Campo Challenge 1

[La Fayette]

1) No restart
When you start a new game, there is an option named 'Don't restart eliminated players' that you should activate if you want to play early conquest. Otherwise a new civ appears anytime you destroy one and this lasts until 1500AD IIRC.
You didn't do that and Marquis de Sodaq experienced that the Romans appeared as soon as he destroyed the Celts.
The same happened to me, so here is what I did: I played until I was able to destroy ALL enemy civs on the same turn. This happened in 1320AD. (playing longer would be a bore since there is no means to win the game before 1500AD when 'No restart' is not activated)

2) Your game
IMO there are no big mistakes in your game. You seem to have read the GL quite carefully .
Here are the main points that might be considered mistakes IMO (but some of these are mainly a question of personal preferences, I suppose):
- too many civs (you built twice as many as I did: costs you settlers, time and many red faces);
- no embassies (or Marco): difficult to destroy enemy cities when you don't even know they are no the map;
- conquering with musketeers + catapults: OK it works, but it is SOOOO slow compared to 4legged bad guys.

3) My game
Monarchy ASAP, then Trade (in order to build 4 caravans and get Marco ASAP), build no more than 7 cities, research Polytheism and start building barracks in all cities, then vet elephants.
Usually I know the whole map with help of Marco, but this didn't happen this time: at least 2 civs refused to trade maps (I probably had forgotten to be generous enough ). Still I knew enough to plan my logistics.
My only problem after that was the 'no restart' disabled: Romans replaced the Celts, then Spaniards replaced the Aztecs. I then decided to plan a combined attack of the last city of all enemy civs (it was fun planning that). 'Victory' in 1320AD.

[Campo]

ST, from what I understand 2.42 sav files can be opened in MGE but not the other way around.

Yes, 7 civs.

I played 2.42. I have MGE but usually play 2.42 because the AI isn't quite as annoying in the BC years. I like it more peaceful relationships when I'm first starting out.

My "challenge" goal is to learn though, which I think I can do from either version, so play whichever you prefer.

[DrFell]

Well I'm unable to play multiplay at Uni right now so I think I'll take up this little challenge

[Campo]

La Fayette,

I'm very impressed with your results. I'm not surprised that you won in 1320 -- but doing it by destroying all civs the same turn is outstanding!

Regarding your other points:
1. Sorry about the "no restarts". I didn't encounter that in my game, I guess because it was too late when I conquered the first civ. I have seen it occasionally in the past and never minded, but I agree it's inappropriate for a comparison game. I'll try to remember to turn it off.

2. Thanks, I'm glad I'm not a horrible player!
By "too many civs" I'm sure you mean "too many cities", right? I generally start with 10 of my own plus whatever I conquer. IIRC, I may have built 11 this time because of terrain, and I conquered the Celts early so I got a few of theirs. It did cause happiness problems. I'll try next game with 8.
Marco's is an ongoing issue for me. It's less critical on a small map because everyone is easier to find. There's always another wonder that seems more valuable and doesn't expire. I'll try building it next game.
You conquer with elephants only? No defenders? I tried a large-scale mounted conquest only once and it was a failure -- I lost dozens of Crusaders to pikemen in a river city. I suppose with elephants you were attacking warriors and phalanxes. What about the later years -- did you use Crusaders? How did you handle city walls and pikemen?

3. Is Marco's the only wonder you built? You can see I built a lot more, which is typical for me. I've had a feeling that I spend too much time in the early years building wonders; maybe I should forego that and start conquering sooner.

Thanks a lot for the feedback -- very useful!

[La Fayette]

1) too many cities
Sorry I wrote 'civs' instead of 'cities' (educated people call that 'lapsus calami', which is much nicer than 'silly mistake').
I use to build very few cities (as some kind of competition with my friends DaveV and the SGs, who love to build hundreds of them).
I guess most people would say that building 11 on a small map is all right.

