[SPOILER] PB37 Dark Savant tries not to be a blatant MP n00b

[Dark Savant]

Okay, after more simming, this is what I've found:

A Fishing/Mining start gets us a settler on t27 (t26 if we're Spiritual) with one chop and a whip.  A Fishing/Hunting start should be the same, and these are ever-so-slightly better techs because Mining is 17 flasks cheaper to research than Hunting in this version.  Okay, that does actually help. 

As before, a Hunting/Mining start gets us a settler on t28 (t27 if we're Spiritual) with one chop and a whip.

If I start Agriculture/Hunting and produce 2 workers instead of a worker and work boat, I can produce a settler on t29 with two chops.

If I don't reach Bronze Working quickly, in all cases I tested the settler arrives t29 work-boat-first, or t30 worker-first; and this with the revolt to Slavery still to come.  Agriculture/Hunting building a work boat and worker isn't any faster to actually produce the settler than Agriculture/The Wheel; that is partly because the worker finishes the pasture, farm, and mine a few turns before Bronze Working can arrive.

I think this is enough to tell us that we should start with 2 of Fishing, Hunting, and Mining.  And I realize I'm reinventing the wheel here (no I am not researching it in any of these sims ), but now I'm thinking it is better to take a civ first so we can target a good one, because I think a leader like Isabella (who gets that settler out a turn faster!) or Washington will likely still be there in the second round.

We don't need to do that if the start positions are varied.  We can draw inferences about the map from the picks ahead of us.

[Dark Savant]

New sim: going straight to Bronze working, producing two workers and using them to chop.

This works out to be smoother starting with Hunting/Mining than Fishing/Mining since we can chop into a work boat, and the chopping starts sooner.  If I chop all four forests, I can produce two warriors, two workers, and the work boat and still produce the settler on turn 28, no whip needed.

I think that's a good use of our four forests; neither worker is ever idle here.

[ipecac]

Okay, I was wondering about this, so knights are generally much better in MP even accounting for the fact that the tech path is awkward compared to maces?

Yep. Mobility beats all. Then again RtR has buffed swordsmen and maces, so they've become more useful.

Plains cow is 3f3h, not 3f2h.

In that case plains cow might be better.

[Dark Savant]

Plains cow is 3f3h, not 3f2h.

In that case plains cow might be better.

Yeah, if we had a 6f farm tile I'd be more inclined to prioritize Agriculture, but 5f can wait a bit.  My plans to expand quickly end up producing a settler at size 2, so the rice can actually wait because there are some turns when we wouldn't be working it, and even when we might, a 3h2c oasis or a 1f3h mined hill aren't that much worse.

The two worker chop plan I outlined does have the flaw, aside from burning all our forests, is that we don't start the whip clock as early.  Replacing a chop or two with a whip doesn't really help, since then one of the workers wouldn't have anything to do for several turns.  So the first whip would be to complete the second settler, and that wouldn't be until about t37, so that loses us a whole round of .  It still looks worthwhile since we'd already have the worker labor needed to jump-start our second city; we'd need a little time to produce a second worker with the one-worker plans.

[Dark Savant]

The draft is off to a slow start!

I can't work out a way to produce a settler faster than t29 with any Agriculture start (without being Imperialistic), but if we do it doesn't really matter which tech the other is, as long as it isn't Mysticism.  (Someone is probably going to grab the Inca; it isn't going to be us.)  I'd still take one if we could get a strong UU/UB in the deal.  Definitely the Ottomans; probably the Zulu; a couple others like the French will also be okay.

For civs with better starting techs, my list is Greece (good UB, okay UU); Carthage (good UU, map-dependent UB that I'm willing to gamble on); Ethiopia (good UU, mediocre UB); the Khmer (good UB, bad UU).

List of leaders I'd like is Shaka (Exp/Agg), Washington (Exp/Cha), Pacal II (Exp/Fin), Mehmed II (Exp/Org), Isabella (Exp/Spi), and I'd also be fine with Bismarck (Exp/Ind) if that's the first Industrious leader in round two.

[Dark Savant]

Mirrored starts, interesting; I was suspecting that.  People are going to complain about that, but people want a map that's both "interesting" and "balanced", which is not only unrealistic but straight-up impossible in my view.

Anyway, there have been two civ picks, so we should probably choose a civ as well once I'm up to pick.  (And since others have our start too, they're going to shy away from Mysticism.)  Zulus were on my short list, but not Russia (UU/UB come too late).

Any opinions on which civ I should choose?  I'm leaning towards rolling the dice on Carthage; the buffed Numidian Cavalry is a good UU at a good time, even should the Cothon not pay off on this map.

[ipecac]

Carthage looks fine. The drawback of picking a civ now us that you might miss out on a good EXP leader

[Dark Savant]

I'm actually wavering right now and wondering if I should pick Ethiopia instead.

If this coming pick is also a civ, I don't think I'll miss out on a good Expansive leader; I think the risk that all the civs I want will be gone is higher, since everyone has similar starts.

If it turns out to be, say, Mehmed II, I'd have to think harder about it.

[Dark Savant]

Okay, Carthage just got picked.  I'm probably going to pick Ethiopia now, but I'm going to think this over breakfast and coffee.

[Dark Savant]

The coffee machine wasn't working right this morning 

Anyway.  Part of the point of taking Carthage was the option of going all-in on coastal economy with Cothons and Financial coast.  The other option I'm seriously considering is Greece, but their UU comes too early, I think.

So I'm going to do what I said, and play Ethiopia (Hunting/Mining).  No work boat first this game.