|
Post by cv431410 on Dec 4, 2006 12:39:48 GMT -5
why would u slave at all... the settlers are like 1 turn Second to this statement. The whole point of modern game is to have every production-city producing 1 unit per turn. For that, you need large cities with strong production (many workshops if not enough hills); strong economy (several good commerce cities) to support Universal suffrage (without it, most production cities should pump out a unit every 2 turns); and 0% research for Universal suffrage (each future tech gives you +1 happiness and + 1 health and hopefully you can live without them for a period of time). Will Slavery delay reaching this point?
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 4, 2006 16:51:30 GMT -5
I just hate the keyboard ! , playing all games mouse only, and due to that, i'we up til now never even touched it once in civ4. But on the other hand, looking for ways to improve myself. i would love if you could share, just the basic off the most important hotkeys you use. I use the alt and ctrl keys quite a lot. Alt clicking a unit selects all the units on the tile. Alt clicking a city selects all your cities. Ctrl clicking aunit selects all the units of the same type on a tile. Alt clicking a unit in the city menu, has the city produce that unit indefinitely (indicated by an asterisk). However if something follows it in the queue it will build one of the units with an asterisk, complete the queue (say worker, obelisk, granary) then continue with the 'infinite' units. Also if you if your queue is as follows: Warrior* Worker* Then it will produce these units alternately and infinitely. Ctrl clicking something in the city menu puts it to the front of the queue and shift clicking it puts it to the back of the queue. Personally, I use these all the time. I know that DeviousDevil has 'right click menu' selected in the options menu and finds this method of city management a lot quicker. I couldn't get used to it but i'd be interested to know how many others use it. I use ctrl+o to bring up the options menu. Then I can quickly switch off quick combat animations, so that when my opponent attacks with his first unit I have plenty of time to move my stack in from my other front city. ;D Thanks again to DD for that tip. By pressing return you can exit the city menu. Shift + no. locks a unit or stack of units to a certain key, so that when you press that number it selects the unit(s). But this is really unreliable, so I never use it (although if it worked I think it would be useful ). Finally there's alt+tab to close the Warlords window. Theories abound as to why you might want to do this. But try not to do it too often as it makes the game lag. I think that's about all I use. A lot of people use the function keys to enter the advisor screens, but I find it's just as easy to just point and click, same goes for entering the chat log (having said that it involves two clicks, where as tab will get you straight there). Also tab and something else gets you directly into team chat. Hope that's useful, I'd also be interested to know what shortcuts others use.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Dec 4, 2006 21:48:03 GMT -5
Hope that's useful, I'd also be interested to know what shortcuts other us. I often go ctrl-O and turn off cycle to next unit. This means that even after i have moved a unit the game won't go and select another unit automatically. Thus avoiding accidentally moving the wrong unit on a fast move.
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Dec 5, 2006 7:55:32 GMT -5
Great tips churchill - a sure printout "I use ctrl+o to bring up the options menu. Then I can quickly switch off quick combat animations" Wow that is like legal doping ! "I often go ctrl-O and turn off cycle to next unit." Ya i knew that one, just did it the "slow" mouse-way "Finally there's alt+tab" Yes i use that to check lobby when someone drop's, not a shortcut, a windows function. Thanks again, i sure could have used some off this last night.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 5, 2006 15:36:39 GMT -5
Hope that's useful, I'd also be interested to know what shortcuts other us. I often go ctrl-O and turn off cycle to next unit. This means that even after i have moved a unit the game won't go and select another unit automatically. Thus avoiding accidentally moving the wrong unit on a fast move. TY for this tip nota. I use it all the time since you gave it to me that cton.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 9:37:34 GMT -5
One hugely important fact about modern starts is that settlers cost only 40 hammers and workers a mere 24 hammers. Barracks costs a mere 19 hammers etc. Units that are from older eras basically are cheaper in a modern start.
I didnt notice this myself before i loaded up a game the other day and actually took the time to notice there was a difference. There is a difference between ancient and renesance too (f.ex barracks in ancient 33 hammers vs 29 for renesance)
This has some serious implications. And one of them is that slavery just gets even better. Ive demonstrated this to a few people latly and when they see the effects you can get out if it they agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 11, 2006 10:03:11 GMT -5
Slavery does not work on modern starts. There are two reasons for this.
