[Spoilers] PBEM 62 - Ichabod's Thread, feat. Mardoc and retep

[Ichabod]

This is how tradition works. The new monkey in the cage that tries to climb the rope to reach the bananas gets punched by all the other monkeys, even though none of those were in the cage when the punishment for trying to reach the bananas actually happened.

So, here I am writing some irrelevant stuff to start my thread, even though the new forum doesn't display the first words of the thread when you hover the mouse over its title.

Go figure...

[Ichabod]

Let's make a brief and subjective analysis of our opponents.

Pindicator: As is probably well known, Pindicator's performances wildly vary based on his level of commitment to a specific game. He can be up in the top when he's engaged and he can be a 2-minutes-turn-mailer when he's not. So, the question is: what influences Pindicator's commitment level? From what I can tell, there's two factors.

1. He's more commited when playing with an active and good teammate/dedicated lurker.
2. He's way more commited to games he's winning.

Since Pindicator seems to be going solo in this game, it all comes down to his picks and his opening. If he starts off doing great, expect more of it. If he starts off doing badly, expect more of it.

dazedroyalty: He's a good player, but of the type that goes by instinct/gut feel, playing only the turn he receives; that means that it's unlikely he'll spend time doing simulations, sandboxes and the like. With that being taken into consideration, I think he's the least likely to win this game.

Commodore: Although famous for his reports, I can't say I ever followed a spoiler thread made by Commodore closely. So, I'm not exactly sure about his skill level; from a general look, more often than not he's doing well in his games, but he's never spectacular. It seems he knows the mechanics of the game, but not exactly how these mechanics all come together when the objective is to win the game (i.e. what Mackoti is the god of, from what I can tell). So, he makes plan, follows plan (usually in a successful way), but the plan never = winning the game.

TheHumanHydra: He seems like a very enthusiastic player. If lurkers are interested in his thread, I'm certain that he'll update it pretty well, with loads of thoughts and info. I'm not sure about his skill level, but if it's on par with Fintourist and OldHarry (from PB13), he's very good. He seems to be an emotional player, though, so he can fall on the trap of too much investment in the game resulting in burnout. But that only happens when your plans get ruined by something beyond your control (i.e. the other players), so if that doesn't happen, if the game keeps going according to his expected outcomes, I think he'll do fine.

Who will win? Everyone, I guess, since I don't see any players with personalities that clash too much, which is often what hinders/ends up destroying games.

[retep]

I'm here, I read, I like it and I want more

[Mardoc]

Yay! Let the spamming discussion commence!

So, he makes plan, follows plan (usually in a successful way), but the plan never = winning the game.

This, in a nutshell. He really likes his big plans, and he can usually bend the empire to achieve them, but they don't often cause victory. The opposite of Pindicator: he basically never loses focus even if not winning.

Although I have to point out - part of Commodore's record is that he's generally in the big games - he comes in 2nd or 4th in games with Plako and Mackoti and Seven. Another part is that he often picks leader/civ for interestingness rather than for straight power. Of the field, I'd worry about him the most, I think. Although I don't know the other players very well either, so maybe that's wrong.

What are your thoughts on personal stuff? What sort of civ and leader do you want to play this game? Any areas you want me and Retep to focus our advice on?

[Ichabod]

Yay! Let the spamming discussion commence!

So, he makes plan, follows plan (usually in a successful way), but the plan never = winning the game.

This, in a nutshell. He really likes his big plans, and he can usually bend the empire to achieve them, but they don't often cause victory. The opposite of Pindicator: he basically never loses focus even if not winning.

Although I have to point out - part of Commodore's record is that he's generally in the big games - he comes in 2nd or 4th in games with Plako and Mackoti and Seven. Another part is that he often picks leader/civ for interestingness rather than for straight power. Of the field, I'd worry about him the most, I think. Although I don't know the other players very well either, so maybe that's wrong.

What are your thoughts on personal stuff? What sort of civ and leader do you want to play this game? Any areas you want me and Retep to focus our advice on?

Taking what you said about Commodore in consideration, I think we can expect to see Commodore choosing his combo with something already planned in his mind, rather than solely based on raw power. This sounds extremely generic when I say it, but what I mean is that Commodore's pick might actually reveal more about his gameplan than what we normally could expect to read in players' picks.

