 |
| |
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
Official Ministry of War Thread Located Here
This is the MoW discussions thread, where we can discuss all issues regarding the Ministry of War. 
In light of our start position and other issues, I've started this thread up, and the first issue of business is our start position.
As you can('t) see... here:
There is coast to the west of our city site, jungle to the south, and hills/desert covering our north. Not the best of all situations, no doubt. With the terrain being what it is (lots of hills and jungle), units like Horsemen shouldn't be our priority, and slower units like Swordsmen and NMs may benefit us more. That means our NMs will be even more powerful, mainly near home.
As I hinted to, later on MoW build priorities will probably be Swords and NMs, with horses being much lower priority.
The situation on scouting:
With there being the west coast of our 'continent' rather near to us, it's my opinion that we have the most to gain by sending our 1st Warrior north intead of west. Our 2nd Warrior will be around soon, so he will go west, then south when he hits the coast.
Comments, questions, suggestions?
Post here. 
Last edited by Trip on 03-03-2003 at 04:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
I've always thought making contacts and placing the neighbors is most important. The best places to look given what we know of the terrain right now are N and S. That anyone would be placed W of us in this situation is rather slim even if I'm wrong and there is land there.
The land W (however much of it there is) will still be there when Warrior 3 is ready, and will be scouted before we'll have a Settler ready in any case. 3 turns lost in scouting that area is less damaging than 3 turns lost in making contact. |
I tend to agree with this statement. Though if we move our unit 4,7 (or 7,7) we would then be on a hill and could see further North and West; then a decison could be made based upon the land uncovered by such a move.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
The timline says we build our first Settler at turn 28, which would be 2630BC. I'm not very experienced with barbs in PtW, but 1.29f always seems that they start showing up ~25-2300BC. We should be safe in that regard.
With only 3 Warriors, the 3rd one wouldn't go very far west (at most onto the Hill to show the one extra tile). Our next city site should be down on the river anyways though, so Warrior 4 can explore west before we'd be sending Settlers that way.
--------------------
As far as taking risks (anything out of the ordinary), I don't think it's necessary. I was going through random maps on these settings when the world size discussion was going on, rating starting locations between standard and large. On standard maps there were often starts I'd call D's or F's (every other map or so), while I'd give our current start a B, which will lag a bit behind a few of the leaders, but not so much that it would call for anything drastic. Jungle isn't that bad for Industrious civs. We have a river flowing through ours and Mercs to buy us time to clear it. We also have a decent chance of having unoccupied 'good' land N, and probably at least a small strip south of the Jungle.
If we play sound and wait for our window of opportunity it will present itself eventually. Diplomacy in Demogames is key.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquinius
|
|
I'd give our start more like a C, however the river to the south looks promising.
BigFurryMonster: I am from NL too, I think it is something like this:
A = 10 (Excellent)
B = 8 (good)
C = 6,5 (OK)
D = 5 (mediocre)
E = 3 (poor)
F = 1 (terrible)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
|
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aeson
The timline says we build our first Settler at turn 28, which would be 2630BC. I'm not very experienced with barbs in PtW, but 1.29f always seems that they start showing up ~25-2300BC. We should be safe in that regard.
With only 3 Warriors, the 3rd one wouldn't go very far west (at most onto the Hill to show the one extra tile). Our next city site should be down on the river anyways though, so Warrior 4 can explore west before we'd be sending Settlers that way. |
Barbs may not be a threat, but another human team is. We know nothing of what might pop out of the jungle. Until we do, we need to make sure that we're well-defended at all times.
quote:
As far as taking risks (anything out of the ordinary), I don't think it's necessary. I was going through random maps on these settings when the world size discussion was going on, rating starting locations between standard and large. On standard maps there were often starts I'd call D's or F's (every other map or so), while I'd give our current start a B, which will lag a bit behind a few of the leaders, but not so much that it would call for anything drastic. Jungle isn't that bad for Industrious civs. We have a river flowing through ours and Mercs to buy us time to clear it. We also have a decent chance of having unoccupied 'good' land N, and probably at least a small strip south of the Jungle.
If we play sound and wait for our window of opportunity it will present itself eventually. Diplomacy in Demogames is key. |
Off-topic a bit, but I would call it a C or a D site. The actual city site itself is average, but the surrounding land is horrible. Jungle, two coasts, and hills/desert to the north. Not a pretty picture.
Oh, also... MoW stickied thread updated with new orders... We move north.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
|
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
For those interested, it was just an arbitrary scale I used to rate starting locations across the maps I look at. Terrain, resources, landform, and relative location to other civs all play a part. Obviously we don't know where the others are, and can't see most of the resources yet. We can still make guesses at what those will be.
For this reference, I was just saying that our starting location is slightly above average (absolute). Can't say what the other locations will be like, they could all be A's, or we could have one of the best ones ourselves. Those are the extremes, but in any case we aren't in that bad a spot.
--------------------
I don't see the advantage in exploring west before south. It looks like plains along a coast, perhaps with a couple of grassland down by the jungle. The plains aren't bad as long as they have access to fresh water, but that doesn't seem to be likely given the river location to the south. There may be bonus tiles, but even a Cow/Wheat on Plains or a Game in Plains Forest without fresh water are both trumped by the site S.
From a defensive standpoint, the fastest way from a neighbor to us is the same as the fastest way from us to them, in cardinal directions (for the most part). Given the low probability of a starting location to our west (on the same landmass) that means we'd see them coming from N and S most likely. A real danger for us is that there are starting locations N and S of us, and each of those starts only have one general exploration direction S and N respectively. That could mean we have 2 or more Warriors coming straight at us from those directions, and the farther out we see them from our homeland, the longer we have to plan how to deal with them. The coasts we can see, number of civs, map settings, and our position near the equator, suggests this type of a setup.
Given neighbors on our landmass, the earliest contacts we are likely to make are going to be N and S, and where we meet them is also likely to define our initial borders with our neighbors. A 'we won't go further X if you don't go any more -X' type agreement. Having this type of contact to the W is very unlikely, and going W first would only cut into how far S we get before contact, possibly losing portions of our peaceful expansion to the S. Any huts along the way S are less 'safe' than those W as well.
On the other hand we have 2 shielded grassland (one on the river) and a river delta site to the S. The road to the city site will be complete before the Settler is. A Warrior passing by would uncover more territory in the area and help us better place the city. The 4th warrior (either before or after the 1st Settler) is going to have time to explore W before we send a Settler in that direction anyways. In all likelyhood, we just put off possible contact for a few turns in favor of looking for our 3rd city site which we have time to find later.
Last edited by Aeson on 01-03-2003 at 02:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquinius
|
|
I agree with Aeson here, we should go south. There probably is the best land to find good city sites.
Our first warrior should keep going north in attempt to find a civ there (if there is water in the north, then he can bend to the west)
Our second warrior should go south, and the third warrior stays in Apolyton.
(I thought I understood that we take no risk at all when we send our second warror out exploring. If we do take a risk then we can better leave our second warrior in the city and send the third warrior out)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquinius
(I thought I understood that we take no risk at all when we send our second warror out exploring. If we do take a risk then we can better leave our second warrior in the city and send the third warrior out) |
You are correct, it was discussed here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=78693
notyoueither confirmed that there was no danger in sending out our 2nd warrior since the 3rd would be completed in time before a unit could make it to the 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2003 04:56
|