Krill Wrote:Yeah, that's going to be entertaining...
Reckon Sullla will agree he made any mistakes after the game? Or just claim everyone else played to screw him over?
I think there is a little bit of a disconnect. Obviously we have the benefit of omniscience, but it certainly seemed like S+S could have done a better job trying to secure a real ally, even if it meant making a deal that caused a little short-term pain to India. I imagine though that India will argue every team's actions at each individual moment didn't make sense, even if his own recommended courses of action would have likely seen India coast to victory. Perhaps it can best be understood as a quest for variance in a game where second place doesn't count. Other teams WANT to make the risky play because only by playing risky can you still keep the possibility of a win around. See, for example, my play in RBP1 after T75 which is the epitome of safe and conservative. I stand zero chance of winning the game, but I bet most players in the RBP games are a lot more "type-A" and don't want to accept such a path.
One other thing - I think S+S drastically overestimate the costs of each team to fighting India versus someone else:
*Ottomans - Had HAs sitting around from the conquest of Byzantium.
*Greece - Formed a very close friendship with Ottomans early, so that front is both impossible to attack and diplomatically secure.
*Rome - Already won his own war, Praets also sitting around.
*Mali - Cramped in, so either has to attack India (who has no allies) or Nakor (who has allies) or risk being made totally irrelevant.
*Nakor - Best case to do something else, but still their best alternative (hitting Mali) only butts them up against an indisputably stronger India.
All in all, creating 10 military units doesn't slow down expansion that much...especially if you consider the chance, even 10%, of knocking out the civ that otherwise is the odds-on favorite to win in a NTT game.