Pre-1000AD landing

[Scouse Gits]

Thanks EOL - that would be great - I can't guarantee how quickly I can get them up on the Web-site - I'm in the marking season, but your offer much appreciated ...

[samson]

Solo and all,

After thinking more about my small map game, I decided there was still a chance for a timely spaceship even though I was low on cash and freights. With APOLLO built in 560AD, there were 6 more techs to research and I could only get 2 turns/tech. That meant 11 more turns to build the SS, so I rushbuilt caravans in every city until the cash was gone. Then constructed the minimum ship, 15-1-1-1-1-1 (selling off a few buildings.) It launched in 780AD, landing AC on 816AD, beat my previous effort (medium map) by 85 years. It took more turns (175 vs. 165) but landed earlier. Also, this was only 2 turns short of Solo's 776AD medium map landing.

So, I think the map size question is still open. Small maps have a big advantage in research cost. From Acquired Tech #20 to AT #70 (approx. Fusion Power) it costs 39,425 beakers on a small map and 49,800 beakers on a medium map. This assumes you pay the minimum during this entire period. That's a 10,000 beaker discount for small maps in the midgame and endgame when huts are no longer a factor (either they're all tipped or you've got Invention.)

In the small map game I rarely got 1 turn advances, but I had several 2 techs/3 turn runs with the help of caravans and small cities in the end game. In the midgame I had some 2 tech/5 turn runs when I would have been getting 3 turns/tech on a medium map. I ended up launching 5 turns earlier. And this is with only 2 techs from huts on the small map vs. 8 techs on the medium map. Techs acquired in trade with the AI were about even, maybe 1 or 2 fewer on the small map. And it's a bit more satisfying to research the techs yourself, instead of relying on hut-luck.

I only got 2 advanced tribes on the small map vs. 7 on the medium map. The mid-game was a tight squeeze for cash and city development, but I could have played it better.

All in all, I think small map offers as good a chance as medium map for early landings. Neither is a clear winner though. They have different advantages.

samson

[solo]

samson and all,

816 AD on a small map without much hut help makes me reconsider the map size question. 776 was loaded with lucky advantages and also tainted by caravan rehoming, and for you to come so close with a more self-reliant scientific approach demonstrates the superiority of this strategy. Again, your great result forces me to re-evaluate my thinking on maps, and I must now lean towards small. It certainly IS more rewarding to get a good result more as the result of skillful play than by things like lucky hut results. I really admire your last effort. 500 AD WILL be tough, but in a cooperative effort, such as we have launched here, the more participants the better. 500 will fall to a good collective effort. Every idea is worth considering, because not long ago the thought of OCC success with a size-1 city seemed ridiculous and it seemed that arii's great 1075 arrival date was unbeatable.

There are still things I want to try with a medium map, and now that Scouse Gits and EOL have come up with quite a few interesting starts to sample, I will be taking some time experimenting with them. Many thanks to both, and if a good game comes out of any of them, I'll make sure to give credit to the source of the start. One nice thing about using a medium map and doing well, is being able to say that no special options were chosen at startup to try and gain an advantage.

Another possibility I'm looking into is the use of some of the starts in the OCC collection that I have not played yet, as I have only tried Four Whales and #22 onwards. Most are on small maps and I know each one has at least one excellent SSC location! I believe there are several that have just been taken from game starts, and have not been tweaked with extra units or terrain changes. Paul would know for sure which ones.

[DaveV]

I've been experimenting lately with the Infinite Caravan Sleaze: build up one OCC-style super city, and have a huge number of small cities feeding caravans into it. A trade route with such a super city produces excellent per-turn payoffs, regardless of how pathetic the arrow production of the source city. Per-turn bonuses appear to be better for cities on the same continent, contrary to popular wisdom.

I've been using settlers to grow the super trade city to size 8 (staying in monarchy and aiming for Communism), then using food caravans to grow beyond size 8. This lets me max my production, keep cranking out settlers, and avoid building improvements in the support cities. A big advantage of non-rep government is the ability to demand tribute; this could be a huge factor on a single-continent small map.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by solo
Anyone else out there with experience with 2 super cities? Especially the trade aspect?

