Adventure 4: Kylearan's Report

[Kylearan]

Hi,

the summary of my Adventure 4 game can be found here.

-Kylearan

[regoarrarr]

I agree that WFYABTA can be annoying, but the more I run across it, the more I at least understand it. Before, it was very frustrating because it would seem to pop up randomly, and in situations where I was not advanced (trying to dig myself out of a tech hole).

At least now I know WHY it pops up (usually)

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I agree that WFYABTA can be annoying, but the more I run across it, the more I at least understand it.

I agree, and the discussion on this forum helped a lot in that regard, too. The irony here though is that overall, I felt I was able to trade too much with the AIs throughout the game! I had hit the limit very early, and the Incan experience was a really frustrating and unfun moment for me. I think it would have been beneficial to them if they had traded with me pre-1000AD. And yet, much later, I was able to trade with many civs (Incans included) and got lots of techs from them - at a time it was much less beneficial for them to trade me their techs! I was really amazed about the amount of techs they were willing to trade me, and wouldn't have complained if I had hit the WFYABTA limit then.

-Kylearan

[Sullla]

Umm, 3 hours? No wonder you can get through so many games so quickly! And yet play at a very high level too. Impressive. We have to get you into some Multiplayer action.

I still don't understand why people were building so many axes. I see three of them in Kylearan's 850BC-ish screenshot. War Chariots are cheaper (25 vs. 35 shields) and they get two moves instead of one! Ah well, Kylearan probably didn't have horses hooked up when he needed military. That would certainly make sense.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you basically traded for the ENTIRE early tech tree. Like, everything. If there was no limit on trading, a continuous beeline for expensive techs combined with back-trading for cheaper ones would be the only way to go. That would ALWAYS be the best path in every game. But we've been over this territory, and I don't want to revisit the argument. Your complaints are valid, but if we accomodated them, we'd be back to Civ3-land again with endless tech whoring.

I got to Liberalism much earlier than you did, and while I had a tech lead on Qin, it never grew so large I could have fought a war so easily as you did. I've seen his armies in my game...

Certainly a valid point, I fully agree that the Qin/Kublai wars helped me out (as I mentioned in the report). Saying that you got to Liberalism "much earlier" is a bit disingenous though, since you literally skipped EVERYTHING else on a direct beeline there. And not to harp overmuch on this, but if there was no limit on trading, wouldn't a beeline to Liberalism (while trading to back-fill missing techs) ALWAYS be the best move? Like - EXACTLY how going for Philosophy in Civ3 Conquests was always the best move? Blah to that. Overall, you got a TON of techs in trade, far more than I did. I agree with your message in the thread here that you probably got too many - that's a large reason why your finish date was so close to mine.

An 1898 finish was very fast; I'd comment more but there weren't enough detail to say all that much. It looks like another very solid game. Your suspicion that someone who took out Qin might launch sooner turned out to be right. I wonder though - if you had had aluminum, you might have beaten me! I think I was lucky that the resource was only present in China.

[Atlas]

Do you stay atheist for a time in many of your games to avoid the diplo penalties? I often do this, but rarely see it in reports. Quick finish. Good Game!

Atlas

ps. I got 1 trade out of Qin before he went WFYABTA , but he was right I was too advanced for him

[Zalson]

I liked the "staying Atheist for the early game" strategy; I noticed that it really helped with my relations... especially when there isn't a religion on your continent for a while As for reaching the "Too-Advanced" limit--perhaps your score too greatly surpassed the AI's? I noticed that I never had a problem with that, until I took the score lead. But overall, a very nice game. It was also nice to see someone else finish a game in a short period of time (took me 5 hours).

Excellent report, despite the brevity. Thanks

--Zalson

[Justus_II]

Nice game, very interesting to read your beelining approach. I'll admit I don't have as good an understanding of what causes the WFYBTA limit to kick in, but I haven't had too many bad experiences with it, when it has been there, it seemed right for me. Sorry that you had a bad experience. I wonder if there is a part of the calculation that tracks beakers (or techs) over x number of turns, you had just completed a few trades but for a lot of techs (5 in one trade), so maybe that 'fills up' the limit for a while, but as those trades 'age', the modifier goes down. You mentioned being able to trade again later.