Regarding other players, I'm worried about THH's enthusiasm, Pindicator's potential and Commodore's reliableness. We'll see. I sincerely believe that these three players can play a very well thought and executed game.

Regarding my pick preferences, I hope I can get an overall powerful combo, not a gimicky one or a one trick poney. I don't want to end the picking phase with the perception that my leader is noticeable weaker than our opponents', like I what happened to me in PBEM 50, where I was Louis XIV in a field that had, for example, Sury (I was the last pick in that game). That game used the same pick method as this one (that's why I'm mentioning it), but it also had random starts, so the disparities in openings had more than one cause.

Expansive would be really nice and I'm willing to try Organized (I'm assuming FIN will be banned/paired only with a terrible second trait/terrible civ). My experience with Industrious makes me consider it a disappointing trait, since more often than not, if the build is carefully planned, wonders are decided by who reaches the tech first, not by who can actually build it faster in the same conditions. Creative and Spiritual would be okay, with Imperialistic a bit behind. Philosophical could be interesting, but I think it requires some specific plays to make value out of it and I don't want to be limited by this (and if you don't play to get the full value out of PHI, I think you can make due with decent GA and civic plans to get your GPs). I'd be disappointed if I had to chose one of the other traits.

I doubt we will have EXP/ORG combo, so I'll gun to get an EXP leader, as a top priority. If it's not coupled with one of the disappointing traits (AGG, PRO, CHA), it'll be a no-bainer pick, most likely. If it is, we will have to decide it case by case.

I'm less worried about Civilizations. I just don't want to end with a Civ whose starting techs really cripple our opening. Considering how I think combo balance will work, a top tier civ will likely be tied to a low tier leader. If that's really the case, I think what I'll aim for is to get a Civ that is not a hindrance (coupled with a good leader), rather than trying to get one which gives a significant boost (but is coupled with a bad leader).

Regarding my own play, I guess I have to decide some objectives that I need to reach from time to time, in order to not lose focus and actually have somewhere to direct my efforts to, in order to not waste them. These objectives can include things in and out of the game. I'd really like to get help thinking about these objectives.

So, an initial draft of these objectives would be:

*Make a sandbox based on our start.

*Make a spreadsheet to document plans properly.

*If presented with a "difficult" start, where difficult = starting techs can have a big influence or the initial opening is not at all obvious (a good example would be a start with seafood):
-Make some simulations with the different avaiable starting techs before choosing our combo, to make sure we are not comitting to a disastrous opening.

We can discuss these objectives and we can discuss how to achieve these objectives. I know this seems a bit like work, but if I don't narrow my focus, I'm certain that I'll be mailing turns in a short time.

I'll expand on these objectives later.

[Mardoc]

Commodore's pick might actually reveal more about his gameplan than what we normally could expect to read in players' picks.

I see it going one of two ways. Either he picks something less than max power, because it's interesting - in which case it absolutely tells us his gameplan. Or else he's tired of coming in second and he'll going for max power regardless, in which case the pick doesn't tell us as much. Wait and see. I think it really depends on whether he considers this his 'main' game or secondary one.

I doubt we will have EXP/ORG combo, so I'll gun to get an EXP leader, as a top priority. If it's not coupled with one of the disappointing traits (AGG, PRO, CHA), it'll be a no-brainer pick, most likely. If it is, we will have to decide it case by case.

Same page as me.

I'd really like to get help thinking about these objectives.

This is perhaps too meta and early, but what do you mean? You want help defining what we should try for, or help figuring out the best answers to objectives you set yourself?

So, an initial draft of these objectives would be:

*Make a sandbox based on our start.

*Make a spreadsheet to document plans properly.

*If presented with a "difficult" start, where difficult = starting techs can have a big influence or the initial opening is not at all obvious (a good example would be a start with seafood):
-Make some simulations with the different avaiable starting techs before choosing our combo, to make sure we are not comitting to a disastrous opening.

I haven't done sandboxing or spreadsheets, so you'll need to at least get us started with them. Well - that is, I haven't done sandboxing, but I have made maps. Presumably at least making the initial sandbox is just as straightforward, even if using them is more of an art. So that's probably where I can help the most out of the initial goals.

