Brick by Brick (Spoiler Alert!)

[BRickAstley]

Err... I suggest non-random picking

[Catwalk]

I don't like the Expansive trait. I haven't mastered the whole heavy whipping-Granaries thing. Usually I only build the latter when I need the health boost, or just before busting the happiness cap with Hereditary Rule; they're not a "first-build-in-every-city" thing like they are for some (most?) people. The health bonus is nice but not truly necessary; the bonus to Worker build speed is quite nice, but again, I can live without it. I know I'm a fool, but to be honest, I'd rather have Aggressive.

If you dislike Expansive because you don't know how to whip properly, then Expansive would be an excellent choice. I actually find Expansive to be a little overrated personally, but I've gotten a lot better at effective whip usage. This is a very important skill to learn, if you want to improve your competitive play. However, Expansive are not you're selling yourself massively short if you don't build granaries in new cities. It's one of the only buildings which directly boosts the city itself! And it does so in the most important way of all, by boosting food production.

I like the Creative trait, but not as much as some others. The fast border pops are quite nice, but by no means essential. I don't like the cheap buildings so much - the Colosseum I rarely build, the Theatre is so cheap anyway; the Library is the only really useful one. I know I'm a fool, and I do like Creative, but to be honest, I'd rather have, say, Charismatic.

Again, I'm not a big fan of CRE either. If you explore and dotmap well, you can often plan your way out of border pops. However, during my early expansion phase of PBEM37 I often found myself forced to pick subpar locations because of needing a border pop. Fast and reliable border pops means you can work far more resources sooner, and gives you a lot more flexibility in your dotmapping.

India - I like the Mausoleum, but it is a late building. I know the Fast Worker is the best unit in the game, but I have zero experience with it, so I would probably miss half the opportunities it offers anyway, and I'm not that interested in Worker shenanigans. I don't mind the starting techs, and I know I'm a fool, but to be honest, I think I'd rather pass.

The Mausoleum is irrelevant, as are most unique buildings. If you have no experience with the fast worker, I strongly recommend picking India. It gives you two major benefits: 1) Being able to chop forests 1t faster 2) Being able to shift your workers around with far less worker turns lost. The starting techs are very weak, though. While Mysticism can give you a meta advantage by deterring opponents from going for a religion, it's difficult to use your first worker optimally unless you have very lucrative land at your capital. Usually you will have a single grain resource, letting you get Agriculture around the time your worker finishes. You can build a grassland hill mine afterwards, and then you might have Animal Husbandry available. If you go for Bronze Working instead you'll likely need to build two mines that you won't really be using for some time. These starting techs require better micro than most, you can easily paint yourself into a corner.

I like the Quechua a lot against barbarians, but I have no interest in rushing that early. The Terrace suffers from the same problem for me as the Expansive trait: I haven't come to lean on the Granary so much as some (most) yet. Again, I don't mind the starting techs, and I know I'm a fool, but to be honest, I think I'd rather pass.

Same as above. EXP/Inca gives amazing early expansion speed with easy border pops, and that helps set the snowball rolling. Add FIN to the mix and you've got amazing long-term economic strength as well. One important thing with relying on terraces for border pops is that it's critical to chop a forest within 3t of settling the city. That allows the granary to finish on time to take full advantage of pop growth and lets you pop borders fast. You will typically want to chop the forest on the same time you found the city, as you can then switch the worker to improving a tile that came under cultural control when the city was founded. If you haven't pre-chopped you will need two workers, as you also usually need to start improving a resource tile right away.

What do I like? Financial. Financial, Financial, Financial (but everyone says that). Frankly, I'm not confident enough in my abilities not to pick this trait. What would I like to pair with it? Organized. I like it's cheap buildings and its "big-picture" benefit, letting me run more expensive civics and keep my research rate up (civics that I find provide more benefit than, say, the Expansive trait).

FIN/ORG is not a bad combo at all, especially on a builder focused map which I'm guessing this is going to be.

Philosophical. I'm not great at planning out Great Person use, bulbing, etc., but I do like having an Academy in (almost) every city, which is obviously Great Person-intensive. I like the cheap Universities too.

