OFFICIAL: What to research next?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
How much prey will we have to get these slaves from? and what will the consequences will be when we do? The Austrians will come out all guns blazing as soon as we start slaving (we wont just be slaving barbs im sure), now i dont know how many games of SAP youve played but i reckon theyll have at least a couple of 12 stacks ready, unless youve had different experiences with it...

Monarchy will take 60 turns OR MORE to reach. Slavery, 33. Writing and Monarchy give us ZERO benefit before 60 turns.

Attacking them will provoke them to war. It makes no difference, if we are slaving them, or not... war is war. Our having slavers gives us an advantage DURING this war, and the gains are culmulative.

You are talking in mixed metaphors... saying that we need to build up for war... now, so we kill them before they get pikemen and knights... yet saying that we can't attack them, in slaving attacks... why?

You wish to delay war until we have monarchy?? Won't they have Knights and Pikemen by then?

I dont know if youve ever played MP CtP2, but slave labour is seen very much as a secondary advance (even when AI's are included), if you find it in a hut, great, but you could go a whole game without researching it. Granted the AI isnt human but reaching your city threshold asap is the best way to get the lead in all areas, no matter what the city size/limit is at the time.

Yes i've played a lot of CtP2 MP and single player. I view, and have used slaving extensively, and profitably. Given limited space to expand, close enemies and hence a target rich environment, delaying Monarchy for Slaving is the often the best policy.

We have no chance to reach the threshold before Slave Labor, Writing and Monarchy, anyway, so its a moot point.

Im sure we'll research slave labour at some point (if we dont do it right now), simply so we can experience every area of the game in this DG, to make it as interesting as possible, but its not the quickest way to win, pumping out units until we have more than they can deal with, is.

I agree that pumping out units faster than they can is ultimately our goal, but disagree that a slaver will be disadvantageous, and might only delay that ultimately by 10 turns, with the benefit of having slaving available.

Your relying alot on these slaves your gonna get from somewhere aren you? What if the Austrians declare war in the meantime? What if the Germans do? We'd have researched slave labour but now we cant afford to produce slavers to make that extra commerce with captured slaves can we? This makes Writing not only the safest option to bank on, but the quickest next advance to research and the quickest route to a better government (which is always a good goal to aim for).


Monarchy doesnt just increase the city limit, but it increases commerce, production and food collected. If you can guarantee enough captured slaves in the meantime to justify the choice to research slave labour for so long, (and therefore not to delay our switch to monarchy) then id like to see it.

We don't see any of the gains for at least 60 turns... and would likely see Monarcy within 75 turns if we detoured via Slave Labor.

We certainly can afford to produce slavers. And commerce has nothing to do with their production, although you rightly point out that slaves will be producing extra commerce... for more cash and tech...

In CtP and CtP2, killing barbarians is like pruning a tree... it makes them grow back quicker...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
*SNIP*
To say that researching and building slaves now (when we dont have alot of research capability and researching writing towards monarchy is quicker) will offset the time lost towards monarchy because of captured slaves working hard for us is... expecting alot.

Don't be fooled by the cost of Writing... Monarchy is the most significant cost proportion of the total sum: 1522.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Monarchy will take 60 turns OR MORE to reach. Slavery, 33. Writing and Monarchy give us ZERO benefit before 60 turns.

Slavers cost production to build, im saying that production is better spent on units to CAPTURE cities right now, roughly 3-5 pops captured in a city capture is better than building a slaver stacking it with some other units and hunting down barbarians to slave only 1 pop point.

Attacking them will provoke them to war. It makes no difference, if we are slaving them, or not... war is war. Our having slavers gives us an advantage DURING this war, and the gains are culmulative.

As above, combat units are better production spent, so we can capture more cities, quicker.

You are talking in mixed metaphors... saying that we need to build up for war... now, so we kill them before they get pikemen and knights... yet saying that we can't attack them, in slaving attacks... why?

Im just saying the production is much more effective spent on 3 units.

You wish to delay war until we have monarchy?? Won't they have Knights and Pikemen by then?

Where did i say that?
Im sure i said kill them ASAP

Yes i've played a lot of CtP2 MP and single player. I view, and have used slaving extensively, and profitably. Given limited space to expand, close enemies and hence a target rich environment, delaying Monarchy for Slaving is the often the best policy.

