RB Pitboss #2 [SPOILERS] - Speaker and Sullla

[Sullla]

Quick post: lookie what I saw when I opened up the trade screen with Dantski:



This is the advantage of having workers! We both have 3 cities, but one of us has 6 workers, and one of us only has 1-2!

Also note: no horses, no copper connected to Dantski's trade network. So I'm gonna say it again: we can afford to be a little more aggressive in our city placement! :neenernee

EDIT: The turn rolled over very late, so I'll get to it tomorrow morning.

[Dr. Nomadic]

I know I said this earlier in the thread, but may I please get an explanation on why an academy early in the game is better than a settled GS at the same time? The settled GS provides production as well, and you're not likely to be producing many beakers early in the game unless your capital is heavily cottaged (oh, wait a sec, it's been a while since I heavily cottaged my capital. Still, I'd like to know), and even then extra production in the capital can pay for itself quickly, so...I'm not sure, frankly. Building an academy in the middle ages: sure. But in the ancient age, I'm not so sure.

[Jabah]

I would still push for moving white dot 1S of [sulla] position, on the hill (you said you value hills for border cities). Fish will be second ring, but you will have (shared) deer first ring and (shared) cow for fast growth if needed.
As a bonus, you have plenty of hills to work if ever you want hammer without slaving the city (for later).
Downside is that it probably won't be a Moai city, but from your interpretations of the map (donut with extra land) there should be plenty of better place.
Upside from a defensive view is hill + 3 tiles away from another (safer) city, and slightly less aggresive.

(another downside is that your Northern dot still has plenty of fog, so moving South could possibly lose food/ressource, but I guess scouting before settleing might be in order ?)

[Ilios]

Sulla, will worker Friedland be pre-chopping the forest SE of Pink Dot, or are you planning to execute the chop, regardless of the fact Mathematics will be researched soon?

[novice]

I think the plan was to chop it to get the monument and 2 ring in range ASAP.

@Nomadic: A settled GS gives 6 beakers, an academy gives +50% - so you need 12 raw beakers for an academy to be better. (Figure the 4 culture makes up for the 1 hammer). The palace, trade route and city center alone yield 10 commerce. So the Academy is better almost from the get-go.

[Rowain]

@Nomadic: additional to what novice posted. Take a look at the picture of Gettysburgh. The tiles they work and the scientist give it 22 raw-beakers times the 1.25 (lib) to make 27.5 beakers.
Now add the GS: Settled the raw beakers increase to 28 which makes is to 35 with the lib-bonus.
An academie instead makes still 22 rawbeakers but this time times 1.75 which results to 38.5

[Ruff_Hi]

Also note: no horses, no copper connected to Dantski's trade network. So I'm gonna say it again: we can afford to be a little more aggressive in our city placement! :neenernee

Just a small correction / clarification ... no horses, copper, etc connected to the capital. They may be connected to the other cities.

[Dr. Nomadic]

Ah, I see. Still, wouldn't an academy be more effective later in the game when, say, your capital is producing 50 beakers per turn instead of just 22?

[novice]

Ah, I see. Still, wouldn't an academy be more effective later in the game when, say, your capital is producing 50 beakers per turn instead of just 22?

Yes, well, just because it's better with 50 raw beakers doesn't mean it's not good with 22 raw beakers. But the main advantage with an early academy is that a small edge in the early game snowballs into a big lead later on. Getting currency, monarchy, civil service, etc. sooner can make a big difference.

[Speaker]

Black is not where we should be placing our next city. This is a very tight map, and we cannot afford to waste an early settler on a weakish, 100% safe backline city. It's not a good use of our limited resources this early in the game.

This is purely a case of SP-perspective vs MP-perspective. From my point of view, I am not overly concerned with the landgrab. I am more concerned with founding strong cities which can immediately work improved tiles. With Black dot, we can borrow cottages from Gettysburg right away, pop our borders, and then work the clams. While it will be a weakish city longterm, it will actually be a quite strong commerce city early, with food + coast and grasslands for cottages.

Now I can see us not going for White if it's too aggressive, but if that's the case then we should be going for Yellow. Yellow is only one tile outside our current borders - hardly an aggressive move! - and it would lock down our southern front with Dantski. I still prefer White, but if we're going to play it a little more safe, it has to be Yellow.

The problem with Yellow is that it requires Calendar to be productive, as its food is just a couple Spices. Lacking any other food, it will take forever to grow.

I'll also point out that we have an NAP to Turn 90 with Dantski, and I'm going to pester Jowy for an extension to Turn 100, which I have every expectation he'll accept. Plus, our current development plan calls for us to have 2 axes and 1 spear by the time our next city is done, and we can increase that if needed. If we were to go for White or Yellow (especially Yellow), and stick an axe and spear in the new city, on a hill, just outside our cultural borders... well, what are our neighbors gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what!

This is a good point of course. While it may piss them off, there won't be much they can do about it. But there's no particular need to poke the beehive either, especially over Yellow dot, which will be a sucky city without Calendar.

Come on Speaker, we both know that we have to take some chances to win this game

Sorry, but neither Yellow Dot, nor White Dot are going to be the bold move that wins us this game. Neither of them are that great of a spot, like Pink, for instance.

Sitting back and playing for Black is the wussy move here.

It's not a question of wussy vs courageous. Black requires 0 workers turns to get started. Our settler can get there immediately using existing roads, and it can split off a cottage from Gettysburg on turn 1. Depending on where we put it, White will require 2 or 3 sections of road, so 4-6 worker turns just to get the settler in place, and has no workable tiles from the get go. Using our workers to road will just mitigate the development advantage we have built, since roads don't provide any other benefit.

I see the early land-grab move all the time in the non-ladder MP games I play. Players who are less experienced in MP are obsessed with sealing off borders, and run their 2nd or 3rd city way up in their opponent's face, without proper defense, and waste tons of worker turns getting in position. This will be our 5th city, so it's not quite as bad as if it were our 2nd city (imagine if we had run Antietam all the way up to where Djenne is...), but it would still be a waste of resources. I prefer to let my borders grow slowly and naturally, expanding outward as I get enough development inward.

Though, it is quite possible that we'll have more workers than we need to develop our current core of cities. With only 2 happiness resources, our cap isn't that high, so Chancellorsville won't need more than another cottage or two.

Maybe we could found Black, and then follow it up with White right after? Yellow can wait a while, I think.