[SPOILERS] Margarita and the Lurkers

[Qgqqqqq]

Was he???
I definitely disagree with that.

Edit: No, I think he was talking about Inca, and how you get that ability for free, I'd be very suprised if he thought it was worth losing a trait over.

[Krill]

Yeah, Qgqqqqq interpreted that point correctly. it's not worth taking AGG just for that one advantage.

[Maga_R]

I thought about that post, but when I re-read I see that Krill's recommendation of AGG even if nobody else has the trait is lukewarm only

It's complicated, because it depends on how many players are in the game, but if a trait gives and economic bonus that isn't replicated by another mechanic, I figure that the trait will be strong in the late game. So AGG and CHM (and not only them) are "late game traits" in that they enable you to get a bunch of commando units with an attainable amount of XP when produced (ie you need to get less GG settled in a city to build them).

[Krill]

I said it's a late game trait. I didn't say it was a good late game trait.

[Maga_R]

I said it's a late game trait. I didn't say it was a good late game trait.

Yeah, I first misread it to meaning that like IND, AGG may be interesting when you are only one player with it - but I guess even then it is not so great .

Does it mean that FIN/AGG and FIN/PRO are worse that non-FIN combinations? In our game, probably (almost) everybody will end up with a FIN leader so I am very torn on that

[Krill]

Yeah, they are generally considered worse for games with this few players.

[Maga_R]

Yeah, they are generally considered worse for games with this few players.

You mean FIN/AGG and FIN/PRO would be likely worse in our game than EXP/ORG, EXP/CRE or CRE/ORG?

What about FIN/CHA? I did not have much respect for CHA, until I started to read Lord Parkin's game in RB PB 4 ...

[Krill]

I wouldn't respect that game, it wasn't particularly well played.

But yes, certain traits basically aren't worth taking regardless of what they are in combination with. AGG and PRO are two of them. The rest, you have to judge for yourself and as a lurker I can't explicitly state what you ought to pick.

[Maga_R]

I wouldn't respect that game, it wasn't particularly well played.

But yes, certain traits basically aren't worth taking regardless of what they are in combination with. AGG and PRO are two of them. The rest, you have to judge for yourself and as a lurker I can't explicitly state what you ought to pick.

I said I started to respect CHA a bit more .

True, NAPs had tremendous influence on the outcome of that game - but seemed to me that LP's very unorthodox pick of De Gaulle of Egypt proved quite good, contrary to initial ridicule?

[Krill]

No, the ridicule is deserved, because the reasoning is illogical. Egypt does not need to spam UB to benefit from it, merely need to build a single Obelisk to pop out a GP. There is simply synergy between CHM, IND and Henge and it was not the first time that's been done (I did it in PBEM2 on the way to taking Oracle, Collosus, GL and Mids). The Egypt pick is a red herring, and it synergises better with PHI to abuse the ease of popping out GP (and I did that in PB3, snagging 5 of 7 religions with Islam unfounded in a 17 player game). There is nothing original in anything LP has done at RB, to my knowledge.