RB Pitboss #3 [SPOILERS]- Suryavarman II of England

[Cyneheard]

I've got a Worker(13)-Warrior(23, size 3)-Worker(29)-Settler(35)-Worker(37)-Warrior(39)-Settler(45) plan. This includes sending a worker up to City #2, either worker #2 or #3. The Wheel comes in around T47ish, depending on the other city's commerce production. I know you were working on a Worker-Warrior-Settler plan, how does that work out through the mid-40s?

[antisocialmunky]

(23)Warrior (32)Settler (Slavery) (36)Worker then some combo of Worker/Settler that we could get out by 45.

[Cyneheard]

How does yours work about sending a worker off to city #2, and picking up another garrison warrior? Yours does gain 3 extra turns with our first city, which is quite valuable, especially if we can gain trade routes (WB tests are in order for that, post-BW coming in for copper location(s)). Also, depending on where city 3 is going, it might make sense to use city #2 to build a warrior or 2 while growing. But, the extra worker turns let me get another chop in, which I think is the extra warrior. Without the extra warrior, I can finish the settler on T44, with 18H overflow (I prefer the extra warrior for escort duty).
We know what we're doing through T23 regardless, and tech path's pretty set. My plan does have the slavery revolt after settler #2 finishes, then finishes the worker in 1t thanks to 2 chops (good for 50 hammers!).

At the end of T45, I have:
0 hammer overflow from settler #2
A worker able to leave for city #2 at T38
6 food in the box for future growth (while building the warrior on rice + GHMs).

[antisocialmunky]

We need a warrior to deal with that lion if you want to pre-pasture the pigs.

[Cyneheard]

pre-pasture? Can't start pasturing until it's under cultural control, if that's what you mean. But if you mean "kill the lion before we can march the worker across", then, yes, that is needed. However, in 25+ turns, the lion could be anywhere. I might be able to squeeze out an extra chop, and add another warrior into my plan, come to think of it. I'd have to run it again, since it starts with chopping a different forest on T30 or so.

[haphazard1]

An extra warrior somewhere would be nice if we can manage it without significant delay to the second settler. If I am reading the plans properly, we are only building two warriors, which leaves us with 1 per city. No explorers, no extras to kill lions, etc.

Obviously we would build some more, maybe in the new city as it grows and in the capital after the second settler. And with some luck, we will be able to build better than warriors if the second city can claim copper. Animals won't bother the new cities once founded, but regular barbs will start appearing when? This is emperor, so not long after settler #2 if not actually earlier.

Still, the planning looks good. Trade routes if we found on the river near the pigs/wheat, but we won't know that until BW is done.

[haphazard1]

Just got a chance to check the forums today, and obviously we have had some excitement and rules disputes. Korea has suffered the fate of Mortius. (To be mortiused? To mortiusize?) Ouch.

So Egypt (I believe it is Egypt behind this? Or am I completely misreading things?) now has more land to expand into. And other neighbors of Korea, assuming there were some, also have additional room. Not good news for us, unless we are one of them and do not yet know it.

This does imply some things about spacing between capitals, since it is only turn 12. Even assuming a perfect beeline, that puts capitals only 12 tiles apart. And it could easily be a tile or three less than that.

Fortunately we will be starting a warrior as soon as our worker completes (next turn). But with our current planning it will not complete for quite a few turns as we continue to push max growth. Do we want to adjust our plans? Or do we continue as agreed, and hope not to get any unexpected visitors? Maybe we should bend Gulliver's path back towards the capital? This would significantly reduce our total land explored, and thus our chances of spotting copper when BW comes in.

We can not yet chop, and even at max hammers it would take 4 turns to build a warrior -- more time than we would likely have if someone came straight in. It should not be possible for anyone to see into London, however, which might make them doubt their chances of success. And once our borders pop again on T25 we will definitely have at least 4 turns which would be time enough to build a warrior in an emergency.

I favor sticking to our plans, at least until we see someone. But I have to wonder just how close Gulliver's westward exploration came to any neighbor who might be in that direction.

[antisocialmunky]

Well we moved so it might have changed.

We have 4 turns of warning right now with size 3 borders + 1 LoS so we aren't in a bad spot. If we swap when a warrior shows up, then we can have a warrior in time. I agree that we should be good with what we have right now. If we want to be extra paranoid, we can hold up the turn until everyone has played. I would not really alter it unless we see a warrior on the edge of our borders or a warrior sees Gulliver and is approaching our capitol.

Really, its quite nice to be creative.

It is too bad for Lobo but that just means more barbs with for Krill? to deal with later. We do have Emperor maintenance fees and barbs so its not a complete free pass.

Question: E this turn followed by E or NE?

[haphazard1]

We only have size 2 borders until T25, plus LOS. Once we get started on the warrior we should be OK, as 3 turns to finish it should be enough after about T16 (3 hammers into the warrior, 3 turns at 4 hpt = done in 3 turns or less). So really our window of vulnerability is narrow.

With passing units not being able to see into London, then unless they have also seen Gulliver we should be OK. So I think we can proceed as planned, as long as no one shows up in the next few turns.

On the empty Korean territory, yes it will cause barb issues. (This was a big reason I wanted barbs on.) Look at what the IKZ replacement has had to deal with, spawning from Mortius' territory. But the available land is a significant advantage, especially if civs are more closely spaced. And with an elimination on T12, we are a bit more closely spaced than we thought. The former capital site itself is worth a great deal, given how strong capitals tend to be.

Question: when did Korea found their capital? If they moved for a turn or two, that might have made a difference.

Edit: Crossposted with ASM. East was agreed upon, and I think it is still the best move.

[antisocialmunky]

E -> NE would be pretty reasonable


Nothing new


MewMewMew