Pre-1000AD landing

[samson]

Hi all.

Here's the game log and commentary for my pre-1000ad landing.

Diety, 7 civs, raging hoards, medium random map. Playing as Americans.

Milestones:

3850 MONARCHY
3050 REPUBLIC
2700 Size 6 - 1st plateau
2500 1st trade route established
1650 COPERNICUS
925 DEMOCRACY
900 3rd trade route established
525 Size 12 - 2nd plateau
450 COLOSSUS
150BC NEWTON'S
180AD Superhighways
320 DARWIN'S
360 Size 16 - final population
440 Research Lab
640 Space Flight
660 APOLLO
880 Launch SS
901 Arrive AC

4000 5 starting techs: Alphabet, Bronze Working, Ceremonial Burial, Code of Laws and Monarchy.
3850 MONARCHY. hut-horse.
3800 hut-archer. Washington - 2 gold,wine,spice.

Great specials but otherwise so-so terrain.
Only 7 grassland, max pop 16 w/o refrigeration.
I'm thinking this will make a good OCC game. Maybe limit to a size12 city.

3750 hut-50g. Celts-peace.
3700 Mysticism. Celts-give alphabet, alliance. hut-horse.
3600 Egyptians-give Monarchy, alliance. hut-50g.
3550 Hut-chariot
3500 Writing. Size2
3450 Hut-barb horse, killed by chariot
3350 Hut-25g
3300 Literacy. hut-50g
3250 Library built.
3150 hut-25g
3100 Republic. French-trade writing for Mapmaking, sharemaps, peace.
Celts-sharemaps.Egyptians-trade Literacy for Masonry.
3050 REPUBLIC. Celts-Republic for Currency. hut-Trade. hut-25g
3000 Temple.

This is my preferred OCC start, build Library/Temple and go early Republic.
At this point, I've got 2 alliances out of 2 civs met (unfortunately
that's all I ever got.)

2950 Carthaginians- give Mapmaking, Writing, peace.
2900 Size 3. hut-Banking.
2850 We Love! starts. hut-barb horse.
2800 Size4. Horseman killed by barb horse. Give all techs to all.

I'm SUPREME, so I give away all techs to try to lower my ranking
to MIGHTY (I've met Carthage). I'm not going to list all the tech-gifting
from this point on. But mainly, I give everything to the Key Civ,
enough to my allies so the gifts keep coming in,
and throw a few sops to the rest to keep them Enthusiastic.

2750 Size5. Hut-Construction
2700 Mathematics. Size6
2650 Beads Caravan. We Love! ends, Hut-Philosophy
2600 Astronomy.
2550 Food caravan.
2500 Beads to Cardiff (Demanded)-108g,+5trade.

Cardiff is the closest city to Washington.
I'm not going for the bonus, just a quick boost in arrows.

2450 University. Food caravan. Celts-25g.
2400 Advanced Tribe-New York (whale, buffalo)

Okay, I got an Advanced Tribe here with a couple of nice specials.
So I stop and think about this for a day or so. What I decide to do is
abandon strict OCC play. I will accept Advanced Tribes, but will continue
to run the game AS IF it was OCC. That is, all decisions about tax rate
and all spending of cash for improvements will be base solely on
Washington's needs. The outlying cities are on their own.
I will build a defender and a temple and lock them down at size 3
building caravans for SS parts for the rest of the game.
I will defend them from the AI via diplomacy, not troop buildups.

The thing is this.
OCC needs 20 turns to build a spaceship. That's 400 years at 20yr/turn.
I'd have to build APOLLO by 560 AD to have any shot at 1000 AD
using strict OCC. But with a few extra cities (not many, 3 or 4 maybe)
I can get extra caravans and be building 3 or 4 SS parts at a time.
Which means research is the bottleneck not single-city production.
Still, I don't want to make these cities large because the infrastructure
would just eat up their production.

This is a hydrid strategy -- OCC plus a few Advanced Tribe spaceship contractors.
I'm not going to build settlers and expand, just accept Advanced Tribes.

2350 C-50g. hut-archer, hut-Theory of Gravity.
2250 W-Food.
2200 Hut-50g. Advanced Tribe-Boston(buffalo,wine)
2150 Medicine.
2100 Hut-50g, Advanced Tribe-Philadelphia(buffalo, coal)
2050 NY-Phalanx. hut-barb horse. Advanced Tribe-Atlanta(fish)
2000 W-Food. Chariot kills barb. Hut-archer(P)
1850 Chemistry. Barb leader-150. Hut-Economics.
1800 W-Food. Mongols-give all techs, peace, sharemaps.
Carthage-Chemistry for Horseriding.

Finally met the Purples.
From here on to the end, I'm paying minimal cost for each advance.

1750 E-25g
1700 W-Food. NY-Temple,S2. Atlanta-Phalanx. Carth-trade for Wheel.
1650 Wash-COPERNICUS. Hut-Engineering. Mongols-trade Wheel for WC. E-50g.

Cope's is my first choice for a Wonder in OCC or an SCC.

1550 Advanced Tribe-Chicago(no specials).
1500 Iron Working. Advanced Tribe-San Fransisco(wheat, buffalo)
1450 Boston-settler. French-trade Philosophy for Seafaring.
1400 hut-50g, hut-legion(C)
1300 Advanced Tribe-Buffalo(whale) hut-Invention.

7 Advanced tribes in a span of 20+ turns, scattered all over the map.
None near Washington.
3 of them are good sites, 2 are okay, and 2 stink.

1250 SF-phalanx. E-50g, C-100g
1200 Washington-University. Bridge Building. NY-caravan.
1100 W-Gold caravan.
1000 hut-50g.
975 Democracy. W-Coal Caravan. B-phallanx. Gold to Cardiff,28g+5trade.
925 DEMOCRACY.
900 Coal to Cardiff, 30g. hut-50g.

I've got my 3 Washington trade routes going now.

875 W-Colosseum. WL!
850 Gunpowder. W-Size7 NY-caravan. hut-50g
825 W-S8
800 C-50g
775 W-Aqueduct, S9. SF-Temple. C-25g
750 Explosives. W-S10. P-temple. C-temple.
725 W-S11. Bos-Temple. C-25g
700 WL! ends

Washington is at size 11 now and out of food.