BTW, I'm also jealous of your playing speed, 3 hours is amazing. This was one of my fastest (real-time) games, and it took 11 hours, and that's with no war and mostly auto-pilot type decisions from about 1000AD on. Do you automate a lot (workers, city governors)? However you do it, it's working, keep it up!

[Bede]

Interesting read!

After I read your report I went back and looked at some interim saves and confirmed that you followed much the same path I had - reaching out for techs and getting them. Your settlement pattern even looked familiar as did the development of your lands. What a difference in outcomes!

Your early decision to stay out of war should have been mine, for while I had been commercially more successful than Qin up to the point where I first decided to dismember the Inca for their Holy City by the time I had finished that piece of misguided business I was behind him in the commerce race, and ulitmately the Space Race.

What made it even worse was that I did not appreciate the threat coming from the west. Qin was delayed in getting to Apollo, but really made tracks once he got there while I was chasing moonbeams on the other side of the pond.

I need to pay more attention to the info screens, if nothing else.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I still don't understand why people were building so many axes. I see three of them in Kylearan's 850BC-ish screenshot.

Promotions, and upgradeability. If I have copper, I won't build much else. While the movement speed of mounted units is awesome, I like to stay out of ultra-early wars most of the time, and only build units against barbarians and as an emergency backup against early sneak-attacks. Against barbarians and their cities, I prefer axes and their city raider promotions: I had razed about 6 barbarian cities this game, deliberately letting the spawn so I can raze them for cash. That wouldn't have been possible with war chariots as easy. And if I later want to fight a war, axes can be upgraded to city raider riflemen/infantry, while I often skip Military Tradition if under pressure of time.

Additionally, axes get defensive boni, which war chariots do not. I'm not sure why other people had so many problems with barbs in this game; if I made sure they attacked my axes in the jungle, or fortified on a hill, they posed no threat. I think I had lost more war chariots there than I had lost axes (none).

I did not fear the barbarians in this game at all. I had one axe on the hill south of Thebes, which was enough to deal with barbs from the south (let them attack me, only attack them if they are about to pillage my ivory!). Two axemen on my northern border did the same there, and later I had a mobile raze force of four axes. Add to that one axe per city for defense, and I'm set.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you basically traded for the ENTIRE early tech tree. Like, everything. If there was no limit on trading,

I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself , but I am FOR the trading limit! Sirian had convinced me on that. Later in this game, I even felt the AIs traded more than was good for them! What I am against is the way they calculate the limit. 1) The limit is based on number of traded techs instead of number of beakers, and 2) the algorithm produces odd results very often, like Huayna decided not to trade with me at a time when the trade would clearly have been beneficial to him, and started to trade with me at a time when it helped me more than it helped him. I like to see an improvement to that algorithm somehow.

-Kylearan

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Do you stay atheist for a time in many of your games to avoid the diplo penalties?

When CIV was new, I did this several times - mainly to prove to myself that a no religion game can be as valid as an all-out religious game. I suspected the hype about the hydra from the RB1 succession game was, well, just a hype. Well executed, very well written, but I think it gave the wrong impression to a lot of people. I'm sure that hadn't been Sirian's intention, but I remember a lot of posts over at the strategy/general forum of CFC in the aftermath of RB1 saying that this was the only way to go, even overpowered! I guess the same good narration that somehow made the tanks-vs.-riflemen combats look interesting also led to a wrong impression about how to play the diplo/religion game, so yeah, I tended to prefer atheist games for some time.

Now it really depends on the situation. Religion will give you stronger emotions: Real friends and hated enemies. Remaining an atheist will lead to no real enemies, but no friendly relationships either. Given the strong start in this game led me to believe I didn't really need strong friendships but wanted to avoid having enemies as well, so no religion was the way to go for me, especially as I had no real problems with happiness.

-Kylearan