 |
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
I don't understand why we want to check something that is fairly obvious. If there is a goody hut there (in the desert) we wouldn't want to open it right now anyways. We are only planning 3 warriors before our first Settler, and barbs from a hut that close could seriously hinder our exploration in every direction. It's also a relatively 'safe' location in regards to other civs getting it first if we were to leave it for the time being.
A move W with our first Warrior (we should name the Warriors for easier reference) would make for uncovering more useful tiles. That would be a Plains our city radius expansion won't get, plus a chance at uncovering further coastline NW and N (relative to the tile we end up on). We can almost be certain of the coastline E which is all what a move N would uncover.
Moving W with our second Warrior is a mistake. S has more potential, especially considering how N is petering out and our Warrior up there is likely to end up heading S along the western coast in a short while. I agree with Trip's odds (2:1) that N is a penninsula vs an isthmus.
Last edited by Aeson on 01-03-2003 at 17:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alva
If we go according to plan, the 2 warriors will end meeting each other. |
Let's avoid this happening. Having both warriors going to the same squares at this point in exploration results in wasted moves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
Because it isn't necessary to fully map out our surroundings at the start. The goal of scouting (once a suitable site is found for our pending Settler, which it has been) is to get information as far away from us and as near to our neighbors as possible. This allows us to get 'neutral' huts (and possibly even 'theirs' if they circle around themselves), start trading earlier, and set borders more in our favor.
As you say, there is plenty of time to scout out the second city site. We lose a turn S by moving W obviously. We lose another turn if we then turn S, as we no longer have the benefit of the road to speed us along. What we gain by moving W one turn with Warrior 2 is knowlege of 1 tile (WW, the others will be uncovered by border expansion the next turn anyways). That tile is very likely a Plains Forest or a Plains. Warrior 3 can get a look at this with no danger assuming someone hasn't already come up to our borders, and still cover Apolyton.
Potentially those 2 lost turns S can be a huge difference. IF we have a neighbor S, that's 2 turns lost in possibly duplicating research with them, and a border 2 tiles closer to us than it needs to be. We can fill in the gaps later with no cost to our expansion or exploration, but we can never get back those turns we waste hanging around our homeland. If there is no neighbor, it's a crapshoot, we may find out we're all alone faster by going S or W, there isn't really anyway to tell or even guess at this point.
-----------------------
By 'obvious' I just mean that the probability is very high that it is a desert coastline conforming to the line generally followed by the E coast we already see. Anything is possible, it's probability that we have to take into account when weighing between different courses of action. Given our position on the very east edge of the minimap and the coastline and terrain we already see, the chance that there is any important land to the E of Warrior 1 is extremely slim. We will still map it out in due course, but probability is that we'd be delaying other more important information for a turn by doing so now.
Moving W with Warrior 1 gives us information about a tile (the other one being a uncovered by border expansion) that is of importance for City 2 or City 3 placement. Both ways possibly uncover Mountains NW on which the presence or absense of coast borders would be rather important. W will give information about possible Mountains N as well. Coast here would be very important information as it basically gives a 'dead end' to the N and Warrior 1 can then swing S along the W coast. Depending on terrain, other Mountains could very well block out this view though.
IMO the possible information W with Warrior 1 is more valuable than the possible information N with Warrior 1.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
IMO the possible information W with Warrior 1 is more valuable than the possible information N with Warrior 1. |
I disagree. We may find it advisable to settle up North (sooner than later)if we explore the area. There may be a bonus tile heaven up there, we don't know? We are only a couple of moves from finding out; I think it would be a waste to send him away from this scouting possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
NYE's claim that there is a green tile (Mountain, Hill) W of the Mountain with an X on it looks correct. I just checked the screenshot against the possibilities in the editor, and there shouldn't be any green pixels in the W tile if it's the end of land in that direction. It should all be light tan if it's coast there. It's definitely green. Probably not a whole lot of value in that tile, but the chances for a landbridge in that direction are much higher than one occuring E. |
There's no way that that is not water; I'm 99.44% sure that it is water. Maybe you need to look at the save file, I can see some yellowish pixels also on the screen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
A look at the save file (or a clean screenshot of the area) would help. The screenshots seem to be slightly altered from how things show up in 1024x768 ingame.
There are 3 variations on a west coast (coast NW, W, SW, land N, S) mountain, and 1 of them is pretty close to the screenshot. There are 6 variations on a west landbridge (coast NW, SW, land N, W, S) mountain, and 1 of them is as close to the screenshot as well.
The actual pattern of pixels should tell the difference, but with the current screenshots they don't match anything perfectly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
vondrack, nye, or Ninot, there is no need to assign the Governor to emphasize anything. All my tests were done with the Governors off. Until someone figures out exactly what they do and when, I suggest leaving them off when we play our turns too. Not doing so could mess up one of our builds. I'm quite certain there will not be a problem in turn 10-11 (it should select the two best tiles no matter what). I'm just saying this for future reference.
Come to think of it, does anyone know exactly what decisions the Governors will take (especially assignment of Laborers) in general circumstances. I've noticed that "emphasize production" does not always works as expected...
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
nye, sometimes I've seen the Governor remove a Laborer from a unimproved but Bonus Grassland to put it on a Forest tile, when there were 2 Food left to go before growth. That's really annoying. I've yet to discover the reasons behind this.
E_T's, or anyone else's help, would be appreciated in this. Then again, it's a lot of work for essentially nothing, so the most I expect is for someone to give a answer if they know one offhand.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
panag, I've noticed this ever since I've had PTW, and probably before a bit too. Does 1.21 "solve" this?
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2003 06:20
|