Hmmm well then i think id like to play you in MP then, small map 3 ai's

We don't see any of the gains for at least 60 turns... and would likely see Monarcy within 75 turns if we detoured via Slave Labor.

The facts are a detour to slave labour now will slow down our switch to monarchy, and i fully expect us to research slave labour before monarchy, but i say not yet. Slave labour costs too much at the moment, we should take the fast route in the tech tree (concentrating on monarchy) for now, then when we've taken more cities we'll have alot more commerce for science and perhaps even a bigger army than the Austrians, thats when we can build slavers and push home the advantage.

[child of Thor]

well IMHO, i don't like the huge advantage that we as players get from the slave option. I rarely use slavery in my games and only from slaving cities. I think that if you use a slaver against a city it is reasonable as the slaver unit has a chance of being destroyed and the AI can build walls which makes it even harder. I never use it in open warfare in the field or against barbs. Just makes it all a bit unbalanced. Also i find it hard to get my head around huge cities in 2000bc etc. Still it would be very useful to us now - we could slave away to make our few cities very large and powerful and then we can deal with germany and austria no problem

[MrBaggins]

I don't see how taking the slavery route slows us any:

We have 2 cities that can produce hoplites and archers in 4.5 turns a pop. We have... in my view, 4 spare units... 2 archers and a couple of warriors/hoplites, depending on how we want to mix them.

We... in the time that it will take to get to slavery, can:

*produce a mix of settlers and extra defensive units in one city (and start to in the third)

* produce a decisive mix of archers and hoplites in another. We can produce 7 extra offensive units, between now and slave labor.

This would mean a stack of (say) 1 warrior, 5 hoplites and 5 archers.

This would be able to happen one way or the other.

This stack can be used offensively... and moved against a city.

A slaver can be produced in the meantime, and will quickly be able to catch up, due to his movement rate.

This stack can decisively attack a newer city... where the Austrians will not have garrisoned so well, yet be productive and fertile... my personal suggestion is Innsbruck (4 river tiles + wheat)

The stack can be joined, or delayed for the slaver... and pillage from there...

No production in terms of a decisive stack has been lost, since the stack is already truely capable. The Austrians will be concentrating on the closer city, to retake it, where we can fortify and attack further from... with a slaver.

Our attacking force would not be diminished in size by going with Slave Labor. All that would be delayed, slightly, is our next megastack.

Oh... and i've played dozens of variations of game, in CtP2.

MrBaggins

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by child of Thor
well IMHO, i don't like the huge advantage that we as players get from the slave option. I rarely use slavery in my games and only from slaving cities. I think that if you use a slaver against a city it is reasonable as the slaver unit has a chance of being destroyed and the AI can build walls which makes it even harder. I never use it in open warfare in the field or against barbs. Just makes it all a bit unbalanced. Also i find it hard to get my head around huge cities in 2000bc etc. Still it would be very useful to us now - we could slave away to make our few cities very large and powerful and then we can deal with germany and austria no problem

and Maquiladora doesn't think its powerful enough

[Maquiladora]

and Maquiladora doesn't think its powerful enough

I dont think slavery is powerful enough?

Well if thats what your referring to, it is powerful, but researching slave labour now would be too soon. The amount of slaves we capture will not (in all probability) make up the tech lag we make for ourselves by deciding to research slave labour now. Slaves are nice, but theyre a side order compared to moving up a Government, yes that may seem a long way away from now, but its better than relying on slaves to boost our science to catch up in technology.

We can debate this until the cows come home Mr Baggins, but ive read some of your other debates and you dont know when to quit and im hungry

[child of Thor]

Dbl post...........delete if/when you like.

[child of Thor]

Slavery without some added controls= cheating (this may not be a popular idea........)
Is it just me that thinks the way it has been done in CTP2 is a kinda bug/game balance mistake?

[MrBaggins]

its really not cheating... a mod where its stacking combat benefit didn't happen (and a separate unit did it instead), could have been chosen, but it wasn't... so... the will of the people, and all?

[MrBaggins]

It was unbalanced in CtP1 also. The problem is that the AI sucks at using these, though, effectively... although dealing with slaves should be tougher... but there is mod work underway to put a bit of balance back in.

