Many tech start

geofelt · May 19, 2002, 16:56

I just started a deity game on a large world(2.42) To my surprise, I got 11 techs.
irrig
mining
alphabet
bronze
ceremonial burial
construction
masonry
monarchy!
trade!!
roads.
I have attached the b4000.sav

Deity Dude · May 19, 2002, 17:09

u only listed 10 LOL and 3 everyone gets. EVen so, 7 is an unusually high start but not unheard of. There is a thread about it in the Great Library somewhere.

atawa · May 19, 2002, 18:19

Monarchy at start

Must have been an easy game then

Scouse Gits · May 19, 2002, 18:27

Seven starting techs is good going - but the record is eight. For the purposes of counting science at 4000BC Irrigation, mining and roads are always omitted.

------------------

SG(2)

Scouse Gits · May 19, 2002, 18:34

The best tech start I have seen is 8 on a Medium World playing 2.42. 4000BC start is below.

--------------------

SG(2)

Shaft · May 19, 2002, 18:52

The best I ever had, were 7 Techs but Mona wasn't included although it was a pretty bad Startingposition - an one square island. It was even a mountain.

geofelt · May 19, 2002, 19:02

I omitted code of laws. After the standard three, that's eight. There is a reason for the generosity. So far, I have been doing well.

rah · May 20, 2002, 10:03

Yes remove the normal 3 and you end up with 8, which is also the most I've ever received. What's even more fun, is that they don't count against beaker counts for the next techs. A hugh advantage when you 9th tech only costs 10 beakers instead of 90.

Marquis de Sodaq · May 20, 2002, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaft
The best I ever had, were 7 Techs but Mona wasn't included although it was a pretty bad Startingposition - an one square island. It was even a mountain.

Excitement as you read the popup intro, then...

The screen shows you on your mountain!

-Jrabbit · May 20, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
What's even more fun, is that they don't count against beaker counts for the next techs. A hugh advantage when you 9th tech only costs 10 beakers instead of 90.

Wow. I always assumed that those techs weren't free. (I know, I'm lazy and should have looked it up in the GL.) Lately, I've been playing "no tech" starts...

Do you just "pay" for those techs with bad starting position then? (Bad land, no specials, hemmed in, etc)
Further enlightenment?

Scouse Gits · May 20, 2002, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

Wow. I always assumed that those techs weren't free. (I know, I'm lazy and should have looked it up in the GL.) Lately, I've been playing "no tech" starts...

Do you just "pay" for those techs with bad starting position then? (Bad land, no specials, hemmed in, etc)
Further enlightenment?

The answer is a qualified - yes -- Qualified because it is what the AI considers a bad start ie few if any grass squares - you might be sitting on a beiautiful river comples with two trade specials, but as long as there is little grass the AI feels hard done by --- AAAAAh

SG[1]

rah · May 20, 2002, 16:51

And i think proximity of nearest other civ is considered in the equation and the machine thinks the oposite of what you might consider good.

-Jrabbit · May 20, 2002, 18:15

Thanx, SG[1]. Also, can you be more specific, rah?

Are you saying that (with a many-tech start and "bad" land)

1) I'll have other civs breathing down my neck, or
2) I'll be isolated?

*

-Jrabbit, needing to have it spelled out... *

Scouse Gits · May 20, 2002, 18:48

For medium and larger worlds...

If you share a small/medium landmass with another civ the game will tend to compensate you with extra starting techs. Generally, the game is geared to food and population growth. If you have one of those "green" starts with your two settlers surrounded by grassland squares; science at 4000BC will be minimal. Should you begin on a grassland/river at the start, the game will decide this is "great" and probably give no starting techs.

Whilst it is fairly clear that the AI knows your proximity to another civ - it is very doubtful that the game can assess the squares other than the 21 revealed at 4000BC. The best starts are those yielding good initial science with sweet locations a few tiles away which we presume the game doesn't "know" about.

---------------------

SG(2)

Straybow · May 21, 2002, 00:47

Git(2), you don't think it knows the size of the landmass you're on? Didn't look at your megatech start. I took a look at geofelt's start and based on "black clicking" it is a very small continent (or a large island, take your pick).

Scouse Gits · May 21, 2002, 03:14

There are many occasions when a small continent on a large map will give a reasonable start with extra science. However, this process is not consistent. Just as there are examples of mega starts, there are many awful positions at 4000BC! These foibles keep us guessing and playing

------------------

SG(2)

Bloody Monk · June 3, 2002, 01:41

Geofelt

Have you played out this start?? What path did you follow--AC or conquest??

I started out AC with seven cities as a core. Then I got an advanced tribe on the continent to the West which led to a land war with the Greeks; very draining and diverting of resources and attention. One thing led to another and now it looks like it'll be a conquest game for me. Don't know if there will be enough time though. And it is interesting taking on the world as less than Supreme--the other Civs completely ignore my demands. For now.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · June 3, 2002, 12:46

I started a ToT game yesterday night and began with 7 techs. The continent was a large one - but this is the interesting part - my 'immediate' start position had 1 grassland, some plains, 1 or 2 desert, and 2 fish in the radius! Not a bad start, all things considered. However, once I started to explore with my 2nd Settler (and later, with Warriors) the rest of the terrain on my end of the continent was fairly crummy. I started most of my cities in whale or fish access spots just so they would grow.

Bottom line is - this tends to make me think that the program grants techs based on more than just the 21 squares you can see at the start.

STYOM

geofelt · June 4, 2002, 15:03

I went for conquest. I got to a point where it was just a matter of time, so I quit. My approach is to build up my economy and bribe cities.

rah · June 4, 2002, 15:15

Even though it makes the game quite easier, I never got into bribing cities. There was just no satisfaction in it. I guess I just like to smash all the defenders. And it would really irritate me when a spy would slip through and on that rare occasion and bribe one of my cities. (since I was usually in democracy or had so much money it was too cost prohibitive)

But that's the beauty of the game. If you don't like doing it the simple way, there's always many harder alternatives.

Bloody Monk · June 6, 2002, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Even though it makes the game quite easier, I never got into bribing cities. There was just no satisfaction in it. I guess I just like to smash all the defenders.

Well said, rah.

I only have SP and I choose deity, raging for the same reason. City bribing takes away too much of the challenge. I think of it as giving the AI a handicap, like in golf or bowling. Barb cities are different in my mind and I do bribe them on occasion. Planning a successful invasion and watching it unfold really gets 'the little gray cells' going.

It is all about having fun....

rah · June 6, 2002, 09:19

RAH takes a bow.

I'm glad most people agree to no city bribing when we play MP.
Before we did, every game was a get money or lose all your cities game. Not much fun.

RAH

Straybow · June 6, 2002, 10:26

If you station a Spy in your city does she not have the chance to defend against the dastardly actions of your enemy Spy?

TCO · June 6, 2002, 13:29

how about a no city wall game?

debeest · June 6, 2002, 13:34

IIRC, a dip/spy in your city protects only against tech theft, not against any of the other spy capabilities.