Adjusting on the Fly or “How RoN is meant to be played”

[HalfLotus]

I’ve gone through several phases: booming, rushing, classical stuff, medieval stuff, raiding, etc. With each new build or strategy I try, I find it to be generally effective, but nearly impossible to “maximize” due to the numerous changing factors from game to game (maps, rares, etc). Rather than try to maximize the efficiency of a certain strategy for each map type, rare resource combination, and nation match-up, I’m having more success (and fun) adapting on the fly to a strategy that is best suited to my current resource situation.

For instance, if I see Horses in my territory very early, I will prepare for a cavalry raiding strategy. Even better if I have wealth rare resources, because the best raiding units cost wealth. But if it’s a map with very little timber (Great Sahara) I will think twice about implementing my raiding build.

Or if I have Dye (25% cheaper Civics research), I will seriously consider an early third city, and will make border pushing a priority. This third city would be most beneficial for generating wealth (caravans, taxation), so I might also want to incorporate an early Classical Age since I can afford plenty of scholars. Rares provide resources for which I can adjust my strategy, i.e.-Ancient Rares vs. Classical Rares. In this case Dye provides wealth and knowledge, which makes it a superior “Classical Rare”.

There are some very obvious circumstances that most players adapt to. No sane man will rush a Chinese or Mayan player. Nor should you spend alot of resources trying to raid the Russians. Similarly you aren’t going to attempt an Ancient rush on a Big Huge map. I won’t get into the tendencies of every nation, as I have only played extensively with a handful of them, and most civ bonuses are fairly straightforward. I will try to get beyond these obvious cases to take advantage of the more subtle aspects of the game’s nature, especially metal/timber supply and rare resources.

Rare Resources

We know that early Classical Age and delayed Classical Age are nearly the same in economic terms given generic starting conditions. What determines which is best is the map, nation, and rare resources, among other things. In military terms Classical age allows Stables which facilitates raiding, and also allows you to best defend against raiders with cavalry of your own. The core economic principle is that early Classical Age lessens the need for food (especially) and timber, and raises your needs for wealth and knowledge. Rare resources affect your supply of all of these resources.

Metal and knowledge rares favor an earlier classical. Knowledge is the research bottleneck in the early game because wealth is at a bottleneck. Therefore wealth rares facilitate an early Classical Age as well as raiding. Water maps would seem to favor an earlier classical. Food and timber rares will favor a delayed classical. This is the basic theory behind “Classical Rares” and “Ancient Rares”. Of course, many rares provide a combination of the two, ie-food and metal. Aside from the resources gained, rares also provide specific bonuses. I’ll write about these bonuses soon, share your own favorite use for a particular rare resource.

Timber and Metal

The first consideration is your starting wood camp. I’ve seen camps ranging from 2 to 6 lumberjacks. A large supply of early wood facilitates raiding and rushing especially. A starting camp of 3 or less almost assuredly rules out an effective ancient rush. I don’t believe you could afford farms, barracks, 4 hoplites and a couple of slingers with such a small camp. Beyond your starting wood camp, you will consider the map-wide wood situation. On a timber scarce map you might go early Classical Age to save some timber on a couple of library techs. More importantly you will save food with an early Classical; your food industry will be growing slowly with so little timber, especially if you have a small starting camp. Alternatively, abundant timber supply facilitates a delayed classical. You can afford to spend more food and timber on library techs, rather than metal and precious knowledge.

This takes us to the map’s metal supply. Scarce metal will have no effect on an Ancient rush, but will make other early attacks (classical, medieval) more difficult. Heavy cavalry, heavy infantry and siege all cost significant amounts of metal, also forts and therefore generals. Better to wait until smelters and smelter research can fund a gunpowder or enlightenment attack. Maps abundant in metal are perfect for a Medieval or quick gunpowder attack. If the game makes it to industrial you can bet that the person with the biggest mountains will have a decided military advantage.

With both timber and metal scarce maps, raiding becomes more deadly! If you can kill several miners/lumberjacks your opponent will be very slow to reach the commerce cap for said resources.