675 W-caravan.
650 Sanitation.
625 C-100g, E-25g. Philly-Silk.
600 W-Food.
575 NY-caravan. hut-50g
550 Metallurgy.
525 W-Food, S12. E-25g, C-50g.
500 Bos-caravan. P-caravan. Buf-temple.
475 W-Food.
450 W-COLOSSUS. Navigation. Zulus-peace, sharemaps. SF-caravan. E-50g

Aqueduct/Colosseum/COLOSSUS looked like a better boost for research here
than INU. In other games, I've reversed that order and built Newton's first.

400 W-food.
375 Physics. P-caravan NY-caravan
350 W-caravan
300 Steam Engine. W-food, Bos-car, Atl-Engineers (to Washington) Celts-100g
250 W-food. P-car. C-75g
225 Railroad. E-50g
200 W-food. C-caravan.
175 C-75g
150 Industrialization. E-25g
125 ISAAC NEWTON. P-caravan

The SSC is cranking now, 2 turns per advance, with the tribe-cities
supplying minimal help.

100 Magnetism. Bos-caravan
75 W-marketplace E-25g.
50 Corporation.
1AD Electricty. P-caravan. W-copper.
20 NY-freight. SF-freight.
40 Refining.
80 Steel. C-150g
100 Buf-frgt,P-frgt,C-frgt.
120 Combustion. C-75g
140 NY-frgt, C-75g.
160 Automobile. A-frgt, SF-frgt. W-Copper to Cardiff, 114g.
P-Silk to Wash, 114g.
180 W-Superhighways. (WL!) Mass Production. Bos-frght. C-75g,E-75g.

Superhighways plus the last two commodity caravans I do in this game
provide a 1 turn tech advance.

200 P-frgt. C-50g,E-25g
220 Feudalism. W-sewer. Size13
240 W- WL! ends. Conscription from Celts.
260 Electronics. W-bank. NY-frgt.
280 Buf-frgt, C-frgt, W-harbor. WL!
300 Chivalry. SF-frgt, Bos-frgt. P-frgt W-S14
320 Philadelphia-DARWIN'S VOYAGE. Leadership. Tactics. W-S15

This was a tough decision. 8 caravans from Philly and SF to build DARWIN's
to save 4 turns (80 years) or keep them for APOLLO. After calculating
the production rate of all cities, I figured I could afford it, just barely.

340 Machine Tools. W-Factory. Mongols-Machine Tools for Pottery. W-S16
360 WL! ends

Washington maxed out at population 16.
No SHAKESPEARE, just a temple/colosseum and 10% lux rate.
No refrigeration advance. There's no time to expand and farm,
we're already in the end game.

380 Miniaturization. NY-frgt. A-frgt. W-frht.
420 Computers. P-frgt. Bos-frgt. Celts-150g.
440 W-Research Lab. Flight. SF-frgt.

My second, and last, 1 turn advance.

460 C-frgt.
480 Radio. A-ftgt. W-frgt. Egypt-50g
500 Buf-fgt. NY-frgt. Celts-150g.
520 Atomic Theory. P-frgt. W-frgt. E-25g. C-125g.
540 Bos-frgt. C-75g, E-25g.
560 Advanced Flight. W-frgt.
580 NY-frgt. C-150g
600 Rocketry. Buf-frgt. SF-frgt. E-25g, C-50g.
620 Bos-frgt. P-frgt. C-50.
640 Space Flight! W-rifleman.
660 NY-APOLLO. W-frgt. Bos-frgt, P-Fgt, SF-frgt. Barb leader-150g.

New York uses all of its freights plus two trekked cross country
from Atlanta. NY is effectively out of the game now.

At this point I have 41 caravan/freights located as follows:

Washington - 7
NY - 0
Boston - 10
Philly - 6
Atlanta - 2
Chicago - 4
SF - 6
Buffalo - 6

Boston, Buffalo and SF are earmarked for the Modules and I'm going to try
for 6 components (fastest ship) from Philly, Boston, Chicago & Wash.

680 Plastics. 4 structurals built.
700 2 structurals, 3 components built. C-150g, E-50g.
720 Nuclear Fission. 1 structural.
Buffalo captured by Barbarians!!! (lost 3 Caravans)

This was a minor disaster.
A boatload of Barb Crusaders landed near Buffalo, threatening the six
caravans targeted for a Module. I was able to build a quick
Component with 3 of them but lost the city and the other caravans.
This meant shifting the other Module to Philly, which would have to rush
build freights to make up for the 3 it spent on a Component.
It also meant I would only get 4 components built.

740 1 structural. 1 Component.
760 Nuclear power. 2 structurals.
780 2 structurals.
800 Laser. Carthage-trade for Polytheism (to clear tech tree) . 1 structural.
840 Superconductor. P-freight.
860 Module1. 14th structural. P-frght. Bos-frgt. E-50g.
Sell Temples in Chicago&Atlanta. Disband 2 archers, 1 rifleman, 1 settler.

I had to sell off temples and leave Washington undefended
to squeeze out the last structural.

880 Fusion Power, 2 modules. 15th structural.
Launch 15-2-2-1-1-1 spaceship (20 years)

881 rebuild 2 Temples and Alpine troops for all.
883 C-125g. Building diplos for all.
885 Sneak attack by Mongols on Chicago with Fighter. W-Citywalls.
886 Citywalls for all. bribe Barbarian Dragoons at SF.
888 More alpine troops for all.
889 Peace with Mongols.
892 Mobile Warfare from Celts.
893 Amphib Warfare from Mongols. Building Armor in all citys.
898 Robotics.
901 Arrive AC. Ding!

In summary, this was played as an OCC game but with a handful of size 3
caravan building cities obtained from huts. The main focus of play was
on the OCC side of the game, yet in the end the other cities played a
crucial role in production and parallel SS parts building, cutting many
years off the landing date.

But the key elements of OCC strategy were preserved - the tech path and
choice of Wonders, the tech-gifting appeasement of the AI, and all-out
race for Space Flight and AC. I'm sure this approach can be refined
and produce an earlier landing date with a comparable start.

samson


----------------------------------------------

Tech count totals in 20 turn increments.

