Intersite Game - Turn Discussion Thread

[kjn]

Assuming mirroring, could our horses be to the east, and they've been stolen by CFC? Best to use a scout to find out, so we can make a decision on whether this kind of Bold Play is necessary.

Unlikely, given the distances involved and the land to our southeast.

Anyway, I don't view the T83 plan for stone city as a particularly bold play. Ambitious yes, but so should all our play here be.

[Sullla]

I didn't miss the discussion. I explained why I don't think that's a particularly good plan. So far, I have yet to see anyone respond to the points that I made. The only compelling argument for racing to the stone location is if we feel we are in a settling race for that location. We have absolutely no indication right now whether we're in a competition. If we haven't even met another civ in that direction yet, I would argue that we do better by continuing our policy of careful expansion over the aggressive grab for resources we don't even need at the moment.

I also think it's a bit much to refer to this post as a plan. I see a screenshot and some general instructions on where to go. The instructions just state: "Now we just need to fit the micro plan to supply a settler in Focal Point on T80, a galley in Horse feather on T81." I'm not sure I would call that a plan per se. The screenshot isn't even correct:



A settler born in Focal Point on T80 can't reach Adventure One in one turn's move, since it's crossing over a river. That pushes all the dates listed here back by a turn. I also think it's a bit silly to predict out the exact moves of an axeman through the fog over the next 10 turns. We could get injured by barbs, see something interesting to check out, or whatever. We just don't know.

That's my whole point. We know nothing about the conditions in this area around the stone. It's a bit of a wild gambit to go running off there for our next city. It makes far more sense to plant another city down in the southwest first, one that's only 3-4 tiles away from Gourmet Menu, and use the intervening time to defog the area around the stone. Then we can make a much more informed decision about how to proceed. Let's at least see what our axe finds over the next couple of turns before making any rash decisions, ok?

[kalin]

@Sullla: Unless I misread, I think the proposal to make a city on the stone is a proposal. I am not sure where I stand with respect to it, but it's worth discussing. I agree we need to see what the axe by GM finds before making a decision.

Also, I haven't said yet but I also liked the scout idea in MM.

Question: why do we want the city by the spices so soon? We are still a while away from Calendar. Luddite mentioned as an alternative a SE city by the corn. What are people's thoughts on this?

Kalin

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Actually if we do have a settler out in FP, we can still load him onto a boat at T+1 and on the stone tile on T+2, settled T+3. I do like the idea of settling somewhere south or southwest of GM, but of course if we do that, then our axe will need to stay in place to guard that new city. Unfortunately that's a weakish cottage city to start with, as it only has a grass cow.

Alternatively new settler takes the wet corn spot near CFC's new city.

[novice]

(Crosspost with Nico)

Spice and corn cities are both ok, but our workers need time to set them up, and the corn city requires more time.

A settler from FP can make it to HF in two turns and still load onto a galley, since that can be done without movement points.

Even so, I agree with Sulllas call for a more sustainable expansion. I would like our workers and settlers to reach the stone naturally, and if we could do without a galley that would be good. If that plains hill 5w1s of GM is settlable, that would be a nice border city and stepping stone towards the stone site.

If our axe doesn't find any good city locations southwest of GM, we can consider going directly for the stone instead. I don't think that would be complicated to micro, but it's premature to decide either way just yet.

[luddite]

Well we can put it off this decision for a few turns to see what the axe finds. But it seems crazy to me to settle either the spice spot or the stone spot right now, when we're still a long time away from having either calendar or building a stone wonder. If worker turns are a problem, then maybe we should just be building a worker instead?

I actually think that the plains hill would be a good spot even if we don't find any more resources there. It can work the clams immediately, whip or chop a granary, and then grow onto 3 riverside grass cottages, while GM can grow with just its 4 flood plains. But the southeast corn spot is good too, if only to make sure that CFC doesn't steal it, and to get a trade route connection with them.

We probably have time to settle both those cities, then settle spice city right when we tech calendar, then settle the stone city right when we'd want to build the hanging gardens.

[mostly_harmless]

Ok, addressing the points I disagree with.

OK, some of this talk is getting a little out of hand. I'd like to suggest that we back up a bit and think more about the situation with that stone location.

I am not sure what was getting out of hand. A proposal to settle Stone City with a settler coming out of FP on T80 was discussed. That proposal includes actions (i.e. axe movements) that are relevant for the next turn.

The stone location either requires a transit by galley (and we will not have Sailing tech until eot78 by current estimate)

And that was taken into account. Sailing eot78 and I am confident our micro managers can easily have a galley in Horse Feathers on T81.

... or a fairly lengthy walk through the wilderness. That spot is eight tiles away from Gourmet Menu by land through the southern route. That's a long way away.

Yes its 8 land tiles from Gourmet Menu. We have revealed all the tiles by now and they allow double movement of the settler if the bodyguard situation allows for it. I think it was shown that the actual travel time is therefore a lot shorter. Which is pretty irrelevant for the current plan anyway as it relies on a galley for the movement instead.

Planting a city a long distance outside your borders is an invitation to have it taken away.

