Kandros Fir of the Sheaim, the Dwarf with burning Eyes

[Sareln]

But I'm Sareln's dedicated lurker, and obviously prone to mouthing off about these sorts of things, and so I'll advocate here for what I think is best for the Sheaim.

First let me say that I appreciate Bob advocating my case. I know that it can sound somewhat aggressive at times, and rankle, but it is appreciated.

Additionally, Mardoc, I'm happy that you threw the question to the players rather than just making an executive decision. Given that we're all here (theoretically) to have some fun by playing a game, there's no rush to start the game as quickly as possible. I know that sometimes it's tempting to just make the decision and let the player's whinge afterwards, but in the end the mapmaker goes home after the map is built, but the players will be interacting with it for the next 6 months. Given the time disparities involved, I think it was absolutely the right decision.

Onto the problem at hand:

I'll be honest here. I picked my pair without considering the map.

Wow, that sounds awfully silly when I write it out doesn't it? Regardless, that's how it was. I guess that in my head I sort of assumed that we were playing a mostly "standard" game for what all that means. To me, it's the settings loaded into my quickstart: (Quick, Monarch, Fractal, Standard). How crazy, in retrospect, to just automatically assume that everyone was on the same page!

I think this moment has been a good learning experience for me, that we did absolutely need to hammer out the map details before we considered civ/leaders, since the decision matrix actually goes Map/Civ/Leader instead of simply being a Civ/Leader choice in isolation. Sure there are some pairings that are robust enough to survive most any map, but a huge advantage is to be had by getting a map that fits your CIV/Leader pair better than your rivals.

So, we, as players, have made a mistake and left Mardoc in a rather awkward situation. Mardoc has made the right choice and punted the problem to the players, who are at fault for created this awkward situation in the first place .

Now how 'ought we to deal with it?

I think we can apply a little bit of reasoning here and come to a good conclusion. My original stance was put into place to bring the immediate proceedings to a halt, so that I could have some time to think. It was also the natural position for me to take since I have the Civ/Leader pair that most directly benefits from a standard size map. With so much at stake for my original gameplan, It should be me who puts for the arguments for standard. I wouldn't want only one vote to carry the day without some debate first now would I?

Who benefits directly from a Standard size map?

1. Sareln/Bob (Sheaim)
   
2. Krill/Kyan (Clan of Embers)
   
3. Serdoa/WarriorKnight (Illians)

Who benefits directly from a Large size map?

1. Squareleg (Hippus)

Who benefits indirectly from a Large size map (Due to the people who directly benefit from a standard map being weakened)?

1. Mist/Ellimist (Sidar)
   
2. Amelia (Grigori)
   

As you can see, from my perspective, 3 of the teams benefit directly from sticking to a standard size map, while only one of the teams benefits directly from a large size map. Unsurprisingly, Squareleg pushes for a large map and admits that he's doing it merely because it will benefit his CIV. I don't begrudge him that, but he's a solid player and I don't think he needs the handicap of weakening 3 rivals and boosting himself in the process. TBH, the indirect boosting won't matter to Mist or Amelia if they start next to Squareleg, they'll still be quite dead no matter the map.

If he's following the max-retreat strategy Bob and I have discussed, then his particular combination is uniquely suited to a larger than normal map, as it emphasize total mobility and units which are damn near impossible to kill the conventional manner (95% retreat chance), you need to surround their stack to guarantee the kills.

My priority is to have a good game, where people all have an opportunity to show their stuff if they play well. If we stick with a standard size map, it is my opinion that the game will be anyone's to play for. If we go for large, I expect Squareleg to be the commanding favorite before the game even starts, and that's with Krill in the running.

[Sareln]

Posted a summary of the above to the tech thread. This'll probably be my last thought on the map matter.

Now to the actual game before us!

[Bobchillingworth]

I wouldn't be surprised if Krill wants a large map too. Gets more use out of warrens settlers that way.



One other issue with SL's combo besides slow teching is that getting 95% retreat HA requires a lot of upgrades- which will be expensive without cheap markets and financial aristofarm gold. Pillaging could be a problem though. His plan should be simple- lots of fast & very difficult to kill HA.