4000 - 5 (starting techs)
3000 - 13
2000 - 21
1000 - 31
500 - 36
1AD - 44
400 - 58
800 - 70

----------------------------------------------

42 Huts tipped:

horse 3
archer 3
chariot 1
legion 1
barbs 4
techs 8
Advanced tribes 7
gold 650 total

[This message has been edited by samson (edited May 17, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by samson (edited May 17, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by samson (edited May 18, 2001).]

[solo]

Great game, samson! I've already printed it out and look forward to reading how you did it! Let me be the first to say that this early landing the game is now the one to beat!

[Scouse Gits]

First Class Work - go to the head of the class

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library has been built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[La Fayette]

WoW again samson.
This makes me very sad, thinking about all those 10000000 beakers all of us use in vain researching junk techs, instead of reading you seriously and optimizing tech tree and gift of techs.
I bow.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[samson]

Thanks for the kudos, all.

Solo,

For me, your 776 landing is still the one I want to beat.
Your approach, in that game and your 1076 game, is quite different
than what I used here. You build a perfectionist-style 747 jumbojet
of caravans and research bonuses that cruises in for a smooth landing.
I built a OCC-style flying-gascan which sputtered across the finish line
with the wings falling off. Your research pace was slow at the beginning
but hit a 1 tech/turn stride and maintained it. Mine was faster upfront
but only got to 2 turns per. I think a strategy which combines elements
of both approaches might be a real winner for early AC landings.
Perhaps a strategy discussion on this topic is in order.

I've been bitten by the early landing bug.

samson

[hbourj]

I did never start with 5 start tech, in Deity level. It seems impossible to me. Then if i had MONARCHY as you, i should have done it in -3950 ! So i think possible to do my landing before ! Really I am very surprised by the kindness of IA with you.

[solo]

samson,

I'm back and look forward to a discussion about early landings and will kick it off here.

I took a little time to compare your game with my 1056 arrival game, and have a few things worth mentioning:

1) What first surprised me was that my 2 turn advances started about the same time as yours, although yours were by science alone, and mine were assisted by commodity deliveries.

2) It took me until 2950 BC to acquire my first 3 techs. Since I started with 2 freebies vs. your 5, it took me 20 turns just to catch up, and research costs throughout the game were always 3 techs heavier for me.

3) We were both even in the first flurry of tech trading with the AI, with about 7-8 techs each. Later on, you managed 1 or 2 more useful trades, whereas my embassies helped me to 7 more useful techs through trades.

4) You did better with hut technology with 8 free techs to my 1. So we came out about even in useful techs NOT acquired through research, with about 16 each overall.

5) Where you really outdid me in learning techs was the period before when we both started getting 2 per turn. By that time, you had all science improvements and wonders in place, and all I had was a library in my size-8 SSC. You were quite far ahead on the tech tree. My helper cities were full size and the profitable trade stream had begun, but my SSC was still in the process of growing.

6) I was too far behind and ended up launching 7 turns later.


I'll list some problems with my approach and what I think are some problems with yours:

Me) My SSC develops too late, and as said in the earlier post, there is a lot of extra overhead associated with it, especially in keeping my guys happy enough. It also takes me a steady stream of cargo deliveries plus extra science improvements in helper cities to maintain 1 turn advances. Once your SSC is set, your 2 turn advances are pretty much automatic. I also have a problem with boats that are so vital to overseas trade, and building Leonardo's is a very expensive way to maintain an active fleet in place that will be happy under Democracy. The transition to that government comes much later for me and I miss many opportunities where I would like to set science over 80%. I am also slower to Republic, and must take a tech tree detour to Monotheism. Sometimes I have to race the AI to an important wonder I'd rather build later.

You) Most all of your beakers come from one place, the SSC. With helper cities and commodities to trade, I have much more flexibility, and get the most out of available beakers. You often have too many, or not quite enough to complete the next advance. Your income is less dependable than mine, and a bit smaller. Your cities are more prone to "minor disasters" and your SSC is more vulnerable. Not much trade with the AI makes them slower learners, without much tech to trade after the first stage of the game. Colossus is necessary for you, and it expires with the discovery of Flight. In general, if things don't go according to plan, you have fewer options than I do. Establishing embassies is not as easy for you as for me.


I think there are things we can borrow from each others' approach that will eliminate many of the weakenesses listed above. I also think much more can be done to expedite the trip through the tech tree taking full advantage of your key civ discovery, embassies, and by designing an approach somewhere between yours and mine.

[solo]

samson,

Looking over your log tells me that your shoestring strategy is the quickest way to AC when cararvan rehoming is not an option. I have several ideas for refining it, that I would like to test out in an actual game using your start or one similar to it.

I am leaning to your method as the superior one because who cares if you can only manage 2 advances per turn if they start coming early enough. You get a tremendous headstart by just concentrating on the bare essentials. My successful streams of one turn advances incurs a lot of overhead in the form of additional wonders (Michaelangelo's, Leonardo's, Hanging Gardens), and many extra units you don't need to bother with, such as additional settlers, boats, diplomats, and especially all those extra caravans and freights needed to generate enough trade to justify the system. About 6-8 size-8 helper cities were big enough for profitable trade, and seemed easy enough to establish and maintain. The game is skewed so favorably towards trading commodities, that I had never seriously considered an alternative such as yours that zeroes in on science in such an efficient way. No one seems to be able to sift through all the options (I am tempted to say rubbish) the game distracts us with better than you do.

(Sorry, I have more to add but have to go)

[samson]

quote: I did never start with 5 start tech, in Deity level. It seems impossible to me. Then if i had MONARCHY as you, i should have done it in -3950 ! So i think possible to do my landing before ! Really I am very surprised by the kindness of IA with you.

hbourj,

There's a great piece of work on starting techs by the Scouse Gits in the GL.
Look under Technology/Starting. According to their data, Monarchy occurs
as a starting tech about 1% of the time on random maps. If your starting
civ is "civilized" that goes up to about 3%. However, if you play as one
of the "militaristic" civs, you will never get Monarchy.