1) You want to hook up all resources and improve your cities asap. The bonus to workers serfdom gives is thus hugely important.
2) Because you're fully developped you'll have no bad tiles, if you upgrade 'em fast enough that is. You'll get at least 5 total food + hammers per tile. Thus the ratio at which you turn population into production with slavery is simply very bad. Even a 'bad' tile like a plains hill, that has no food by itself, gives you 5 hammers if you mine it. Whipping that guy to death gives you 20 hammers, so it should take less than 8 food to grow him back for slavery to be worth it. But your cities start at size 5, and that plains hill probably won't be used until size 10 or so, because there are many better tiles.
So slavery at modern starts is just not worth it. Don't slave, run serfdom and get those fast workers. If you need to speed up your production rushbuy. But really it should only take a few turns before you can produce everything there is in 1 turn, including most of the national wonders.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 10:12:08 GMT -5
Slavery does not work on modern starts. There are two reasons for this. 1) You want to hook up all resources and improve your cities asap. The bonus to workers serfdom gives is thus hugely important. 2) Because you're fully developped you'll have no bad tiles, if you upgrade 'em fast enough that is. You'll get at least 5 total food + hammers per tile. Thus the ratio at which you turn population into production with slavery is simply very bad. Even a 'bad' tile like a plains hill, that has no food by itself, gives you 5 hammers if you mine it. Whipping that guy to death gives you 20 hammers, so it should take less than 8 food to grow him back for slavery to be worth it. But your cities start at size 5, and that plains hill probably won't be used until size 10 or so, because there are many better tiles. So slavery at modern starts is just not worth it. Don't slave, run serfdom and get those fast workers. If you need to speed up your production rushbuy. But really it should only take a few turns before you can produce everything there is in 1 turn, including most of the national wonders. Lol. A) Build on top of a resource. Problem solved. Any resource you want takes 2 turns or 1 turn with two workers. Your going to be having so many workers you wont be able to use em all with slavery. What hugly important bonus does serfdom give? Roads take 1 turn without serfdom .. Resources take 2 turns without serfdom.. Tell me again what im missing ? Edit: Actually make that RAILROADS 1 turn with coal. yes thats right a worker builds a railraod (road then railroad in a single turn) with coal. No need for serfdom imho. in future starts. (and its the same for modern as steam power has been researched) B) your forgetting a very very simple concept. Whenever you slave a settler your getting a size 5 population city. Basically slaving ONE settler gives you a free city that can give you a size 2 city and another "free" settler. After turn 2 your allready in profit from just working the tiles of a new city. OK here is a simpel math for you a size 5 city works 6 tiles and makes say 20 hammers and 12 food (just an example) instead you slave a settler and get 3 tiles worked for say 6 hammers and 6food. But you build another city that same turn with the new settler that works 6 tiles.. Guess what you allready made a profit.. On the FIRST turn of slaving. But it gets worse, you slave that city with a new settler and get another free city. This is the snowball effect. It is HUGE. Then you have the flexibility, id rahter have the ability to turn out 10 units in one turn than five cities turning out a unit every 2-3 turns. Simply because 10 units together makes a better attack force then trickeling units down 1 by one to the other guy. Stack attacks are powerfull in civ4. This is one major power of slaving, the ability to make all cities finish a unit on a given turn together. But I do on the other hand respect that we all have different oppinions etc. So good luck with your strategy and I will be confident about mine.
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 11, 2006 11:20:44 GMT -5
Well your math is flawed on several points I fear.
First of all that settler won't arrive at its destination the first turn after slaving him. It takes a while to walk to a good spot. (whereas, if you build it 2-3 turns later, you probably already have a lot more roads, so you will arrive only 1-2 turns later)
Secondly there's only a finite number of good sites for cities on the map. You already start with 3 settlers, enough to use one to grab a strategic site close to an enemy. You don't want 3 of frontline cities anyway, so that's the point of rushing those other settlers. Other humans aren't going to steal city sites in the middle of your territory.
So sure, your strategy may give you your 4th city a few turns earlier, but it won't give you more total cities by turn 10.