[child of Thor]

Yeah bloody democracy!
Oh.....oopps

I did vote for stoneworking, but it was late and seemed like a good idea at the time - still the fact that it is only 17 turns was a small bonus?
I'm thinking a move towards monarchy might be nice......Pedrunn(or whomever follows) would get the title 'High King Lemur'..........very grand

edit....Ref CTP1 and slaveing, i agree .I guess i never used it much it either game.

[MrBaggins]

The more and more I think about this, the worse an idea I think it is, that is trying to out develop vs the AI, without the ability to expand citywise... the best we are going to do is 2 extra cities... for all intents and purposes, and then the AI is going to finish garrisonning, and start sending offensive stacks...

The absolutely essential thing is that we send what we have... now... to attack... 2 warriors/1 hoplite or visa versa and 2 archers... or one less warrior, if we don't think we can... but a 5 stack should be enough to go after Innsbruck if we go for it now... they'll have 1 or 2 units, due to the elapsed time the city has been around, and should have been predigeously growing due to all the farms the AI should have been putting down, on the river grassland... The older cities will be better garrisoned... and the very new cities will not be as advantageous. Taking a city *NOW* means them -1, us +1... and we are taking the battle to them. We get a decent advantage, and the possibility of locating a town between Innsbruck and Pedrunn... and think about testing their defenses further.

Sitting back and thinking about a future arms race will just have our 12 stack outnumbered 4 to 1... and if we keep waiting, 10 to 1.

We don't have the room to settle. The hills to the south are not a solution: the distance penalties will suck. The desert to the north isn't a solution either..

We do this... or we just *try* to defend... and stay on the defensive for the forseeable future. We won't be fighting useful offensive battles in 30 turns, when the stack Maquiladora imagines will be ready. It will be irrelevant whether we research Slave Labor or Writing.

Lets roll!

MrBaggins

[Tamerlin]

But Slavery would allow us to build mines which in turn would allow us to build more units and more improvements which would help us grow and increase our science rate.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

i vote for resocialing projects for those poor wrong barbarians.

[Devil of Truth]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
my poll was better

Indeed it was. Less reading too .

Right now, we need growth more than military action or trade or a king or the ability to put little squiggly things on paper. With growth, we have more production. With more production we have more power. We need slaves.

[Turambar]

Writing gets my vote.

[MrBaggins]

well... technically it must have already gotten your vote, since the numbers didn't change

Oh... what shall I vote for??

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The more and more I think about this, the worse an idea I think it is, that is trying to out develop vs the AI, without the ability to expand citywise... the best we are going to do is 2 extra cities... for all intents and purposes, and then the AI is going to finish garrisonning, and start sending offensive stacks...

The absolutely essential thing is that we send what we have... now... to attack... 2 warriors/1 hoplite or visa versa and 2 archers... or one less warrior, if we don't think we can... but a 5 stack should be enough to go after Innsbruck if we go for it now... they'll have 1 or 2 units, due to the elapsed time the city has been around, and should have been predigeously growing due to all the farms the AI should have been putting down, on the river grassland... The older cities will be better garrisoned... and the very new cities will not be as advantageous. Taking a city *NOW* means them -1, us +1... and we are taking the battle to them. We get a decent advantage, and the possibility of locating a town between Innsbruck and Pedrunn... and think about testing their defenses further.

Sitting back and thinking about a future arms race will just have our 12 stack outnumbered 4 to 1... and if we keep waiting, 10 to 1.

We don't have the room to settle. The hills to the south are not a solution: the distance penalties will suck. The desert to the north isn't a solution either..

We do this... or we just *try* to defend... and stay on the defensive for the forseeable future. We won't be fighting useful offensive battles in 30 turns, when the stack Maquiladora imagines will be ready. It will be irrelevant whether we research Slave Labor or Writing.

Lets roll!

MrBaggins

Well said, shame its what ive been saying for the past 10 posts of mine in this thread.

Just to reiterate, i said we should attack ASAP, and if we wait and build slavers then we're giving ourselves a military disadvantage for no reason. I never said we should form a perfect 12 stack then attack, but i most certainly said that slavers are a waste of time with 2/3 cities, and we need to attack asap, which is coincidently what your saying now.

The choice to research slave labour or monarchy is still an important one, and seeing as your now aparently abandoning the "we should get slaves to work for us" arguement, in favour of "we should attack all out to take cities" so your agreeing with me now, without actually admitting it, but thats ok.

[Oerdin]

I vote for writing followed by slavery after that.