Leader / Civ selection

[Shoot the Moon]

I agree with this, though I'm not 100% sold on Inca, depending on what EXP leaders are out there. If Pacal and Isabella are both taken by then, while Willem or Mansa are still around, I might be tempted to go leader first

My thoughts as well. India I think is a no brainer almost no matter what leaders are left. But I can think of leader combinations where I'd rather pick leader over Inca (for example if Pacal were left but there was a big fall off for leaders after that).

[scooter]

There was mention of which we should pick first- leader or civ. In my opinion, this is easy:

IF India or Inca are available- we pick them. If not, we pick a leader.

Agree with this.

I agree with this, though I'm not 100% sold on Inca, depending on what EXP leaders are out there. If Pacal and Isabella are both taken by then, while Willem or Mansa are still around, I might be tempted to go leader first

This caveat makes sense to me though. Past Pacal/Izzy, are the other EXP leaders worth it? I'm not really convinced. And Sury is of course redundant.


I agree with the comments that we should wait to decide until we're up and we've seen what has been picked. I also agree that it's not like we need to brainstorm and decide what traits are good - I think that's well established at this point. However, let's be careful not to attempt to squelch discussion either. I think that's what we thrive on, and there are valid things to discuss here (like trait vs civ, what EXP civs are worth pairing with Inca, etc).

[Cyneheard]

Why Inca over India: I think that free Cre is better than the FW early. FW are great tactically, and the UB is awesome with Espionage on when it comes into play. And I think it's more likely to be around than India at 7. F.e., CFC sees the Inca as Q-rushing Monarch+ AIs, not an economic powerhouse.

[pindicator]

Agree with this.





This caveat makes sense to me though. Past Pacal/Izzy, are the other EXP leaders worth it? I'm not really convinced. And Sury is of course redundant.

I'd give Bismark a look in that position. May take another in the end, but he's still a valid choice.

[Azza]

This caveat makes sense to me though. Past Pacal/Izzy, are the other EXP leaders worth it? I'm not really convinced. And Sury is of course redundant.

With the map sounding like it'll be Monarch/Torodial, maybe Mehmed (exp/org)?

[Lord Parkin]

I'd go for Darius before Mehmed if we're going with that line of thinking, assuming Darius doesn't get picked beforehand (which is possible as he's another likely high-priority pick for most teams).

[SevenSpirits]

Organized is one of the traits that's better-regarded on CFC than here (along with charismatic and philosophical, I'd say). Expansive is the criminally underrated one, at least based on polls of single player civvers. I've seen multiple polls that ranked it under protective.

(Note: Many of the discrepancies in trait value can be partially explained by the different environment: single player, tech trading, random maps, sometimes high difficulty. I'm not saying the people who voted in the polls were necessarily wrong. Also note: as much as we seem to like disparaging our opponents, they are going to be of much higher quality than your typical poll-voter, and all the teams have some real multiplayer experience from what I can tell.)

Anyway what I'm getting at is we may have a harder time getting an organized leader than we should, and an easier time getting an expansive leader than we should. I also expect to have an easier than deserved time getting an imperialist, but that trait isn't fantastic so this is not a very useful boon.

[sunrise089]

Glad this discussion is here in the right thread. Seven knows better than me anyways and he's being wise. I think Fin/Org is too cute until/unless other Fin leaders are taken. Yes it's the best pure economic combo, but it's slooooow. I feel in these type of games speed helps, since it creates opportunities for early and midgame plays Org doesn't help with.

PS - Can we stop calling Terraces "free creative?" This isn't vanilla, so let's all remember the real creative buff was the libraries. Without those it's a midpack trait.

[luddite]

If you want to stick to RB-conventional-wisdom, this shouldn't be a hard choice. For a leader, take FIN plus any economic trait, with the high maintenance elevating ORG above IMP. For civ, India or Inca. Picking from: (Pacal, Willem, HC, MM, Darius, India, Inca) gives 7 choices, and we're 7th pick, so we can just pick whichever of those isn't taken (or debate later if more than one is available). I'm guessing Inca will still be available, so we could take that with the first pick and still get a solid leader, especially if we're willing to consider non-FIN leaders like Isabella.

However, I still think you guys are overrating creative and Inca a bit. On a huge map and normal speed, you can pop borders almost as well with an early religion, and the high maintenance really hurts a fast expand strategy. Plus, CRE seems like the trait most likely to get us dogpiled, since it adds tons of score early on and annoys the neighbors. So I'm still rooting for a spiritual leader plus Egypt (assuming India gets taken, and it almost certainly will). You can use religion to pop borders early on, get OR for cheap buildings/wonders, and caste artists for late border pops. Isabella, Ramesses, or Mansa Musa would all be great for that. Ramesses would almost guarantee us the pyramids or Great Lighthouse, especially if everyone else picks FIN leaders so there's only one Industrious competitor.

About financial- I don't think it's overpowered or imbalanced, but it does have the advantage of being good on almost any map and combines well with any other trait.

[SleepingMoogle]

How likely are the other teams to pick up a Civ like Byzantium? We're fairly early on the second pick so we can pick a good leader first, pair him with Byz and go on a Cataphract rampage (and also enables us to go for an early religion if desired).