Development timelines?

[SuperSneak]

I was curious if someone knew where I can find a "standard" development timeline...I seem to do all right just guessing against the AI, but if I'm going to play MP, I don't want to be running around with horsemen while others have tanks! Someone showed me a development link, but I think it was for OCC games exclusively...Just want to get the basic progression down so my own style can be more effective. Thanks...

------------------
Bring it!

[Ming]

It's really difficult to have a timeline in a normal game, because there are too many variables. In OCC, it's more predictable

I have a few goals that I shoot for in MP games. (playing Deity, 2x pro, 1x mov)

Monarchy by 2900BC... If I have it before then, I'm ahead of the game.

4 Cities by 3000BC, assuming no cities or wandering tribes from huts.
8 Cities by 2000BC.

I'm sure the ICS'ers do better, but I like to defend my cities, since we usually play raging hordes

[SuperSneak]

MING...Thanks...that's the sort of thing I'm looking for. I get the feeling that the general trend is toward a more conservative initial buildup, until your civ has advanced a bit. Also, it seems like the AI (and human players) tend to gravitate toward clusters of cities as opposed to a far flung set. I tend to combine the two concepts...I can always start a new grouping of cities from one "outpost", and, early in the game, it increases the odds that a hostile AI will focus on that remote city and stay away from my main area.
I guess I'm looking for a way to distinguish what the "must have" wonders and techs are so I don't waste my time on lesser advances. I usually get lazy and get Library and Leo's.
I seem to be lacking in Wonder abilities, mainly because I don't know which are the most advantageous. Should I keep all of my cities close...? I like to have the "fall back" option of a remote city to rebuild from in case I take it on the chin elsewhere...

[DaveV]

Supersneak - what makes MP a great game is that you can't go in with a fixed plan. Unlike the AI, a human opponent will challenge you for the early wonders. Your strategy has to be flexible enough to prosper under any conditions.

How are you establishing your "far flung" cities? If you're marching a settler a long distance to plop down a city, you're probably wasting time that could be spent generating shields and arrows. On the other hand, it can be very handy to have a hut city expand into a cluster of cities which can launch a surprise attack.

Rather than have a timeline in MP, I think it's better to keep track of where you stand with respect to your opponent(s). The F11 and F8 keys are your best friends, and can yield a lot of information (including whether cities are walled and/or defended).

My system:
Every wonder gets a rating from 1 to 5.
5=Best
Collosus - 5
Pyramids - 2 on diety, 3 emp, 4 king and so on
HG - 5
Lighthouse - 2 (4 if on a water world)
Oracle - 3
Great Wall - 3
Great Library - 5
Marco's - 3
King Richard's - 1.5
Here begins the golden age of wonders
Sun Tzu's 5
Cope's - 5
Magellan's - 3.5 (5 on water world)
Shake's - 4
Mike's - 5+
Leo's - 5
Bach's - 5
Ike's - 5
AS's - 5
Darwin's - 3.5
Statue - 4
Here ends the golden age
Eiffel - 1
Women's suffrage - 3
Hoover - 5
Manhatten - depends. are you bloodthirsty?
UN - 4 would be 5 but it makes the AIs offer you peace which is bad in democracy
Apollo - 5 the revealed map makes it good for war, too
SETI - 5
CFC - 4.5
Tell me if you think a rating should be changed.
(Edited to take into account paul and carnide's requests. your opinions of SoL canceled each other out. Carnide, if you try OCC you will realize the importance of shake's. magellan's non waterworld rating has been lowered from 4.5 to 3.5, darwin's rating from 4 to 3.5, and Great Library from 5 to 4. Marco's has been raised from 3 to 4.)

[This message has been edited by SilverDragon (edited June 22, 2000).]

[carnide_]

I would change The Statue to 5, and one less for Shakes.

[Paul]

I never build Great Library and Statue. And I can live without Darwin and Magellan, although they are nice to have. And give Marco Polo one or two extra points.

[SuperSneak]

quote: Originally posted by DaveV on 06-21-2000 03:42 PM How are you establishing your "far flung" cities? If you're marching a settler a long distance to plop down a city, you're probably wasting time that could be spent generating shields and arrows. On the other hand, it can be very handy to have a hut city expand into a cluster of cities which can launch a surprise attack.

(Sorry if I didn't get the quote right)

DaveV: I see what you are saying...the AI seems pretty stupid sometimes, so I knew I would have a lot more to worry about with a human opponent...I just wanted to know what the concensus was so I could rank (thanks for the rankings too!) and strategize.
Most of my distant cities are born out of huts, but I wonder if I am wandering too far from my base cluster? I like to look around a lot early on, maybe a bad idea....If everyone stays in the one original area, that extra settler wandering around will cost me dearly...or, does the added advantage of "advanced tribe" discovery balance out in the end, considering my ability to recover from attacks since I would never lose everything at once?
I still think it gives a military advantage to have "bases" in various places.
Micromanagement seems to be a common theme, however. If that is what is required in MP, I don't think it will work for me...I'm just not wired that way! I'd go nuts...but maybe those long turns are what would allow it...what else would I have to do?
Maybe I should join an Aussie game....?
Seems like they have a good time talking smack between moves!!!Especially that equine fellow....

------------------
Bring it!

[Ming]

It's always worth exploring as much as you can in MP... It's good to get somewhat away from your capital, so you can claim all the land in between. However, a city far away from you home base becomes a very tempting target