[PB16 SPOILERS] SevenSpirits goes off the deep end and finds Krill

[Krill]

Your MM sucks is why, actually.

[Krill]

Don't road the wheat, there is no utility in that. Move the worker immediately to the ivory to camp that. Options are to either build a second worker at size 2, or grow to size 3 to finish the warrior. With 2 workers in place it is then much easier to cottage the flood plains and grow to size 4, or 6 to double/triple whip out a settler. It is possible to use a forest chop to speed up a double whipped settler, because of the two workers, whereas building a settler at size 3 means you just sit there and wait. The extra commerce from the quicker cottages also speeds up BW slightly.

[suttree]

Nice response Krill but not very helpful.
[EDIT crosspost] The road speeds the second city by a turn. The extra 2h hammers from the early ivory don't speed the second settler. The lost commerce is paid back by the trade route to the second city one turn earlier. Building the road later wastes a worker turn which is worth more than 2h/2c. Wouldn't you waste fh on building a second warrior if you grew any more?

[TheHumanHydra]

Don't be a dick, Krill. You should congratulate him for being engaged enough with your game to actually do micro for it, which I've hardly ever seen before.

Good job, suttree; even if your micro isn't optimal it shows you're putting serious thought into improving your Civ game. And you have a positive attitude.

[Old Harry]

Unfortunately I don't think this game is using the "don't be a dick" rule.

[darrelljs]

That's not Krill bring a dick. That's Krill being Krill. Try not to take it personally .

Darrell

[suttree]

haha! The point wasn't to have Krill critique my micro - digging through other people's bad reasoning isn't very much fun. I have the plans for a perpetual motion machine I'd like to show you!

I appreciate Krill/Seven taking the time to answer my question - the background micro gives me the context to understand where I went wrong and clarifies my questions. I'll follow along and check in at t41 and hopefully learn something. Which I guess is one purpose for these threads.

[Krill]

Nice response Krill but not very helpful.
[EDIT crosspost] The road speeds the second city by a turn. The extra 2h hammers from the early ivory don't speed the second settler. The lost commerce is paid back by the trade route to the second city one turn earlier. Building the road later wastes a worker turn which is worth more than 2h/2c. Wouldn't you waste fh on building a second warrior if you grew any more?

Ah, but you're expecting to settle to overlap that wheat, you've not accounted to settling in a different direction, so the road on the wheat is not likely to be useful for us in this situation. We don't intend to settle a city in that location because it isn't productive, nor does it claim any new resources (which give us an increased yield and hence improve productivity). That means that most of the reasoning you've posted doesn't hold. On top of that you settled in place (so get a slightly faster start) but we've already explained why we prefer settling 1W which invalidates the second city site.

To the south there is jungle, and a bunch of lake tiles. The lakes aren't going to be useful until we have Sailing for a lighthouse, so it's very unlikely that a city to the south can be that productive compared to a city to the north or west somewhere. A more likely city location is 2233 or 233 of the capital, so that once the lighthouse is built the lack of a food resource in this area isn't a drawback (there may still be one, but if there isn't it's not a huge problem).

What is more likely to happen is that we settle a city location something like 99x or 77x of the capital. What happens here is that we need to road the entire way to the city due to the lack of a river. Settling the second city to the south, to also overlap the wheat is still possible but such a city would not be coastal and this would lower the value of the lakes tiles. These problems devalue the usefulness of an early second city to the south.

Note, an early second city may still be a good choice, even optimal, but it would have to be settled for a new resource. We don't have to make a decision until T13, so we can make that decision with more map information.

tl;dr: comparing apples to oranges due to different dot maps.

[suttree]

tl;dr: comparing apples to oranges due to different dot maps.

Agreed.

My original question referred to the decision to move the cap given the hypothetical dotmap of SIP with the second city on the grasshill. No new resource in sight.

You explained that there wasn't enough food for two cities and the second city should (always?) claim a new resource. These are interesting rules of thumb. I replied that my error was in thinking there was enough food to justify sharing - and gave a reason why - and shared my doubt that the second city needs to claim a new resource so long as there is enough surplus food in the cap.

The hypothetical micro (SIP/GH 2nd City) gives a concrete measure that allows me (and hopefully other lurkers) to learn from your thread. For example, I think one weakness of the hypothetical start is a later third city. Also, it weakens the cap in the long term.

I'm not in any way making a suggestion as to how you should play going forward. I'm engaging with your thread by learning from decisions that have already been made.

[EDIT] Also worth noting - I'm spoiled, but I know absolutely nothing about your start. So don't read anything in between the lines.

[SevenSpirits]

Ah, but you're expecting to settle to overlap that wheat, you've not accounted to settling in a different direction, so the road on the wheat is not likely to be useful for us in this situation. We don't intend to settle a city in that location because it isn't productive, nor does it claim any new resources (which give us an increased yield and hence improve productivity). That means that most of the reasoning you've posted doesn't hold. On top of that you settled in place (so get a slightly faster start) but we've already explained why we prefer settling 1W which invalidates the second city site.

He posted that micro specifically for the situation where we settle the second city there. I think the idea was to compare that plan with a different plan which settles differently, not to critique its validity if we are settling elsewhere.