Intersite Game - Turn Discussion Thread

[Sullla]

In my Worldbuilder tests, barb warriors will not attack an axeman. They must know that the odds are too weak; they always moved away when I tried it out. We have to attack the barb warrior with our axe - it won't suicide into our axe. Too bad.

The barb warrior will attack our Combat I warrior if we place it on the plains hill tile. I'm not sure that we want to do that, however; the barb warrior gets 21.3% odds according to my tests. We would have essentially 4 in 5 odds. Is that good enough? I'm not sure. (I know regoarrarr had better odds, but that's what I was getting in our sandbox save. Maybe one of us had a different difficulty level set?)

We don't seem to be anywhere near a consensus, so I will leave the decision until tomorrow. Hopefully we can reach a team opinion by then.

[antisocialmunky]

What's the best move if we lose the warrior?

[regoarrarr]

Yeah as Sullla points out we probably have different difficulties. I was on Prince but I checked back and Prince gets 5% barb difficulty but if we're on Monarch or higher (Which we probably are) then we don't get that.

I'm also not sure about that.

[NobleHelium]

The difficulty is Emperor. Good thing we cleared that up.

As mentioned earlier, it's only worthwhile to take the defensive shot with the warrior if we think that barbs move before players process their turns, and I don't think that's the case. Barring additional information, I'm strongly in favor of the following moves:

1) Kill warrior with axe.
2) Hill worker goes W onto plains forest.
3) B worker roads in place (SW of AO).
4) Oracle chopping workers move to their respective forests.
5) City micro as detailed by novice (I guess the rest is the same as novice's plan also).

The easiest way to compensate for our flood plains being unworkable for one turn is to delay the settler whip in FP a(nother) turn to t67. See attached saves.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15215428/ISDG1/...64-t67.zip

In the west, maybe move the worker on the plains hill 1W onto the forest? It can be prechopped and roaded, and maybe lure the barb warrior to move west. The other worker there can finish its road. In my playthrough I just attacked the warrior in the east, there might be better options. The lack of MP isn't really a problem though since the city will be building a settler and working all available commerce tiles.

In other words, the barbs have so far delayed KC by two turns but they haven't delayed the Oracle.

[mostly_harmless]

Agree with NobleHelium.
Mh

[Azza]

I think a lot depends on whether we get the tile yields for eot T64 before the barb movement or whether they are calculated after the barbs move and potentially block a tile.

Anyone know the answer to this question?

I'm fairly certain barbs move at the start of the turn for simultaneous games. So we'd get the yield, the turn would officially end, then the barbarian would move start of turn 65.

[kjn]

Noble's outlined plan is good for me.

[Fintourist]

Safe approach:
If we wait our axe to clean the southern warrior, we can not work FP Village in T65 & see our village pillaged down to hamlet.
T65: We lose around 1 food and 5 beakers based on what we can work instead of village.
Additionally we get 20+ turns (+ relates to the turns that we have worked the village) setback regarding the growth curve of that tile. We have to work again 20 turns FP hamlet and grow 20 turns later to town. Overall this means the total loss of 40+ beakers.
Total value of expected losses: 1 food and 45+ beakers

Gamble approach
We have 80 % chance that our warrior will win the combat. Adventure One is unhappy during the T65 and loses ~2 food and 4 beakers.
However, we have 20% chance that we lose the worker and warrior (75 hammers) and get two additional (total of three) unhappy turns for the capital (~4 food & 8 beakers). Total: 6 food, 75 hammers & 12 beakers
Total value of expected losses: 0,8 * (2F,0H,4B) + 0,2 * (6F,75H,12B) = 2,8 food, 15 hammers & 5,6 beakers

Depending how much we do one value hammers/food vs. beakers, you can make the case for both options. However, I believe that losing the worker+warrior and thus getting unhappy turns in AO would mean that we must Oracle currency one turn later. That will increase the risk of losing Oracle (and its beakers) and make Gamble approach look worse.

Conclusion: Make your own I believe we have to play it safe here even though it hurts to lose those beakers and there is a good chance that we would stay intact. It's a close call.

Note: This is a simplification, but I belive that it quantifies our options good enough so that we can make an informed decision. Gamble approach looks again a bit worse if you take into account that do to the lost food and stagnating growth when building worker, we will lose additional beakers due to an overall slower growth in AO.

[Sullla]

I also believe that Food/Production/Commerce is processed before barbarians have their movement phase, although I am willing to be proven wrong. I can try to test this later today in Single Player; not sure if Pitboss works differently.

Unless something would come up in the next few hours, I plan to move us as outlined by NobleHelium above. I agree that we don't really want to gamble with 80% dice rolls in warrior vs warrior combat. (I wonder in retrospect if we should have completed the axe in Focal Point last turn, so it could move on this turn? Oh well, in the past now. We didn't know where the barb warriors would move.)

[mostly_harmless]

There is still the option to sacrifice one worker. That would leave enough time for the 2nd axe to reach the western theatre and the warrior remains as MP in AO, while we keep the village and can work it all the time!

Moving the hill worker 1S or even 2S would do the job. Worth considering.

Unless there is a mechanic, that the barb will not attack an undefended worker.

mh