No. Nonononono You do not want an academy in almost every city. Maybe 2-3 cities tops if you have several awesome commerce cities, I think going beyond that is way too much. Now that you mention it, I probably should get an academy or two in PBEM37 sometime soon. Universities are weak IMO, you get them very late and they give a mere +25% beakers. Compared with cheaper libraries (great for early border control, not to mention research) and cheaper forges (IND forges are a steal!), cheaper universities fail to shine.

I've been rediscovering the value of Industrious of late.

I like IND too, both for the actual bonuses and for the intimidation factor. India + FIN/IND is an awesome builder combo, fast workers with +50% wonder speed strongly discourages your opponents in a tight wonder race.

I like Imperialistic on more cramped maps. I find Aggressive and Charismatic quite useful, and I'm not even a warmonger

I would swap this around a bit: CHA can be a lot of use on a tight map (you need to start growing tall much sooner than usual), and IMP can be useful on a large map with low upkeep costs where settler cost is a significant bottleneck for expansion. IMP is a weak pick overall when no restrictions are imposed, and CHA is weak on large maps in general IMO. Aggressive is a pretty bad trait on large maps, I know I've regretted picking it in PBEM37, even though I paired it with awesome Roman Praetorians.

I can never be bothered with Spiritual

It saves you a turn early on with Bronze Working and lets you take advantage of a religion much more easily. Next turn saved comes when you research Monarchy. After that, switching from Organized Religion to Theocracy can be very nice. Same with Bureau <=> Nationhood. I don't think it's amazing either, and I like switching civics during GA personally. But saved turns are worth a lot, and the flexibility in military buildup can help keep your opponent guessing.

Well, this is getting to be quite the essay, so I think I'll stop there, and leave everyone to wonder at my folly. Catwalk, feel free to say to me, "smarten up, Hydra, we need to win this game, not sit around bashing the Expansive trait while everyone else bashes us with it!" and I will smarten up. Or, if you're insane (I don't know you yet!) you can egg on my insanity and encourage me to pick a really wacky civ/leader combo, and to heck with my lack of confidence! Or we could pick one of the strong, silent types - not too flashy, but solid enough to lean on. Readers, Catwalk, what do you think?

If you wish to handicap yourself for one reason or another, I'm not opposed to that. I had the same discussion with Lego earlier, seems you two wackos are made for each other However, I do want to do my best correct some of your assumptions about strengths and weaknesses. It's one thing to pick CHA because you think it's fun to play with, it's quite another to pick it because you think it offers a major economic bonus on a large map.

[Catwalk]

TL;DR:
1) I suggest powergaming. If you wish to better yourself, first learn the strongest approaches then get creative with less common approaches later.
2) I'm strongly in favour of the power 4 for purposes of power gaming, they're both strong and reliable.

And I see we just got a starting screenshot, I'll comment on it tomorrow.

[Merovech]

I strongly agree with powergaming here;there is no reason to handicap yourself before you know your relative ability versus your opponents'. I personally find Cha, Imp, Agg, and Pro to be very situational (I used to like Cha a lot more than I do now). Since this is a non-restricted draft, I would highly recommend not picking any of these. Civs give a little more leeway, but I would be careful about making an "anti-meta" pick. Sometimes you will be right, but usually the meta at RB is there for a reason.

[TheHumanHydra]

If you wish to handicap yourself for one reason or another, I'm not opposed to that. I had the same discussion with Lego earlier, seems you two wackos are made for each other However, I do want to do my best correct some of your assumptions about strengths and weaknesses. It's one thing to pick CHA because you think it's fun to play with, it's quite another to pick it because you think it offers a major economic bonus on a large map.

I've got to go to bed, so I'll say more tomorrow, but I feel the need to say that I had hoped it would be evident from my post that I didn't think my playstyle was superior; rather, what I was expressing was a desire to not pick stereotypically. How can I say what I'm trying to say? I fully intend to win this (or rather to put Lego in the best possible position to win this when he takes over), but I'd rather do it my way (or Lego's way at his discretion) than succeed because I made the best pick from someone else's list of top choices. I don't know if that makes any sense ...