Thirdly, by using this strategy you are basicly giving up on all the wonders. If you do not start with a factory at turn 1 then you won't have engineers at turn 3 and you won't have a great engineer on turn 5. In teamgames people borrow cash to rushbuy factories at turn 1 so they can have that engineer at turn 4.
Fourthly, just building settlers is not enough. You need workers to improve those new cities, and you need military to defend them. The latter can wait a bit if it's a back city I guess, but not long. And the former can wait too, but then your new city won't be very useful.
Fifthly, if you stun the growth of your capital too much at future games, you run the risk of someone building manhattan before your production is big enough to build SDI in one turn. If you can not complete SDI within one turn of Manhattan being build, the game is over for you.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker on Dec 11, 2006 11:48:46 GMT -5
Well your math is flawed on several points I fear. First of all that settler won't arrive at its destination the first turn after slaving him. It takes a while to walk to a good spot. (whereas, if you build it 2-3 turns later, you probably already have a lot more roads, so you will arrive only 1-2 turns later) Secondly there's only a finite number of good sites for cities on the map. You already start with 3 settlers, enough to use one to grab a strategic site close to an enemy. You don't want 3 of frontline cities anyway, so that's the point of rushing those other settlers. Other humans aren't going to steal city sites in the middle of your territory. So sure, your strategy may give you your 4th city a few turns earlier, but it won't give you more total cities by turn 10. Thirdly, by using this strategy you are basicly giving up on all the wonders. If you do not start with a factory at turn 1 then you won't have engineers at turn 3 and you won't have a great engineer on turn 5. In teamgames people borrow cash to rushbuy factories at turn 1 so they can have that engineer at turn 4. Fourthly, just building settlers is not enough. You need workers to improve those new cities, and you need military to defend them. The latter can wait a bit if it's a back city I guess, but not long. And the former can wait too, but then your new city won't be very useful. Fifthly, if you stun the growth of your capital too much at future games, you run the risk of someone building manhattan before your production is big enough to build SDI in one turn. If you can not complete SDI within one turn of Manhattan being build, the game is over for you. This is like questioning God (not GOD). Rather than find fault in what Willburn is saying, try it out. This is a guy who has never lost a Future game on the ladder sharing his strategies with everyone. Learn something.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 12:00:29 GMT -5
Well your math is flawed on several points I fear. First of all that settler won't arrive at its destination the first turn after slaving him. It takes a while to walk to a good spot. (whereas, if you build it 2-3 turns later, you probably already have a lot more roads, so you will arrive only 1-2 turns later) Secondly there's only a finite number of good sites for cities on the map. You already start with 3 settlers, enough to use one to grab a strategic site close to an enemy. You don't want 3 of frontline cities anyway, so that's the point of rushing those other settlers. Other humans aren't going to steal city sites in the middle of your territory. So sure, your strategy may give you your 4th city a few turns earlier, but it won't give you more total cities by turn 10. Thirdly, by using this strategy you are basicly giving up on all the wonders. If you do not start with a factory at turn 1 then you won't have engineers at turn 3 and you won't have a great engineer on turn 5. In teamgames people borrow cash to rushbuy factories at turn 1 so they can have that engineer at turn 4. Fourthly, just building settlers is not enough. You need workers to improve those new cities, and you need military to defend them. The latter can wait a bit if it's a back city I guess, but not long. And the former can wait too, but then your new city won't be very useful. Fifthly, if you stun the growth of your capital too much at future games, you run the risk of someone building manhattan before your production is big enough to build SDI in one turn. If you can not complete SDI within one turn of Manhattan being build, the game is over for you. Ok lets take it pharagraph by pharagraph: 1) All 3 settlers start on same spot, if you 2 road your settler will move 3 tiles and take only 1 move point making it able to build a 2nd city the first turn. The other city will have to move and settle the next turn. With roads you will be able to settle the freshly built settler on turn 2 from your capitol. 