 |
| |
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
vondrack and other Consuls, I'm hoping you're aware that switching to a fourth Warrior costs half a pop point. |
Yes, we are aware. But having two cities (or one city and a settler), but only three warriors would leave us with just one warrior available for exploration (or one of the valuable assets - city/settler - underprotected). That is not acceptable. A free settler is like getting two pop points for free. Sacrificing half a pop point to play it safe then seems quite justified and affordable.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm looking at this from a pure economic power perspective. |
That's your job and you are doing it very well. 
But the Consuls should be able to see the grand scheme of things, not just one particular interest we may have.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Another thing: are we actually planning on research Ceremonial Burial until we pop all three visible Huts? That would be a big waste, IMO; consider that, in trying to avoid getting Ceremonial Burial from a Hut, we're going to research it ourselves! The argument that we get more out Hut if it ends up being a tech is the same one we heard previously, and is still problematic: the are no guarantees we get a tech from any Hut, so we might end up researching Ceremonial Burial for nothing.
Either we do the "redirection trick" for the first Hut only, or we put off research until all three Huts have been popped. I prefer the first of these options. |
There is one more option that is the most likely: leave it on for just this one full turn - probably at 0% - pop the two huts (N & S) with the chances to get BW maximized. I personally lean toward this solution. It is a little bit of gambling, but the most we can lose is 1 turn of research time (the 5 gold would be saved in our treasury). The most we could get is BW for free (maybe even more). I'd go for this risk... our Lego experience tells us that goody huts may be a lifesaver. 
If we get BW from the first hut, awesome. We would get 72 beakers (10-15 turns of research time) for free. Risking up to 5 beakers (1 turn of research time) to gamble for another costly tech seems acceptable, IMHO...
Let me add one small note... I understand that many of you are trying to not rely on luck. That's fine and there is certainly no point in risking a loss of an unprotected city just to pop one more hut. But when the stake is 5 gold (and not even that, as we can save those 5 gold in our treasury) and the wheel of fortune may give us like 72+ beakers for free, then I say, let's make it possible for the luck to come to us. If you want to have good luck, you need to help it a bit.
I agree that it is unlikely we'd research Ceremonial Burial to the end. And I also agree that holding our research for more than one turn (to pop even the third hut with maxxed chances to get a costly tech) would be too much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
vondrack, I agree with all your points in the post above. Which is why I've come up with a new queue in the eventuality that we get a Settler from one of the Huts (the first and second one actually, not the third). It produces a W4 before the Granary, puts us back two turns for the Settler but sacrifices no population. But until we do get that Settler from the Hut, I think we should stay with the original plan.
Also, just checking, but are you and the other Consuls playing with the Lux/Science slider the turn before discovering techs? In my scenario we get an extra Gold on the turn we get Pottery.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
vondrack, I read the turn summaries, but sometimes I forget what I've read...
Parking research Ceremonial Burial is the best option, I think.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
Turn 15 (3300BC)
1. Warrior #1:
1a. if at full health, attack the nearest barbarian (S, SE, or SW, preferrably S)
1b. if at less than perfect health, fortify
2. Warrior #2 to move South-East (3), popping the hut.
1a. if BW not popped, set research to BW at 100%; otherwise set research to Writing at 100%
I am proposing Writing, but am aware of that there was no poll held. I know that The Wheel was also suggested... comment as much as possible - this part of the plan may very well change if enough people request it).
1b. if Settler popped, keep him with Warrior #2
1c. if a friendly Warrior popped, move him E
3. Change the Apolyton build to Granary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
I notice that we have fallen to last place in productivity.  |
Maybe we could just be tied for last place?
It looks as if up to 5 of the other teams has another city(or two) already; either through huts or early gambles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
No. If we were tied, then there would be multiple teams at that position (say, 5 above us, then the last 2 would be tied at number 6). This means we are definitely last in productivity. This is because we chopped the game tile (2 shields lost), and we only have one city size 2 (very low commerce as well). |
Yes, but there are 8 teams. We are 7th in productivity which could mean that we are not in last or are tied for last.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree, we need to show respect for their borders. Earlier I would have said to go ahead on move there, but since they have a warrior(Alfred) to greet us there is no reason to move closer so as to make contact; we already have contact now. The pretense of moving into their territory for the purpose of contact no longer exists.
Damn those Barbs; I'll bet the only reason that the warrior came a out there was to investigate the Barb that poped up on the hillthat notyoueither mentioned. If he hadn't come out there, we could have 'stolen' a peak at their Capitol.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2003 22:58
, can you explain as to why you are against it , ......
|