Yes, altho it's been a long time. Long before I ever heard of Apolyton and OCC and SSC, I decided to try specialized cities. I founded Duluth with 6+ river squares and four specials. I built CO, INC, and SETI there. Minneapolis was upstream about 10 squares with wine and silk. There I built the Collossus, Adam Smith's, and other wonders. Both cities had numerous trade routes and the appropriate city improvements. Duluth was popping over 500 beakers per turn (collossus would have helped even more!). I can't remember how much gold Minneapolis produced each turn, but it was a phenomenal amount. At that time I built most improvements in all cities, without regard to need. I'd estimate 40 cities with upkeep costs for colluseums, acqueducts, banks, universities, etc, and my empire was rolling in the gold.

This is not much help without numbers, but suffice it to say that a trade city can reap huge benefits. With WLT*D, the collosus, then superhighways, and a moderate luxury rate, the trade city produces a huge number of arrows. Deliver a demanded caravan overseas to a big coastal city (the AI loves harbors), and each one can bring in 300 to 800 gold.

[Paul]

Solo, the comparison games that were posted before we started the fortnight games are all regular random map games. Of the fortnight games, most are scenarios, but a few are random starts. If you check out the OCC guide, I have mentioned with all the fortnight games whether they are edited or random starts. The monarchy start might be good, with a 2 whale/2 wine SSC site and starting with monarchy.

[solo]

DaveV,

This is very interesting, and I have many questions:

1) What are some numbers on the caravan payoffs to your SSC, and how many are you able to deliver per turn at various stages in the game?
2) Are all your cities connected with roads?
3) How long does it take you to build up your SSC to size 5, then 8,12,16, 21, and onwards, and how large does it end up?
4) How many other cities have you managed to build at these times?
5) Compare your way with our "we love" approach. Who is able to grow the SSC the fastest?
6) How many beakers are you getting with your SSC and with your other little cities, when your SSC is full size?
7) Do you use Shakespeare's Theater in the SSC, or just martial law plus temple, colloseum, etc.?
8) How much tribute are you getting?
9) Doesn't it take too long to get to Communism to get the science going?

I tried the ICS approach, too, pumping out those caravans, but went to Republic and Democracy, which is different from what you do. I was making a lot of gold, but never got science going fast enough until it was too late. However, I did stop ICSing at about the 20 city level. Should I have kept going? Does the raw ICS science catch up fast enough?

Marquis de Sodaq,

Thanks for the confirmation about how productive a STC can be. You are so right about those coastal AI cities, where they love their harbors for the extra food. Their workers on ocean squares boost the trade payoffs, especially from the SSC and the STC, where gold averages at or over the 800 level per delivery. It's another reason to like samson's two city approach. Twice as many high paying cargos are possible than before, than when only the SSC was in use.

Paul,

Thanks a lot. I guess from looking in your guide, that I was wrong about there being many OCC games from random player starts, as you have noted for most of the games that the maps have been edited. The specific one you mentioned, seems like the only one usuable and suitable for record attempts, since it starts with Monarchy and is a random start. Some of the others are scenarios, which give the unfair edge of free choice of the path taken through the tech tree.

[samson]

Hi all.

I've played a bit more with my SSC/STC model and have discovered some interesting things. The most important may be that the bonus payoffs and the ongoing trade arrows operate very differently. The bonuses are enormously increased by the STC being offshore, but the trade arrows are not. Trade routes are much the same as with a same-continent city of that size. Ongoing trade arrows are about twice as high for a foreign city as for a domestic. If the SSC and STC have routes between them, they pay much less than either city can obtain by delivering to a very small foreign city -- even on the same continent.

The SSC needs to establish high paying trade routes to foreign cities - size, distance, and continent location mean very little. Just get them up as soon as possible to increase overall trade in the SSC. Then leave them alone. Don't bring domestic routes into the SSC, they will replace the foreign ones and cut the ongoing trade streams in half.

The offshore STC should be where helper city freights are sent. The payoffs will be high (demanded or not) and the helpers will pick up decent, not great, trade routes. The STC and SSC should NOT send freights between themselves.