2) Good cites? any site 2 tiles away from another city is a good site in my book. At this point in the game you can build workshops for hammers if you have few hills, and if you have little food the farms +2 food is enough to make any spot viable. I agree with you on frontline cities..apart from the simple fact that you can build explorers as defence for a lot of frontline cities. The guys from ray choined this the thousand warrior strategy and I like the term so I think thats what i'l call it myself. Basically if you have 4 explorers in a city they cant kill it with 3 units that turn and you can reinforce with modern armor etc. Finaly your subquote on this parahgraph "So sure, your strategy may give you your 4th city a few turns earlier, but it won't give you more total cities by turn 10." Utter wrong. I can have around 20 cites by turn 10 depending on how many forrests i have available for chopping. 3) Future starts with a forge. Thats +1 engineer allready. With asoka you need 50 hammers for a factory. If you chop two trees thats usually enough (city needs 10 hammers) to finish a factory in 1 turn. The only wonder thats a must in future in my oppinion is the pentagon. And even thats less important now with warlords expansion unless your charismatic. But i agree on your stragegy about rushbuying. Thats why its awesome going slavery - you can give all your money to the philo guy on your team who will rush buy. 4) I agree. Normally I mix a few workers in, just enough i need as i know settlers are the driving force behind my snowballing. I use explorers as defence early and if i need power i can get it in 1 turn with slaving. Just ask anyone thats played me on front I can turn a weak nation with lowest powergraph to the one with highest in 2 turns usually. Also about the workers, you see having 20 cities by turn 10 allows you 20 workers in 1 turn.. thats a lot better than 5 cities and 10 workers developing during that same period. 5) the day i waist hammers on manhatten project or a nuke for 200 hamers is the day i quit future matches. Yes it has some incredible small uses when you have a huge stack you want to nuke but usually nukes are a utter waist of hammers. Your capitol is the only city you want to be growing with and it usually can if you just chop the settlers. Other cities usually need to slave the settlers in 2 turns. The reason you want your capitol growing is because of burocracy. If your frontline you might mix it up if you want an early kill and slave in capitol too while going vasselage.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 12:34:54 GMT -5
This is not an optimal game but here is the log of 9 turns on future start: (23 cities in 9 turns - done in 10 mins so I bet I could improve it - fex i just roaded instead of carefully thinking if i it was more worth it to chop more instead of roading more etc.) ----------------------------New entries---------------------------- Turn 192 (1760 AD)Delhi foundedDelhi begins: SettlerResearch begun: Future TechBombay foundedBombay begins: SettlerBombay begins: SettlerDelhi's borders expandDelhi finishes: Settler <-- chopped Turn 193 (1765 AD)Delhi begins: SettlerMadras foundedMadras begins: SettlerMadras begins: SettlerDelhi finishes: Settler <-- chopped Bombay finishes: Settler <-- slaved Turn 194 (1770 AD)Delhi begins: Settler Bangalore foundedBangalore begins: SettlerBangalore begins: SettlerDelhi begins: SettlerDelhi finishes: Settler <-- chopped Madras finishes: Settler <--slaved Turn 195 (1775 AD)Calcutta foundedCalcutta begins: SettlerCalcutta begins: SettlerLahore foundedLahore begins: SettlerLahore begins: SettlerBombay begins: Fast WorkerDelhi finishes: Settler <-- chopped Bombay finishes: Settler <--- slaved Bangalore finishes: Settler <-- slaved Turn 196 (1780 AD)Delhi begins: SettlerKarachi foundedKarachi begins: SettlerKarachi begins: SettlerKolhapur foundedKolhapur begins: SettlerKolhapur begins: SettlerDelhi begins: Fast WorkerDelhi finishes: Settler <-- chopped Bombay's borders expandMadras finishes: Settler <-- slaved Bangalore's borders expandCalcutta finishes: Settler <-- slaved Lahore finishes: Settler <-- slaved Turn 197 (1785 AD)Madras begins: SettlerJaipur foundedJaipur begins: Fast WorkerJaipur begins: SettlerHyderabad foundedHyderabad begins: SettlerHyderabad begins: SettlerBengal foundedBengal begins: SettlerBengal begins: SettlerBombay begins: ExplorerBombay finishes: Fast Worker <-- slaved Madras's borders expandBangalore finishes: Settler<-- slaved