General Thoughts

[Arathorn]

Well, I've now read most of the completed reports -- probably 45 or so of them. I have a few general conclusions and/or discussion starters.

Moving the settler 2 NE was a good idea. The vast majority of the fastest finishers did the move. I'm not sure if it's the extra shield, the extra food resource (wheat), the coastal trade, the larger block-off area, or what that did this. But it seems to be the stronger opening move. The odd thing is that it's not a suggested settling place by the AI. Bummer.

SOME expansion is good. The fastest finishers almost always wiped out at least one (and, in many cases, two) AI. Whether that was a complete extermination or just a practical wipe-out (leaving a couple minor cities) isn't important. But some extra land, acquired at the "right" time, certainly does help speed up a win. Defining right time and actually doing the expansion are, of course, the harder issues.

Genghis Khan can be a very good friend. He'll be a reasonably staunch ally, if you treat him very well. Montezuma is much less predictable. He seems to have a "go to war" clock and SOMEbody will be on the receiving end at some point. It is possible to avoid this (military strength?), but not always.

The strength of an AI foe will vary greatly from game to game, even without direct human intervention. In some games, Gandhi was a tremendous threat, even launching occasionally. In others, he was destroyed well before 1500 AD. All without the human directly influencing it. Whether that's good, bad, or otherwise depends on your point-of-view. I tend to believe more in the chaos theory of history (sensitive dependence to initial conditions, where a very small change at point A can lead to dramatic changes all over), others tend to like the psychohistory view (trends are inevitable and will happen, regardless of the details). Something as simple as where/when the player settled influenced the settling patterns of the neighbors, which influences everybody. I personally like the difference in paths.

Barbs generally tend to put up cities in the same spots -- generally in the blue circles the game recommends as good city sites. But it's not an absolute rule. These cities can easily become very strong.

Game score does not correlate perfectly with absolute strength. A score-leading civilization can be taken down by one behind, and two combined can make very quick work of a "leading" civ. Paying too much attention to the game score can be counterproductive.

Sealing off is effective -- perhaps too effective. Those of us who successfully fully sealed the west very early generally got the whole thing. BUT, it didn't lead to increased tension, so we didn't get to gain extra land via war declarations (see my first paragraph), not necessarily leading to a stronger game overall.

Diplo victory is definitely attainable. But it's very quirky and highly sensitive to ever-changing population values. Being friends with civs 3 and 4 (in pop) is definitely better than being friend to civ 2 (or 1, if you're 2), however. That gets you more votes. Oh, and building the UN when you're not going to be elected Secretary-General is a bad idea.

I was also struck by the variety of end dates. We saw AI launches as early as 1922 AD. All the way to no launches by 2050 even. Earliest human launch was 1855 and latest was 2031. That's a LOT of turn differential. War and trading the big differences? I'm not sure, but it struck me how far apart they were.

Arathorn

[mjj55409]

Moving the settler 2 NE was a good idea.

I emphatically agree with this. A great opening move. Looking back, it's so obvious, but I didn't think of it.

Genghis Khan can be a very good friend. He'll be a reasonably staunch ally, if you treat him very well. Montezuma is much less predictable. He seems to have a "go to war" clock and SOMEbody will be on the receiving end at some point. It is possible to avoid this (military strength?), but not always.

Montezuma seemingly shows up in most of my games. You're right; he needs to be at war with someone, anyone, at any time. In a current game I'm playing, he dialed me up asking for a resource deal (my happiness for his health). I agreed, and then the very next turn he declared war. In my Epic 1 game, I kept Genghis as an ally for most of the game, but I was just too weak. Once I switched to Free Religion, he invaded and that was the end.

Sealing off is effective -- perhaps too effective. Those of us who successfully fully sealed the west very early generally got the whole thing. BUT, it didn't lead to increased tension, so we didn't get to gain extra land via war declarations (see my first paragraph), not necessarily leading to a stronger game overall.

Depends on how you sealed off. In this game, the most effective sealing off move was Eastward. I went straight south, giving too much land to Genghis, and greatly lengthening the border I needed to defend.

Cheers,
Mchael

[Rowain]

Sealing off is effective -- perhaps too effective. Those of us who successfully fully sealed the west very early generally got the whole thing. BUT, it didn't lead to increased tension, so we didn't get to gain extra land via war declarations (see my first paragraph), not necessarily leading to a stronger game overall.

Would not say sealing is that effective it is more settling close to the AI and turn their expansion in a different direction. I had OB-treatys before the Peninsula was settled but nevertheless no AI ever moved a Settler there.

I think the AI is very reluctant to settle close to an rival and far away from home exept if there are no other places left.

Earliest human launch was 1855 and latest was 2031. That's a LOT of turn differential. War and trading the big differences? I'm not sure, but it struck me how far apart they were.

Well the late launchdate is something that I have to work on. In none of my private games (and i have some launch victorys) I have launched before 2000 AD. Part of it is that I prefer to research other techs (even Space-part techs) before Rocketry. Nevertheless this Game was extremly slow even for my usual Games.

[Sirp_]

Moving the settler 2 NE was a good idea. The vast majority of the fastest finishers did the move. I'm not sure if it's the extra shield, the extra food resource (wheat), the coastal trade, the larger block-off area, or what that did this. But it seems to be the stronger opening move.

Anyhow, I think it highlights one important thing: fresh water is not as important as in Civ3. I didn't even consider it, because in Civ3 I would very rarely move off fresh water.

After some time to re-evaluate though, I think it's possible it could be worth moving off fresh water just to get on a plains-hill. Having an extra +1 hammer forever is a large benefit compared to the -2 health that essentially results in -2 food per turn, but only when over the health threshhold. This is particularly so when considering there being two health resources in sight, and no luxury resources, meaning that happiness is going to be a more likely constraint on city growth than health is.