2)Marco
Yes, it was the only wonder I built. I love Marco because it brings knowledge, and knowledge is power. GW and STWA also can be very useful for early conquest (but with 7 cities I needed only 280 shields to build 7 barracks - instead of 300 for STWA - and I could build them long before discovering Feudalism).
GW is very powerful against strong foes, but you don't need it if you are well ahead in technology and power (just like walls, in fact).

3) Units
I used elephants against the Celts and the Aztecs, switched to Knights as soon as I discovered Chivalry, then to crusaders when I got Monotheism. The power of knights is due to their better defence, but you must be prepared to lose a number of them when attacking walled cities. Losses become frightening if you have pikemen in a rivered walled city in front of you (in that case I switch to hordes of diplos to get the walls down, but it wasn't needed this time).
The sooner you attack, the better your chances are to manage to finish your conquest before your foes discover Feudalism.

[Campo]

Thanks for the clarifications. I downloaded your save games and will review them when I can (probably not until the weekend).

[SlowThinker]

I almost finished the first goal - monarchy (I hope I will continue, but not immediately.). Tomorrow I will finish it and post a log (I have to reread it first) and (all) savegames.
I look forward to see logs of others, but first I should continue in my game.

My log is detailed enough, I wanted to show the way how I am thinking when playing.
I usually see brief logs at Apolyton threads, but I would prefer some more detailed debate.
And what about to post savegames of all succesing turns, for example of the start only? I would like to see how others manage the game in detail.

Although I would be able to play more and more slowly , I took the game seriously enough, the way to the monarchy was about 20 hours. I always tried to evaluate every possibility, I never chose from different ways of playing accidentally or intuitively.

A couple weeks ago I found out some people here thinks I am a Civ expert. He, he, it is entertaining. So, don't take statements in my log too seriously. I never finished a Civ game and have played less than 10 starts of the game, usually not going over 0AD.

I had to run some tests: Now I know (or I don't know) how next cities are chosen for the first citizen with red/black hat, and from which distance of a city no barbs come from a hut (see Barbarian activity question thread).

In my sav games I keep the intended production in cities, including cases of future rushbuild. The reason is that you can easily see my intentions.

---

It looks monarchy will come in 2250. 6 cities of size 1 or 2.

[SlowThinker]

Short tales from my game:

3550 I met a Celt warrior, a little bit soon (??). I was very displeased, since I thought they will slow me down hardly. Boadicea required Bronze working, I gave it, then she proposed peace, I didn't trust her , but I accepted.

In 3550 I was supreme (unusual, very soon), she was neutral
3500 Strong/hostile
then I went (with a fear of a bad tech) to the hut, then, seeing my archer, she changed mood:
3450 Inadequate/Uncooperative,
3400 Weak/Uncooperative,
3350 Supreme/Uncooperative
and no other change
But why did I drop so fast to Weak and back??

---

La Fayette, I know you prefer arrows. In the game I didn't:

I had 40% science up to 2900, only then I shifted to 60%. In 2900 I was supreme, in Demographics window I was 1st in all rows but 3rd in literacy

[La Fayette]

SlowThinker
Perhaps you are now going to play one game past 1AD. I am so happy that I shall keep a bottle of Champagne ready and, if you feel like it, I drive to Praha and drink it with you.

Back to the game:
In the very early game, building a settler makes you lose one population point (as usual), so if your pop is 6 and you are supreme, building 3 settlers will bring you down to 3 and you will probably turn inadequate.

[Campo]

ST,
Did you see my game log? I hope that is detailed enough for you, because I don't think I could stand to put much more in.

I saved games about every 200 years BC and 100 years AD. (A few times I forgot so the saves are a little off.) Even that seemed like a lot to expect anyone to look at.

When we finish with this one, we could do another challenge where we save every turn for the early years (maybe the first 25 turns?), to compare how people start. That would be interesting.

[DrFell]

Out of curiosity should I be doing this game in a perfectionist style or is it my choice? I don't ICS when I go all out conquest, but I don't build up my cities much either which is why I was asking...

[Campo]

My preference would be something similar to my style, because I think I'd learn more from it. I'd call it early perfectionist/later expansionist. I started out trying to create and improved a core group of cities, and when they're well established then go out for conquest.