Another result which surprised me was that the presence of the COLOSSUS in an offshore STC was not necessary to get high bonuses. It increased the trade and the science of the STC, but had little impact on the bonus. So COLOSSUS could be built in the SSC where it would be of more benefit for total science output.

In other words, the STC should be a high population, low overhead, offshore city. In an early landing game where the AI lags way behind in city development, the STC can serve as a freight destination for caravan-producing cities to rack up gold and research bonuses, and secondarily provide middling trade routes to all helpers.

In these fast games there are no AI cities over 8, and few ever reach that size.


DaveV,

Very interested in your approach. How early are your landing dates? Or other milestones. I am interested, but skeptical. A couple of comments:

Tribute. They can't pay gold that they don't have. My experience with asking for gifts from allies (under Rep Gov) has been that they just don't have much money to give. Early landing games move so fast, the AI doesn't develop quickly enough to get a lot of cash.

Trade arrows, trade routes, and therefore science output is about 50% higher in Rep Govs than in Monarchy or Commie. With a ton of small cities, it may be even higher than that.

Let us know how you do.

How many cities do you have at 3000BC, 2000, 1000, 500, 1AD?

samson

[solo]

samson,

My trade experience was the same for the SSC. Domestic routes to it only got about half as much continuing trade as those to foreign cities. I was stuck and a bit teed off, since the SSC was only making food and I couldn't fix things back the way they were.

What are you averaging for gold to the STC with helpers?
And what are helper sizes when sending these caravans?
Have you compared how they do with going to an offshore AI city instead?

If you can find another comparable STC site further away, it might be interesting to see how much difference some more distance makes.

Trading to another continent seems to be the main thing in getting more per delivery, don't you think?
There is a whole topic about this in the GL.

Found a great start, but one slight problem. The center of the great 4 trade special (2 gold, whale and silk) was a pond! Also had 7 starting techs, including Trade. NO other decent sites on the map to develop. This teed me off, a bit, this one!

[samson]

Solo,

In the model I've created, the two super cities are by far the biggest in the world and have perhaps ten times as much trade as any other city, foreign or domestic. So their trade amount is the major factor in trade route and bonus calculation.

For trade routes, distance between cities does not matter. The most important modifier (2X) is foreign instead of domestic. So the SSC needs to establish its routes by sending caravans to a foreign city and not receiving domestic caravans. They can be sent to a nearby city, without regard to size or demand. Speed is more important - get those routes going quickly to benefit from the extra trade ASAP. It may be desirable to send all 3 caravans to the same city to boost that city's trade and therefore the SSC's own trade through a feedback loop. This could also stimulate growth of the foreign city. Pick one that has some potential.

To maximise trade bonuses from helper caravans, the STC should be located off-shore. This increases the bonuses greatly. Because the STC is a super city, its high trade amount is far more important than not being foreign. "Foreign" increases the bonus by 2X. But the bonus is based on trade amount and the STC's could be 10x more than any foreign city at that time. So the STC has the potential of paying 5X more than foreign cities with the added benefit of setting up bi-directional trade routes.

The advantage of "caravan rehoming" can be obtained in this model without using the cheat itself. By rehoming helper city caravans to the SSC one would get large bonuses through leveraging the high trade of the supercity. This used OUTBOUND city trade to obtain the high bonus. What the STC does is to use INBOUND city trade to produce high bonuses without rehoming. It also has the advantage of not disrupting the highly profitable SSC trade routes already in place. Think of the STC that way. A completely legitimate means of the getting "rehomed" bonuses for small city caravans.

How do the numbers look in the model? Pretty good. 500+ gold per freight into the STC (non-demanded) from size 3 helper cities. Far more than a foreign city would pay for those shoddy goods.

Bear in mind that this is not a general strategy. At some point in time, of course, foreign cities will be large enough to pay greater bonuses for demanded goods than the STC pays for non-demanded goods. But during the midgame years that are most important to early AC landing attempts, the STC will be king.


samson

[EOL]

Originally posted by samson
Solo,

... It may be desirable to send all 3 caravans to the same city to boost that city's trade and therefore the SSC's own trade through a feedback loop. This could also stimulate growth of the foreign city. Pick one that has some potential. ...

samson

Recently I was looking at the trade bonus thing and it appeared to me that the arrows taken into account when calculating the bonus only included those generated from the workers (and not lost to corruption) and not those from trade routes (at least for several caravans delivered on the same turn). If a city has both trade routes and some corruption it can be difficult to tell how many of these 'useful' arrows are being generated and delivery of a more profitable caravan may change the number of worker arrows lost to corruption.

