 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
The strategy for the earliest landing with 1 city is now well established.
What kind of landing dates have you guys achieved using standard settings (medium map, deity, 7 civ, raging hordes)and what strategy did you use?
Militaristic? conquer early and then crank out the beackers
Expantionist? keep on building small cities
pacifist? stay at peace with the AI while expanding and setting up trade routes.
A big difference compared to OCC is it looks like if you expand too quickly the AI hates you and you don't get tribute and can't exchange knowledge.
I think the super science city is a must.
What do you guys think. What landing have you achieve?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
My fastest finish so far is 1780, but I am almost embarassed to post it given Paul's OCC landing dates.
Map settings: Large map, Deity, seven civs, raging hordes.
Cities: One super science city (size 30), seven smaller (size eight) supporting cities.
Strategy: peace treaties with all civs that will accept, repeated trade routes with high income AI cities, freely trade technologies (within reason). Building a railroad into a size 20 Babylonian city really helped in this game.
NO TRIBUTE, NO ALLIANCES.
I suspect that tribute, alliances, and a medium map (easier trade) could push the landing date down into the 1730's.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
Also consider the fact that with multiple cities in democracy it might be more difficult to keep them out of disorder with luxuries at zero, which is about where you usually want them in an OCC game, with science nearly maxed out a lot of the time. It would take a lot of additional cities to make up for the science loss from the Super Science City from lowering science rates.
I'm sure one could get an earlier launch date with more cities, especially due to the ability to build more than one ss part a turn, but I don't know that one could make all the necessary discoveries that much earlier.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
It's not easy!!!
I gave it a try. My strategy was to build 1 major science city, 3-4 smaller science cities (with library, univ, trade routes) and a host of smaller cities to support the science cities. It's not producing enough science!
I could only get 1 tech every 2 turns only after 1700. My mystake was probably to go with too many cities and not focussing enough on the science ones.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I think that a severe danger is becoming too powerful. If you do, I understood from another thread that you take a severe hit in science, not to mention having a smaller choice in research on some turns. The research selection variety seems to be determined by the power graph more than by how much of a tech lead you have.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
oops
[This message has been edited by Matthew (edited September 24, 1999).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I landed yesterday in 1809 using a small map and basic settings. I still have a long way to go.
I agree that the game goes very fast and there is not much time develop much.
I had a SSC of size 21 and 2 other SC. I did not want to spend the trade ressorces to expend the cities more.
My biggest problem was to get enough science going. Building the space ship is not a problem, getting to fusion power as quickly as possible is very hard. I could only get it in 1794 even though I was getting 1 tech every 2 turns for most of the game. You don't have a big advantage vs OCC by being able to build the space ship in less turns because it takes at least 10-20 turns to go from space flight to fusion power.
I've got to try harder, I know I can do much better than that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
Good to see different strategies daveV. I go for rep as some as practical and demo as soon as pos.
I landed in 1789 in my last attempt on a small map.
1770 is a very good score. There is so few turns. So far I haven't been able to produce enough trade for a new tech less than every 2 turns. I can get to 1 every too turns eraly but then I can't get to 1 every turn.
Good luck to anybody that is tryimg that.
Ariitea
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
You are probably right. I have also notice that in games where I was giving techs to the AI in OCC I was actually doing better.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I just finished a new game. Landing=1783.
I only did 3 turns better than before.
I used 1 big science city + 4 sub science cities (size11-12 with lib ma.pl. bank univ. fact. and highw.)
The other 8 cities were just support cities with no improvements and cranking out caravans.
With the caravan science bonus + beaker generated I was able to get 1 tech a turn for the last ~10 turns.
No matter how many techs I was giving the AI it would still not trade techs with me.
Good luck to anybody who try this. It goes very fast. Watch out!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I yet finished another game with the basic settings deity small map 7 civ rag hordes.
This time I landed on AC in 1771 using a slightly different strategy.
During the first part of the game I focussed very hard on the main science city. I developped the secondary science cities later in the game(4 cities). I also skiped wonders that I use to build : pyramids, JSB cath. This allowed me to save ressources and build the other wonders faster.
The location of the science city was excellent : 2 gems 1 fruit and 1 iron on a river. There is still a lot of improvement : There was only 4 other civ, one being destroyed very early by barbs. So I could not get as much tribute. Also no civ was on a separate continent which I consider as a desadvantage. Caravan travelling through land is hasardous (sneak attack, barbs), takes longer and rewards less compared to routes with other continents.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
14 cities:
1 main science city (size 26 at the end)
4 secondary science cities (size 11 12 10 11)
9 support cities (size 3-7)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aaron Burr
|
|
Albuquerque NM USA
May 1999 time: 22:12
|
|
I find it very thought-provoking that the earliest AC landing year for OCC and multi-city is about the same (currently 1771 for both, apparently).
Anyone care to speculate on why this is so? My guess is:
1. Harder to get gifts from AI when you have more cities. (AI more likely to give/trade tech when it thinks you are weak).
2. Harder to stay at peace when AI sees you as strong.
3. As Paul has shown, you can take a more streamlined approach with only 1 city - no need for happiness wonders/improvements with ST in your 1 city; no need for Hoover, etc.
As a challenge, can anyone land on AC substantially faster with multiple cities than with OCC?
[This message has been edited by Aaron Burr (edited November 02, 1999).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jpk
|
|
Minneapolis
Feb 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
The race to space is mainly determined by the rate at which someone can pick up science advances. If you build a super science city, most of your non-trade related beakers will come from that one city. Once you have 20 or so advances the science you get from a newly founded city is likely to remain negligible for the much of the remainder of the game. I've played with 30 cities and half of my science came from my science city.
One issue is mainly is whether the greater opportunity for trade caravans is outweighed by the need for happiness items. Another issue is the size of the map and the geography. Early landing dates are easier with a small map but the drawback is that there is usually only one continent. That means the payback from caravans is much less. If someone had a small map with multiple continents it might be ideal for an extremely early landing.
Perhaps someday Paul will decide to play a game with three cities and land in, oh, say 1500.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
with one city and shakespears one can put science up to 100% , taking ultimate advantage of the super science city. Gold from gifts, the occasional barb leader, trade routes, and when you drop science a bit to avoid beaker waste should be enough to pay city maintenance. With 5 or 6 cities in democracy you will need to increase taxes to maintain city improvements you might build, and luxuries for happiness.
Perhaps the ideal isn't to have just a few cities along with your super science cities, but rather a super science city + ICS approach, where all of your other cities are small enough to be kept happy with Mike's and JSB, and therefore need neither luxuries nor city improvements. But the higher you are on the power graph the more you will be penalized in beaker costs for advances, and it would likely take a lot of size 4 or 5 cities with no improvements to make up for the difference.
Also, I imagine that OCC playere tend to be more particular with their starting location, and have a lot more resaves.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
arii
|
|
St-Louis MO USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
I don't think it's a good idea to have more than 15 cities. You run into happinness problem and can't grow your cities using WLTPD. Also spending you ressources building more settlers will delay you in you wonder and science pathway since you are not building as many caravans.
The difference with OCC is that you have to spend some of your ressource on the other city. The other city don't contribute much to the science you produce until they are at least size 8 with lib. univ. and trade routes. i.e not until 1000-1300 AC. The scores between the 2 are very close because before 1750 1 turn = 10 years. 1 tech = 20 years.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|