I don't think I'd learn as much from ICS or OCC because they're so drastically different from how I play, but anything in between would be helpful.

Of course it's all for fun, so feel free to do what you want.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by La Fayette
Back to the game:
In the very early game, building a settler makes you lose one population point (as usual), so if your pop is 6 and you are supreme, building 3 settlers will bring you down to 3 and you will probably turn inadequate.

No, I didnt finish settlers yet. And 3450 both my cities went to size 2. Probably others civs did it turns before.
Now I understand that in the beginning of the game power may change fast.

La Fayette,
Stay home, you will have to comment my game now.

Campo,
For ME, your log is very very undetailed

I saw it, also some of first saves (I was afraid to see squares that I didn't reveal in my game yet). I will comment your game after I will see more of it.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

SlowThinker, here is a detailed log:
-----------------------------
Henry VIII (Campo comparison)
-----------------------------
3950bc - Settle London on river, 2+? specials
3900bc - second settler finds advanced tribe (!)
3750bc - bronze working
3500bc - archer from hut
3450bc - ceremonial burial
3250bc - masonry from hut
3050bc - alphabet
3000bc - advanced tribe! what luck ; currency from 2nd hut
2850bc - meet aztecs, trade for map making
2650bc - meet celts
2350bc - code of laws
2150bc - aztec sneak attack!
1750bc - monarchy
1350bc - celtic sneak attack!
1200bc - mathematics
900bc - trade
725bc - writing
650bc - "acquire" mysticism from celts
450bc - advanced tribe! sadly, it is city #8...; meet japanese, trade for 4 techs
275bc - literacy
175bc - meet americans
150bc - annihilate celts
125bc - meet romans!?
100bc - annihilate romans
60ad - philosophy/monotheism
180ad - iron working from hut
280ad - searfaring
340ad - war with americans and vikings
660ad - bridge building
760ad - navigation
780ad - destroy aztecs
840ad - destroy russians
900ad - engineering
1040ad - invention; meet more romans

[SlowThinker]

I send log and savegames to 3000BC only. I am in 2500, I have to finish to monarchy and process the log after 3000BC.

Read also my post here 23-04-2002 19:15

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Campo, we played almost identical games! At least in a general sense. Throughout the series of saves, you have about 10% more people than me (after ~2000bc), and I have about 5x as much gold. You and I were the first to discover 14 and 13 techs respectively - almost an identical list at that. We both built the same 5 wonders. We are both researching at 7 turns/tech. The main difference is that I am closer to finishing off the AI civs. There are 18 non-english cities in your game, only 12 in mine. I have 10 more military units, as well. Plus a heap more gold for bribing.

I agree with LaFayette, you may have built too many cities in the bc years. Otherwise, your game seems to be going very well. I got 3 advanced tribes, which surely made it easier for me at the start. Perhaps focus on reaching the 7 and 14 city thresholds, and spend more shields on caravans and military units.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I suppose a savegame would be good...

1100ad, where I stopped.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Campo
I don't think I'd learn as much from ICS or OCC because they're so drastically different from how I play, but anything in between would be helpful.

I'll play one game in both styles as a comparison.

[DrFell]

Ok, here's the first game. I went for quick and dirty on this one, just built about 6 cities with barracks in them all and started conquering with elephants (went horse->monarchy->poly then 70% tax). Later on around 500bc I researched trade to build marcos with 4 caravans. The only units I used in this game were elephants, diplomats, warriors, phalanxes, and caravans. The offshore romans slowed things down a bit as did the restarting civs (whites restarted 3 times, so did light blues, the last 2 incarnations were near my units so I just wiped them out right away). Next I'll try a game in the 'perfectionist' style.

[DrFell]

Here are the saves:

[Campo]

ST, I suspect that I'd have to dictate a log of all my thoughts in order for it to be detailed enough for you. I dont' think I could stand to write out a longer one.