Considering these same arrows for domestic trade routes another 8 were required (on a normal sized map) for an increase of 1 in the ongoing trade route bonus.

Hope this experience helps your calculations. I'm looking forward to your conclusions.

EOL

[Adam Smith]

There are two advantages, which I have not yet seen mentioned, of running all your trade routes through a big domestic city.

First, the number of continuing trade arrows essentially depends on the total trade generated by the origin and destination cities, exclusive of trade routes. If one large domestic city is contributing essentially all the trade, then the origin cities can have a large number of continuing trade arrows even if they are primarily working production squares. You get to have your cake and eat it too.

Second, if you plan to use trade to supplement your research over a long period, consistent delivery of caravans every turn is much more important than ensuring that evey caravan be highly profitable. Since domestic transportation networks are generally more developed than foreign roads or ship chains to foreign lands, domestic routes can provide more consistent delivery.

[samson]

EOL, thanks. Your info appreciated.

Found a great start, but one slight problem. The center of the great 4 trade special (2 gold, whale and silk) was a pond! Also had 7 starting techs, including Trade. NO other decent sites on the map to develop. This teed me off, a bit, this one!

I had one like that, too. 2 gold, wine, wheat centered on a pond.

A question for anyone:
Does "Customize World" count as a random map start?
If so, what options are most likely to generate the best terrain and geography for our purposes?

samson

[solo]

EOL and Adam Smith,

Really useful insights about aspects of trade I was not that knowledgeable about. I always knew that overseas was better from experience, but now understand how domestic routes worked that way can be very profitable.

The point about consistent deliveries is very important I think, and bears repetition. In my early landing games, I was often forced to pick the less desirable but closer AI city in order to deliver that one necessary caravan per turn.

samson,

500 gold is certainly very good, so it looks like an offshore STC is the most efficient way to work the trading aspect of the strategy. Helpers no longer need to be larger than size three and all that is needed for them now for happiness is a temple. This will make for more efficient use of the limited supply of trade specials on a map.

One question about the STC, was how long did it take you to get it full size to where it was really paying off?

Customize world should be an option, I believe, for record attempts. I think any legitimate use of game options should be permitted, and there is no sign hanging out that says, "Customize world is not permitted at this time." I would say the majority of players here would have no problem with use of the option. I have not used it much, so any other advice I give would be worthless on the subject. Maybe some others here...

I think any post of a record attempt should list all parameters and debatable strategies or tactics that were used in the game. Then the fully informed viewers of the log can judge for themselves the worthiness of the effort.


Another thought,

If helpers trading to an offshore STC is good, why not some other little cities doing the reverse with the SSC. These could be ones sprung from huts when exploring overseas and and could also be deliberate STC helpers. Send caravans back and forth from small cities on both continents. This would be very efficient use of boats, as none would return empty as they do in trade with the AI.

[DaveV]

Numbers from the no help thread. Note that this is with a no-tech start and no talking to the AIs, so my progress is way behind the current standards.

It's 1360 and I've just discovered railroad, which has greatly boosted my trade revenues. For a size three city on the rail line, celebrating and generating 8 trade arrows, the three trade routes to the SSC are worth 11 arrows each. A similar size three city not on the rail line is generating 8 arrows per route. A similar city on an island is generating 5 arrows per route. The SSC itself is a mediocre one, producing 80 trade arrows exclusive of trade routes (which are producing 9, 11, and 12 arrows). One time bonuses have been on the order of 50-150 per caravan delivered; pretty small compared to overseas bonuses, but steadily and safely delivered. Once I build superhighways, the trade should really take off.

The advantage I see in this scheme is the usual ICS advantage - no need to spend resources on infrastructure in the supporting cities. Since no other city can hope to generate as much trade as the SSC, the resources that might be spent building up that city are better spent on another city, which can crank out its own trade routes and gain benefit from the structures in the SSC.

