Sorry if I'm getting off-topic guys, but Krill, why are you glad to have not played India? I know you like trying different things, and India is the most different civ there is.
|
[SPOILERS] Yossarian blames Caledorn
|
|
No, please, this is very interesting. Maybe krill can convince us not to pick India, or maybe you can convince us to be happy about doing it!
Well I'd always go for India because it means you don't have to plan the worker micro nearly so thoroughly, you just go whoops-Pyramids!
Completed: RB Demogame - Gillette, PBEM46, Pitboss 13, Pitboss 18, Pitboss 30, Pitboss 31, Pitboss 38, Pitboss 42, Pitboss 46, Pitboss 52 (Pindicator's game), Pitboss 57
In progress: Rimworld 
Well, I can answer that question and still be on topic.
India is good, I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, and I see what you mean in that it is the most different civ in that it enables so many more options in worker management via chopping and sheer speed in completing wonders without dedicating potentially wasted worker turns to them (going along the concept of limiting exposure to losses). In warfare it does open up an additional 2-3 tile range for roading enabling greater control over unsettled land and over rough terrain, unlike any other civ. So I think it's fair to say that to get a good amount of use out of India you don't need to be absolutely amazing, just have a general idea of what you are doing and you can make it work quite well. I'd actually be fine with playing India in pretty much any base BtS game because of this, even if the UB and starting techs are bland and perhaps a bit on the weak side. Maybe one day I'll play in a game and India is there and I feel like it's time to try it out, and then I'll pick it. But I don't think the amount of variation is all that different compared to playing something like EXP Inca, PHI Egypt, AGG Rome or ORG HRE where entire new strategies are opened up. And as I've only played a limited number of games, I'm glad I've not played India because I've spent my time trying out stuff that I think is more interesting to me. Part of this is because if there is an India in the game, you just have to set up any wonder builds to be 1 turn builds, which really you ought to try to do anyway, so it's not like there is any lack of interesting play if you don't pick India. TL;DR: India is a perfectly reasonable pick, it provides plenty of flexibility and new tactical options but not the types of new strategies that I personally love to explore. But it basically works with any leader so it's never really that bad of a choice even if the aim of the game is to learn how to play basic strategies and tactics.
With LP choosing an industrious civ, wonders are going to be in very short supply for the rest of us. I am glad he didn't get India, though.
I wasted no time in choosing our top pick, Inca. Now we just have to grab an exp leader on the way back. Is it possible we could actually get Surry of Inca?
Did you just go full retard?
Never go full retard. EDIT: Just so this post doesn't seem weird...why the fuck would you want to stack CRE on top of Inca, when the Terrace gives you 2 culture per turn? That's the worst trait you could pick to take with Inca. Fucking Mao is a better pick than Sury.  Yeah, you're absolutely right. I wanted Surry and I wanted Inca, but of course we don't want them together. Well find another exp leader we can take. 
|
