 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
The game is quite interesting now, and so I will post more saves.
I am also going to fill my missing logs (now 59AD)
64 AD
Bob and his two friends are lost near Hlobane.
A delegate of the travel agency is coming to Hlobane to find them.
Attachment: sl_a64.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
.
Attachment: sl_a63.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
catap 13,25 attacks a warrior in Hlobane and wins
Archer 14,18 attacks a warrior in Intombe and wins
Chariot in Kralupy attacks a warrior at 10,24 and wins (2 unis destroyed)
Chariot in Kralupy attacks a phalanx at 12,22 and wins (3 unis destroyed)
dip steals Curency from Intombe
Attachment: sl_a66.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
Catapult 16,30 destroys Zungu
Attachment: sl_a67.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
I added pics and a log of 60 AD and 61 AD in my thread.
I would like to complete the log since the game is interesting for spectators now, and therefore I would prefer to start the 48h limit later.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
problem with e-mail, so I post here:
82 AD
Catapult 8,38 kills a Phalanx in Tugela
I will be able to play this weekend at about 2 turns per days, next week as usual, so I am not sure if I will be able to keep the 48h.
What I hate is that I have no time to post reports in my thread, but with reports I would play even slower...
Attachment: sl_a82.hot
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
no action
Attachment: sl_a83.hot
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
no action
Attachment: sl_a84.hot
This has been downloaded 3 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
It looks the e-mail is slow again, so I am posting also here.
No action
Attachment: sl_a85.hot
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
For the record: older saves:
Attachment: sl_a70.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
.
Attachment: sl_a73.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
.
Attachment: sl_a76.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
Last edited by SlowThinker on 19-08-2005 at 03:56
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
.
Attachment: sl_a79.hot
This has been downloaded 0 time(s).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Peaster
|
 |
Florida
Jul 2003 time: 00:19
|
|
Thank you for the game, ST But it cannot tell us who is the better player, because I had so much luck with huts and battles.
I will bring my log up to date, and start looking at your saves + logs. I wonder if we could do some analysis in an organized way...? Maybe we could start with general observations and then discuss the 1AD to 10AD period in more detail, etc.
Aside from hut luck, I thought the major factor in the game was HG, which allowed the Zulus to grow much bigger than the Americans could. This put pressure on you to attack, but I think the defender has an advantage in MP.... the attacker is likely to lose more units, and the defender can always build more cities. I am not really sure about this, but it seemed true in this game.
I thought you played better than me in several ways. Building cities on hills for defense and on mts for strategic reasons. Choosing maps + math for boats + catapults, because our map was too rocky for "normal" units like elephants. Grabbing control of the inland seas. Etc
Of course, anyone interested in the game is welcome to join the discussion now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Peaster
|
 |
Florida
Jul 2003 time: 00:19
|
|
POST-MORTEM, from 1AD to 10AD:
IMO the starting positions are pretty equal. I slightly prefer the American sites, but the Zulus get to go first. Later, I noticed a few huts were exactly 8 squares from my starting sites (thus not useable), so I assume ST had slightly better access to huts. But I have not yet gone into cheat mode to actually check this out.
Among the four starting sites, I prefer 1) Hradec, 2) Zimbabwe, 3) Ulundi and then 4) Cheb [...for long-term chances. Zimbabwe is not so great in the short term]. The Americans have 2 whales to 1, and Hradec is a bit less exposed to invasion by sea than Zimbabwe. The Zulus probably have a few more forests within easy reach, which may start to pay off around 15-20AD.
Disbanding my warrior worked out well; I had a small advantage after 6AD, when we both had 3 cities. I had 5 extra shields (counting ST's extra warrior as 10 shields), and 7 extra foods. ST had 7 more gold, and about 2 more beakers. According to my Civ2 value system, I am about 18 gold ahead at this point. I am probably a little behind in exploration, which is not included in my system.
By 10AD, the Americans have passed me in the major stats. I think this is mainly because of their better specials and because my forests aren't being used yet (at size one, I prefer grassland). But I will be first to make a 4th city, so it is not clear who is ahead.
BTW - I think the first 10 moves are usually the most important ones. I am much more willing to micro-manage during this phase, trying for a 5 or 10 per cent edge in growth/etc.
ST - Please post a reply (even a blank one, if you don't have much time).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: ST - Please post a reply (even a blank one, if you don't have much time). |
What is your idea? That we will edit and re-edit our two posts and so concentrace our debate about the start here?
quote: IMO the starting positions are pretty equal. I slightly prefer the American sites |
Huh! I must found a reason why I lost...
Of course Hradec itself (whales) is better than Zimbabwe (Silk), +1 food is great, but the surrounding area is better around Zimbabwe. Hradec area lacks forests and so peroduction of Settlers is slow. There are some forests SW but especially for the 2nd city I have no chance to discover them because they are not visible from the river system. I found the 2nd city on Wheat which is not bad, but Monarchy was easily accessible and with Monarchy Wheat and its food lost its value. (The main value of food is not city growth but that it allows to build Settler after getting to size 2).
But to compare if the whales of Hradec surpass the forests and rivers around Zimbabwe needs a detailed analysis.
I think Ulundi is better than Cheb because it can expand. I got my weaker position near you stronger one and this causes I will be hardly able to expand from Cheb. (Therefore I decided to build on hills). The Cheb area will be good only to harrass the Zimbabwe area.
After the beginning I estimated the disbanding of the warrior gave you almost no advantage. I would weigh it a bit better if I knew that Monarchy (and so easier unit support) was so close.