Mist's combo is the predictable "lots of shades" Varn strategy. I think it'll take too long to pay off in a game full of super-rushers, though.


The Illians is a nasty pick. Priest rush vs. PZ rush, heh. Stasis is going to suck, although if he deploys it late it could actually work in your favor. Since aggressive copper weapons PZ should get decent odds vs. Ice Elementals, and will seriously endanger the Priests if they get too close, you're not a great target for them. Might be the one civ really worth doing diplomacy with


Amelia's Einon of the Grigori is just dumb. One of the big advantages of Tolerant is being able to grab a cool new palace. Since the Grigori have like the second-best palace in the game after the Infernal, it's a waste. And the Grigori don't really have any holes in their unit rosters which need filling by some other civ's units. I guess there's the advantage of being able to upgrade an adventurer into an Ogre or whatever if you can capture the right city, but that's a tactic for SP games where you can tech in relative safety for ages. Alexis would have been much better. She can't build temples either, right? Pretty sure those are blocked for the Grigori no matter what. If so, then having access to religion is significantly less useful.


I'm guessing the Orcs want to run some sort of angels / good unit spam game, although who knows. There'd probably be better leaders for that if that is indeed their plan. They may instead just want to reach smashy stuff fast.



Of the adversaries, Orcs have the greatest inherent bonuses against PZ- aggressive and minor fire resistance. But shock PZ should still carry the day without too much issue. Hippus and Grigori have homeland... who cares. Grigori will probably only have a single hero available to defend. Sidar are tasty. Illians too, although less so with PoW defending.

[Sareln]

So as everyone more or less expects, our initial game plan is to use efficient Warrior -> PZ upgrades to rush a neighbor, maybe two if we can swing it. Really, I think that's the difference for us between a big map and a standard map: one neighbor, or two.

For the record, on quick, it costs 27 gold to upgrade a warrior to a PZ with an ING leader. PZ's do not need training yards, and are available at Bronze working.

A warrior is 16 hammers.

TBH, the conversion rate is so cheap (16 hammers + 27 gold for 40 hammers worth of units) that we'll probably run a warrior -> PZ upgrade engine for most all the game if we can.

The real trick will be what we do after the rush. Kandros offers FIN as security to just lean back and play with more land than the rest of the folks. With PoW and Stasis potentially in play, it will pay to plot with the illians if we can contact them.

I think I will need to change my opening to account for Illian stasis. Instead of the usual (and risky) worker first opening, I should be starting with scout -> warrior. That will give me two scouts in the field (one to go in each direction) and 2 warriors garrisoned at home and a size 2 capital.

[Sareln]

Posted a summary of the above to the tech thread. This'll probably be my last thought on the map matter.

Now to the actual game before us!

I lied. Kinda.

If you want to see why Bob and I are pushing for Standard size, you can look no further than the numbers that Krill posted to the tech thread, namely:

Standard: 10 - 12 tiles between players.
Large: 20+ tiles between players.

That represents a doubling of the distance needed to cross for the rush, a doubling of the supply lines after a successful rush, and an adding of 10 turns to the total rush time.

PBEM VIII Spoiler

As I might have to demonstrate with Ravus if he chooses unwisely, the difference of even 5 turns of the arrival of Rushing units can spell the difference between success and abject failure, much less 10 turns.

So, not a small deal at all as to what kind of game I'll end up playing! With distances like that, I shouldn't be sending a conquering party to bolster my own position, but rather a squadron of PZs to wipe out an opponent early due to fear of his late game. The payoff matricies for those two moves are vastly different .

I also agree with Serdoa's point, I don't think we want a map where everyone can get to 20 cities before we come into conflict. If I had to say, other than Mulcarn's folly, I think the distances in PBEM V were quite good (about 10 - 12 tiles between capitals iirc). In a FFA that I played with Bob and Selrahc we played on an inner-seas map on small that had our capitals about 10 - 12 tiles apart from each other in direct line (so slightly longer with the sea curve). That also worked well.