Karachi finishes: Settler <-- slaved Kolhapur finishes: Settler <-- slaved Jaipur finishes: Fast Worker <-- slaved Judaism founded in KolhapurJudaism has spread: KolhapurChristianity founded in HyderabadChristianity has spread: HyderabadIslam founded in CalcuttaIslam has spread: CalcuttaHinduism founded in BengalHinduism has spread: BengalBuddhism founded in KarachiBuddhism has spread: KarachiConfucianism founded in BombayConfucianism has spread: BombayTaoism founded in JaipurTaoism has spread: JaipurTurn 198 (1790 AD)Bangalore begins: SettlerChittagong foundedChittagong begins: SettlerChittagong begins: SettlerPunjab foundedPunjab begins: SettlerPunjab begins: SettlerPunjab begins: Fast WorkerDacca foundedDacca begins: SettlerDacca begins: SettlerMadras begins: Fast WorkerDelhi finishes: Fast Worker <-- slaved Bombay finishes: Explorer <-- overflow Madras finishes: Settler <-- slaved Calcutta finishes: Settler <-- slaved Lahore's borders expand <-- 30% culture Lahore finishes: Settler <-- slaved Kolhapur's borders expandHyderabad finishes: Settler <-- slaved Bengal finishes: Settler <-- slaved Turn 199 (1795 AD)Delhi begins: SettlerBombay begins: SettlerCalcutta begins: SettlerLahore begins: ExplorerIndus foundedIndus begins: SettlerIndus begins: SettlerIndus begins: Fast WorkerPune foundedPune begins: Fast WorkerPune begins: SettlerPune begins: Fast WorkerLucknow foundedLucknow begins: SettlerLucknow begins: SettlerLucknow begins: Fast WorkerBangalore begins: Fast WorkerDelhi's borders expandBangalore finishes: Settler <-- slaved Calcutta's borders expandLahore finishes: Explorer <-- slaved Karachi finishes: Settler <-- slaved Kolhapur finishes: Settler <-- slaved Jaipur finishes: Settler <-- slaved Bengal's borders expandChittagong finishes: Settler <-- slaved Punjab finishes: Settler <-- slaved Dacca finishes: Settler <-- slaved Pune finishes: Fast Worker <-- slaved Turn 200 (1800 AD)Lahore begins: Marine <- jerking around Karachi begins: Marine <- jerking around Kolhapur begins: Marine <- jerking around Jaipur begins: Marine<- jerking around Varanasi founded Varanasi begins: Fast Worker <- prepairing mass spam of workers Varanasi begins: Fast Worker <- prepairing mass spam of workers Bengal begins: Fast Worker Lucknow begins: Fast WorkerDelhi begins: Fast WorkerBhopal foundedBhopal begins: SettlerBhopal begins: Fast WorkerRajshahi foundedRajshahi begins: Fast WorkerRajshahi begins: Fast WorkerRajshahi begins: ExplorerRangoon foundedRangoon begins: Fast WorkerRangoon begins: Fast WorkerRangoon begins: SettlerMandalay foundedMandalay begins: Fast WorkerMandalay begins: Fast WorkerMandalay begins: SettlerHere is the savegame: www.campaignofheroes.com/files/showingfuture.CivWarlordsSaveyou will need the hall of fame mod to load the game. You can find it here: hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mod.php (i used it for the autolog ability) (Oh and it will not show the right order of thigns so if it stands begins settler then finish settler in same turn all that means its finished a settler that turn and began building another that turn. And if you que up two settlers it will read as begin settler begin settler etc. or if you build explorer and change it will read begin explorer begin settler. Again not a perfect example but i hope this proves its entierly possible to make 20 cities in 10 turns. I had only 4 forrest in capitol and not perfect expansion room around me and i still managed 23 cities in 9 turns and had like 7 cities comming the next turn.
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 11, 2006 19:19:41 GMT -5
23 cities! On a duel sized TBG map?! That doesn't even fit even if you don't have an opponent and use the closest possible packing!
On most multiplayer maps I play you usually have space for 5-7 cities. 10 perhaps if you space them closely together. And in the game below you haven't built any defence. With 23 cities planted down all over the map I'll just raze 2 border ones and you're down to 0 cities again.
|
|
|
Post by Speaker on Dec 11, 2006 21:11:59 GMT -5
On most multiplayer maps I play you usually have space for 5-7 cities. 10 perhaps if you space them closely together. And in the game below you haven't built any defence. With 23 cities planted down all over the map I'll just raze 2 border ones and you're down to 0 cities again. By all means, get your team of 3 and come try. My guess is you won't raze any cities.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 12, 2006 1:26:40 GMT -5
Yes please goahead and then start crying when you realise I have more exploreres in each city than it would take you 2 turns worht of fighting with your entire force to even kill that 1 city.