The main thing I am getting from everyone's posts is that they would find it most entertaining for us to pick a strong leader than a wacky one. Fair enough; my first instinct after all was to do just that, just not picking Pacal or Willem (or India or Inca)! My top choices would probably be Darius, Huayna Capac save for the fact that we're picking first, and Elizabeth.

(Btw, you misunderstood me on Cha, Catwalk - nowhere did I say I thought it provided "a major economic bonus," especially not "on a large map." Maybe I'll explain what I meant by that "I'm not even a warmonger" comment tomorrow; suffice it to say, it's not that I think Cha is an economic trait!)

Anyway, I hope that no one took yesterday's post as arrogance; it was written with a wry smile and a healthy dose of self-deprecation. I'm a little disappointed at being labelled a wacko already; it would have pleased me greatly if after watching us play for a while, someone had commented, "hey, that guy plays a little differently, and he's still good. It's refreshing!" (Of course, we all [including myself] have yet to see whether I'm any good, and right now you may well be thinking, quite possibly rightly, "not likely!")

And I'm rambling again ... I hope this post conveys what I meant it to. If it doesn't make sense, please let me know, and I'll try to express myself better. A demain!

THH

[BRickAstley]

All I want to say is that yes, it is fun to pick random or challenging leaders/civs. However, since this game is designed to be highly competitive, I think it's much more important to make picks that will serve to strengthen your chances of winning, instead of random or off-color picks, since your opponents will be doing so as well.

[TheHumanHydra]

Will clarify tomorrow.

THH

[Catwalk]

I've got to go to bed, so I'll say more tomorrow, but I feel the need to say that I had hoped it would be evident from my post that I didn't think my playstyle was superior; rather, what I was expressing was a desire to not pick stereotypically. How can I say what I'm trying to say? I fully intend to win this (or rather to put Lego in the best possible position to win this when he takes over), but I'd rather do it my way (or Lego's way at his discretion) than succeed because I made the best pick from someone else's list of top choices. I don't know if that makes any sense ...

I'm sorry if I came off that way, I didn't find your post out of line in any way. And some of my statements were more general than specific, such as the example with CHA (elaborating below). I don't have any problem with you handicapping yourself, and would dedlurk you every bit as enthusiastically if you choose to do so (in agreement with Lego). I did handicap myself a tiny bit in PBEM37 by picking Ragnar of Rome, as I wanted to pursue a more aggressive playing style rather than my usual builder style. Unsurprisingly, I ended up playing Ragnar the Builder

The main thing I am getting from everyone's posts is that they would find it most entertaining for us to pick a strong leader than a wacky one. Fair enough; my first instinct after all was to do just that, just not picking Pacal or Willem (or India or Inca)! My top choices would probably be Darius, Huayna Capac save for the fact that we're picking first, and Elizabeth.

Given that you have little experience with India and efficient whipping, I do think you should consider them. If you don't explore whipping strategies in-depth, your early gameplay will have a big hole that leaves you behind opponents who know how to do this. India isn't quite the same as faster workers isn't a unique strategy, and you can argue both ways whether the FW allows you to take greater advantage of superb micro skills or is a good way to shore up lacking micro skills. I tend toward the latter personally, I greatly enjoy the convenience of being able to move my workers where I like without losing worker turns. Same as my CRE argument previously, although I've moderated that somewhat.

(Btw, you misunderstood me on Cha, Catwalk - nowhere did I say I thought it provided "a major economic bonus," especially not "on a large map." Maybe I'll explain what I meant by that "I'm not even a warmonger" comment tomorrow; suffice it to say, it's not that I think Cha is an economic trait!)

I was mostly just giving an example here, don't read too much into the specifics. I do think CHA is a good economic trait on smaller maps, for two reasons: 1) You're less likely to be able to grab sufficient luxuries 2) The reduced room for expansion makes early vertical growth far more important. As for the XP bonus, I think it's pretty weak. It shaves 1 XP off the 2nd promotion, and you get 5 XP easily anyway with barracks and theocracy. If barracks and theo both gave 2 XP I think CHA would be a good amount stronger, as it'd make it far easier to get the 2nd promotion on new units.

