Spoilers - Lurker Discussion Thread (No Players)

[Krill]

Put me in the camp that likes the celt pick. Charismatic is a great trait if properly abused, allowing so much extra slaving it isn't quite Exp but still decent. Spi gets better as the game goes on, so that is a big plus in the late game when everything seems so much more fixed, you have the tactical advantage. Aggressive has it's obvious advantages.

Cre isn't by far better than charismatic though - it gives you greater flexibility, for sure, but it all depends on the application. With NTT, it takes a lot longer to get HR and other happiness, so I wouldn't discount that effect. And then the ease on the promotions, well, not clear cut.

Also, HA+gallics v. Keshiks+Swords. compare the army that can be built one either side together, not components of said army. I'm not going to use a screw driver as a hammer, am I? I might use it as a chisel though.

[Square Leg]

Why is twinkletoes working the unmined silver hill?

[Profane]

Why is twinkletoes working the unmined silver hill?

My best guess is that he really wants that Warrior out ASAP. In the next turn when the borders expand, he might switch to a 1f2h1c tile, to get a 2h overflow into a Worker and pull out an extra hammer on the first turn producing the Worker, perhaps?

[regoarrarr]

Why is twinkletoes working the unmined silver hill?

I think he explained it in his thread. It gets BW out a turn earlier and the warrior out earlier?

I thought it was kind of myself but he did at least explain his reasoning

[Square Leg]

Ok - I missed the explanation in the thread. Overall though he would be gaining the use of 20 hammers by growing to size 2 on the 3f tile via the whip - with slavery of course.

[Sullla]

Is it too late to talk about the player choices for leaders/civs? Choices that I do like:

- Suryavarman of Khmer (timmy): With the pure teching traits of Financial and Philosophical disallowed, timmy took the next best options available, Creative and Expansive. Both are excellent for this or any map, especially in a No Trading PBEM. Elephant unique unit is a wash, but the unique building (Baray) is actually pretty solid, even more so if there's limited food on the map. This is my favorite pick, followed up closely by...

- Zara Yacob of Ethiopia (scooter): Our old friend from the Apolyton Demogame, Zara's Creative/Organized pairing is one of the best given the restrictions for this game. Six different cheap buildings (library, theatre, broadcast tower, courthouse, lighthouse, and factory) are nothing to sneeze at, plus the free Creative culture, plus the Organized civic discount... Not too shabby! The unique building is useless, but the Oromo can be pretty serviceable. The main drawbacks are the low difficulty (Noble) reducing the value of Organized/courthouses, and the lack of much water on this map - less appeal from cheap lighthouses.

- I like Bismarck of Germany (Twinkletoes) next best, purely for the trait combo of Expansive/Industrious. Expansive is of course great, and Industrious is useful if leveraged for early Metal Casting and cheap forges. (If not, it holds relatively little value.) Unfortunately, the unique unit and unique building are both uselessly late. This wouldn't have been one of my top picks, but I like it more than some of the other ones.

- Boudica of Celts (Sandover) would be my next favorite choice, and that purely for the rush potential with Aggressive/Charismatic. The Celtic civ is simply bad; I don't care how many hills there are on the map, I don't want to spend much time building Gallic Warriors. And the Dun is one of the worst unique buildings in the whole game, which the Gallics don't even benefit from! (Seriously, you don't want to be building freaking WALLS in the early game with precious early production!)

I think both Celtic leaders were greatly overvalued by the players. Highland maps don't have that many hill tiles, and the Celts are a very weak civ in this game. I doubt either leader would even be in my top ten.

- I don't like either the Augustus/Rome (Bob) or Brennus/Celts (SleepingMoogle) picks particularly. Neither one gets much economic value from their traits; Imperialistic/Industrious from Augustus does very little for me, and Charismatic/Spiritual for Brennus is only marginally better. At least Rome has Praetorians, but in a No Trading game played over the long haul, I give the edge to teams that played for research power instead of early game attacking force. I do like the Spiritual trait, however I'd rather pair it with something other than Charismatic - and with a better civ than the Celts!

