Yes, I had to go sloppy for this first report due to time constraints unfortunately. I will have a version two forthcoming, but ... Tuesday is nudist variant night!... and I gave a timely posting for Sirian to follow.
I think I researched fishing first... I am not entirely sure. Important things like tech paths, thoughts at the time and city placement, you know... stuff that requires work? That was not included for time's sake. Including the minimap, and a shot of most of my city placements was the best I could do for now. Besides, the initial position of my second city is in one of the shots...
As for researching fishing/sailing, I think I did get great lighthouse. I think I wanted to go galley gallavanting, but ended up having other priorities. Note however, I did get colossus early on, and most of my cities were coastal. Collosus (+1 commerce to + coastal cities + lighthouse) ... I think you get the picture. Not as much demand for a huge workforce when farming the sea and only specific resources to connect.
As for oracle, I didn't pursue early religion at all. Stonehenge was a lost cause to me, I never wanted to pursue that. Didn't consider the power of stonehenge + creative civ and city flip like speaker.
Still not over that, eh? Stone + Industrious + Early-ish Quarry = Well, no pyramids for you Sulla!
In 970, I had just founded two cities and captured another barb city within the past 5-20 turns or so. Slow to expand? Yes, but got caught up in a vicious war with monty. 450, Lyons founded (southeastern most city, has iron), 480, barb city Thracian captured (dyes and horses, southwest), 550, colossus finished and all my cities were coastal at that point,
Yes, the peaceniks became runaways because I had control over all the early war resources from the aggressives, and mopped the floor with Monty. Greece stood no chance against both washington and ghandi, who became runaway builders as I slugged it with Monty. By the time I had riflemen and took the last of Montezuma's holdings, Washington had assembly line infantry. That did not look good, and maintained his tech lead alongside ghandi whom he traded techs with much of the time despite their religious differences.
In honesty, I think I should've gambled with losing and pursued the domination win I wanted. I could've been a lot more resource and tech friendly to Greeks and Khan earlier on though. That was a costly mistake. I mainly regret not pursuing a domination win, even though I was outteched by the enemy, I believe I could've outmanuevered and absorb any pillaging the AI might do. Flight is still the tech completely to the player's advantage, as even though the AI will bomb any improvement within range, they have not (to my knowledge) done things like rebasing in allied city territory to bomb, nor can they coordinate air power with land units. If the AI does learn how to coordinate combined arms in totallity. I'll be first to admit I'm scared, very scared.
The point of naming units is to provide a story for them. Instead of nameless combat V knight... I have Athos, who earned his horses after pummeling lions and bears all across the continent, defended our cities against barbarian archers, captured the Aztec cities, and led the charge against the last of our enemy cities. See? Isn't that more exciting? Porthos meanwhile drank and boozed among all the early city open borders, and wined and dined a few village huts too. Doesn't hurt that he took out a dozen horse archers, and picked up the sword when his axemen failed him. Aramis the hunter meanwhile, made a singlehanded stand against Monty's stack of jaguar doom, and crippled their attack force. Came back with riflemen, and roughed up Monty's hide.
I have a "Epic commander" challenge ruleset forthcoming. Still refining the details. The basic premise is that certain units are valuable, worth naming and telling stories over. The challenge is how powerful, and tracking what victories they claim. Style points for things like, leading the attack on an enemy city's City Garrison II defender--and winning, of course.
I think I researched fishing first... I am not entirely sure. Important things like tech paths, thoughts at the time and city placement, you know... stuff that requires work? That was not included for time's sake. Including the minimap, and a shot of most of my city placements was the best I could do for now. Besides, the initial position of my second city is in one of the shots...
As for researching fishing/sailing, I think I did get great lighthouse. I think I wanted to go galley gallavanting, but ended up having other priorities. Note however, I did get colossus early on, and most of my cities were coastal. Collosus (+1 commerce to + coastal cities + lighthouse) ... I think you get the picture. Not as much demand for a huge workforce when farming the sea and only specific resources to connect.
As for oracle, I didn't pursue early religion at all. Stonehenge was a lost cause to me, I never wanted to pursue that. Didn't consider the power of stonehenge + creative civ and city flip like speaker.
Quote:You got Pyramids done pretty quickly too, even faster than Gandhi built it in my game.
Still not over that, eh? Stone + Industrious + Early-ish Quarry = Well, no pyramids for you Sulla!
In 970, I had just founded two cities and captured another barb city within the past 5-20 turns or so. Slow to expand? Yes, but got caught up in a vicious war with monty. 450, Lyons founded (southeastern most city, has iron), 480, barb city Thracian captured (dyes and horses, southwest), 550, colossus finished and all my cities were coastal at that point,
Yes, the peaceniks became runaways because I had control over all the early war resources from the aggressives, and mopped the floor with Monty. Greece stood no chance against both washington and ghandi, who became runaway builders as I slugged it with Monty. By the time I had riflemen and took the last of Montezuma's holdings, Washington had assembly line infantry. That did not look good, and maintained his tech lead alongside ghandi whom he traded techs with much of the time despite their religious differences.
In honesty, I think I should've gambled with losing and pursued the domination win I wanted. I could've been a lot more resource and tech friendly to Greeks and Khan earlier on though. That was a costly mistake. I mainly regret not pursuing a domination win, even though I was outteched by the enemy, I believe I could've outmanuevered and absorb any pillaging the AI might do. Flight is still the tech completely to the player's advantage, as even though the AI will bomb any improvement within range, they have not (to my knowledge) done things like rebasing in allied city territory to bomb, nor can they coordinate air power with land units. If the AI does learn how to coordinate combined arms in totallity. I'll be first to admit I'm scared, very scared.
The point of naming units is to provide a story for them. Instead of nameless combat V knight... I have Athos, who earned his horses after pummeling lions and bears all across the continent, defended our cities against barbarian archers, captured the Aztec cities, and led the charge against the last of our enemy cities. See? Isn't that more exciting? Porthos meanwhile drank and boozed among all the early city open borders, and wined and dined a few village huts too. Doesn't hurt that he took out a dozen horse archers, and picked up the sword when his axemen failed him. Aramis the hunter meanwhile, made a singlehanded stand against Monty's stack of jaguar doom, and crippled their attack force. Came back with riflemen, and roughed up Monty's hide.
I have a "Epic commander" challenge ruleset forthcoming. Still refining the details. The basic premise is that certain units are valuable, worth naming and telling stories over. The challenge is how powerful, and tracking what victories they claim. Style points for things like, leading the attack on an enemy city's City Garrison II defender--and winning, of course.