I guess the final conclusion from a lurker perspective is that I like standard size maps, they're what I'm used to, and they're solidly in my comfort zone. A large map with distances of 20+ between players does now and really scuttles the rushing game-plan. It reminds me of the folks who always entered the queue in Supreme Commander with the no-rush timer set to 30 (!) minutes.

[Sareln]

Technologies of (Early) Interest:

Agriculture (80)
Calendar (160)
Festivals (180)
Exploration (80)
Crafting (120)
Mining (200)
Bronze Working (400)
Mysticism (200)
Education (280)

Total: 1700 base beakers (BB)

----

Agriculture -> Calendar -> Festivals for early commerce, agrarianism, and markets to start generating gold for mass PZ upgrade

Exploration for roads to get the PZs where they need to be

Crafting -> Mining -> Bronze Working for PZs

Mysticism for God-King and it's bonus gold & production

Education for Apprenticeship and a sustainable economy from Code of Laws post rush.

Playtests have demonstrated to me that it is completely possible to cut Mysticism and Education from the tech plan, though we'll need both eventually anyways. Perhaps best to ignore them and be pleased if they pop from huts or graveyards but otherwise focus on other things. That would cut the number of beakers necessary by 480 BB, or 28% of the total for a grand total of 1220 BB.

[Sareln]

Techs needed for Fanaticism:

Mysticism (200 BB)
Education (280 BB)
Code of Laws (320 BB)
Philosophy (300 BB)
Priesthood (800 BB)
Fanaticism (1800 BB)

Way of the Earthmother (400 BB)
Way of the Wise (280 BB)
Orders from Heaven (800 BB)

Going runes instead of order saves 1080 BB. If we go to summon Basium we will be doing so with RoK as our religion, not Order.

[Sareln]

Opponent Evaluation:

• Serdoa and Warriorknight - should see solid play from these two. Serdoa seems at risk to check-out of a game that he's losing, but I would expect to be able to work with these two without too much trouble. If we are neighbors, we can each swing the other way and be in good shape (since all our units are "slow") and I think we could build a decent partnership off of coordinated worldspell/rush setups. (His worldspell freezes production, mine whacks all city-defenders. Combine the two and we could probably rush with warriors and be fine, much less PoW and Pyre Zombies)
  
• Amelia - Good skills, Can probably work with him, but there's unlikely to be a reason to, most likely going to be a victim in the early game to one of the rush CIVs. Might surprise us with good use of his hero, but I don't think 1 hero will be enough to hold off PZs, though it may deter clan wolf-riders.
  
• Krill/Kyan - Superior CIV skills, Krill's micro being particularly mentionable, I fear this pair and would rather see them dead early to a PZ or PoW rush than to see them make the middle game and be able to leverage Clan Warrens.
  
• Square Leg - Solid player, perfectly reasonable to work with. I have some experience with the strategy implied by his picks, so he may be the more predictable player.
  
• Mist/Ellimist - Have the proper mindset for a hyper-aggressive civ. Didn't pick one . Could probably work with them, Mist's blunt style I'm okay dealing with. They're likely to be rushable though if we're neighbors, and everyone knows it.
  
• Thoth. Summon and then kill him for Gela

[Sareln]

A Story about Islands in an Inner Sea:

There was a 3-person FFA played by Myself, Bob, and Selrahc a little while ago on an Inner Sea map script. It was a good map IMO, and I enjoyed playing on it. One thing that I noticed though, was that the inclusion of Islands in the inner sea made cultists overwhelmingly powerful. Even though I invested in and built a fleet of about 10 privateers by the time everything was over, there was no good way to dislodge the cultists from the islands; and from those islands they could control the entire coast. Even amphibiously dropping Treants on them didn't do much good !

So Mardoc, if you're thinking about putting Islands into the Inner Sea, please be very careful with them or Overlords will be exceedingly strong .

[Sareln]

:fistpump: we win our coin-toss. Who says luck hates me :neenernee? Perhaps it just loves Bob instead...