Regarding getting hunting/AH before mining/bronze: Getting BW early is at least quite useful for revolting to slavery while we have 1 city + 1 settler if nothing else. It also gives us the location of copper sooner which is arguably more pressing than the location of horses for stopping a rush. Other than that, the other two techs are better. However it seems if we open pottery we should be able to get both paths in short order. See my SIP try, where I went for a fast settler and even then already had BW and hunting before founding.
|
Micromanagement Sims/Planning
|
I decided to try an early Hunting with the SOB start, first opening with Pottery. However, I found that my first worker then couldn't improve the deer in a timely manner, so I tried the following:
Option: Hunt the Potter Simmed: To T32 Settle: Banana Tech: Hunting (T8) -> Pottery (T20) -> Animal Husbandry (T29) -> Mining (T35) Build: Worker (T10) -> Warrior (T18) -> Worker (T23) -> Warrior (T28) -> Settler (T35) Worker 1: Corn (T14) -> deer (T20) -> flood plain cottage (T25) -> flood plain cottage (T27) -> complete plains river cottage (T29) -> road deer (T31) Worker 2: pre-build plains river cottage (T23) -> flood plain cottage (T25) -> flood plain cottage (T27) -> complete plains river cottage (T29) -> road river grass (T31) Citizen 1: plains-forest-hill (T0-T9) -> deer (T10-13) -> Corn (T14-) Citizen 2: deer (T15-19) -> deer camp (T20-) Citizen 3: plains-forest-hill (T18-22) -> flood plain (T23-24) -> flood plain cottage (T25-) Citizen 4: flood plain (T26) -> plains-forest-hill (T27) -> plains river cottage (T29-) Citizen 5: flood plain cottage (T28-) Note how the fourth citizen works on T26-27, so we both grow and get the warrior in 2t. We lose out on a cottage-turn there, however. Compared to LPs opening, I grow a little slower and delay my first cottage with 5 turns, but I finish my third cottage on the same turn as he did. ![[Image: ISDB-T32-Hunt-the-potter.jpg]](http://www.norensoversattningar.se/images/ISDB-T32-Hunt-the-potter.jpg) Should probably explore going warrior-warrior-worker instead of warrior-worker-warrior.
kjn, the plan you outlined looks extremely similar to the one that I threw out there a little bit earlier today. You get the second worker out 4t sooner, trading that for a capital that grows 5t slower. This is largely a wash and we end up with similar-looking plans, However, that plan has slightly fewer beakers researched (I have you at ~380 beakers to the 399 beakers in the start I proposed) and also creates the first settler 1t slower, T35 as opposed to T34. I think that means it's just a little bit less efficient overall. It's very good in its own right, but I think that the "Option 2" I suggested is a bit better.
![[Image: smile.gif]](http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Smilies/smile.gif) I did a full look at novice's plan, which is very interesting in its own right: Quote:Option 4 - "Novice's Plan, Fast Second City" Picture: ![[Image: ISDG-3s.jpg]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19563179/ISDG/ISDG-3s.jpg) I tidied up the micro a little bit and squeezed some extra efficiency from the start. Now this one is indeed interesting, but I do think the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. The two key problems are the very low beaker count (lowest of any plan here by a wide margin) and the lack of defenses. Do we actually want to have 2 cities with only 1 military unit? That may be a wee bit too much risk, even for us early game farmer gambiters.  So I think this one is ultimately a little too aggressive in pushing for city #2 super fast. I am still not seeing a plan better than the initial one outlined by Parkin and the one that I threw out earlier on this page. I'm not convinced by arguments that we should settle on the starting tile, knowing full well that it's a slower start, and then make it up 50 turns later. Civilization doesn't work that way. When you start behind, you tend to stay behind. We want to get the absolute best, most optimal start possible. Everything else will fall into place from there.
What is our naming scheme?
