(August 21st, 2020, 21:45)Commodore Wrote: So the non-aggressive All Stars And Monty game was interesting. Some observations:
-None of the all-stars are overrated, I think. Seeing all six next to doofy little Monty was illustrative.
-Stalin didn't have a good game, but I think Aggressive AI would have benefited him most of all. He still impressed me with how well he did against Mansa despite the massive tech disparity.
-Gandhi is probably right to be placed in the second string. He had no Aggressive AI set, and wasn't attacked for a long long while, but he nevertheless was very unimpressive even 1v1 before others joined in.
-My stereotype of Justinian as the master diplomat is confirmed. He's probably been hurt by the AP the most of all; he's excellent at spreading his faith and he makes strong allies, his brothers in faith were almost observer-level in love with him.
-Mansa is every bit as fragile as Gandhi, but by gum is he better at the building.
-Julius Caesar is a solid warmonger, but honestly what sets him apart from your Napoleons and Shakas is his *excellent* landgrabing. Aggressive AI screwed him in the real playoffs, setting him to plotting with two settlers already built. He just ends the landgrab so well set.
I agree with pretty much everything here. I think Stalin would have been helped by aggai producing a couple more early wars against Mansa by someone else. Justinian as a diplomat makes sense to me: I've never been amazed by his expansion, teching, or warmongering, but his diplo is on point.
With JC I think the replays show he would have won or placed most of the time. His problem in the playoff game was a mysteriously poor landgrab and seemed to happen even before he kicked into war mode and stopped his settlers. But yeah if he'd settled at least those two as well he would have done a bit better.