Then there are water maps. I don’t have a lot of experience on water, but I know that they facilitate lots of Science research and scholars. All that extra wealth allows you to raid with HA, HC while still expanding your economy and making scholars. But the timber spent on a navy and fisherman will make it more difficult to afford the University techs: Printing Press, Literacy, etc. On water maps you can get creative with your wealth and buy the resources for almost any strategy. Water maps are good fun, and can play very differently than land maps, more than most people think. Tell me what you think of water’s effect on strategy.

More to come…

[Out4Blood]

Tell me what you think of water’s effect on strategy

Okay.

Water maps would seem to favor an earlier classical

Actually, I prefer COM2 with water maps. On Atlantic Sea Power I get a dock as qucikly as possible. I focus my effort on gettign fishign up and running as quickly as possible, so all early villagers go on wood. Because I'm not using as much food, I have enough to zip on over to COM2 very quickly. Fishing is more expensive, but it also returns big dividends in the form of wealth. After COM2, you can usually go a quick CLASSICAL anyway because you'er going to be at +150 food a lot faster than on land maps.

I'm not sure if you played ROR or AOK, but fishing booms were the deadliest and biggest booms of all, because you could continuously pump both villagers AND fishing ships, effectively DOUBLING the rate at which you take in resources. Fishing would be good even if it DIDN'T provide wealth, but because it does, you can easily get a huge boom going and quickly fill up any universities.

On Atlantic Sea Power maps, I usually do SCI2 -> COM2 -> CLASSICAL -> MIL1. Then I try for CIV2 if I can put something down on the enemy island, or else I'll got for mastery of the sea. Of course, it depends on the map as some maps require vastly different approaches. Most of my experience on water is on Atlantic Sea Power which can play a lot differently.

[HalfLotus]

Delayed classical is strong because it lessens the severity of the knowledge bottleneck. Water maps provide tons of wealth for scholars and unis, and should open that bottleneck. You could go earlier classical, easily fill up a couple universities, and ease the strain on your food and timber industries. Maybe go Sci 1, Comm 1, Sci 2, Classical, Comm 2. The knowledge for comm 2 will be much easier to come by than the ~189 food, especially since you are spending ~200 food for Classical Age.

There are two major types of water maps, those where you can immediately build a dock (warring states, australian outback), and those where you must found another city before you can reach water (atl sea power).

On maps where you have to build a second city before you fish, you might go: Sci 1, Civ 1, Comm 1, Sci 2, Classical, Comm 2. This is all theory and should be tested, under generic circumstances.

[Out4Blood]

LOL. I have just a completely different conclusion. And I don't think a delayed classical is "strong" to begin with.

On land, delayed classical is WEAK because it consumes too much food, food you need to both build your economy and get other techs. On land, farms cost both wood AND food. On a water map, however, food is abundant and cheap, as is wealth. Food from fish only costs WOOD. Meaning you can use that food for other things. COM2 becomes a cheap upgrade, as does CIV2 and CLASSICAL. You'll need to get your cap up as quickly as possible to take full advantage of the booming opportunities from fishing boats. Once you go classical, upgrades don't cost as much food and your food tends to just pile up. IMO, it's better to put that food surplus to an early boost to the economy.

The reason this doesn't hold true on land is because if I go COM2 -> CIV2, it'll take me a much longer time to get to classical, because I'll almost be forced to throw up town #3 and make more villagers and farms to make full use of the COM2 resource cap. That longer time means I don't collect knowledge for quite a while.

On a water map, I don't need a third town. I can go COM2, and turn around and hit CLASSICAL right away. On the other hand, if I go CLASSICAL -> COM2, then I'll be devoting wood to mines, universities, and COM2 rather than to fishing, making it more difficult to get the econ up as quickly.

[Madine]

I have been going with sci 2 in ancient, com 2 in classical.

I would agree with halflotus on the watermap question because I think it is desirable to start gathering knowledge as soon as possible.

[HalfLotus]

I said delayed classical is strong because it lessens the knowledge bottleneck. Not that it is strong period. There you go taking things out of context again. Delayed classical and early classical both have strengths and weaknesses. I have suggested to use the huge early surplus wealth for scholars, you are suggested to use the extra food for delaying classical.

You are saving ~10+ food per fisherman compared to farms. On water maps you will be reaching for the timber commerce cap faster than on land, this costs food. On land you can get away with +120-130 timber for awhile and delay a possible third wood camp. This is not so on water maps, you need +150 because fisherman ramp faster than farms, also for ships. Again, gathering more timber costs more food. I see the wealth surplus as being much larger than the food one.