That city is a mere 7 tiles away from AO as the crow flies (and the crow can take the galley as well). The same distance as the gems and even closer than the wet corn and the oasis in the south east. With a second galley there eventually we should be pretty flexible in terms of movement.

* Wines are a resource we won't be able to use for quite a long time. We specifically chose to go down the Calendar path to make use of the bananas, spices, silks, and Mausoleum. Wines are useless to us until we research Monarchy tech, and that will be at least 15 turns away. (Longer if we go Currency before Monarchy, which we might.)

True. 15 turns = T86. The current proposal has us settle on T83. Wine will not be hooked up before T86 anyway.

I would rather see us keep expanding at present and then go for Hanging Gardens if it's still sitting there in 20 turns.

Proposal says city settlement on T83. Stones will only be available after Masonry, which we have not lined up yet.

* We certainly don't need wheat for health any time soon, as an Expansive civ with corn + rice + cheap granaries everywhere.

We do not settle any city spots for health resources, do we? We are interested in the Stone City primarily for the horses and the stone and the wine as well. The wheat there just allows us to plant a city with decent food.

So again, what's the rush? ... We should indeed settle this spot, but we shouldn't be rushing to do so. We've still seen no one over there to the west. We can probably settle that location more naturally in 15 turns, rather than bending over backwards to settle it in 8 turns.

The proposal has the city settled on T83. That is in 12 turns. The proposal does not say it should be settled in 8 turns.
This is the point where I believe you just skimmed the proposal or misread it maybe.

Here is my suggestion for expansion in the next dozen or so turns. ... We can send the Adventure One settler off to the southwest, and the Focal Point settler to the desert hill spot in the east.

I don't agree with calling a discussion of settling the stone spot "getting out of hand", while planning for a south western city which still needs to be revealed is fine.

Then we can follow that up with another double expansion about ten turns later (~T90), which will claim the stone and probably the corn in the southeast along the CivFanatics border.

My personal opinion is, that this is too late for the stone city.

I see the path to success in these games as being one of calm, staggered, continous expansion. Each city is close to an existing city, each one pushes out our borders a little bit more. Each one adds to an already-present network of tile improvements, rather than seeking to make a bold claim in the wilderness. Settlers should rarely spend much time in transit.

And I think Stone City fits all this. If it pushes the borders further out than a city 2 tiles closer to our lands, then this is offset by securing three vital resources.

So far, I have yet to see anyone respond to the points that I made.

I was holding back on the responds, because I was under the impression you missed the fact that the proposal calls for a T83 settlement.

I also think it's a bit much to refer to this post as a plan. I see a screenshot and some general instructions on where to go. The instructions just state: "Now we just need to fit the micro plan to supply a settler in Focal Point on T80, a galley in Horse feather on T81." I'm not sure I would call that a plan per se.

I think this already came up a while ago. If only ideas are worth considering that get backed up immediately by a rock solid micro plan, this will kill a lot of interest and discussion. The Stone Spot looks juicy, as I think most of the team agrees, so ideas of when and how to settle it are tossed around. I believe that the posted screenshot along with the suggestions on unit movements help people understand what is being discussed. It is based on the information of the current micro plan that has us with Sailing eot78 and a settler in FP on T80.
We might just have different definitions of what a plan constitutes.

The screenshot isn't even correct:

Yes, it is. I tested the movements in the sandbox. The screenshot is indeed wrong as the settler cannot reach AO in one turn. However, this is irrelevant for the greater picture as the settler can definitely reach Horse Feathers in two turns. Sorry for the confusion.

I also think it's a bit silly to predict out the exact moves of an axeman through the fog over the next 10 turns. We could get injured by barbs, see something interesting to check out, or whatever. We just don't know.

Correct. And a team member has proposed to build in a margin for this.
Plotting out a unit movement over 10 turns is as silly as coming up with a detailed optimised micro plan for 10 turns.

That's my whole point. We know nothing about the conditions in this area around the stone. It's a bit of a wild gambit to go running off there for our next city.

It is not proposed to be our next city, but the one after that.

It makes far more sense to plant another city down in the southwest first, one that's only 3-4 tiles away from Gourmet Menu, and use the intervening time to defog the area around the stone. Then we can make a much more informed decision about how to proceed.

I share your hopes that we find a good city spot there in the south west. Given the current state of the defogging, I just feel it is entirely sensible to discuss settling the stone city as well as discussing a south western spot which we, so far, only know has three river tiles.

Let's at least see what our axe finds over the next couple of turns before making any rash decisions, ok?

Ok. To repeat, the proposal was discussed in it current form this turn as it may influence the axeman's movement the next turn.

Thanks.

mh

[Sullla]

We'll have to agree to disagree for the moment. Let's see what the next few turns bring.

[novice]

It seems the key question for this turn is how to move the scouting axe. SW seems best if we're going for an early stone site, and I think that is OK either way, since it also lets us defog the area around the plains hill being discussed sooner.

[NobleHelium]

SW looks like a move that would benefit any plan, so we should move there yes.