Earliest landing with basic settings.

arii · September 22, 1999, 13:23

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 · September 22, 1999, 23:33

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.

Paul · September 23, 1999, 07:07

I never really payed much ateention to landing dates before I started playing OCC, so I don't really know my best landing so far. You should consider the fact that science goes slower on larger maps.

Matthew · September 23, 1999, 18:58

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.

Adam Smith · September 24, 1999, 13:28

Arii:
Use caravans/freights to make up the difference between what your science city produces each turn and what you need for a given discovery. Once you get freight units (move twice as far + increase trade bonus) and a decent road/rail system you should be able to run off one discovery per turn until you are ready to launch. The key to doing this is not the PROFITABILITY of each caravan/freight, since some of the science bonus from a high-profit freight unit will be wasted. The most important thing is that you can CONSISTENTLY land one unit per turn for the rest of the game, otherwise the turn is wasted. Sometimes you will need to stack a few freight units near destination cities until the turn you need them.

Matthew · September 24, 1999, 22:05

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 · September 24, 1999, 22:06

oops
[This message has been edited by Matthew (edited September 24, 1999).]

arii · September 25, 1999, 00:54

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.

Mark_Everson · September 27, 1999, 21:56

The idea about having a group of big cities in addition to the SSC may be a way to do better... There's just not that much time till 1750 in a deity game (200 turns I think).

I got there in the 1770s, but on a small map. It was a Lot harder than I thought it'd be. I used an SSC which got to about 35 pop, and about 30 size-8s. I think you could maybe get back to around 1750 if you were willing to be Really careful about it. A fair amount of luck is needed too IMO, especially in getting good land with rivers etc. The two most important things I found were to have all the smaller cities have caravans to the SSC (which more than doubles their trade with all 3 caravans) and to establish good defensible boundaries with the other civs early. If someone can do it before 1700, I want to a) shake their hand; and b) hear how!

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do ;-) )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

arii · October 7, 1999, 13:09

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.

DaveV · October 13, 1999, 07:40

Here's how not to do it:

I've just abandoned a game I've been playing for a month, after discovering Automobile in 1600 and realizing I still had a long way to go.

I built MPE early and monitored the AIs closely. If they were researching a tech I already had, I gave them the tech. Otherwise, I asked for tribute or traded maps with them. I stayed in Communism, with WLTCD for extra trade, for most of the game so I could demand tribute. I collected thousands in tribute and picked up lots of techs from the AI. I think I lost out by not maxing out my population with WLTPD under Rep/Dem.

arii · October 13, 1999, 22:21

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

Mark_Everson · October 14, 1999, 22:18

arii:

It took me Lots of tries. Maybe 30 games I just pitched because the terrain was lousy. Then I played at least 4 or so to the point where it was clear I wouldn't do it by 1800.
And to be perfectly honest, I Actually landed in 1783 because I Forgot Fusion was neccessary for a Fast ship until after Launch

. (In my defence I don't generally have the patience for a spaceship win, so this was like the 2nd ship I ever built.) So I said late 1770s, 'cause that's what I think I could've gotten if I hadn't choked at the end. IIRC I lost about 6 years of transit time due to no Fusion. So if I had caught it earlier it would've been 1777 or so. I can't remember if I overshot the absolutely required techs or not. So it could've been as late as 1779. I was so sick of the concept that I didn't want to redo it to see what the real date was...

So don't feel too bad

BTW I think I may have figured out a trick that might enable launching somewhat earlier, say around 1750. It has to do with the variable tech rate that exists on deity. If you are a bit ahead in tech you get socked with a +1 to the 'tech paradigm' if the book can be trusted. That's something like a 7-10% hit on your research effectiveness. So after the AIs quit trading, which is very early for my style of play, give all your tech away to everyone asap. Obviously if you're gonna build a wonder you need to keep That tech secret until you're done.

The thought is that this will take that looong stretch when you're getting a tech every 5-10 turns or so and juice it up a bit. If anyone tries this, let me know if it works.

Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited October 14, 1999).]

arii · October 16, 1999, 00:31

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.

DaveV · October 16, 1999, 07:37

Mark E,

Giving away techs not only has the benefit of preventing a penalty on your research efforts, but you can pick up techs from the AIs when they discover them. This lets you take advantage of the AIs' research bonus.
[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited October 16, 1999).]

Mark_Everson · October 16, 1999, 09:22

DaveV:

I generally can't pick up techs from the AIs. They usually won't trade with me because my civ is too big. And because I'm always in a representative government if I steal tech there's a good chance my government will collapse. Only if I have just given them about 3 techs will they like me enough to trade.

arii · October 21, 1999, 22:34

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 · October 30, 1999, 23:06

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 · October 31, 1999, 17:53

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)

Mark_Everson · November 1, 1999, 01:47

arii:

Congratulations!

How many cities total did you have?

jpk · November 2, 1999, 14:10

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.

Aaron Burr · November 3, 1999, 01:21

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).]

Matthew · November 3, 1999, 02:08

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.

Sten Sture · November 3, 1999, 12:30

I would think it would be great to have 25 cities to build your spaceship in one turn. That would take a ton of cash or a lot of caravans. Perhaps 3 major cities for Modules, 6 minor cities for components and then late in the game found 16 small towns whose only purpose is to build a structural?

Of course the logistics are daunting, any way you try it...

arii · November 4, 1999, 11:19

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.

DaveV · November 13, 1999, 03:29

I *finally* finished my ICS+OCC attempt at the early landing. After three weeks real time, I finally landed in (trumpet fanfare) AD 1595. I grew my capital to size 36 with food caravans, and stayed in Communism the whole game. I'll mail the log file and save games to anyone who's interested. Right now, I need to go to bed!