On a water map, I don't need a third town. I can go COM2, and turn around and hit CLASSICAL right away.

Commerce 2 and then Classical right away? Thats almost 400 food. There is food savings in fishing, but it doesn't produce some huge surplus, you save about 70-80 between your first two cities, some of which will be spent reaching for the timber commerce cap faster. I contend that huge early wealth surplus (of which you have spent none) could be put to better use.

On land, delayed classical is WEAK because it consumes too much food, food you need to both build your economy and get other techs.

Delayed classical and early classical are the SAME given generic land circumstances. It seems like you're still in the mindframe of delayed is always weak on land, and early is always stronger. This is not the case!

When I say delayed I don't mean always Sci 2, Comm 2, and Civ 2 before Classical. You could take out any one of those and I would still consider it "delayed". For instance, skip Sci 2 and go Comm 2, Civ 2. This can work well on land.

[Out4Blood]

Delayed classical and early classical are the SAME given generic land circumstances. It seems like you're still in the mindframe of delayed is always weak on land, and early is always stronger. This is not the case!

"Still" in the mindset? I used to be in the delayed classical group, but have recently shifted over to the early classical. I don't think they are the same. I have not seen any evidence (other than people's unsupported claims) that they are. I get MUCH better times for pretty much ANYTHING using an early classical on land.

I said delayed classical is strong because it lessens the knowledge bottleneck. Not that it is strong period. There you go taking things out of context again.

How am I taking things out of context?! You said this:

Delayed classical is strong because it lessens the severity of the knowledge bottleneck.

That's clearly an assertion with supporting reasoning. But you're ignoring the fact that delaying classical also delays gathering knowledge so it doesn't do that much to reduce the bottleneck. But that's been the conventional thinking before. Knowledge is the bottleneck so let me spend extra resources to avoid paying for things with knowledge.

But I believe (and have demonstrated) that you make bigger gains by instead gaining knowledge EARLIER and paying LESS food for things. I think that the food is a bigger crimp on economic expansion. If I had unlimited food, then those upgrades would be free and I'd stay in ancient forever.

Why do you always get so testy and defensive? Why can't you just have a discussion without getting personal and aggressive?

And opinions in this matter aren't really that relevant. This is easy to test. Play a few maps using the same map conditions and see for yourself what helps you achieve your goals the fastest. You're the one who sets your own goals.

[HalfLotus]

Taking things out of context is relevant to the discussion, not your personal being, so don't take personally. If I get testy and aggressive I'll do more than critique your debate style.

[HalfLotus]

On the subject of delayed Classical Age vs. early Classical Age you say:

I don't think they are the same. I have not seen any evidence (other than people's unsupported claims) that they are. I get MUCH better times for pretty much ANYTHING using an early classical on land.

I'm saying they are the same when you have generic conditions, ie-no nation bonuses, no rares, same map. This means that when you factor in nation bonuses, rares, map, etc. then different tech orders emerge as the better choices. Generally speaking, food and timber bonuses favor a delayed classical, while metal, knowledge, and wealth bonuses favor an earlier classical.

Apollyon has tested early vs. delayed classical over 500 times. Here is what he says:

"depending on the variables, any BO can be useful . . . some even better than others in certain situations. So a faster classical or a slower classical all depends on those variables . . . and there is no difference on a pure economic standpoint if every variable is held constant"

"RoN is too complex to do x everytime . . . there is no one way to do things . . . there is no most efficient way . . . as it depends on (1) strategy, (2) civs, (3) rares, (4) ruins, (5) being attacked and not being attacked, (6) sea or land map, etc. in no particular order . . ."

"the total gathered resources will be relatively equal no matter what BO you use if the initial BO is sci/civic/comm and every variable is held constant."

Here are Apollyon's examples for a delayed classical:

"If you have more rares that are food/wood, you want to get the 2nd comm in ancient, especially if you have a civ conducive to this approach (i.e., maya)."

"THERE ARE THOSE FEW TIMES IT IS BETTER TO STAY IN ANC[ient] I.E., YOU GET BISON, SUGAR, AND COTTON AFTER YOUR ALREADY CAPPED AND CAN EASILY GET THE UPGRADE."