If its a tiny duel map it will be space for less cities sure your right about that. Id guess i could get out some 8-10 cities. Id still out explore and outtech and outproduce you. But when did we start playing tiny duel maps for anything else than 1v1? heck its to small even for ancient games what do you think it would be for future games??
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 12, 2006 17:13:46 GMT -5
Well in the game report you posted you haven't built any military, including explorers. So don't say you have so many explorers I can't take them out. You might have in a real game, but then you won't have 23 cities by turn 9.
I am not denying that such a snowball effect as you describe exists. It's obvious it does. However, how much momentum can the snowball pick up? On your average multiplayer map (say 5v5 normal inland_sea) each player usually has 4-8 cities by the end of the game. When you start with 3 already, your snowball has very little momentum to pick up. Hence it won't be a big snowball. And you'd still miss out on the world wonders.
Sure if you play 1v1 on large or huge map this strategy will be extremely effective. But who on earth plays such settings?
I guess basicly I agree with the effectiveness of your strategy under certain circumstances. However the circumstances required, you will not often see in more conventional multiplayer settings.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 12, 2006 19:52:47 GMT -5
Id have 30 cities in turn 10.. I think i could have handled explorers + cities in 10 turns thank you very much...
yes yes very spesific....see you next future match and lets talk about it after your dead...
The only time ive ever not been able to use this strategy was on a tiny future pangea with lots of water. I could only spam out 10 cities with it then.
it works as a charm for 3v3 maps. Besides you dont need 20 cities im just taking the snowball effect to the extreme - what you need is more cities and faster than your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 12, 2006 19:55:47 GMT -5
The funny thing is im trying to be a nice guy and share this winning strategy and people dont belive its usefull. I just have one word to say to the nay sayers - look at my track reckord for future matches. Results speaks a lot better than words. In fact by sharing this tactic i risk starting to loose. So I just cant belive some people.. i guess gratittutude isnt something grown on trees these days.
Well ive had enough of this crap, ive tried to explain this strategy and I just get crap back so have fun you all....
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 12, 2006 20:53:41 GMT -5
I think it's just one guy Willburn and although his logic is flawed I don't think he's being overly nasty about it, just putting his point of view across. For what it's worth (well tbh I haven't read all the findings in yesterday's post) I fully agree with you, you're a very clever player. Genius is still genius even without recognition.
|
|
|
Post by diadem on Dec 12, 2006 23:41:13 GMT -5
Look, I'm not trying to irritate you. I'm just trying to have an interesting discussion about Future games. My apologies of my style of debate irritates you. It has been said before that I'm an annoying debating partner, because I present my points with such fevor. I never want to do that though, it just happens... I don't know who you are, and I don't know how good you are. I'm quite new to this ladder and this forum, and I hardly know anybody here. If you say you're one of the best at future games, I see no reason not to believe you But no matter how good you are, I am still allowed to give my point of view, and to attack real or imagined flaws in your strategy, am I not? And yeah, I'm simply not convinced by an example where you build more cities than fit on a map, and no defence at all (for 9 turns, but in 9 turns my units can have reached you easily, with 2 more each). That does not proof your theory is bad, just that your example is Anyway, say that you play a 1v1 on a tiny tbg map. That's 20x20 with 5 rows of polar zone and 3 rows of desert. You'll be about 5 moves away from eachother, and with about 120 tiles for each player, you'll be able to fit 6-12 cities in your territory. How will you play your strategy then? Will you go for pentagon or hoover dam? Will you go for ironworks early, or ignore it. Will you only build settlers for the first 4 turns and hope to outmanouvre your enemy's units with your 5 starting ones? Or say it's a 5v5 teamer on an normal sized inland_sea. Now you can let your philosophical teammate worry about the wonders. And if you're not on front you can expand without too much worry at the beginning. Here I can see your strategy working well. But it's still only something for the first 3-4 turns. After that your territory is full And to get back to the original topic at hand: Do you really need slavery for that, then? For those few turns? Aren't you better off with serfdom front the start, and a turn less of anarchy?
|
|