Nah, he is just bad. The "I don't want the AI to cheat me so I play on Noble" attitude is basically archetypical. That he is resistant to advice is also somewhat common for that type.
In defense of, well, every green player ever, it's impossible to know how good a good player can be without seeing one. And for a game like Civ4, where are you going to stumble upon a good player? For a few of the PB61 folks, it's not just that they're bad; it's that they have no frame of reference for what "good" is.
And that's gonna become super apparent as some grow under the coaching of excellent players like Superdeath and Sullla and some have a nasty surprise alone. (You're doing noble work, civac. )
(July 21st, 2021, 13:13)civac2 Wrote: Nah, he is just bad. The "I don't want the AI to cheat me so I play on Noble" attitude is basically archetypical. That he is resistant to advice is also somewhat common for that type.
I used the word unique for a reason. What differentiates him from the others is that he doesn't take advice from more experienced players into consideration.
Maybe this will be the hardest fight for TBS on this forum (as a dedlurker)
The other players have a significantly better grip on the fundamentals. At worst they are a bit inefficient. JesseL stands out, unfortunately. This will imbalance the game pretty quickly, it looks like.
Jesse is between Joshy to the north and Vanrober to the south, neither of which seems to be pressuring him yet.
FWIW I agree that Vanrober has worse quality backlines, but he also has some of the safest land available, and the possibility to grab quite a bit of the central forest, if only he'd settle that direction. He still might be able to claim parts of Jesse's terrain, if only he realizes how far behind he is.
Joshy seems to be content to expand north into the tundra instead.
I'm, concerned, by Bing's wardec. Killing a single scouting warrior is a fairly minor gain in return for (potentially) permanently souring relations with your neighbour, and it's also an entirely unnecessary gamble on the combat results. I assume that the ceasefire will be accepted, and it might all come to noghitng, but it seems like a very unnecessary turn of events.
People in spoiler threads or here have expressed shock that Jesse went to a size 8 capital before a second city, but nobody has explained why, since the people shocked have already internalized why it’s not a great idea. So I’m going to spell it out in case Jesse reads this or an anonymous green lurker is reading this but not sure why everyone’s against the plan. I guess if it’s ever becomes appropriate, I could copy it into Jesse’s thread. Spoilered for excessive length.
The big concept at play is opportunity cost. In other words, Plan A might get you 100 gizmos, but by committing to Plan A, you’re not doing Plan B which gets you 200 gizmos. You can’t evaluate a choice in any strategy game just by saying “Look! I’ll get 100 gizmos” without comparing to what the other plans can get you.
To grow from size 1 to size 8, a city needs 196 food. In civ4, each population point costs more food than the previous, so growing two cities to size 4 only costs 148 food as opposed to the 196 for the single size 8 city. Each population point gets you stuff. Each population point works a tile that gives you hammers or gold, or it works as a specialist, giving you the specialist resources. Sometimes population points are themselves stuff: the Slavery civic allows you to turn population points, rather than hammers, into units and buildings. It follows that, if you want to maximize the amount of stuff your empire has, you also want to maximize the number of population points you have. Subsequently, it also follows that, if you want to maximize your population, choosing two size 4 cities at 148 food is better than choosing 1 size 8 at 196 food, because you’re getting your population points for cheaper.
One might object that one size 8 city can be better than two size 4 cities. Two cities cost more in maintenance. 1 bigger city builds things faster than 2 small ones. Etc. etc. Here’s where we run into opportunity cost, and I have to dive a little into the nitty-gritty. Each population point “eats” 2 food per turn. If you grow a pop point and it only works a 2 food tile, it has done nothing. (In general. Let me paint in broad strokes.) On the other hand, if that population point works a Town improvement, it has gained you +5 gold. The value of each tile is something that changes from turn to turn and internalizing a way to judge these values is a large part of getting better at civ. I’m not great at it, myself. But the principle is pretty simple: pop points work tiles of differing values. But! The value of a pop point is also in flux. To grow from size 7 to size 8 requires 34 food. To grow from size 3 to size 4 requires 26 food. Imagine that this pop point in either city, whether size 8 or size 4, works a grassland forest worth 2food/1hammer per turn. The city has gained +1 hammer per turn (since the 2 food is immediately eaten by the pop point). But in the size 4 example you’ve “spent” 26 food for +1 hammer, whereas at size 8 you’ve spent 34 food for +1 hammer.