Marquis, your comparison is very interesting. It gives me some reassurance that I'm not too bad a player (although "not bad" is a far cry from "good"). I'll examine your save game in detail over the weekend. In the meantime, what units did you use for conquest? And please tell me the secret of how to get 3 advanced tribes from huts! That would have helped a lot. I'm happy if I get one a game (on a small world), and I don't think I had any in this game.

DrFell, I'll check out your game this weekend too. What year did you finish -- or more to the point, what year would you have finished if I had disabled civ restarts?

[DrFell]

Well, I finished officially in 100AD. Without civ restarts it would have been over around 300BC if I'd played in exactly the same way (probably about 500 bc if I'd know they wouldn't restart, as I deliberately spread out my units to catch any restarting setts, which slowed my conquest down).

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Campo
Marquis, your comparison is very interesting. It gives me some reassurance that I'm not too bad a player (although "not bad" is a far cry from "good"). I'll examine your save game in detail over the weekend. In the meantime, what units did you use for conquest? And please tell me the secret of how to get 3 advanced tribes from huts!

I conquered the Celts and Aztecs with two catapults escorted by a two phalanx. March one phalanx in and fortify, with the others a step behind. The first phalanx draws the fire of the enemy's strongest unit, but that unit is dead or in the red when I step forward to squash the city.

I punished the Americans, Romans v1.0, and Russians with crusaders and bribed barbarians. That central unoccupied zone was a barb breeding ground. I continuously patrolled with diplomats. If I were to continue, I'd keep rolling the crusaders out, nobody on the map can defend against them.

As for the advanced tribes - I used my top-secret "hut outcome determination formula" to ensure happy results. That is, I had my fingers crossed. I noticed you got one from the same hut I did - on the island with the spice.

[SlowThinker]

Only 1 load of my game?
I forgot that some people are lazy here...
Scouses, I will unzip the log for you.

(I don't want to publicize my game, but I would like to know if you will accept the way of detailed analysis of games. I would welcome it very much.)

I will add the continuation to the monarchy, but I must test riots due to number of cities first.

_________________________________
A note: I realized it looks like ICS. But I didn't think about ICS strategy when playing, I just wanted to play as best as possible. I plan to stop expansion when 2 additional citizens would riot when building a new city.

[SlowThinker]

version: MGE (load Campogame_SlowThinker_3000BC.zip for savegames)

4000
Settler1 moves W, Settler2 S :-) did anybody play otherwise?

3950
Which settler will move first? Settler1 moves first: SW (there may be a special, I want to know its type first).
To explore or to build? There are rich squares around, I wouldn't find anything better (three good squares for a city is enough in the beginning). To go for huts? A lucky hut (horsemen) would give me 20 shields, but one turn of delay is about 5 resources*2cities=10 resources.
(1 "resource" = 1shield=1food=2trade. Later, when monarchy will be closer, I will evaluate trade/beakers higher, but now, I can rushbuild only.
I will use the term "resource" more times in this log).

So, I want to settle this turn. I don't want to build on a shielded grassland and so there is only way where to build.

A sidenote:
This is first time that I thourougly speculated about the use of granary:
One granary-yes or not?
Cons-I guess it will slow me down 5 turns (settler production delayed 20 turns; that settler would represent 1/4 of economy of my empire; 20/4=5), and I won't be able make partial rushbuilds to 20 shields (Pottery as the 1st tech).
Pros- 10 saved food for every settler built (the city with granary will be specialized to settlers production) and/or the 5-sized city in 80 turns: then I can use the famine trick (better to say cheat), but 80 turns is a little bit late for monarchy helping.
Unfortunately, deity is extremely unbalanced, the shields are too important. Just do settlers and settlers. I don't believe the granary pays off, even with rich squares.

A sidenote: I didn't study the Xin's 5-size strategy very closely, but I think that adding Settlers to the city should be more expensive way than use of a granary. I don't think the 5-size strategy should be effective.

Decided.
Settler2 builds first-I plan to work on Iron, I don't want to lose 5th shield when size 2. (From the other side, the coal position might be closer to the center of my future empire...).

science 40%, choosed Bronze working, 10 beakers needed, going for Monarchy as the 5th tech
preparing plan, some rushbuild counting...