Anyway, I hope that no one took yesterday's post as arrogance; it was written with a wry smile and a healthy dose of self-deprecation. I'm a little disappointed at being labelled a wacko already; it would have pleased me greatly if after watching us play for a while, someone had commented, "hey, that guy plays a little differently, and he's still good. It's refreshing!" (Of course, we all [including myself] have yet to see whether I'm any good, and right now you may well be thinking, quite possibly rightly, "not likely!")

Again, sorry for calling you a wacko As I mentioned, I'm a little bit that way too, both when playing Civ and when playing other games. I enjoy exploring new tactics and often handicap myself from tactics I consider boring. That's usually in single-player though, where the handicap is necessary to enhance the challenge. In a multi-player setting I'm a vocal proponent of having restrictions on leader/civ picking in order to see more variety in combos used. I'm not playing here so I didn't get into that discussion much, but I did find that to be a little boring. On the other hand, in a fairly green game I think it's good to try fairly unrestricted games in order to find out for yourself why the restrictions have merit.

However, once the restrictions have been agreed on I almost always go for the strongest combination, slightly skewed for preference (like Ragnar of Rome). FIN was my insurance in case I screwed up my aggressive plans, and that turned out to be a life-saver. One reason for handicapping yourself would be to offset a skill difference, I imagine Serdoa might do this as he's a very good player with many games under his belt. If you think you have a leg up on the competition (and you very well may, I have absolutely no idea), I don't think a little bit of cockiness is a bad thing.

I managed to ramble quite a bit there too, hope I didn't confuse you further In conclusion, I'm fully on board whatever you choose. If I disagree with your strength assessments I will do my best to correct you, and if you want feedback on why a particular choice might be interesting to play I will loyally comment on that based on your perspective. I didn't find you arrogant in the least, but I agree with BRick's point about enhancing the competition by everybody picking the strongest option available to them.

[Catwalk]

I've got to go to bed, so I'll say more tomorrow, but I feel the need to say that I had hoped it would be evident from my post that I didn't think my playstyle was superior; rather, what I was expressing was a desire to not pick stereotypically. How can I say what I'm trying to say? I fully intend to win this (or rather to put Lego in the best possible position to win this when he takes over), but I'd rather do it my way (or Lego's way at his discretion) than succeed because I made the best pick from someone else's list of top choices. I don't know if that makes any sense ...

I'm sorry if I came off that way, I didn't find your post out of line in any way. And some of my statements were more general than specific, such as the example with CHA (elaborating below). I don't have any problem with you handicapping yourself, and would dedlurk you every bit as enthusiastically if you choose to do so (in agreement with Lego). I did handicap myself a tiny bit in PBEM37 by picking Ragnar of Rome, as I wanted to pursue a more aggressive playing style rather than my usual builder style. Unsurprisingly, I ended up playing Ragnar the Builder

The main thing I am getting from everyone's posts is that they would find it most entertaining for us to pick a strong leader than a wacky one. Fair enough; my first instinct after all was to do just that, just not picking Pacal or Willem (or India or Inca)! My top choices would probably be Darius, Huayna Capac save for the fact that we're picking first, and Elizabeth.

Given that you have little experience with India and efficient whipping, I do think you should consider them. If you don't explore whipping strategies in-depth, your early gameplay will have a big hole that leaves you behind opponents who know how to do this. India isn't quite the same as faster workers isn't a unique strategy, and you can argue both ways whether the FW allows you to take greater advantage of superb micro skills or is a good way to shore up lacking micro skills. I tend toward the latter personally, I greatly enjoy the convenience of being able to move my workers where I like without losing worker turns. Same as my CRE argument previously, although I've moderated that somewhat.

(Btw, you misunderstood me on Cha, Catwalk - nowhere did I say I thought it provided "a major economic bonus," especially not "on a large map." Maybe I'll explain what I meant by that "I'm not even a warmonger" comment tomorrow; suffice it to say, it's not that I think Cha is an economic trait!)