5 starting techs is not all that rare. I can usually get at least one start
with that many or more techs in 15 minutes of random map restarts.
It's not the kindness of the AI that creates them, but the combination
of probability and a tolerance for tedious tasks.

I, too, believe it is quite possible that you or others can best my landing
date with a comparable start. Have a go.

samson

[samson]

Solo,

I agree with your analysis.

My game was faster in research at the start, yours at the end.
Yours was a strategy you had used successfully before. Mine
was made up as I went along, except for the OCC-based part. I'm thinking
a good compromise might be a OCC-style capital with ICS-style outlying
towns, low on infrastructure, building lots of caravans for the money
and beakers. We've got to deal with the happiness problem, though.
Temples and size3? Or a Wonder?

I also think an aggressive hut-hunt should be part of the strategy
as well as using diplos and tech-gifting to soak the AI for as much
as we can get out of them.

I've got to think on this a bit more. Later,

samson

[Mark_Everson]

My congratulations to both of you on your excellent games! Not long ago I thought it was basically impossible to get a 1500 landing at deity!

My question is for Samson on the 'aggressive hut-hunt' (say that 10 times fast ). IMO huts are very much a two-edged sword, and I'm not talkin' about barbs. Huts can Really screw up your tech progress if you get lots of 'junk' techs that don't fit your strategy. So doesn't aggressive hut use mean you may well criple yourself in otherwise perfectly good games?

-Mark

BTW I play MGE so maybe the huts are nicer in 2.42 if that's what you're using.

[solo]

Mark_Everson,

Just noticed your post and will give my opinion whether you want it or not! Sure there is a chance of getting unwanted techs from huts, but odds are that the tech will be useful, and it could be one you desperately crave! So many good things can come from huts, that the potential gain far outweighs the risks. An unwanted tech from a hut is an inconvenience, but hardly a major disaster.


samson,

When you say ICS-style outlying cities, do you mean as many as possible? I tried this first on the 776 landing game map, getting 20 tiny cities, and it took until 1020 AD to get Space Flight. I only used the Elvis approach to control happiness in the tiny cities. As long as each one produced a few arrows and at least 1 shield, that was all I cared about. So far, all ICS-style attempts I know about by the most able practitioners are landing at 1075 AD or later.

For me, fewer outlying cities on the same map worked much better, with a 776 landing. Granted that knowledge of the map helps, but not that much. You also did very well on a first attempt with a non-ICS approach.

Yes to aggressive hut hunting!


A few ideas, based on a combination of the best features of both approaches:

1) Maybe priority 1 should be a fully operational size-12 SSC to get science going quickly. Size 12 may end up being optimal, which could eliminate Sanitation as a required tech. While science techs are pursued, an AI is apt learn Medicine (needed for Chemistry) and Sanitation, which can be traded for later, if it is needed.

2) In the meantime, aggressive exploration and hut-hunting and embassies as early as possible with each AI.

3) Add helper cities around the SSC early, slightly overlapping on its specials. Founding the SSC and 1st helper immediately overlapping on gold, will give a nice boost to early research. SSC development takes precedence, but other helpers can be added, as convenient. They can attend to the Queen bee, supplying caravans for wonders, military units, and settlers for development. Depending on surrounding terrain and specials, probably about 4-6 planned helpers is good. The rest can be minimalist advanced tribes as in your game, accumulating caravans for the spaceship.

4) Hanging Gardens is probably best for early happiness, facilitating celebration of the SSC, and acting as a temple in the helpers, and even getting them to celebrate spontaneously when their workers have access to trade specials. If the AI research to Monotheism, there will be an option later to replace HG (which expires with Railroad) with Michaelangelo’s. If the AI don’t get to Monotheism, Oracle is worth considering, instead, since Theology is apt to remain undiscovered. Oracle may have to be captured, which would add some extra adventure!

5) Let the core helpers grow naturally. When the SSC has all science in place, techs should be coming every two turns, and the government should be Democracy, and Magnetism should be known, so that some galleons can be built. The focus can switch to trade, which will be more profitable with bigger cities, and the income can be used for happiness improvements, as needed, and for science improvements in the best helpers. With caravan and helper city beakers, quite a few 1 turn advances are likely.

6) When Railroad is acquired give it to all the AI. They love Railroad and one or more will start to build Darwin’s. If a needed tech is being studied (checked with embassies) all is well. One free tech is assured, maybe two, the AI pays for the wonder, and no research time is wasted. The cost of embassies is justified for this alone! Caravans can be saved for the rocket.

7) Give all AI Monarchy, Republic and Democracy quickly so they will study harder with their “great minds”.

8) Leapfrog techs, when possible. The early parts of the Warrior Code and Horseback Riding tech paths, of which the AI seem so fond, can be left for them to enjoy, as can selected techs elsewhere. Missing techs are even better than freely acquired ones.
[This message has been edited by solo (edited May 19, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by solo (edited May 19, 2001).]

[samson]

Mark,

Yes, huts can be a problem. Unwanted techs can slow research of crucial
early discoveries, mess up the tech tree, or trigger side effects.
But like Solo says the benefits outweigh the risk. A NON settler, an
Advanced Tribe, a timely bit of cash, a vital tech. These can impact
a game enormously.

I think hut-hunting would be most effective, tech-wise, in the phase
after the first 20 techs are acquired. That's when the research lags
and a good tech can cut 7 or 8 turns off your score. Also, at that point
the penalty for carrying a "junk" tech is less than earlier in the game.
So perhaps some strategy can be applied as to when to hunt.

Solo,

I was just thinking out-loud when I said ICS.
I really think that each city founded (Advanced Tribe or chosen spot)
should be developed as the terrain and strategic location dictate.
A too rigid guideline (only size3 cities or all perfectionist-style cities)
is going to miss opportunities. If outlying cities have great trade specials
they probably should be developed as mini-science cities or trade centers.
A gold special in a hilly region might be good for a size 1 city.
But in any case, the focus must be relatively short term. Too much infrastructure
would be a waste. There isn't enough time to fully develop much except
the SSC.

I think our next goal should be to land a ship by 500AD.