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” Sullla Wrote:I am still not seeing a plan better than the initial one outlined by Parkin and the one that I threw out earlier on this page. I'm not convinced by arguments that we should settle on the starting tile, knowing full well that it's a slower start, and then make it up 50 turns later. Civilization doesn't work that way. When you start behind, you tend to stay behind. We want to get the absolute best, most optimal start possible. Everything else will fall into place from there. Ditto.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
Sullla Wrote:I did a full look at novice's plan, which is very interesting in its own right [...]Indeed. The city placement seems to contradict the plan as well. It's placed at a nice flood plains site for the purpose of generating commerce... but because of the mad rush to get the city founded, it actually leaves us with less commerce than expanding a few turns later. Still, worth testing different plans like this to make sure we're not missing anything.  Sullla Wrote:I am still not seeing a plan better than the initial one outlined by Parkin and the one that I threw out earlier on this page. I'm not convinced by arguments that we should settle on the starting tile, knowing full well that it's a slower start, and then make it up 50 turns later. Civilization doesn't work that way. When you start behind, you tend to stay behind. We want to get the absolute best, most optimal start possible. Everything else will fall into place from there.Indeed. I believe the main argument for settling in place is so that we can settle a Deer/Cow city on the plains-hill. But do we really believe that good city locations will be so few and far between as to make that one critical? I personally doubt it. I'm sure there'll be plenty more good sites around outside of the small window we can see from the starting screenshot. The location of Copper (or Horses) will have far, far more influence on our second city placement than any tiles we can currently see anyway. I think the most important thing is to get the best possible capital from the land we can see. After we've discovered more territory and revealed key resources, we can start planning some great additional cities. But planning anything beyond the capital city based on our extremely limited field of view and without knowledge of strategic resource locations seems silly. By the way, one minor upside of settling on the Banana is that we're guaranteed to not be accidentally sitting on a Copper or Horse resource and losing significant tile yields.  (Though my gut feeling is that Copper and Horse won't be accessible within the immediate BFC... but we'll see.)
I think the Novice plan (which probably is inspire by his and Seven's start in PBEM 23) makes sense IFF there is a capital-level site immediately visible.
That said, we might want to keep Novice's plan in reserve, if our early scouting would give us such a site, either down by the floodplains or up by the cow. Agree with Parkin on the minor benefit on settling on a mediocre resource.
I look at the Banana this way.
How many of you would settle on a plains-hill for +1 free hammer per turn from the start given the chance? Most, I presume. And yet this technically denies you 2 hammers later because you can't mine the hill. However, to most of us the immediate benefit is worth the later loss. Given that 1 food > 1 hammer, how much more benefit is it to get +1 free food per turn from the start? A lot. Sure, it denies us 2 food later (much later) because we can't build the plantation. But the immediate benefit is still very much worth the later (much later) loss. Quote:By the way, one minor upside of settling on the Banana is that we're guaranteed to not be accidentally sitting on a Copper or Horse resource and losing significant tile yields. (Though my gut feeling is that Copper and Horse won't be accessible within the immediate BFC... but we'll see.) SiP is a forested hill, and a forested hill won't have resources in a normal map. Quote:Given that 1 food > 1 hammer, how much more benefit is it to get +1 free food per turn from the start? A lot. Sure, it denies us 2 food later (much later) because we can't build the plantation. But the immediate benefit is still very much worth the later (much later) loss. Strategic advantages of SiP as I see them: Short term, better location for second city. Medium term, more flood plain cottages for bureaucracy capital. The banana resource itself? Eh. (Although it will be a 4 food tile much sooner than calendar just through farming it.)
Where does this idea of a better location for a second city come in? We haven't see much of the map yet, no horses or copper revealed. Why would you hamstring yourself by basing your capital off of what it can provide for the second city? And honestly Settling on the banana gives a great second city using some of the FPs the Cap doesn't use.
SIP is inferior here. LP has explained this as succinctly and efficiently as I have seen it expressed in this discussion. Quote:Given that 1 food > 1 hammer I mean +1 food in the cap from the start of the game is simply huge. And to say its worth SIP for more FP cottages later on is silly. You only gain 2 FP cottages. And suddenly our cap will be stronger down the road later in the game? That is a MINISCULE benefit that will not "help us catch up" or make up for a slower start. Do not settle in place based on this idea that your capital can be better long term when it can simply be better from the very beginning.
“The wind went mute and the trees in the forest stood still. It was time for the last tale.”
|