(As an aside, players often lump food and hammers together and refer to tile yields in terms of “foodhammers.” It’s an excellent measurement, but I’m not going to get into why. The gist is: that plains hill forest that you’re currently working (at 3 hammers per turn) is usefully approximated as “3 foodhammers.” I’m having to speak very generally, but the 3 hammer tile you’re working is not +3 hammers per turn, but more like +1 hammers per turn, because that citizen still needs 2 food per turn from somewhere.)
But I mentioned something about opportunity cost. After all, if your food is only used for growing population that works tiles, you’re not passing up any opportunity by growing. At size 4 you get +1 hammer, at size 8 you get +1 hammer. All good. Unfortunately, the Slavery civic pretty directly turns food into something. Slavery subtracts a population point and gives you thirty hammers. We can basically equate this population point to food: you spend X food (and gain a pop point) and then press a button and get 30 hammers (and lose a pop point). The X is variable because each population point costs a different amount of food. It’s a lot better to spend 26 food for 30 hammers than to spend 34 food for 30 hammers. That’s the opportunity cost. You’re choosing to spend your food on a +X hammers per turn (where X is like 1-3) rather than getting 30 hammers with the press of a button. (Trust me that the happiness penalty of slavery is very manageable once you’ve gotten practice with the mechanic.)
All the above is me trying to explain that no choice is cost-less. By choosing to grow to size 8, you’ve given up other choices. Your empire (just one city) currently produces 20 food, 18 hammers, and 6 commerce. Your size 8 empire requires 16 food, so your total output is 4/18/6. Let’s pretend that instead of making a barracks (60hammers), you had put those hammers into a settler. It looks like you were building your barracks at 9 hammers per turn and while your city had a +9 food surplus. This +18 foodhammer count would build a settler in 6 turns. You started the barracks on turn 29, it looks like, so your settler would be done on turn 36. It would travel to the plains hill next to the pig in the east and found on turn 38. You’ve only built 1 worker, so let’s pretend that your second city is completely unsupported and can only work the unimproved pig (3food tile). It’s currently turn 42. With your first city’s +9 food surplus, it has grown to size 7 at this point and is producing 20 food, 14 hammers, and 6 commerce. Your second city is producing 5 food, 2 hammers, and 1 commerce. If you can trust my counting, your total empire output minus food for feeding population is 9/16/7 with this plan compared to your actual in-game 4/18/6, so you’ve gained 3 food-hammers. (And one commerce, but we can talk about why both the increased maintenance and the increased commerce don’t really matter in this scenario.) I can feel your (and my) eyes glazing over with all these numbers, so let me wrap up.
The plan I laid out above is terrible, but it still gets you to a better place than your current one. Should you have built your first settler at size 1 or 2 or 3 or…? I have no idea. The beauty of ancient era civ4 openings is that they are highly variable based on the map. I wrote this so any green lurkers would understand why people were surprised at such a late first settler, but I also wrote it to suggest a different way of thinking. I was spurred by your response to Dp101, who asked why you were building an almost useless monument:
(July 21st, 2021, 21:50)JesseL Wrote: I like reaching my max pop before I start mass producing settlers. I should be able to work all my resource tiles with the rest of the pop on mines and hills.
You’re thinking in terms of what you get (working more tiles) but not in terms of what you’re giving up (earlier second city, more workers) which in fact would be giving you more. I’ve flattened a lot of mechanics and nuance, but I’m just trying to convey the one point: think about the opportunity cost.
)