#1 - Yes, a size12 SSC with great trade specials can bang out almost
as much tech as a size 30 SSC. And it can hit the ground running.
With Gold you can be doing techs in 3 or 4 turns right from the start.
In my game I eventually went to size 16 to bring those ocean squares
on board, but adding a sewer late in the game isn't too hard.
I never built ST. Didn't need it and that saved 6 caravans.

#2 Embassies, definitely. They allow fine-tuned control of tech-
gifting and, in theory, multi-plexed research. I think a city founded
near another civ should push out a diplo in quick order to get an embassy.

#3 Helper Cities. A couple could be good. 5 or 6 sounds like too many.
What is their exact role? Caravan production is one. I can't quite
see the overlapping specials though. The SCC is going to quickly leap
to size 6 or 7 once Republic arrives. I'm a big fan of Early Republic
in OCC. But what about with multiple cities? Is there an optimal time
to switch from Monarchy? Is it worth it to delay Republic and simply
celebrate in the SSC under Monarchy to get the extra arrows? Or should
we use Republic to celebrate, zoom up to size 7, then drop back to
Monarchy for expansion while celebrating in the SSC?

#4 I don't know about happiness Wonders. I'd love to get along without
them. HG might be the best if built in the SSC, but I can't see delaying
COPERNICUS to get HG first. And if HG is delayed too long, it becomes
pointless. Railroad comes up fast. I had it by 200BC and we have to do
better than that. That's the problem with all the infrastructure stuff:
the faster we go, the more it becomes the thing that slows us down.
MIKE's is the best of bunch, but it's two techs off the main path.
I almost think temples and colosseums, as needed, is the answer.

We won't be capturing any Wonders, I think. We're going to have to move
too fast for that. Maybe it all comes down to cash. If we can get enough
money, we can buy anything we want.

#5 In my games, I can usually get a great start. Hitting 2 turns/tech
early. I want to graft on your end game with its 1 turn/tech phase
without slowing down my quick start game. I know this is going to involve
trade and multiple cities. Without using caravan rehoming.

#6 Letting the AI build DARWIN's is a risky business. They often waste it
on Communism or some such drek. I think it best to build it ourselves.
Preferably soon, to help get to Automobile as quickly as possible.
With Superhighways the SSC can hit 1 tech per turn for a short time.
If we have a brigade of other cities cranking out 100 or so beakers
and caravans waiting to be delivered, we can sustain that 1 turn/tech.

If we're already getting one turn/tech Darwin's may not be necessary.
But at two turns/tech it save 4 turns (80 years). That's worth it.

#7 Agreed. Give away new government types to all.
Also, Writing and University.

#8 Yes.

samson

[Jaguar]

IMO it is also extremely advantageous to give the AI refrigeration and sanitation, especially your trading partner, because those fat 20+ AI cities really give you huge trade bonuses.

[solo]

(Edited to correct the spelling of Xin Yu's name. Sorry Xin Yu, it was a typo.)

samson,

I agree with your general comment that any non-SSC city’s terrain and circumstances should be the main thing in determining its role and development. Adhering to any rigid rule of thumb would be silly.

With time so much a factor, especially in pressing for arrivals like 500 AD, the fewest number of cities needed to make things work out needs to be determined. The reasons for having extra cities:

a) Fast spaceship construction

Sometimes working backwards can help provide an answer. The fastest ship needs 24 parts. At least 3 turns will be needed to construct it, since the last 3 required techs: Plastics, Super Conductor and Fusion Power, follow Space Flight, so certainly no more than 8 cities are a necessity. This is good, because more than 8 start to cause extra unhappiness in a Republic. If 4 or more turns are used to make a spaceship, which is more likely, no more than 6 cities are needed. More than 6 cause extra unhappiness in a Monarchy.

b) Enough beakers for 1-turn advances

From my experience, one size-8 city with 3 trade routes and without any science improvements will produce about 25 beakers. To keep a steady flow of caravans going, so that one can be delivered each turn, will require about 5 cities. However, additional caravans are needed for wonders and for the spaceship, and cities don’t always produce good commodities, so a few more than 5 cities may be a good idea. An average of 250 gold/beakers is possible from demanded cargos delivered overseas from size-8 cities, so trading generates many beakers. Unfortunately, a delivery each turn is usually required to sustain 1-turn advances. So the optimum number of cities is probably between 5 and 8. This would settle the question, if it were not for the happiness problem.


I’ll reply now, to the comments you made:

1) On to size 16 is good, but we should probably wait until an AI learns Sanitation and trade for it.

2) No difference of opinion about embassies. I should add the sooner the better. The AI are only good for so many advances in a game, and hopefully each one will count, without repeats of something already discovered by another AI or us.

3) The role of helpers is partly explained above. Their presence speeds construction of wonders. They build units needed for trade and defense and terrain development. Their raw science contributes towards 1-turn advances. But mostly they are there to produce caravans for trade. The reason for having them overlap the SSC‘s specials, besides speeding early discoveries, are: mainly because the specials can be used to maximize a helper’s trade arrows at the moment commodities are delivered (imagine the difference in gold/beakers received, when two workers jump onto gold specials from their normal locations); that last caravan needed for Cope’s is only 1 turn away from the SSC instead of two; better defense. Obviously, if there are enough quality trade specials around for every helper to have its own, overlap is not needed, but gold is fairly rare in random maps. A thing to keep in mind is that size 5 cities can hire Einsteins and tax collectors. A variation of Xin Yu’s strategy bearing the same name may be useful.

4) Very good points and I’ve given this a lot of thought. I have to agree that happiness outside the SSC is the killer. I would say start the SSC and one helper right away, with the helper overlapping the gold. Build a settler first with the helper and have it replace the one normally used to develop the SSC site. Now develop the SSC just the way you normally do, as if the helper were not there. Build Cope’s there ASAP, etc. It will be completely up to the first helper to happy up itself and to introduce companions as best as it is able. Advanced tribes may produce others, nearby. Later in the game, after an AI has discovered Monotheism, trade for it and build Michaelangelo’s if it seems prudent. There will be more cities to justify the cost, and expensive colosseums can be avoided. Later Mike’s would also cover an SSC expansion up to 16 citizens. How does this plan sound? It starts things your way, but provides a chance to switch to my way later.