The threads I quoted from, MFO, RoNH

My experience is similar to Apollyon's: For example, with the right rares (food/timber) and nation bonuses it is better to get -Comm 2 and SCI 2- or -Comm 2 and CIV 2- before Classical. Or if the center of the map has crucial resources (this is the case on many maps), you will want -Civics 2 and COMM 2- or -Civics 2 and SCI 2-. If you have Dye/Silk, you can get Civ 2/Comm 2 earlier for much less food. These are only a few of many situations where delayed classical is better. I'd like to uncover as many as possible in this thread.

I get MUCH better times for pretty much ANYTHING using an early classical on land.

You are saying earlier classical always better, and that other people's claims are "unsupported". Where do you support your claim? I've seen your Challenge Game for fastest Enlightenment Age. It doesn't account for nation bonuses, commerce caps, wood/metal supply, different rares, differing map geography, or military needs. Without considering these factors you cannot say that early classical is always better. If you have done testing for all of these variables, please share it with us.

This is easy to test. Play a few maps using the same map conditions and see for yourself what helps you achieve your goals the fastest

This is not the way to test, because when you change map and/or nation and/or rares, you get totally different results. Especially NATION, there are huge resource bonuses for almost every nation that have a profound effect on the strength of different tech orders. Test Nubians with Relics and Diamonds vs. Japanese with Bison and Cotton, you will not get the same results. Rares, ruins, and map also have an affect. That is what this thread is about.

[HalfLotus]

Water maps

Fishing for food also takes a bit longer to set up than farms. You have to find all the fishing spots, which can take quite awhile if you're making 8+ fisherman. After awhile you will be traveling half the length of the map to look for fishing spots. This hampers your food growth, and also takes more micromanagement than building farms.

Fishing of course provides wealth, so is generally more valuable than farms, but there are times when building farms is in your best interests. Because of ramping costs it is generally better to diversify your economy. On water maps, I have found that it good to make several fisherman and a handful of farms at the right time. You can use farm completion bonuses get more food in the early game. Use an existing citizen and build a new farm solely for the completion bonus. This is particularly useful when you are about to upgrade your Commerce...the unused farm can quickly be put to use.

Classical's Military effects

A major part of adjusting on the fly is reacting to your opponent. Classical Age dramatically changes the economic situation, and also the military situation. If your opponent has gone with an early Classical Age, you should be prepared for Cavalry raids. The best counter to raiding cavalry is cavalry of your own, and this requires Classical Age.

If your economic circumstances dictate a late Classical, you may counter raiding cavalry with Barracks troops. This puts you at speed disadvantage, but if you think you can stop his Horse Archers with your Archers, and his Heavy/Light Cav with your Hoplites, then go for it. You just won't be chasing any raiders down for the kill.

[Dragon_Sword_50]

Even though fishing is more efficient on water maps, I find that it is a real pain to try to protect your fishing fleet all spread out. I'm sure 8 boats are more efficient at gathering the resources when you consider all the factors, but it is tough to have your fleet protect them all from the computer's demo ships. This is coming from someone playing moderate and moving to tough in the next couple of weeks.

[Out4Blood]

I'm saying they are the same when you have generic conditions, ie-no nation bonuses, no rares, same map.

You're SAYING it, but I'll bet (based on your own admission of hating testing) that you haven't really tested it. I've TESTED it. With NO rares, NO ruins, and NO civ bonuses on a land map, delayed classical is WORSE than early classical.

The challenge game was intended to incorporate rares and ruins into the equation, but eliminate civ bonuses. In this game, delayed classical is clearly worse, as has been demonstrated by the times. It's an artifical test, but it's clearly demonstrated that early classical is BETTER at reducing the "knowledge bottleneck" than delayed classical.

My experience is similar to Apollyon's: For example, with the right rares (food/timber) and nation bonuses it is better to get -Comm 2 and SCI 2- or -Comm 2 and CIV 2- before Classical

As an assertion, this may in fact be true, but again, have you TESTED it? I'll bet no. The only way you could test this would be to save the map at start, and play through several times using BOTH methods. You're the one who's been saying you can only assert things if you have ACTUALLY DONE IT. Have you tested it?