-----

Oh! We have something real to talk about:

Peter (Exp, Phi) of Germany (Hunting, Mining)
Isabella (Exp, Spi) of England (Fishing, Mining)
Ragnar (Fin, Agg) of Portugal (Fishing, Mining)
Victoria (Fin, Imp) of China (Agri, Mining)
Justinian (Spi, Imp) of Vikings (Fishing, Hunting)
Frederick (Phi, Org) of Egypt (Agri, Wheel)
Charlemagne (Pro, Imp) of India (Myst, Mining)
Ramesses (Spi, Ind) of Ottomans (Agri, Wheel)
Catherine (Cre, Imp) of Ethiopia (Hunting, Mining)
Roosevelt (Ind, Org) of Rome (Fishing, Mining)
Hannibal (Fin, Cha) of France(Agri, Wheel)

It depends on our start, but my gut says we want one of Isabella, Victoria, Hannibal. I could maybe be talked into India even though it's Charlemagne. And I don't know what to propose as a fifth - maybe Peter.

[Mardoc]

Second pick is pretty good. We should be guaranteed to get one of the better leaders, then. I'd guess we want one of Isabella and Victoria, probably mostly depending on what start techs we want. I'm definitely happy to have 2nd pick instead of 2nd in turn order, though!

But that doesn't mean we should throw away the process you outlined. Can still sim out a few starts and see if my gut is right - maybe another leader is even better. I'd think the best stopping point for a sim is when we have our first settler ready to go with adequate worker support - that might be a fair comparison for Exp vs Imp. So we can't decide until we have our starting screenshot (in case Gawdzak isn't feeling enough pressure ).

[Ichabod]

I'd really like to get help thinking about these objectives.

This is perhaps too meta and early, but what do you mean? You want help defining what we should try for, or help figuring out the best answers to objectives you set yourself?

I want to constantly be setting objectives that I need to reach, while the game goes forward. The goal of this is to play a better game and maintain focus. So, one example would be: after I'm done with an initial plan for the next 20 turns of the game, I'd set an objective like "achieve the same number of workers and cities as the initial plan, but also generate a Great Person in this time frame". Not sure if I'm clear with what I mean, I think it'll make more sense after I try doing it for a bit. Anyway, I'd like you to help coming up with such objectives: perhaps when I make a sim for the first 50 turns, you could say: "how about we try to squeeze Stonehenge in there, would that be worth it?". I guess this is pretty similar to what a ded-lurker usually do, perhaps it's just me being fancy when describing it.

I'd also like help figuring out the best answers to these objectives. We could start with the sandbox one. What do I need to take into consideration when making a sandbox? From what I can tell from the top of my head, it is:

*Map size (actual number of tiles and the one in the settings, both of them matter) and wrap
*Difficulty
*Speed

Here's something that I don't know: does it make a difference if I set up my Capital in the wrong "place" in the map? I mean, in the wrong row and column (like placing it in the northern hemisphere, while the actual one is in the southern hemisphere). I guess it matters when I start discovering more of the map and I can't fit all the tiles I need to in a certain direction (if it's not a toroidal map). Anyway, is there a way to find out about the Capital placement in the map on turn 1? Some trick with the unit pathing, perhaps? If the map is cylindrical, I think unit pathing can tell me where I am in the Y axis (am I being clear with this, I'm a math noob, so there's a chance I'm speaking loads of nonsense) and it doesn't matter where I am in the X axis. If the map is toroidal, I think it doesn't really matter where I place my capital, even if it differs from the original map, it'll be the same in the end. And I really doubt the map will be flat...

Is there something else I should watch out for when doing a sandbox?

Another question, how can I figure out the number of water/land tiles in a certain map on turn 1?