In your game, your first minor city came much later in the game, too late to get the helper ball really rolling.

In my game, (largely patterned after the success of the 776 landing game, which was designed for 2 advances/turn and rehoming) I would have done better by founding my SSC earlier and should have built HG before Michaelangelo’s. If I had, my SSC would have been growing from size 8 to 12, while my helpers were going from 3 to 8.

I was not really serious about capturing Oracle!

5) Implementing trade will come a little later, and may not be enough for sustained 1-turn advances, but maybe 2 advances every 3 turns after a fast SSC start will be enough. Tech leapfrogging may be successful enough that not as much trade will be necessary. Games will have to be played to find out by trial and error.

6) There is no risk if an AI is building Darwin’s. Imminent completion of AI wonders is always announced a turn before the event, allowing a rush job to beat them to it, if needed. If our techs are coming every 2 turns, and we let them build it after checking to see that their current project is useful to us, the most we can lose is 2 turns if we let them complete it. The cost is even a bit less, because we can trade for what they get later, to keep our beakers lower now, plus we save 6 camels. The earlier the arrival goal is, the harder it is to accumulate enough caravans to build Darwin’s and do everything else. Wasn’t it tight enough in your game?

7) yes, writing and university, too.

That’s enough for now.

Good point, FireDragon, but we want to skip as many techs as we can.

[La Fayette]

samson and solo
Thank you to both of you for discussing this in public.
I am not one of those who dream of beating you , but find it very interesting reading you.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[Edward]

samson,

In another thread someone (maybe you) suggested putting the Colossus in a different city than the SSC and setting up trade routes between the two. I think DaveV regularly uses internal trade at least in the early game. One of the biggest advantages to internal trade is that caravans aren't in too much danger since they only need to travel within your borders. Also the traveling distance is usually less and is all roaded. The second advantage in your particular case is that you're sure to be able to build your two cities up much more quickly (arrow-wise) than the AI. It would definitely be superior to a foreign trade if you only look at permanent trade route arrows (which you'd get in both of your super cities). You'd probably do very well on the single-time coin and beaker bonuses as well.

If you try for the "roads between cities" bonus, I believe some research was done in this area. The road must run along a very specific path. It's not enough for the two cities to merely be connected by roads. The "correct" path might be the one determined by the "go to" command. Or the "correct" path might be the side of a parallelogram (go purely diagonally - then purely horizontally or vertically). I can't remember which.

You and Solo have had some incredible results. Congratulations.

[solo]

samson,

Not much time today, but will ponder your questions.

Briefly, I like it when you have new ideas. Super Trade City could be the compromise we need.

More tomorrow.

somehow this appeared in front of your post. ?????

[samson]

Solo,

Great stuff. Especially liked your explanation of the overlapped helpers.
Good point about Darwin's, too, if we get one needed advance from letting
the AI build it, we're better off that way.

A question.
What map size is best for early landing?

Small map?

Pros: Cheaper research - the 20+ minimum tech cost is 19X
whereas on medium map it's 24X and on large map it's 30X. That's a lot
of beakers saved on small map. Earlier contact with other civs,
including the Purple (our key civ).
Cons: Fewer huts, lower trade bonuses, fewer good sites for cities.

Large map has the opposite advantages and disadvantages.
Medium is a compromise.

An idea.
What about two Super Cities? One is the SSC with COPES and INU and four
trade specials, population capped at size 12, maybe 16. It will pump out
a 1000+ per turn beakers by the end game at 90% science with no Colossus.
The other would be a Super Trade City. Here we build the COLOSSUS and SHAKESPEARE
on heavily rivered land with ocean access and a couple trade specials
if can get them. This city we boom up to max population, working all 21
squares. If we get 2 decent specials and 13 river/ocean squares, this joint
could have 120+ trade, while the big C is active and before automobile.
After superhighways, it goes to 160 maybe. At 90% science and a library/university
it pumps out 250-300 beakers. In addition, if we send our own caravans to this town
we get better trade routes than from size8 foreign cities. Plus, the first
caravans between the STC and SSC establish double trade routes benefitting
both cities. What about bonuses? Does the super-trade compensate for not
being foreign? What if we have roads between our cities and the STC?
If this would get us high enough bonuses, we could use a small map to
reduce beaker cost.

The lack of COLOSSUS in a size 12 SSC means a loss of 13 arrows and about 72 beakers.
But we gain 21 arrows in the STC directly from COLOSSUS and, oh let's say,
+2 arrows per trade route in each city. That's a net loss in the SSC of 7 arrows,
40 beakers. But we gain back about 50 beakers in the STC. What do you think?

samson

[hbourj]

1) To Samson :
I apologize to you, Samson. I feel I am a very little CIV2 player.
My knowdledge of this game is low, and I am not able to play so precizely as you do.

2) To Samson and Solo : I agree and joint myself to La Fayette, about thank you, for discussing this in public. It is a big mine of informations !

3) To La Fayette : Ces américains, ils nous épateront toujours !

[hbourj]

1) To Samson :
I apologize to you, Samson. I feel I am a very little CIV2 player.
My knowdledge of this game is low, and I am not able to play so precizely as you do.

2) To Samson and Solo : I agree and joint myself to La Fayette, about thank you, for discussing this in public. It is a big mine of informations !

3) To La Fayette : Ces américains, ils nous épateront toujours !

[Scouse Gits]

Just a brief point from a comparative amateur ...
If you have major trading going on particularly with your twin cities as discussed above there is a very serious possibility of entering the two tech/turn zone - if this can be achieved it will take the kind of fiendish nanomanagement that yourselves and people like Rib have proven themselves so adept at to take the most advantage from this ...

Go for it guys!

