Dhalphir makes a stunning return in a blaze of adequacy [SPOILER THREAD]

[Dhalphir]

Just for fun, I did a quick test ignoring Stonehenge, didn't take any notes because I'm pretty sure I'm NOT going to ignore Stonehenge.

I stopped at size 3 and went for the second worker, then the settler. By chopping both forests to the west of the capital I was able to finish a settler on T24, four or five turns quicker than the other micro plans. I also had three warriors instead of zero or one.

However, not sure that's worth it. I was only size three, no stonehenge, and down two forests. I also only had four improved tiles, instead of five.

I also tried doing it without chopping. This one was far less successful, I ended up stuck at size 3 too, the Settler was T26, and I had only four improved tiles again.

I really don't think speeding up a settler by 4T and picking up 3 warriors vs 1 is worth sacrificing Stonehenge for, not when I'm not Creative. Those saved hammers on Monuments will be massive for me!

I think my favourite microplan so far is the third one posted above, with the T23 Stonehenge and T29 Settler. I don't think a non-industrious civ could beat me to Stonehenge before T23 without hindering their growth. Getting my capital to size 5 is incredibly powerful with my terrain, I have an absolutely ludicrous amount of hammers available. At size 5, working the Rice, Cow, Ivory, 1 Grassland Mine and 1 Grassland Forest, I have 4 food surplus and 12 base production, for a total of 16 foodhammers on Settlers, or 19 foodhammers on my Expansive Workers.

4 food surplus is not amazing, but that's only because of working the ivory and a mine. If I put two cottages down on the river grassland that I have, I'll be at 6 food which is more than enough to grow with. The second city can hopefully claim stronger food bonuses and be able to whip more.

[Dhalphir]

Last post for the night.

I tried to tweak the third (and so far favourite) microplan a little bit. Essentially all I did was, instead of pointlessly moving to the ivory first only to put a turn into it, I moved back to the city from the rice, then started improving the cow a turn earlier, in exchange for improving the ivory a tile later.

The city grew to size 4 and 5 one turn sooner as a result. However, this didn't actually affect the timing of anything - I still got Stonehenge at T23, I still got my 2nd worker T25, and my settler would still be due T29.

However, since it didn't actually affect anything negatively, I'll probably go ahead and make the change. That faster turn of growth might amount to something a few turns down the line, sometimes advantages accumulate. I didn't look at my overflow hammers, so maybe it would add up to a full turn of something eventually.

[Dhalphir]

Slept on it and didn't change my mind yet, but of course any micro plan is subject to change based on scouting.

In any case, the one part of the plan that is immutable regardless of scouting discoveries is Agri -> Hunting -> AH off an 8T worker to start, starting with the rice, then the cow, then the Ivory. It can vary from there.

[Dhalphir]

Still no word from Retep and I'm starting to get quite annoyed. He's signed on multiple times and not come to post in the thread or responded to my PM.

[shallow_thought]

Just to let you know you're not posting into a void!

I'm going to lurk unspoiled here for at least a little while. Putting up your alternative starts is really useful for those of us learning; I'll probably try and work through them myself when I'm back in front of a real computer in a few days, but that will probably be too late for me to contribute anything very meaningful back - although who knows, with Retep being so slow...

[Dhalphir]

That's fine! I've run through a few different cycles without taking substantial notes or screenshots, just to confirm. I think the Stonehenge play is the right one - it allows me to be much more flexible with dotmap planning, avoid wasting hammers on Monuments in the early game and on Libraries in non-commerce cities in the midgame.

Turn 29 is quite late for a 2nd settler on quick, but with a Size 5 capital at that time I can easily double whip another settler soon afterwards. The only question is whether I have the military to support it, but I'm sure that will be fine. Nobody is going to rush anyone with 1movers and I can get Holkans out very easily against mounted units.

On top of that, the fastest settler I can manage on quick with this start in the sandbox is T24, and I'm not convinced that sacrificing 2 capital sizes, 2 improved tiles, and Stonehenge is worth a Settler six turns faster. The only way that will be worthwhile is if the land around my capital is absolutely TEEMING with resources.

[mackoti]

That's fine! I've run through a few different cycles without taking substantial notes or screenshots, just to confirm. I think the Stonehenge play is the right one - it allows me to be much more flexible with dotmap planning, avoid wasting hammers on Monuments in the early game and on Libraries in non-commerce cities in the midgame.

Turn 29 is quite late for a 2nd settler on quick, but with a Size 5 capital at that time I can easily double whip another settler soon afterwards. The only question is whether I have the military to support it, but I'm sure that will be fine. Nobody is going to rush anyone with 1movers and I can get Holkans out very easily against mounted units.

On top of that, the fastest settler I can manage on quick with this start in the sandbox is T24, and I'm not convinced that sacrificing 2 capital sizes, 2 improved tiles, and Stonehenge is worth a Settler six turns faster. The only way that will be worthwhile is if the land around my capital is absolutely TEEMING with resources.

I am  toatly with you,stonehenge first is totaly the way to go,could be diferent if you find a very good second city spot were to build it, as I dont think many people will want to go for it.

With SH in capitol if you have resourse third ring even beter as you can improve thenbefore getting a setler there.I think i buil SH first ib pbem 29 was but i am not sure anymore.

[Dhalphir]

Thanks Mack!

Well, I have the save, but the game isn't working, it crashes immediately in my BTS.

This is exactly the same PC and Civ installation I used to play PBEM53, so I have no idea what the problem is.

[El Grillo]

If this is a recent Steam install or config, right-click it in your library and go to Properties -> Betas -> original_release_unsupported. Otherwise, not sure.

[Dhalphir]

I'll try that now.

EDIT: That worked. I guess that's a new update since 2014 when I last played a PBEM?