Combinations I would have valued higher that didn't get picked:

- Asoka/India (Organized/Spiritual) has good traits, if not great, and the best UU in the game in the Fast Worker. And the Fast Worker is even better on Quick speed than Normal speed; it might take the same 3t to chop a forest, but the turn that the normal worker loses by moving into a forest (or onto a hill) that the Fast Worker DOESN'T lose is worth more on Quick speed. And if you get into Serfdom or land Hagia Sophia for those 1t roads and 2t chops - look out!

- Hatshepsut has very good traits (Creative/Spiritual), a strong unique unit in the War Chariot, excellent starting techs (Agriculture/The Wheel). Ummm, not sure why no one picked Hatty (?) Ramesses with Industrious/Spiritual wouldn't have been bad either.

- Justinian's traits are mediocre at best (Imperialistic/Spiritual) but the Byzantines have a fine unique building, and the second-best unique unit in the game. With No Trading and a Guilds beeline, this would have been another really strong power play. Downside of course being that everyone would see your strategy coming a mile away, heh. But still better than some of the leaders chosen!

- Mehmed II of the Ottomans would have been really good too: Expansive/Organized is a nice combination, the Hamman is the game's second-best unique building, Jannisaries are nice unique units, and the Ottomans have excellent starting techs (Agriculture/The Wheel). You could take the game in many different directions with this combination.

- I also really like Kublai Khan's traits (Aggressive/Creative) and unique unit/unique building, as mentioned by others above.

So overall, too much metagaming the Highlands map selection, methinks. It's not *THAT* much different from the normal game, just slightly more hill tiles and slightly less food. You'd do better to pick a leader who's strong under normal conditions (Hatty, Mehmed, etc.) than bend over backwards to get some funky Celtic unique building that isn't even good in the first place.

Good luck to the players, I'm sure that they will make me look foolish by having one of the Celtic players win this thing!

EDIT: Now I see that Sandover changed his pick from Boudica to Hatshepsut, which makes me feel better. Good thinking!

[Kyan]

Nice to know your thoughts. I am terrified of what you have written in regards to the PB3 game now hehe.

Hatty actually was picked. Due to Sandover and Moogle both picking Celts- Sandover went with his second pick. I think he got a lucky break as well.

[darrelljs]

I'll just quote Blake because he descibes Brennus better than I could. I don't think he's the best leader, but he's probably in my top 10. Take away PHI/FIN, and he's certainly in my top 5. On a highlands map (which looked like it had a ton of hills to me!), he's my favorite choice.

Darrell

[Sullla]

I respect Blake's opinion a great deal, but Multi Player is not Single Player, and I'm dubious that anyone will get "oodles of wealth from religions" in a game like this:

So I'm going to say the best Economic leader is Brennus, because he does have a decent economy (he can just religion it up with giant cities, doesn't need to monger war), and can also kick ass with the best of them if that's called for.

Uhh... maybe. But we shall see.

[sunrise089]

So I'm going to say the best Economic leader is Brennus, because he does have a decent economy (he can just religion it up with giant cities, doesn't need to monger war), and can also kick ass with the best of them if that's called for.

I agree with Sullla. I think the thinking above is classic "focus on how good each option is in the absolute sense and ignore how good it is on the margin.

Charismatic gives you 1-2 extra happiness. That's hardly "giant cities." With HR it means, at most, 2 fewer archers per city. But the archers have value other than as MP, and obviously Charasmatic doesn't come in a vacuum. I'd much rather spend the hammers on MP archers in the midgame and save the hammers on a monument and half a library in the early game...with +1 culture, cheap theaters, and cheap colosseums as a bonus.

EDIT: I read the link. Saying Brennus of Celts is one of the two best leaders is laughably wrong, and I don't care how good of a player Blake is or how bad of a player I am. Willem, Pacal, Ghandi, Hatty (Blake did list her), Elizabeth, Capac...all far better.