[solo]

Edward,

Great to see others joining in the discussion with very good ideas. I know there has been a lot of research done about trade and how to maximize the benefits. Some have derived formulas to predict the gold payoffs. However, my experiments with internal trade have always been disappointing, but maybe I am doing something wrong. In general, I’ve noticed that the best payoffs always seem to come from demanded cargos to distant cities on separate continents, with city size and connecting roads being less of a factor. The continuing trade bonus is also, on average, higher. Meeting demand and receiving that bonus is much more likely, too, with so many recipients to choose from. I believe the payoffs are good enough to justify the risk. I have had my share of caravans hacked to death by the Mongols, but have found that delivering a caravan by boat to a coastal AI city is relatively risk-free and can be done quickly. For inland deliveries, a timely gift of technology often assures the safe passage of a caravan to the targeted AI city. Letting the AI build Colossus, and trading with that city can be very profitable, too, payoffs being about twice the usual amount.


samson,

MAPS:

I prefer a medium map over a small one, the main reason being the extra supply of huts. Look at the games with the earliest landings, and check how much of a factor huts were. Just in your own game, suppose you had only gotten 4 techs from huts instead of the 8 you did get. That would have meant at least 8 more turns learning techs, and a launch date of 1020 instead of 880. What a difference! I’m only accounting for a few techs here. Less gold, plus fewer free units and advanced tribes would have added at least a few more turns, and you might have been hard pressed to land before 1100.

(We try to do our best, LaFayette and hbourj, but too much of the credit goes to “les petite cabanes“, where all we have to do is “frappon” and exclaim “abracadabrant!“)

Check out some of the results in OCC #22 on a giga map, where huts permitted several pre-1000 AD landings, and these were after the 20 turns used to make spaceships. Granted, Paul started us with a few spies and transports, but it was the huge supply of huts that made the difference. The advantage of many quickly accessible huts was taken to the extreme on my large river map in OCC #23, which yielded my 14 BC landing, starting with just 2 settlers. With 2 extra spies to start the game, Ribannah did it before 500 BC! When the two of us tried the same map with huts removed, landings were much later, Ribannah doing the best at around 1200 AD. I came in 6 turns later in the 1300’s.

Other reasons for picking one size over another have hardly as much impact, except maybe the need to quickly find the key civ. If it is the last one found, this could take too long on a large map. Game-generated large maps have more water than anything else, too, so the proportional increase in huts is not as much as it is when going from small to medium. So my choice is medium size maps.

SUPER TRADE CITY:

The more I consider this idea, the more I like it. If 300 beakers are possible, then many 1-turn advances are likely by city science alone, and caravans can be delivered in bunches for the occasional delight of 2 advances in 1 turn. I was trying for the same 300 beakers, with 6 or 7 helper cities supplying about 50 beakers each, figuring a size 8 limit would minimize the overhead, but this may be even more efficient. Let me list some reasons I can think of for and against your STC idea:

against:

1) In your game you could devote all resources to the SSC. Will it be possible to get the STC to size 21 with all improvements in time to get 300 beakers and 1-turn advances? Without the chance of 1-turn advances, a STC may not be worth the trouble. Can it be done in time and will it do the job? If it comes up 50 beakers short, it might just as well be 250. This is the crux.

2) More cities producing caravans allows more choice in commodities being made for trade, and also supplies more caravans. When the SSC and/or STC can only produce food and/or crummy commodities, will this jeopardize trade? Can they produce enough caravans to cover all needs?

3) Is there enough of a gold/beaker payoff to make internal trade worthwhile? I haven’t done much at all, so it’s hard for me to make an estimate. I feel dubious about this though. Distance between the cities and being on different continents are a bigger factors than whether they are connected by roads, I think. I think a small island site would generate better trade payoffs and benefit the most with a harbor. It’s also easier to build boats than making a long road.

4) If foreign trade just boosts the AI learning curve by 1 more useful advance each per game, this would mean a few more free techs, chopping many years off a landing date. Their potential, albeit dim, should be fully fertilized and exploited.

5) An almost ideal SSC is needed, and an excellent, well-positioned STC site on the same map will be hard to find and develop quickly. A lucky start on a lucky map is even more critical for success.

for:

1) The STC idea solves the problem of happiness control in a neat way. This alone may justify its use over helper cities. If it is well-positioned, all boats can be assigned to it as well, once Shakespeare’s Theater is built. ST is on the tech path and also saves 2 camels vs. Michaelangelo’s. Even the person playing the game is made happier, after considering all these benefits.

2) 300 beakers are more efficiently achieved, as only one set of scientific improvements are required, more than justifying the cost of an aqueduct, sewer, etc.

3) A smaller, but highly efficient SSC is another benefit. All of the science is not concentrated in one spot, and there is greater flexibility.

4) Smaller space contractors derived from advanced tribes can still function as effectively as they did before.

While we are looking for ways to maximize speed through the tech tree, it’s well worth considering that free techs are always a better deal than the ability to acquire techs a little faster. The more free techs with the start, the better. This really hit home for me when comparing my 1056 game to yours and with my earlier 776 game, where I started with 6 free techs instead of 2. Free techs also come from huts and from the AI through trade. I believe that any technique or choice that maximizes possibilities in these areas are of more consequence for early landings than ideas used to maximize science. Time is the biggest problem, and free techs are instantaneous. In this game luck plays as much as a role as skill, and when going for early landings you have to grub for every legitimate advantage the game provides, by maximizing the possibility of lucky events, and exploiting good luck for all its worth.

[samson]

Solo,

A lot to respond to here and I don't have much time, but I'll start anyway.

The STC

I've played with this a little. A size21 city with the Colossus and Shakes, 2 decent trade specials, some river and ocean can definitely crank out 300+ beakers after Superhighways. Furthermore, it can sustain that even after Colossus is obsoleted by Flight if a Research Lab is built.

I have a model game running now with an SSC and STC in the late stage of development. The SSC, size15 with a temple and colosseum, at 90% science puts out 950 beakers. The STC (post Colossus) is at 310 beakers.
One advantage to this is clear. In my game, end stage, my SSC was at 1100+ beakers but I was always falling just short of getting one turn advances -- so I was running at about 60% science and stockpiling cash. By splitting into two super cities we gain some extra beakers, but more importantly we can run at 90% science. If we fall short one turn, the STC picks up the advance on the next turn and the 900+ beakers of the SSC are banked for the next advance.
If nothing else, we can get 2 advances every three turns, eliminating the end-game inefficiency of the SSC.