But I will try to do more precise computations now (not exactly now).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Peaster
|
 |
Florida
Jul 2003 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowThinker
What is your idea? That we will edit and re-edit our two posts and so concentrace our debate about the start here?
|
Yes. If I go on to discuss 10AD to 20AD, you can still come back and edit your previous post, to say more about 1AD to 10AD. So, the whole discussion will be in some kind of order.
quote:
Huh! I must found a reason why I lost...
|
What do you think of my reasons (less luck + HG) ?
I agree with most of your comments about the sites, but I guess any difference in values of the starting positions was small, less than one hut.
quote:
a) The main value of food is not city growth but that it allows to build Settler after getting to size 2.
b) After the beginning I estimated the disbanding of the warrior gave you almost no advantage.
c) But I will try to do more precise computations now (not exactly now). |
a) Yes, in the beginning, when you mainly want more cities. But later on, size 2 cities get an extra worker, which can often double shield production (eg replace 1 grass by 2 forests). So, I often break the rules of ICS and leave a productive city at size 2 for a long time... if I have enough other cities to use for growth.
But my remarks do not appy well to Kladno in 10AD, which has no good source of shields IIRC. Actually, our whole map seems pretty low on forests... maybe something to do with the climate or age.
b) I had just finished studying a similar situation with Grigor and RJM in the Theory Contest thread, and was pretty sure that disbanding was the right decision. Maybe it was not a major factor in our game, but a 5 per cent edge in 6AD should lead to a 5 per cent edge in 60AD, etc ... maybe an extra city.
c) I am eager to see how your calculations go. IMO such work is worth the effort.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: If I go on to discuss 10AD to 20AD, you can still come back and edit your previous post, to say more about 1AD to 10AD. So, the whole discussion will be in some kind of order. |
I am not sure ... also we won't see that a post were edited ...
Maybe you could be patient and wait until we finish one part?
I want to notice that for you the disbanding was natural because your warrior managed to find a good spot for next city.
I forgot the possibility to disband but still I would not decide to do it probably. Reason is I saw no good spot for my 2nd city and so I was tempted to explore in place of disbanding.
quote: What do you think of my reasons (less luck + HG) ? |
You managed to build the HG because you were ahead already.
I didn't study the hut outcomes but any nomad may be a good help...
quote: Yes, in the beginning, when you mainly want more cities. But later on, size 2 cities get an extra worker, which can often double shield production (eg replace 1 grass by 2 forests). So, I often break the rules of ICS and leave a productive city at size 2 for a long time... if I have enough other cities to use for growth. |
Do you want to say you prefer food over shields??
Maybe you wouldn't leave cities of size 2 if you had enough of forest and Peat around. I want to say city usually stays on size 2 because there is more food than shields and you have no shields to build settlers in time...
Replace 1 grass by 2 forests? But you should work the forest probably in size-1 city (unless the food box is close to be full).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Peaster
|
 |
Florida
Jul 2003 time: 00:19
|
|
ST "Why did I lose?"
P "What can we learn from this game?"
Luck makes these questions pretty hard to answer. I doubt you made any major mistakes in the first 50 turns that caused your defeat. I haven't analyzed very far yet, but MAYBE you should have
* built cities faster (fewer warriors?)
* invaded the Intombe area with the bribed Archer + your Dip ASAP to cause trouble.
* aimed for fewer but stronger attacks (more vets ? bigger stacks ?)
* stolen my tech
IMO the main points of the game are that I outgrew you (mainly from hut luck), that having HG is almost enough to win the game, and that most of your attacks failed - which was also partly bad luck. Maybe we can decide later how much so.
I don't have easy answers about food vs shields. In choosing city sites, I want both. I value shields a bit more, but want to add at least 2 food per turn while at size 1, to get to size 2 quickly. I see food as a good way to increase shield production. Compared to other players, I probably do not value arrows very highly (though I am happy to settle near gold).
I almost never have workers of a size 1 city placed on forests. IIRC I hardly even used my silk special until approx 10AD, preferring grass (with river + shield). So, in that particular situation, I chose 1 food over 1 shield + 1 arrow.
In DaveV's theory of ICS, the growing size 1 cities
produce military units (and the workers go for food), while the size 2's make settlers (workers go for shields). I follow that advice, but I also try to make settlers mostly from cities with high food production, and military units from cities with high shield production.
For example, Naples and Ippus are stable high - production size 2 cities in my 85AD save, NOT making settlers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:19
|
|
quote: invaded the Intombe area with the bribed Archer + your Dip ASAP to cause trouble. |
I agree.
Although I managed to bribe the archer, it weakened my economy - I needed 85g for the bribing + another shields + gold for the diplomat.
And yes, I should visit your cities with dip+archer likely. I was content that my weaker part was safe against your stronger one, but my cities were on hills. I was afraid I would lose both units easily in your strong area, but I could move on hills and mountains only.
quote: built cities faster (fewer warriors?) |
I will analyze that but I guess this was OK.
It would be effective only
-if you had some important tech (horseriding were important because I would get PT easily but you had other 5 techs, so my chance to get horses were small. I thought about a possibility to send 4-5 dips but I rejected it)
-if my tech cost would be over 100 beakers (the dip costs 75 gold and I have to move it towards your city)
quote: aimed for fewer but stronger attacks (more vets ? bigger stacks ?) |
I made a mistake in my first attack.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Peaster
|
 |
Florida
Jul 2003 time: 00:19
|
|
So, where were we....? I have had many PC problems lately, but can continue the analysis if anyone is still interested. Are you still looking at the first 10 years, ST?
IIRC I was looking at the 2nd decade, and decided that I popped 3 huts with average results, and that ST had not popped any yet (can that be right?). Also, (IIRC) the Zulus were starting to catch up in production, maybe because they had more decent terrain to work with (though fewer whales). It seemed fairly balanced though, at 20AD.
Maybe if you point out all the mistakes in my memory of the game, I will take another look, and try to write something a little smarter .
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|