3700
Bronze working done, next 18 beakers
Warr1 in York7, Warr 2 in London.
Warr1- how to explore? SW from coal is ocean, and so to move Warr to SE is not interesting. Moving NE. And then? A special may be NE, going there.

3650
How to explore? Warr2: would you explore to E or SE? There is water on 34,38, and there can't be a special: I needn't see that square, I go diagonally.
I think there can't be a ground square on 33,39. I never saw this kind of strait, except for poles. But I am not sure. your opinions?
Warr2 moved, whales(If I would know it when I founded London... :-( ). I know the specials/huts grid completely now.
Next city? Around whales at Warr1, or around a possible special E from Iron, 38,30 ?
One of warriors can continue exploring, which one? Warr2 will explore E from Iron, the next Warr3 will be able go in front of Settler from London (because London will drop to size 1 and won't need martial law) to explore the position around 31,27

3550
A big problem: Celt Warrior, Boadicea requires Bronze working, I give it. Peace with Celts.
Everything changed: Warr2 must return, and I will go for huts in city area and hope for mercs.

3500
An archer from a hut: ideal. I can cout myself lucky.
York: to finish Warrior (4 shields lost due support) or start Settler (3 shields+2 trade lost due disorder)? The Warrior choice will slow down Settler in York by 1 move only, and then London will be able to build Settler immediately, without building an additional warrior. I finish Warrior.

3450
both cities size 2, London will work on iron

3400
York will work on Coal
Do you want I explain I prefer shields over food?

3300
Cer. Burial done, next tech 27 beakers
Celts don't want exchange techs (After this step I realized that it was risky. They needn't have any monarchy tech)

3150
Nottingham founded(3rd city)
I decided to take the hut at Nottingham.
(If there will be a bad tech, I will need about 90 additional beakers for Monarchy (besides there is a chance to exchange one tech and to lower number of additional techs to 1), if I will suppose 10 beakers/turn in the final stage, then Monarchy will come 9 turns later. I guess Monarchy increases the production by 1/5 (I mean 20%)
(Two-sized city that works on shielded Grs has output 6.5 resources: 3.5 from the first square, 1.5 from the others(2 food eaten). The monarchy will add 1 resource on the irrigated city square. 1-sized city production goes from 5 to 6. Mon. also brings new opportunities (irrigating and mining new squares)), and so I will lose almost 2 turns (9/5).
On other side, a 20-shield merc brings 20 resources, OK, little bit less, I wouldn't build him exactly now. My production is about 20 resources per turn now. I gain almost 1 turn).
I think the chance to get a bad tech is less then 50%. I will grab the hut.
I start to be afraid a little. Phalanx or Barracks in London or not? I will wait for the hut result. (I set prod. to warrior for the moment - I would lose 2 shields if changing barr. to warr.; warr. to barr. wastes 1 shield only)

3100
Hastings founded(4th city)
Hut E from Nottingham: Archer

3050
sneak attack by Celts: Warrior put my Archer into red (vet status). Archer returns to York to heal.

3000
Plan:
The area E from Nott. is slowly accessible, and so I won't build a city there, Nottingham will produce warriors for martial law 5 turns later. (BTW, these affairs weren't prepared well. The coordination is bad, Warriors wait a little bit too long and eat the support shields ...)
Last two cities to the limit of 6 (then there are +3 new red hats fot each city) will be build in the W area.

Barracks, yes or not? Vets are about 2times more powerfull, i.e more than 2times effective use of shields. But you can "train" them in battles (not in your cities! I mean send them to a defensive terrain near AI activity, fortify and let the stupid AI make them veterans). But this way is costly (shield support). I prefer barracks, but...
In the moment, I don't know, how many phalanxes I need, I have to explore first. I plan the 5th city on 25,33 (to stop Celts, both shield and food, good as the canal), the 6th on 29,25 or 25,27 (hills). On hills I can defend with Warrior only, and so I might not to need too many of phalanx.
Conclusion: Now, I will wait with barracks. Phalanx is more flexible, I can switch to settlers and back.