To answer solo's questions:

1) What are some numbers on the caravan payoffs to your SSC, and how many are you able to deliver per turn at various stages in the game? See above. I've been able to deliver at least one caravan on most turns, although I (probably unwisely) used a bunch on wonders.
2) Are all your cities connected with roads? Yes. The sooner railroads are built on top of the roads, the better.
3) How long does it take you to build up your SSC to size 5, then 8,12,16, 21, and onwards, and how large does it end up? Again, the times don't compare favorably, but I was size 8 in 675 BC, size 12 in 125 BC, size 20 in AD 520, and size 26 in 1240.
4) How many other cities have you managed to build at these times? 15 cities at AD 1; 27 cities at AD 1000; 37 cities at AD 1360.
5) Compare your way with our "we love" approach. Who is able to grow the SSC the fastest? Food caravans grow at the same rate as WLTPD; the obvious question is whether the extra shields and (presumably) lower luxury rate makes up for the lost trade arrows.
6) How many beakers are you getting with your SSC and with your other little cities, when your SSC is full size? Answered above.
7) Do you use Shakespeare's Theater in the SSC, or just martial law plus temple, colloseum, etc.? The latter. No need for cathedral, since temple+colosseum+martial law = 11 content citizens.
8) How much tribute are you getting? None in this game. Can't talk to the AIs.
9) Isn't it take too long to get to Communism to get the science going? SoL provides early access to Communism, although it means flushing 8 caravans and decreasing trade bonuses by discovering Invention early.

[Adam Smith]

I see no reason why you can't pick both the settings and the AI opponents in going for the record. Here's a few thoughts on things I've tried, and I would love to hear from other people who have tried.

Age of World:
3 bil, wet gives a change to land in a large grassy area, with a substantial river system. Drawbacks are that there can be substantial swamp and jungle areas, and the AI might get stuck in a vast forest to start.
4 bil, normal seems to give a decent start to everybody.
5 bil generally has a busted up landscape, making it tough to find good sites for big cities

Continents:
Large continents lets you grab more tribute, while normal continents allow more profitable trading possibilities. Which is more important?

AI Opponents:
I usually play as Romans and pick the following civs for the following reasons
Babylonians (good early science)
Chinese (good early science)
Egyptians (large cities to trade with)
English (decent science for military advances)
Vikings (decent science for militray advances)
Sioux (why pick mongols?)
If I did not play the Romans, I would pick them over Celts or Russians.

Side question:
Has anybody tried going to republic early (ie., pre-Mike) then switching to Monarchy for a few turns (using Oedo years) to grab enough tribute to build the SSC infrastructure?

[solo]

DaveV,

Thanks for the detailed reply. The addition of railroads makes a big difference, something I wasn't considering. Your success at ICS and samson's at limited infrastructure in both OCC and early landing attempts, show how much of a bad distraction all those possible city improvements can be! For example: I would rather have the raw science of 2 extra cities for 80 shields (cost of 2 settlers) rather than build a library in the orginal city! Not much beats geometric progression. When you do the math ICS wins hands down, but I suspect ICS is not as fast with science as a quickly developed SSC. SoL gets to Communism quickly, but as you say, 8 more caravans are needed. After your current game, it would be interesting to see you try again with ICS for an early landing in order to compare it with the approach samson and I are taking.


Adam Smith,

In regards to a wetter world, a slight problem with this is that more grassland will end up covering more specials, which may or may not be where the pattern suggests. You have to mine or make a hill out of the grassland square to find out. It will be harder to locate those 4-special city sites.

I also agree with freedom of opponent selection. That's part of the game strategy, selecting options that you think will improve your chances for what you are trying to do.

As for your side question, I believe East Street Trader gave this a try recently, and was not thrilled with the results. For one thing, I believe each switch of government loses a turn of research, even when done in oedo years.

[samson]

Solo,

One question about the STC, was how long did it take you to get it full size to where it was really paying off?

In my testing model of the STC (using the cheat-menu) it didn't take long at all -- a few clicks and BOOM! there it was. However, to answer your question I had to try it out in a real game, which I have now done.

