[LURKERS] EitB 29

[Mardoc]

Well, if the players aren't going to post anything to amuse me, maybe us lurkers should get in the act.

[Mardoc]

First comment: Ellimist already mentioned (by chat) he's seriously considering moving his capital to grab corn and wheat and mostly ignore the rest. Is this a mistake on my part, to leave him the option?

[suttree]

First comment: Ellimist already mentioned (by chat) he's seriously considering moving his capital to grab corn and wheat and mostly ignore the rest. Is this a mistake on my part, to leave him the option?

From the perspective of someone just learning MP civ, it depends on player expectations. If the players want a competitive "test of skill" type game, then early game variance is bad. Otherwise - meh - it's fun to have choices and take risks. Why was so much of the map revealed from the start?

One thing I don't like about FFH is the super visibility and movement on the starting settler. Again, unless players want board game style analysis, the initial settle should be about choice and risk. Fog of war is fun.

[Mardoc]

Why was so much of the map revealed from the start?

Because of this.

the super visibility and movement on the starting settler.

I went back and forth on whether to leave that promotion on or not. But ended up deciding to let them have it.

[Qgqqqqq]

First comment: Ellimist already mentioned (by chat) he's seriously considering moving his capital to grab corn and wheat and mostly ignore the rest. Is this a mistake on my part, to leave him the option?

Yes, but at the same time no (). As in, mapping is generally based around the starting location as a capital so any player move is a problem for balance, but at the same time, its their decision to maike the Nove, both in outguessing the mapmaker and in judging the two starts. And the sum value of that move is very little change for the game when compared to everything else that can happen, and there are other players who have similar options but have chosen not to (I think HK can settle a plains hill with wheat/corn 2 turns in, and he's the only one I've seen) and haven't noticed it.
And at the end of the day, this isn't a mirrored map. From what I can tell, it is balanced, but if they're prepared to let the mapmaker go with only a general balance idea, then there are going to be inequalities, small things that change it. All in all, yeah its a bit of a mistake, but very little, to be expected, and not out of the players expectations.
I mean, its a bit off placing players 8 tiles apart

[Mardoc]

Gut reaction to Brian's proposed dotmap: he's spreading his cities out way too far. Even for a Creative Barb civ.

[Thoth]

It's a bit chancy for him. Barb trait gives no protection from animals.

But no barb pillaging party worries and free border pops makes a wide spacing viable especially on a huge map. If he wants to up his city density, there is some room in his dotmap for filler cities. But he's not Expansive so settlers are still *expensive*.

He's definitely undervaluing his Hut pop of Exploration though. His worker can now do something useful (build roads) while he completes Ag.

DaveV was smoking some :weed: when he evaluated his start: From what he posted in his spoiler thread, he thought he was on a grass hill.
Moving to enable Deruptus may turn out to be the right play, but settling in place for the extra hammer has it's attractions as well.
Pity he made his choice based on incorrect data.

[Thoth]

1) Trade route income. Make Trade a priority. Go Fishing/Sailing for island cities. Run City States and Foreign Trade, so that each city has at least three trade routes (more where I build Stables, which I should do in plenty of cities).

2) The standard: semi-beeline to Code of Laws, run Aristocracy/Agrarianism, and add Construction/Sanitation soon thereafter.
Construction doubles as a military tech: I'll want chariots anyway.

These aren't entirely mutually exclusive: I'll want Sanitation eventually even if I go route 1), and I'll want Trade eventually even if I go route 2). But I can't very well run both City States/Foreign Trade and Aristocracy/Agrarianism, and I should decide soonish which one makes more sense on a map like this.

Huge map tech costs mean you'll want quick and easy commerce to get you bootstrapped up techwise. Calendar/Col is a lot cheaper than Trade and Arisofarms set up fast. Distance maintenance and #cities maint should both scale slowly on a huge map so Aristocracy doesn't lose much in terms of city maint vs City States.

"Trade Route" economies take a long time to really get rolling. Aim to colonize the coasts (Cheap Mini-Colossuses) and the islands (ICTR). Once Trade/Sanitation are in, consider growing some Aristo/FT cotts if gimped on happy or some City State/FT cotts while growing on San farms. But that's midgame stuff.

And Trade heavy economies got hit with the nerf bat in EITB 9: No extra TR at currency and FT is Medium upkeep (up from None in EITB 8). So you'll be running with fewer free TRs and paying more for your cottage growth.

Hmm. Come to think of it, might just be better to sick with Aristograrian and supplement with IC Trade Routes and Expansive Harbour Coast.

[Thoth]

Also:

Both Non-Barb players need to head to BW ASAP.

Huge map means there will be a *lot* of barbs spawning on the map.

And they'll only have two targets.

[Mardoc]

Agreed. Trade is a nice supplement to an economy, but you can't base your game around it. I think people are drawing the wrong lesson from our game in PB1 - trade was good to us when we went for it after already having 30 cities. It's less useful when you don't have a pre-built empire that's paid for with either farms or cottages.

I think HK could pull off a cottage econ here, and that's a reasonable alternative to aristograrianism, anyway. You want FT for the cottage growth, though, not for the trade routes. Those are just a bonus, to help pay the upkeep.