[Spoilers] Gavagai, Bacchus and Elizabeth Form a Romantic Trio

[Gavagai]

For lurkers: by the way, we are going to rush Egypt, believe it or not. I don't know, when I'll be able to make a detailed post with my reasoning, may be tomorrow. Until then - just a heads up.

[Bacchus]

If they let us.

[suttree]

Neat. Looking forward to that post.

[Bacchus]

That explanation post in full:

----------------------------------------------
|| ||
----------------------------------------------

[Gavagai]

And here goes the promised strategy post.
First of all - overview map:



Observe that we actually have a somewhat better land than Egypt: we have more cottagabale grassland and they have too many hills with too few food resources to support them. Also, we have uncontested rivers and they don't.
Also observe the red circle which I labeled as "contested region". It is a fertile floodplain valley with a lot of hills for production right between us. Not only this place allows for a baller city: this is also a crucial position from purely strategic viewpoint.
It looks like that we have a narrow continent, stretched from the north to the south. And contested region is situated at the narrowest place of it. A city in the center of the red circle would effectively cut the north from the south; the side which would be able to found it would need to defend this city only, while their rival will have his front wide open.
If we disregard the red circle, we have a much better land than Egypt; if the red circle goes to us, than they are just screwed; and if it goes to them, than they have a slight advantage; but we also have Mongols behind our back while Egypt doesn't have such problem. This means that "Egypt has slight advantage" in this case should be read as "we are screwed".
So, it is critically important for us to assume control over the contested region. The problem is, that if we both play normal, than control over this region will go to Egypt:



This is an expected dotmap which I made for Egypt. Of course, I don't know what kind of dotmap they planned. They may have some good city sites to north which we haven't scouted, though I strongly doubt that. They can move their first city one tile west, for example. But generally, I just don't see any other sensible settling strategy for them: take wheat and gold, share cow with the first settler, settle copper with the second, settle floods with the third. Even if they don't realize the strategic importance of the contested region, they are going to settle it early quite naturally. And being creative, they can grab this whole region with just one city and effectively block us from settling it.
Also observe that they have a faster capital than we do: from improved resource tiles only they can collect 8 surplus units of hammers/food. We can now collect four and will add two more after we net our third clam. So, we are fighting an uphill battle here in which we are further penalized by the fact that we have to sink 90 hammers into workboats. Of course, we have some advantages: earlier slavery, extra happy from religion, more forests to chop. But these advantages doesn't seem good enough to compete with their massive raw yield superiority. We will have our second settler at T53 and the third one will leave capital after T60. I expect them to have the second settler out before T50 and the third one - before T60. We are not going to win any settling races against them.
That's why I decided to go with the following plan:



Copper city will be settled first. It will stagnate at size 2 but will be able to collect nine hammers per turn at this size. This city will produce the bulk of our military (assisted with chops). By T60 we will have 3-4 metal units which will be sent north. Their task will be to assume control over the contested region: raze a Egyptian city if they already have it their, prevent settling, if they don't. And if we would have an opening, we will raze some Egypt cities further north, of course.
Corn city will be settled second. It will take a cow from the copper city and will be turned into an early settler pump.
And our third settler will go spot 3, immediately following units. I will try to settle the marked spot: strategic importance aside, it has a huge economic potential (our future capital actually, if we are able to solve the Egyptian problem). Of course, I expect Egypt to counter by placing a city in my third ring in an attempt to overwhelm me by culture. To handle this, I'm going to place our first Academy in this city.
After that we will need a filler near ivory, a city to take clams from the capital (will be relatively late as the capital is going to need all its food for quite a while; we have no choice but to whip it aggressively), and a secondary commerce site near the eastern corn. These are the cities which have to be settled ASAP. If everything goes as planned, I expect to settle this dotmap before T80 AND to be able to apply pressure against Egypt.
The price? Well, our vertical development will suck badly. Copper city is going to stagnate at size 2 for eternity, Corn city will be set on 2-4 whip cycle, Capital will be set on 3-5 (3-6 after lighthouse) whip cycle. We will have only one cottage before T70 and only one building: a lighthouse in the capital. That's why after this dotmap is settled, we will have to take a pause to catch up.
One last note. What I really hope for is that we have horses somewhere on the territory. Our capital is really light on resources, RNG just had to give us more. And - could it be horses, please? If we have horses and Egypt doesn't, than things will really become interesting. Egypt's weak spot is commerce: they really have nothing but their starting commerce until they improve this gold. So, I think, chances are high that they will skip Hunting, especially given that they already have AH. This means that three chariots (which we should be able to send out at about T60!) will be a real pain for them...

[Bacchus]

On the Egypt dotmap, they will build their second city before they reveal their copper, and without that knowledge it makes perfect sense to have the city one west of your proposed location, getting the wheat in the first ring.

Another consideration is that building three warriors even at the expense of delaying the second city is a strong sign that they don't have horses nearby, otherwise they'd be hooking them like mad and building far superior units to run is into the ground. And if they don't have the unit advantage and we do, it makes perfect sense to reverse the aggression.

On our own dotmap, city 6 should be city 4 — it will switch on two farms for the copper city, allowing it to grow to 4 quite quickly, using the cow, and getting us 3 more hpt. Or perhaps even to five with a religion spread, and 6 more hpt. This will yield a lot of hammers in the early turns. By contrast, your propsed city 4 is, as you say, a filler. Why bother so early?

[Gavagai]

City four is something to think about. Whether we would want it early or not depends on our demand for happiness. Possibly, it would be a good idea to delay it and build earlier library in the capital instead.
A conservative option is to move #3 one tile SW, so that it would be able to pick up Ivory in the second ring. That would allow to get rid of #4 altogether and also would make for a less aggressive and more defendable settling towards Egypt.
But city 1SW of #3 will be so much worse than #3... We may end up with this option if we don't have much luck with our aggression against Egypt.

[suttree]

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED

[Oxyphenbutazone]

Pink dot Egypt, huh?

Well it'll be a first....

[Bacchus]

The floodplains region is 8-9 tiles from both our capitals, and Egypt will build there first. Also, Egypt has the west to expand into, whereas we have only Mongolia-infested jungle. So, it will be more a case of us pre-emptively sending some metal units to crush the opposing pink dot just as it's founded.