As far as I'm concerned, rares don't have hardly any effect. If I know I'll get wood and food rares, then I just make fewer villagers and cap out at +100 faster without having to spend the food on the villagers. 2 rares with +10 f/t saves you roughly 100 food and about 120 wood. Use 2 merchants instead. That food savings gets you a lot earlier classical, and an instant COM2 after u drop a university. And yea, I HAVE tested it.

Also, you should note that I've never said either way was "always" better. Of COURSE game conditions will dictate which way you go. So I agree with your underlying premise - play what's best for the given conditions - but I disagree with some of the conclusions: no need to have a plan and early class better on water (although on this I open to suggestions if you offer compelling evidence).

There will obviously be some civs that you should delay classical with (e.g. greeks.) and there are osme that early classical makes obvious sense (e.g., Inca, british, mongols). Saying you cannot plan ahead is just foolish IMO.

[HalfLotus]

The challenge game was intended to incorporate rares and ruins into the equation, but eliminate civ bonuses. In this game, delayed classical is clearly worse, as has been demonstrated by the times. It's an artifical test, but it's clearly demonstrated that early classical is BETTER at reducing the "knowledge bottleneck" than delayed classical.

The Challenge Game (tech race to enlightenment) is not useful at all in game terms. The strength of a given build is not measured by how fast you get to Enlightenment Age. This is common sense to me, and many others have agreed. There are countless other goals in a game such as capping resources (a biggie), territory acquistion, defense against raiding, naval considerations, etc. Until I see different results from relevant testing, I'll be heeding my own in-game experience and Apollyon's 500+ tests.

[Out4Blood]

You seem to be very good at pointing out the obvious, but you're missing he subtleties. Using the entire build patterns that have resulted in lower enlightenment age times would probably not be helpful in a game, but it would be a mistake to say the process of doing the test doesn't help any in game terms. It helps you learn how to be efficient. Efficiency is ALWAYS beneficial.

The strength of a build can be measured in how effectively it achieves the goals that YOU as the player establish. If you don't think enlightenment age is a relevant goal, then establish a different one. But to categorically deny that testing has any relevance just shows ignorance. Nay, not ignorance. But foolishness.

At the end of the day, as I have always said, you're free to do what you want.

P.S. You shouldn't put too much weight on unverified testing. A lot of people make claims but don't support them. Apollyon has made a lot of claims but hasn't supported it with ANY EVIDENCE. Apollyon's claim that there's no difference is no different than Myst's claim that there's a huge difference. Evidence would be either recorded games (which you could point out potential errors) or tables of statistics (which could be recreated by any player and validated). It's like the cold fusion hoax. I could claim to have invested cold fusion in my garage. But unless I display my process for peer review or someone else has replicated the results, there's a big likelihood it's not true. Your choice. Your decision.

[HalfLotus]

These two statements are confusing me:

Also, you should note that I've never said either way was "always" better.

I get MUCH better times for pretty much ANYTHING using an early classical on land.

The liberal use of capitol letters led me to believe you thought it was always the better way.

but it would be a mistake to say the process of doing the test doesn't help any in game terms. It helps you learn how to be efficient...If you don't think enlightenment age is a relevant goal, then establish a different one.

Okay so the process of doing the test has taught you efficiency, great. I never disputed that, in fact that's the first time it's been brought up. The results of the test are what we are discussing, not the process. You have asserted early is better than delayed based on the Challenge Game. It does not prove that early classical is better at anything except a pure tech race. You base your view on irrelevant test results, and when I dispute them, you tell me to pick another goal and test again. HA.

But to categorically deny that testing has any relevance just shows ignorance.

I didn't say "testing" has no relevance, I said your testing, The Challenge Game, had no relevance to early classical vs delayed classical.

Saying you cannot plan ahead is just foolish IMO.

I never said this. Two of my "adjusting factors" are nations and map, these are two factors that you plan for in advance, obviously. Rare resources and wood/metal distribution are things that cannot be planned for, hence "adjusting on the fly". Did you read the first post?

This is why I don't like debating with you. You twist words, and backtrack, and clearly do not read other's posts carefully. I'm tired of having to repeat myself in every discussion we have, so this will be the last. Find another thread in which to chase your tail.