I think that the discount on buildings given by traits are going to be pretty valuable in this game, since we'll probably have more time to build buildings rather than units and settlers/workers. ORG and IND for forge and courthouse discount come to mind, since it's a bigger discount than, for example, granaries and libraries (of course, the great benefit of fast granaries and libraries is the ability to get them earlier, not only the discount per se).
I agree with Krill that Charismatic might end up being very powerful depending on the chosen settings. If the map is natural and deity difficulty, we are looking at a very small happy cap and not a high chance of early game happy resources nearby. The +2 happy faces could be a big deal.
---
Regarding civs: I think civs with a courthouse replacement will be of higher value here. We could also try for civs that get similar tech tree path UBs, like greece and Maya or Aztec/Sumeria/HRE (HRE and Aztec starting techs aren't so bad in these settings, if everyone gets to start with a scout - not so much if there's possibility of warrior starts).
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
I'll post this here rather than publicly, and Seven can do with it as he pleases.
The issue with no trait duplication is that the 1st pick can get blocked by the following 6 leader picks. The issue comes from the fact that certain trait combinations are more useful than others: IND is only really useful in this setting to snap up early wonders, so the moment someone picks Bismark IND because a lot less valuable. And with PHI, it's more useful to have that paired with SPI to have the flexibility to use caste as needed than any other trait (yeah, Seven, Lizzie is trash and always will be, don't need to build universities in every city, only need then for OU normally). Once those trait combinations go, there aren't many reasonable combinations to pick up, especially when two traits have become unpickable after the first pick. AGG and IMP are effectively as useless as PRO on these settings. That's why if you remove those traits from the picking pool there are usually around 5 random choices remaining.
The counter point to this is that perhaps the 1st pick should chose a random leader rather than the "best" leader. But then why is 1st pick being punished when they already have to play last in the turn?
Part of the issue is that if a team wants FIN (well duh, really) that needs to be one of hte first picks because there are not many good FIN leaders around, or at least that pick will not last until the 2nd pick. But that first pick defines the strategy and it's possible to block that strategy via the next team choice. Say the first pick is Mansa for FIN/SPI:
FIN/SPI (leaving PHI, EXP, IND, CRE, ORG, CHM as the other decent traits)
FIN/ORG
EXP/IND
SPI/PHI
FIN/CHM
FIN/PHI
...what now? IND is useless with Bismark down. FIN and ORG can't be picked. EXP could only be paired with PHI or CHM, so Washington or Peter? CRE wouldn't be on the techer, so bad choice there.
And this guy has the same problem of taking whatever EXP leader the above guy didn't get
Another question for Krill: considering our pick order, don't you think that allowing same traits for a team will actually help more the 4th picker than the first?
I completely disagree. First I think there is room for more than one IND leader in the game. Second, I even said earlier in this thread that Mansa + Pericles looked like a strong combo to me despite not liking Mansa in general.
If you really wanted Mansa to be the techer (so aren't willing to pick creative, other good choices IMO include Mehmed, Roosevelt, Washington, and De Gaulle. And there are even more choices that aren't great but are reasonable.
I don't think it helps 4th pick as much as it helps 1st pick. The "worst" thing that can happen is that 4th pick doubles up on FIN, but I'm not entirely sure that's a better strategy than, say, going balls out on 2 CHM leaders, or Pericles/Mansa, and there might not actually be 2 decent FIN leaders left for the 4th and 5th leader picks.
(February 25th, 2013, 18:55)Krill Wrote: I don't think it helps 4th pick as much as it helps 1st pick. The "worst" thing that can happen is that 4th pick doubles up on FIN, but I'm not entirely sure that's a better strategy than, say, going balls out on 2 CHM leaders, or Pericles/Mansa, and there might not actually be 2 decent FIN leaders left for the 4th and 5th leader picks.
So, in the end, we might actually end up with similar picks either way, right? Pericles/Mansa was still possible for the first pick in your example and I bet there were other combinations superior than picking another financial leader. Maybe doubling on SPI/ORG would be better than doubling on financial?
I don't think this is a big issue. Some teams might end up with suboptimal picks, but that's the nature of the game, I guess. Add in all subjectivity involved in what is a decent/good pick and the issue gets even smaller.
