where we need at least 2 skirms for every archer we attack.

Perfect trap: the cow. The moment we can put skirms on the 2 forests, a third should go to the cow. If they don't attack, we kill off their hpt. If they do attack, we grow stronger relatively speaking (we might even get a shot at taking out another archer outside their city)

We're on the same wavelength. I wonder even if we should pull our punches slightly - like keep some of our skirmishers back, lead them to believe that they actually can drive us out by sacrificing an archer for every skirmisher kill...
Because once we put them into "Die slowly" mode it'll become more expensive for us... like it'd be ideal if they train a worker instead of 2.25 extra archers...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Blake
I don't think I've ever seen a desert river tile in a normal map - I'm not saying it can't happen, to know for sure would require digging through the script and proving it works correctely...
I've seen desert river but only in scenarios and with the Great Plains map script.

I've got two in capital radius on a inland lakes map (I did move the settler).

It is also a pet peeve of Sir Ralph's, so I imagine he's seen it more than once.

[Blake]

I don't play Inland lake much but I seem to recall it doesn't quite use the standard script. I've NEVER seen desert river on Continents, Pangea, Custom Continents, Terra etc.


About working the plains river...

If they are working it sustained - rather than just for 1 turn to get an extra hammer to complete a unit - then it's a bad move.

Compare the total yield for 2 workers over 2 turns using current Vox placement...
(2-0-1 + 1-1-1) + (2-0-1 + 1-1-1) = 6-2-4

Now compare with working higher yield tiles...
(2-1-0 + 2-1-0) + (2-0-1 + 0-2-3) = 6-4-4 (+2 hammers)
or
(2-0-1 + 2-1-0) + (2-0-1 + 0-2-3) = 6-3-5 (+1 hammer +1 commerce)

They've already sacrificed food twice by working the plains river... each time they work it they lose a hammer or half a hammer and half a commerce.

My history of Vox suggests that are microing production and planning quite precisely so they get the precise food/hammers needed to finish growth/training, but still, in the long run they are basically using sub-optimal worker placement. For their first growth and first warrior they would've been better served working a 2-1-0 tile (instead of 1-1-1) and then using the +1 food for starvation working the 0-2-3 tile.

In short, their worker allocation IS weedy - and that's without questioning the wisdom of making a long term 1 hammer for 1 commerce trade...

[Mudhut]

AND if they had another 3-0-1 tile, they'd be getting +1 food as well every turn.... it's amazing how the little things add up.

Mind you, I don't want to be too harsh, I know that I make lots of suboptimal choices too. A friend has been going over my games at Emp level, at there are lots of ways in which he shows me I've done dumb things. As a team, we should work at not being complacent or arrogant.

Still, it's amazing how the little things add up. When Vox are eliminated 35 turns from now*, they may well look back and say "we sure could have used all those +1 food/hammers/commerce we squandered"...

*Note that this is said with a "positive thinking" attitude, not intended as an arrogant statement...

[Arrian]

I've seen desert-on-river on a standard continents map. I can dig up the save if you want, because it's recent.

I was NOT aware that settling on a floodplains magically transforms the tile to desert, though!

-Arrian

[Blake]

I've never seen desert on river on the standard map scripts.. not once... if it does happen it's rarer than starting on a plains hill commerce special on a river with a non-tundra forest deer within the radius...

Any chance the documented cases of desert on river on standard maps is from a city being razed?

[Arrian]

Not in my case. There were multiple desert tiles (3, IIRC) on the river, and no city was ever built on any of them.

When I get home tonight I'll find the save. Of course, it's gonna be from the industrial age, but trust me when I tell you I first saw the desert tiles in the ultra-early game. The city I have near the desert/river tiles is the original AI city I captured with chariots.

It's certainly rare, but I've seen it more than I've started on a plains hill commerce special (never).

-Arrian

p.s. I'm reasonably sure I've seen the desert-on-river thing at least once before. The only modification I have installed is the Blue Marble graphics mod, which should have no impact on terrain tiles. My dim memory of seeing desert/river once before pre-dates my use of Blue Marble.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Mudhut


But even if there were other goodies in the black to the east, they would still have them in their radius if they had settled one tile 6 of their current location. They get cows (after their first border pop) and gold and whatever goodies are out there. It's just sooo much better -> what were they thinking!?

Again, I'm only trying to play devil's advocate here. For what we know, I personally would never settle on a fp. But again, we don't know everything yet.

As you lot aren't convinced, what if we see that there's one goodie on those 4 uncovered tiles, and to the East of that is primarily desert... settling away from the desert makes sense, even if it sacrifices an fp. Settling 6 of where they are now could bring more desert into their ring.

The only thing I want to show, is that the classical mistake to make is to think the enemy is stupid. That is not the case, even if there might be more perfect ways of achieving their goals. It's better to assume they are playing smart, but we don't know their exact situation (yet), and don't know their precise goals... this way, we can make deductions on their goals, without deducing they are simply playing it stupidly.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Blake


We're on the same wavelength. I wonder even if we should pull our punches slightly - like keep some of our skirmishers back, lead them to believe that they actually can drive us out by sacrificing an archer for every skirmisher kill...
Because once we put them into "Die slowly" mode it'll become more expensive for us... like it'd be ideal if they train a worker instead of 2.25 extra archers...

I totally agree. But how to achieve this is another matter... one of the few things I see we can do, is to go for a settler, while building a road. They've got quite a nice line of sight around their capital, which gives them ample warning time when it comes to our skirms threatening their attacking archers.

Why the settler? Well, it will underdefend our position in their lands. If that makes them confident enough to attack us, we gain. Every unit we can trade for a Vox unit is a good deal right now, even if it would be a warrior for a warrior. As long as they don't take 2 of our units with one of theirs, it's better for us in the long run. For the next 20-25 turns, we should try to put less skirms in their territory than they have archers: even if they destroy all of ours they will lose in the end.

For now, the best scenario I see, is that we can put 2 skirms in their territory together with Grog, and wait until they've got ~5 archers. Hopefully, they go for our 3 units, after which we come in force. They will gain a couple of promotions, but we outnumber them... and by coincidence that times nicely with building a settler after 2 skirms, going full on skirms afterwards.

Other things to keep in mind: Vox' intelligence. They have a roaming warrior right now, and either it will try to scout/harrass us, or it goes of to find other teams. That's one scouting possibility. The other is the power graph: skirms or worth more than archers, so if we can at a certain moment in time be below their power they will get more confident. The only thing we've got to take care of, is that after such a moment, we gain more in power each turn than them.

DeepO

[DeepO]

I've never seen desert on river before either... I've seen plenty of desert tiles on the corner or rivers, though... but these aren't 'on the river', they don't have access to fresh water.

Of course, what I've never seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Ennet
they would only get an additional 10% bonus as it doesnt stack with culture defence.. and the hammers they put into that they would more than lose from the archers they could've built in the meantime..

Oh, you're right of course. At one time, it was different... I still remember that.

Sorry, I've got very little time to play right now, so please correct me if I'm rambling too much...

DeepO

[Ennet]

maybe they just didnt want to lose a turn of research like blake suggested, 1 extra food at size two vs. religion.. but i dont know..

[Ennet]

btw, anyone else got the feeling that the horde tried to rush someone? it doesnt have to be them, or anyone ofcourse.. just thinking of their reputation and the fact that there has been some delayed turns with that 3k drop in soldiers a few turns ago.. 1k or even 2k could be from warriors lost to animals, but 3k? just too much to be a coincidence..