As for developing the STC. First priority would still be the SSC and its Science Wonders - Cope's and the INU. But the caravans to build Colossus and Shakes can simply be routed to the STC when the time comes to build them. Each city would be on its own time table, with some attempt to coordinate the WeLove! days.

The city site for the STC does not have to be ideal. In fact a penisular location with 14 ocean squares and a couple of whales might work just fine -- no rivers to bridge to get the trade arrows up. If we can get extra citizens for scientists great, but we can get to 300 beakers without them. I think we can find a good STC site in almost any game. It could even be a small offshore island and would give a great trade bonus.

I also tested the domestic trading aspect of this idea. It doesn't work well. A caravan from the SSC (size12) to the STC (size21) paid less and produced a lower trade route than the same caravan delivered to a size3 foreign city 4 squares away! Yikes.
Could be different if the STC was offshore though.

So anyway, the trade aspect may not work that well, but the idea of two super cities for science purposes still looks promising.

We still would need to use helper cities to produce caravans for wonders and trade.


Map size.

I am playing a small map game now. The lower cost of advances is significant and may compensate for the lack of huts. Not sure yet. The game is now at 2000BC and I've got 23 techs, compared with 21 techs at the same point in the game posted above -- only 1 of those techs came from a hut and 2 from trade. I am, however, extremely strapped for cash and almost out of places to look for huts. I'll try to finish the game in the next day or so and compare it with the medium map game.

That's all I have time for now. Thanks to others who commented, and I will respond to more points later.

samson

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by samson

An idea.
What about two Super Cities? One is the SSC with COPES and INU and four
trade specials, population capped at size 12, maybe 16. It will pump out
a 1000+ per turn beakers by the end game at 90% science with no Colossus.
The other would be a Super Trade City. Here we build the COLOSSUS and SHAKESPEARE
on heavily rivered land with ocean access and a couple trade specials
if can get them. This city we boom up to max population, working all 21
squares.. What do you think?

samson

I have tried the 2 Super Cities in several games a few months ago. Wasn't dreaming of records, so my experience is perhaps no use to you.
Nevertheless, here are a few points:
Main problem was locating the Trade City (either growing one of the helper cities close to the SSC or building the STC on a faraway island, trying to get the benefits of early 2 continents trade).
Choice #1 provided quite safe and easy growth of the STC, but rather disappointing trade bonuses compared with average foreign trade.
Choice #2 demonstrated that a fat city is not easy to grow faraway from the capital in Monarchy, but things went much better after switching to commie or demo (I don't remember precisely what happened under Rep when I chose it).
Safety from enemy attacks was achieved by choosing 'one square' islands (easy to grow with a whale in the radius).
Perhaps I give this another try since you remind me of it, and let you know if I notice something of interest.
Thanks again to both of you.

[solo]

samson,

Duhhhh! I stand corrected! With two cities, 2 advances every 3 turns works, if 1 advance per turn is just out of reach.

From your latest post it sounds like using a SSC and STC is the way to go, and by concentrating on science you seem to be doing much better than a game focusing more on trade. I've never seen very successful games before, where trade did not play a key role, and to tell you the truth, it irks me just a little to see how well you are doing by almost ignoring it! But I go with what works, and so far this looks great!

In your current game I'm worried that you will not have enough caravans and cash to build a timely rocket, but will have to await your result to see what happens. I predict somewhere a bit over 500 AD, unless some disaster befalls.

I guess credit for the STC goes to Edward, where the idea was first mentioned in this thread, and of course to samson, who immediately realized the potential and took off with it. Nice work!

I think the thing to do now is work in a better way (I say hopefully) to make trade a key player in the overall strategy.


LaFayette,

Thanks for your input about STC's, especially about the differences between a local and faraway site. Your results, and samson's game so far, suggest that local, internal trade is not the answer. The nearby small island internal trade idea should be tried, as should an idea of trade with the AI, while keeping the 2 super cities close together. This may supply the extra cash needed to finance the spaceship and to sustain 1 turn advances using 2 super cities.

Anyone else out there with experience with 2 super cities? Especially the trade aspect?

[samson]

Solo,

A point of clarification.
My current game was not a test of the two Super Cities idea. It was a small map game, to see if the research speed vs. techs from huts made a difference. I got Space Flight in 540 AD, 5 turns ahead of the game posted above. Only two techs came from huts, maybe 6 from trading. The research time was a big difference. But I ended up with fewer helper cities and the SSC was underdeveloped at only 14 pop. I built APOLLO but have no chance of bettering my previous landing, since few caravans remain. There just isn't enough production and cash. Only got one ally. I guess medium map is the way to go. More huts, more space for us and for the AI to develop.

The test I did with an STC and SSC was just a model, cheated up from an old game. Those beaker numbers will be valid though. I'm going to try the Super Cities idea in my next game -- not for an early landing , but just to get experience developing 2 super cities and to check out the trade and science.

I agree that trade should play a part in the overall strategy -- to generate cash and to get more 1 turn advances. Still, 500AD is going to be very tough. It means SF by 360AD at the latest and a lot of freights that don't go out for trade. Or a heck of a lot of cash.

samson

[solo]

samson,

I still like those beaker numbers, and the fact that two cities can probably get the 1-turn advances.

Sounds like you were just testing how well the science would progress, and Space Flight by 540 mostly by science sounds very encouraging.

Did you try leapfrogging any techs, and if so, how did that go?

all,

I'm looking for a suitable start to test out many of the ideas above, and appeal to others if they have any candidates they would care to forward to me at:

pmh@mediaone.net

My preferences are all standard options, but am mainly looking for a start having:

1) 4 or more starting techs leading to or with Monarchy and Trade.

2) A SSC site having 4 trade specials, preferably including 2 gold and two others high in trade arrows, too, such as spice, silk and wine.

3) Another site nearby as close in quality as possible to the SSC site, with access to the ocean.

That should be easy enough! Thanks in advance.

[Scouse Gits]

There are some 15 starts on our website - home page button above - that might be of interest and I know that SG2 has a colossal archive of other 'interesting' 4000BC situations - good luck ....

[EOL]

SG's - I have a collection of good/interesting start positions I could email you if you're looking to increase the size of your database (normal size random map, 7 civs, restart on, raging, deity).

EOL