I was mostly just giving an example here, don't read too much into the specifics. I do think CHA is a good economic trait on smaller maps, for two reasons: 1) You're less likely to be able to grab sufficient luxuries 2) The reduced room for expansion makes early vertical growth far more important. As for the XP bonus, I think it's pretty weak. It shaves 1 XP off the 2nd promotion, and you get 5 XP easily anyway with barracks and theocracy. If barracks and theo both gave 2 XP I think CHA would be a good amount stronger, as it'd make it far easier to get the 2nd promotion on new units.

Anyway, I hope that no one took yesterday's post as arrogance; it was written with a wry smile and a healthy dose of self-deprecation. I'm a little disappointed at being labelled a wacko already; it would have pleased me greatly if after watching us play for a while, someone had commented, "hey, that guy plays a little differently, and he's still good. It's refreshing!" (Of course, we all [including myself] have yet to see whether I'm any good, and right now you may well be thinking, quite possibly rightly, "not likely!")

Again, sorry for calling you a wacko As I mentioned, I'm a little bit that way too, both when playing Civ and when playing other games. I enjoy exploring new tactics and often handicap myself from tactics I consider boring. That's usually in single-player though, where the handicap is necessary to enhance the challenge. In a multi-player setting I'm a vocal proponent of having restrictions on leader/civ picking in order to see more variety in combos used. I'm not playing here so I didn't get into that discussion much, but I did find that to be a little boring. On the other hand, in a fairly green game I think it's good to try fairly unrestricted games in order to find out for yourself why the restrictions have merit.

However, once the restrictions have been agreed on I almost always go for the strongest combination, slightly skewed for preference (like Ragnar of Rome). FIN was my insurance in case I screwed up my aggressive plans, and that turned out to be a life-saver. One reason for handicapping yourself would be to offset a skill difference, I imagine Serdoa might do this as he's a very good player with many games under his belt. If you think you have a leg up on the competition (and you very well may, I have absolutely no idea), I don't think a little bit of cockiness is a bad thing.

I managed to ramble quite a bit there too, hope I didn't confuse you further In conclusion, I'm fully on board whatever you choose. If I disagree with your strength assessments I will do my best to correct you, and if you want feedback on why a particular choice might be interesting to play I will loyally comment on that based on your perspective. I didn't find you arrogant in the least, but I agree with BRick's point about enhancing the competition by everybody picking the strongest option available to them.

Also, I'd check out your game in PBEM45 to see what your playing style and skill level is like, but I'm dedlurking Ichabod so I have to stay out

[TheHumanHydra]

Thank you for your post, Catwalk. I think we understand better where each other is coming from now! Sorry about the misunderstanding about Cha; I thought you were trying to make reference to something you thought I had said earlier. Your point is taken about picking India as a learning experience; if I get them, I may need help with the unfamiliar Worker micro, though! Now, I had thought the d4 roll meant we were picking first, but apparently it means we are playing first and picking last (or rather, back-to-back in the middle). Based on our conversations, my first choice should be Pacal (Exp/Fin) of India, followed by either Pacal of Inca or Willem (Cre/Fin) of India. If no one else has picked an Industrious leader by the time we pick, though, can we pick Huayna Capac (Fin/Ind) so we're the only ones with the wonder bonus? If all three leaders are taken, I'll pick Darius (Fin/Org). I'm a little more uncertain about civ. Obviously Willem of Inca would be silly. What other civs would you recommend in case both India and Inca are taken? Spain or Britain for their strong endgame unique units? Byzantium for its strong middle-game UU? Just throwing out ideas.

There's not much to see in PBEM45 yet (well, you would know!) so you're not missing much in terms of evaluating my play skill there (I'm also being heavily influenced by my dedlurker, Sian). I've been tempted for a while to post a single-player game report here like they do on CivFanatics, but it doesn't seem that people do that here save for the Epics. I'm also in the Demogame, but again, so are you!

Okay, I think that covers everything. Thank you very much for your support Catwalk, and thank you everyone for participating in the discussion so far (I've never had a post that generated so much discussion before!). Let me know your thoughts on this picking strategy, Catwalk, Lego. Finally, why don't we make it a goal of this game for me to learn how to whip more effectively (besides winning, of course!)?

THH