RB Pitboss #2 - Postgame Discussion Thread

[plako]

Incredible write-up Sullla and undoubtely you played way better than the rest of the crowd in this game. We had our moments, but especially our start was really weak. Our overall performace definately weren't better than yours . In the end there wasn't anything that could be done to stop you from winning. I doubt we could've even be able to pull out any kind of cheesy diplo victory from this position.

Thank you for the map creation team. The map was very good and adequately balanced.

Concerning the ruleset dispute that ended the game. I think that the rules were overly complex, but naturally one should try to follow them. Nevertheless the winner was found so I think there wasn't much need to continue. I'm still strongly suggesting that unless you find a game full of experts that won't give up (very unlikely!). It is alright to use simple ruleset that might not be totally fair always, but good enough and makes the game running smoothly.

[SevenSpirits]

Heh, a post I wrote is in there representing the pro-enforcement position. Thanks... I think?

Good writeup, though I may still be recommending your thread to people instead.

[plako]

Sullla, just a minor comment concerning the trade mission. I think that gold wise you did not choose optimal city for it. We got 1700 gold from Dantski's city of Niani. Main points were that it was off shore and had harbour in it. The population of target city doesn't have that big effect. I'm not sure, but some of our island cities with Harbour could have given more than 1500 gold (assuming they had harbours at the time you wanted to do the mission). Naturally there was also other reasons to end the mission to an Ottoman city.

[Dantski]

I remember you telling me he was going to Gao?

[plako]

I remember you telling me he was going to Gao?

We had several Merchants and most of them ended up in Niani. Only 1st one did go to some main land city (not Gao) and giving either 1300 or 1500.

At 1st I thought Gao would be good because of ToA, but it was only 1300 when our 1st Merchant was there so I continued forward.

[novice]

While I was glad that we came out as the victors, I hated the way that the game ended.

Yeah, I think we can all subscribe to that.

Still, the outcome of the game was decided, and you probably couldn't have competed with Pitboss 1 for most epic finish of a game. (Sorry Regoarrar for reminding you...)

Anyway, great writeup, as always. Enjoying your League of Legends recordings as well, by the way.

[Broker33]

Nice write up read it the other day which prompted me to check out the threads again.

Just glad we survived to the end and got our sweet revenge. Kudo's to Plako and the Lighthouse his managment saved us.

[Gaspar]

Just spent the better part of the last week reading this game after being directed here. After a month or so of Civ5 I think the biggest thing this game did for me is remind me how much richer a game Civ4 is than Civ5.

I don't have a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said, but when you invest 40 hours or so of your own time reading about a game you didn't play you at least need to write a post to validate.

FWIW, I agree largely with the consensus assessment that Speaker and Sullla are brilliant players and this game showed in no small detail why - they simply take the time to see all the things most of us less dedicated players never would think to look for. Are they arrogant? Yes, of course they are. I was an active reader of Sullla and Sirian's work when Civ4 came out and that was extremely apparent even then. So what? When you're good, its almost impossible to not be arrogant without being disingenuous. I also think from reading the way the Civ5 fanboys have sort of used insulting Sullla as some sort of flashpoint for their arguments illustrates what's been said repeatedly about this game - when you form an opinion, you tend to arrange the facts to fit your point of view, and there's not a whole lot they can do to change that. The only serious criticism I'd level against either of them is that for all their skill, they're a wee bit too sensitive. Western culture (or at least American and British) is ALL about tearing down successful people. If you wanted to be liked, its better to be *lousy* than good, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase.

As for the other players, I think clearly plako and slaze have the most to be proud of about their games. Both made huge mistakes at one point (plako with his NAP, city placement, etc in the early game which did not appropriately gauge the obvious threat of Aggressive Rome; slaze with the army gift) but both recovered well and had the strongest plays not made by the Indian powerhouse.

Anyway, none of this analysis is especially insightful, just wanted to say I enjoyed it, learned alot, and am playing Civ4 again thanks to it. Thanks RB!