As discussed in this thread, I prioritized the SSC over the STC. So the second super city, on a single square island, was late in developing. SHAKES was built there in 100BC. It had a population of 4 with temple, harbor, and marketplace at that time. The We Love! fest took a 40% lux rate to get going. By 80AD I had it up to size 11 and had delivered 8 or so freights to it. At this point I got Automobile and switched resources into producing Superhighways in the SSC. After that, I decided the cost of the STC'S infrastructure and the lost research from the high luxury rate would take too high a toll to justify the freight bonuses. These were barely over 100gold at that point, much lower than the model (based on a size21 city).

However, between the small bonuses and ongoing trade routes that were established in the helper cities and STC, I was able to sustain 1 turn advances from that point on to Space Flight. My conclusions from this game:

1) In an early landing attempt, the infrastructure cost of building two Super Cities is just too high. It means 2 of everything - marketplace, aqueduct, sewer, bank, harbor, library, university, superhighways. Plus, the costly We Love! days of the STC can slow research at a critical time.

2) The trade routes in helper cities are more beneficial in the long run than the one-time freight bonuses. Higher paying routes can be obtained from cities connected by road (and later rail) to the SSC.

3) The occasional replacement of foreign routes in the SSC by lower paying domestic ones can be reversed by having SSC freights standing by at foreign cities ready to re-establish them.

In spite of the problems this game had with the STC and in spite of almost no help from the AI (I only traded for 1 tech the whole game), I was able to achieve Space Flight in 480AD. However, with only 8 freights towards Apollo ready and little cash, I did not attempt to complete the game. Still, that long string of 1 turn advances was quite amazing.

Adam Smith,

During this game I was so strapped for cash that I twice (3 times with the switch to Demo) went into Anarchy on oedo years to demand tribute from non-allied civs. This brought in about 300gold each time. It was a neat trick, thanks. However, this cost me 2 turns of research and I would not have done if I'd had more gold on hand

DaveV,

I agree with you now, that the focus in trading should be on routes not bonuses. Roads and railroads are vital, too. However, I remain staunchly Rep/Demo in government preference.

My next attempt will be using a single super city connected by road/rail to a small group (6-8) of size 3 cities delivering local freights for high paying routes. I will build SHAKES in the SSC and max it out. I will cache SSC freight at foreign cities to maintain highest possible routes in the SSC.

I think progress is being made here. A couple more warm-ups and then maybe a serious attempt at early landing.

samson

[solo]

samson,

Fascinating, but too bad about the lagging SSC. One thing that might salvage that idea is the use of Hanging Gardens. 3 happy citizens helps tremendously in "we love", and with it marketplace and bank are not really needed, which together cost 200 shields, the same amount as HG. HG can also do the job of a temple in helper cities, or help the ones having tyemples already grow a little more. Getting helpers to size 5 can really make a difference. I was very happy with its benefits in my 1056 game, but there I used it in my SSC, which slowed early science.

Comparing DaveV's trading numbers to his SSC to yours with the STC, makes me think more island and overseas helpers (hopefully via advanced tribes) , or maybe even an island SSC (if the map permits) would increase trade and require fewer settlers for building roads and railroads. Just an idea to try and boost what you are short on, gold.

Once you get a taste for those 1-turn advances it's hard to be satisfied with anything else, except perhaps 2 per turn! Congrats on the earliest Space Flight, yet. You have really pushed pure science about as far as it can go, and the 480 date is most impressive because you did it all on your own!

That's also a neat trick, caching SSC caravans to restore the continuing trade bonus. I had a poor SSC as far as commodity supplies went, and no one was asking for food!

I have too agree that for early landings, rep/demo can not be beat. Good luck on your next try, however you decide to go about it. I'll be away a few days, but will eagerly await the results of the next experimental game.

[samson]

Solo,

HG is NG. By the time the STC got going, I already had Railroad.

My latest game was intended to test out domestic trade routes boosted by road/rail
but I got awesome trade routes with a nearby AI city that I built railroads to.
Check it out: 396AD.

I still want to try the domestic road/rail plan.
It is more certain than waiting for the AI to drop a city down beside you.

samson