[Ichabod]

Oh! We have something real to talk about:

Peter (Exp, Phi) of Germany (Hunting, Mining)
Isabella (Exp, Spi) of England (Fishing, Mining)
Ragnar (Fin, Agg) of Portugal (Fishing, Mining)
Victoria (Fin, Imp) of China (Agri, Mining)
Justinian (Spi, Imp) of Vikings (Fishing, Hunting)
Frederick (Phi, Org) of Egypt (Agri, Wheel)
Charlemagne (Pro, Imp) of India (Myst, Mining)
Ramesses (Spi, Ind) of Ottomans (Agri, Wheel)
Catherine (Cre, Imp) of Ethiopia (Hunting, Mining)
Roosevelt (Ind, Org) of Rome (Fishing, Mining)
Hannibal (Fin, Cha) of France(Agri, Wheel)

It depends on our start, but my gut says we want one of Isabella, Victoria, Hannibal. I could maybe be talked into India even though it's Charlemagne. And I don't know what to propose as a fifth - maybe Peter.

Second pick is pretty good. We should be guaranteed to get one of the better leaders, then. I'd guess we want one of Isabella and Victoria, probably mostly depending on what start techs we want. I'm definitely happy to have 2nd pick instead of 2nd in turn order, though!

But that doesn't mean we should throw away the process you outlined. Can still sim out a few starts and see if my gut is right - maybe another leader is even better. I'd think the best stopping point for a sim is when we have our first settler ready to go with adequate worker support - that might be a fair comparison for Exp vs Imp. So we can't decide until we have our starting screenshot (in case Gawdzak isn't feeling enough pressure ).

The combo quality is way above what I'd expect! And I'm pretty happy with second pick.

As you can see, I didn't even take FIN in consideration in my previous thoughts, because I didn't expect to see anything better than Wang Kon avaiable. Victoria and Hannibal are both FIN coupled with manageable traits and surprisingly good Civs. France and China are probably up there with the best Civs. I really like these options.

I don't think India makes up for IMP/PRO. Maybe played by a micro wizard, but I certainly don't hold that title. So, that's probably a pass.

Isabella is a very good leader and I've been talking myself into playing SPI for a very long time. But I don't think it can compete with the Victoria and Hannibal duo, considering the fishing/mining start - that's, of course, assuming a non seafood start. If we have seafood, these leader choices will likely lead me to sim things a bit.

With that taken in consideration, I can't see myself choosing the following leaders: Peter (Isabella is better than him, if I want a EXP leader), Ragnar (the other FIN leaders are better than him, especially considering civs), Justinian (Isabella is a better leader, if I want SPI) and Charlemagne (explained above). So, we are left with the following choices:

Isabella (Exp, Spi) of England (Fishing, Mining)
Victoria (Fin, Imp) of China (Agri, Mining)
Frederick (Phi, Org) of Egypt (Agri, Wheel)
Ramesses (Spi, Ind) of Ottomans (Agri, Wheel)
Catherine (Cre, Imp) of Ethiopia (Hunting, Mining)
Roosevelt (Ind, Org) of Rome (Fishing, Mining)
Hannibal (Fin, Cha) of France(Agri, Wheel)

I could see myself playing all these combos. What to choose will have to wait for the starting screenshot, though.

[Mardoc]

I want to constantly be setting objectives that I need to reach, while the game goes forward. The goal of this is to play a better game and maintain focus. So, one example would be: after I'm done with an initial plan for the next 20 turns of the game, I'd set an objective like "achieve the same number of workers and cities as the initial plan, but also generate a Great Person in this time frame". Not sure if I'm clear with what I mean, I think it'll make more sense after I try doing it for a bit. Anyway, I'd like you to help coming up with such objectives: perhaps when I make a sim for the first 50 turns, you could say: "how about we try to squeeze Stonehenge in there, would that be worth it?". I guess this is pretty similar to what a ded-lurker usually do, perhaps it's just me being fancy when describing it.

Ah, ok. That's the sort of thing I like doing. I don't know if I know BtS well enough to propose good things to try, but you learn by doing.

*Map size (actual number of tiles and the one in the settings, both of them matter) and wrap
*Difficulty
*Speed

I believe this is all that matters - well, and the actual tiles. Position doesn't affect anything directly until you start looking at actual strategy and opponents.

Another question, how can I figure out the number of water/land tiles in a certain map on turn 1?

Land tiles, you get by hovering over the score. It'll have four categories listed, one is land, and it lists a fraction - one of the numbers is # land tiles. I don't remember if the other number is the number of them you have, or 2000. Water, you have to know the dimensions and subtract land from total tiles.