Move warrior on to hill E?
|
RBP3 [SPOILERS] Hannibal of Byzantium (Bobchillingworth, ManiaMuse & SleepingMoogle)
|
|
January 28th, 2010, 04:21
(This post was last modified: January 28th, 2010, 05:07 by SleepingMoogle.)
The plains tile south of the Warrior looks like a neat tentative location for our second city. We can chop the Forest tile NE of the Warrior for a quick monument, and have a nice number of floodplains and grassland river tiles for cottages to make this a good commerce city. Alternatively, we could move the city to the east or southeast depending on what's hiding in the fog (hopefully another food resource or more floodplains/grassland rivers!), although we'd give up a grassland river tile in the process. I would like to send our second warrior this way to defog the remaining tiles and see what's hiding underneath.
About teching: I didn't think of the possibility that working the grassland river hill tile once mined may knock off a turn on BW research because of the added commerce. But even if that is the case, we shouldn't expect to be able to slave or chop before Turn 43 and I don't see the point of waiting that long to build a settler. We can use the first round of chops for a third worker and second settler though. Anyway, here's two scenarios I've worked up. The first assumes we crank out the Warrior as quickly as possible, and then switch to an emphasis on food. This is based on the assumption that the loss of commerce for a couple of turns delays Animal husbandry for one turn: Quote:T15 And here is a balance of the max food and max production paths. Basically we work the sheep until the farms are pastured for the extra production, and then emphasize food: Quote:T15 Basically, following max production will get the Warriors out faster for scouting/defense, but delays Bronze working. Mixing production with food will get Bronze working out earlier, but delays the warriors a bit. Given how long we already have to wait for BW, I'd favor the second option for now. Once the Worker finishes the mine, he can road the path to our second city site under cover of a warrior. This should get the Settler there asap, and connect both cities immediately. After that the first worker can start improving the area around the second city, while the second worker can start chopping away at the capital. I'll try and test this in-game at some point to see if the results there differ from the theory. Comments and suggestions welcome of course. 
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
SleepingMoogle Wrote:Given how long we already have to wait for BW, I'd favor the second option for now. Once the Worker finishes the mine, he can road the path to our second city site under cover of a warrior. This should get the Settler there asap, and connect both cities immediately. After that the first worker can start improving the area around the second city, while the second worker can start chopping away at the capital. T41 for 1st settler is ages  ....like in PB2 it's only just past T100 and most civs have around 6 cities. Hopefully expansive inca doesn't do a Krill on this map, at least emperor maintenance costs and barbs will slow things down a little for them.But yes I favour the 2nd option as well I think unless we get screwed over by barbs ridiculously early or something. At least we have a few unforested tiles in the BFC so there is hope for horses there. Oh also updated the sheets a bit and corrected a few mistakes, particularly on power so it now actually fits the rival average. I'm pretty sure Morgan/DMOC only settled last turn (T2 but that's really T3 since we started on T0) Oh and another edit, I think any spare hammers in these plans would be better off being put into stonehenge rather than a barracks. Ideally the capital won't be a main military pump for a while as we want to focus on getting the workers and settlers out as quickly as possible. In that case completing the barracks might be delayed for a while if we feel our neighbours aren't too huge a threat and we don't want hammers to decay in any case. Putting 4/5 hammers into Stonehenge at least gives us a bit of failgold and we could completely change our plan and decide to go for it instead. I mean the only other civs that have an extra incentive to go for it are Krill and Ruff so it's not like we have absolutely no chance at getting it.
Ugh.. this is why you should (probably) not multitask while working out the macro. When calculating the amount of turns it takes for the settler to be built, I used our food/production value of 10, which is what we'll have for our size 2 capital. This is wrong of course.. we'll be size 3 when creating the settler! This means we'll have 13 total production in the first turns, and 14 once the hill is mined. Now to shave off turns:
T31: Warrior finishes, 0/100 production on the settler (13 production/turn) T32: 13/100 settler T33: 26/100 settler T34: 39/100 settler, Worker finishes mine (14 production/turn) T35: 53/100 settler T36: 67/100 settler T37: 81/100 settler T38: 95/100 settler T39: Settler finished And we can do even better if we hold the warrior and start on the settler the moment we reach size 3: T31: 13/100 production on the settler (13 production/turn) T32: 26/100 settler T33: 39/100 settler T34: 52/100 settler, Worker finishes mine (14 production/turn) T35: 66/100 settler T36: 80/100 settler T37: 94/100 settler T38: Settler finished, overflow goes into warrior T39: Warrior finished That's looking a lot better already, doesn't it? Sorry for the mixup Mania, I'm feeling awfully silly right now. 
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
SleepingMoogle Wrote:Ugh.. this is why you should (probably) not multitask while working out the macro. When calculating the amount of turns it takes for the settler to be built, I used our food/production value of 10, which is what we'll have for our size 2 capital. This is wrong of course.. we'll be size 3 when creating the settler! This means we'll have 13 total production in the first turns, and 14 once the hill is mined. Now to shave off turns: No worries, yeah a couple of turns earlier bit better. If we were hold the 2nd warrior we would have to be very confident that the site we want to settle is already fogbusted and that there aren't any rival units in the area ready to poach an unescorted settler. As soon as we're all agreed on out plan to T40 or so I'll put it in the spreadsheets.
True, we'd need to plot a careful path for our scouts to follow. Then again, we will probably be slightly late with planting our second city due to our starting techs, so it might be a gamble worth taking. Depending on the situation, we could even leave our capital undefended for 2-3 turns. No one will have visibility on it before we open borders so they won't know it's empty, and a new warrior will be built the turn after the settler.
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
Nice work, gentlemen.
While I still don't like the idea of minimal early warriors I admit that the more growth-focused strategy is optimal. It is tough to defend and scout with so few warriors, though. Hopefully we will have horses and can scout with chariots before long. I think we should settle that plains square in the southern region 2S of the capital rice- it looks like we miss a floodplains (unrevealed), but we could always try to pick that one up with a 3rd city, and I don't like the idea of settling on river grassland this early. While it would be nice to have the 2nd city area entirely scouted, we may want to send our warrior to look for a 3rd city site to the east, as we already have visibility over a reasonable spot. I also wouldn't worry about the late speed in getting the 2nd city settler out too much, since we can and probably should chop another settler out very soon thereafter. How about hammers in another warrior instead of stonehenge? Or a momument? I'm not sure the 4 gold or whatever we'd get for losing the wonder is really worth it, and although we could probably chop the wonder out, those forests should go into workers and settlers instead, imo.
The turn has rolled over. I logged in to see if anything surprising happened, but nothing out of the ordinary so far.
Warrior movement: Are we agreed to move NE > E > NE from our current position?
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
|
![[Image: civ4screenshot0005.jpg]](http://img189.imageshack.us/i/civ4screenshot0005.jpg/)