What about taxes? My "production" is 24, I wanted to think about the tax change when the production would be 20. (See thinking in 3150). It is the right time now, but first I must build cities nr. 5 and 6 as soon as possible (settlers production in York and Hastings).

Hut at Hastings: I will grab it, same reason as in 3150.

[Campo]

As for the advanced tribes - I used my top-secret "hut outcome determination formula" to ensure happy results. That is, I had my fingers crossed. I noticed you got one from the same hut I did - on the island with the spice.

Marquis,
Ah, so your secret is revealed. I'll ready my fingers for the next time.

I had forgotten about my island advanced tribe. It was certainly welcome, but it came later in the game and so wasn't as significant as an early tribe would be.

ST,
Now I see what you mean by a detailed log. I read every word, and I'll do so again over the weekend when I can match the log to your save games. I must admit that you think about the details a lot more carefully than I do.

I'm surprised the Celts sneak-attacked you so early. They kept approaching me (I think around Nottingham) and I had to insist they withdraw, but they never attacked.

This may be a stupid question, but what do you mean by "merc"?

[La Fayette]

DrFell
Dirty but beautiful.
I bow.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Campo
I'm surprised the Celts sneak-attacked you so early. They kept approaching me (I think around Nottingham) and I had to insist they withdraw, but they never attacked.

Don't forget I play MGE.

Originally posted by Campo
This may be a stupid question, but what do you mean by "merc"?

Mercenary unit

[Scouse Gits]

Dr Fell
A 'tour de force' indeed - pun most certainly intentional
I too bow at your feet

SG[1]

[Campo]

Some observations to those who posted saves of this game:

Marquis,
- Do you remember if you conquered Philadelphia and then lost it to the Vikings? If not, how did it happen that you conquered Boston and New York, but not Philadelphia in between? Just curious.
- It's interesting that Rome in your game was founded about 8 squares away from in my game. I'd have thought that the AI would be more consistent at that stage of the game.
- I notice that you had fewer settlers than me, I think a lot fewer. Is that typical for you? I was irrigating more than you did, for city growth; I think that was the main reason for the difference.

Lafayette,
- Do you always use such a high percentage of entertainers? In 780ad you averaged more than one per city, and most of your cities were population 3. By 1320 there wasn't as high a percentage, but still a lot more than I ever have.
- I noticed the Pyramids and King Richard's Crusade in Washington -- I assume the AI built them.
- Why did you leave the barbs in control of Cardiff and not take advantage of bribing for unsupported units? I'd have expected you to either use it for NON units or else conquer the city.

SlowThinker,
- I'm curious about where you founded London. With the iron and coal visible, did you consider that it might be a 3 or 4 special city if you founded it in the "sweet spot"? Do you feel it's important to found that quickly?
- Also, as you asked in your log, I indeed would like to hear your thinking about shields vs. food. I thought from your log that you were working the iron and coal, but I see from the save games that's not correct.
- It was interesting to see your thinking process. Some of that is going on in my mind, but not in so much detail, and not all consciously.

DrFell,
- You did manage to shave a few years off my time. I'm impressed.
- I see you settled your second city faster than I did. And it looks like Nottingham was an advanced tribe?
- I'm surprised you weren't building a settler in London at 3600bc.
- Horseback Riding was your second tech -- did you research that or acquire it through hut or swap?
- I see you captured the Celtic city of Kells with a settler. I can't ever remember doing that in any game. After that you had two undefended cities very close to the Celts. I'm surprised they didn't go after them.
- It also surprises me that you had a happiness problem with just 5 cities.
- Polytheism before Monarchy! I've never been in that situation.
- In AD1, what was the point of all the fortified elephants and the two fortified diplomats east of York?
- Is it too easy for you? I assume you never play a small world map because it's no challenge. Do you play only MP anymore?

Thanks for the lessons. I've learned a lot from this.