If the plain hills isn't enough to warrant the move, the access to an additional bonus food resource puts the advantage of the move beyond doubt. I spent a countless number of turns doing nothing, waiting for Paris to grow to a decent size. If I had done the move, I would have had much more growth and more shields to build warriors in the meantime.

There were other benefits to the move as well, but I think the extra early growth was by far the biggest thing.

-Sirp.

[Drasca]

Do take note where the Iron and Copper locations were, and how the AI's moved to grab them immediately, and settled for second best locations afterwards. This initial choice was pivotal for the rest of the game. The "northeast" gambit is a very strong one, pushing the AI's all over the place, so long as the player can survive monty's attack (Given we have stone, walls would not be difficult, and the place not hard to hold with effort).

1) Copper directly north of Khan's capital, East of Player
--Several games, mine included had the player first settle Orleans here. This forced Khan to move westward to the Dyes and banana position southeast of paris, almost, but not quite at the Iron south of Paris and southwest of Khan. Settling westward towards there then becomes Khan's next priority, especially when the player is absent from the southern frontier.
--In games where the player does not settle eastward on top of the copper, Khan settles here first. This is sometimes a good thing, as it may push khan's attentions eastward. My own game culturally flipped the khan's western settle attempts, and fairly crippled him because of it.
2) Iron northeast of Paris, towards Monty. Strong gambit for the player to take this. Borders are unorthodox, but it denies Monty Iron and Copper, which he'll seek eastward towards Washington, thus crippling an otherwise financial builder civ.
3) Iron southeast of Paris. Khan's western front priority.

I've looked at the AI migrations, and where they initially and further settled was greatly dependent on that AI loophole foreknowledge.

I think in terms of the game "Go", where players pop down stones to claim territory for later on, where territory is captured only when surrounded utterly, and control of the greatest space with the fewest moves against an opponent who can match the same is the acme of the game. In civ terms, the AI's have resource priorities that they'll go for until that area us culturally sealed off--then they attack. What directions they'll attack depends on where you have been planting your seed. Sounds dirty, but there's no explaining Go in a single paragraph, other than it is like othello/reversi, but on the level of complexity as chess/chinese chess/chinese checkers... and relates to this game because of the cultural placement and growth is akin to go's turn by turn stone placement on a 19x19 grid, forcing the AI opponent to choose other space to occupy.

For more on go see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)

here on how to play:
http://www.sentex.net/~mmcadams/teachgo/
or
http://www.usgo.org/usa/waytogo/index.asp

Like go, if a civ is choked off in territory from the rest, it'll eventually shrivel and likely die from its competition.

Watching the replays is interesting stuff on territory control.

[Drasca]

fresh water is not as important as in Civ3.

If I had done the move, I would have had much more growth and more shields to build warriors in the meantime.

There were other benefits to the move as well, but I think the extra early growth was by far the biggest thing.

Early growth is definitely the biggest issue. But think about the pros and cons of fresh water vs the resources themselves. Access to wheat is 1 health, cows and wheat = 2 health, more than making up for no fresh water. Also consider longer term growth: Harbors, that's a lot of extra health. Combine that with the other growth resources... and blam, you have a super-city.

Right now, my biggest early game concerns aren't space. Cities don't usually grow to size 20. Its resource control. The best most resource involved cities are the most valuable for early and middle stage growth. Extra 6 food from 2 food resources is having 3 extra citizens, and option to farm production only tiles before food usage is maxed out, it also develops cottages.

[Renata]

Moving toward the copper with the first settler seems to have been a very strong move. I tried, but was a few turns too slow and had to settle for a coastal spot (having settled Paris in place). If you have the copper and Genghis doesn't, you have the potential to cripple him the first time he picks a fight; without that, the best you can probably do is hold your own.

Completely agreed about the choice of location for Paris. I only wish I'd moved my warrior toward the wheat instead of wherever I did send it.

Finally, I think I agree with Rowain that cutting off the peninsula with a second or third city wasn't necessarily the strongest move. I liked it at the time because it would ensure short borders, but any city E or SE of Paris wound up mired in jungle and unable to fully contribute for a long time. Long-term it was useful, but only at the expense of early difficulty. (Besides, I had my borders open anyway until the crazies got ... crazy. Nobody sent a settler through.)

Ok, one more thing directed more for relative newbies like me: it seems that prioritizing either a religion or Calendar was quite essential. I did neither, and my cities were capped at low population for a very long time.

[Drasca]

either a religion Calendar was quite essential

Here's another two options: Grab Pyramids for representation civic (+Happiness for largest cities), or learn Monarchy for heriditary rule (+1 Happy per military unit garrisoned for city defense), you can overcome the happiness limit early. Theatres are another possibility, as creative civs like Louis get cheap theatre production costs and dyes were nearby.

[Sina]

I kicked my behind for not chosing the right way to go for my initial warrior move. That costal location with the wheat is superior in my opinion.

I think the main advantage is that it forces you to place your second city so that you get the copper even before you know about it. It is just a natural thing for you to do and it makes all the difference. With getting that copper spot you have a much easier time with Genghis (I learnt how to spell his name by now ).

I also think that if you get that copper city, you have a much easier time to expad if you are not fighting Genghis. I could not get a way out of the peninsula with my city placement due to him being my friend. He never declared war on me.

I surely would have won my game had I played it with the knowledge I have now. Prince is the difficulty I regularly win now. Not daring to step one up yet.
Some very wierd moves on my part....i was just shaking my head when I reviewed those post-its. I just couldn't have done that, could I?

[Drasca]

Hey, sirian bravely posted about building a city made of straw (wheat)... twice! Ganja move? Definitely. Why? Who knows. Learn better? Yep! Its fun to snicker at though!