RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[newbie]

Seems that Sunrise/Rego/Darrelljs plan for lightbulbing cataphracts is one which is now pretty transparent to their neighbours, and it has made them a target (in combination with their aggressive city placement). If things don't go too well for them, then I think that their 2 main mistakes in the game are:

- The aggressive city placement
- Their choice right at the start, during the snake pick, of picking a civ/leader combo with one obviously overpowering strategy. Firstly you are somewhat locked into that strategy at the start by golden handcuffs, and secondly it is transparent to other players what your plan is, so you are likely to be targetted before you can use it.

In a game with humans and lots of diplomacy, I wonder if it is sometimes a mistake to pick the best (military) UUs. It certainly contributed to Mortius's demise. Rome may fare better, but just because you have praets, you don't have to use them. Their possession of such a strong UU led to major distrust with their neighbours, and with a distrustful neighbour they are somewhat forced into early aggression. After Mortius's elimination, they might have been better off focusing on peaceful expansion (particularly with their lack of economic traits). They could have used the potential of praets to elicit (with very little persuasion) a very long NAP with their neighbour, without consuming many hammers building them! and the Iron-working beeline probably hasn't helped their economy a great deal (particularly with the lack of economic techs). Although I guess that being able to expand into the land of 3 civs may not be too bad a payoff, if they do succeed.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, I wonder if the teams that went for the best UBs (or fast workers) rather than the best UUs will fare better in their wars. Since (for the civs choosing the best UUs) their window of optimal military opportunity is a little too obvious to their targets, which will lead to being ganged up on before they get their UU. There may also be more appropriate defenses if they do get to use their UUs, since they lose some of the surprise factor.

One intriguing hypothesis for a no-tech-trading game :
Since the tech will go slower than with tech-trading on, then people will run out of buildings to build more quickly. So more hammers will probably end up in units than otherwise. I wonder if this will contribute to higher aggression levels?

I wonder when the diplomacy will move towards setting up 2v1 alliances? It's probably been a little early at the moment since it is not yet practical, but is getting to the stage where the diplomatic side of it could happen, if people choose to do that?

It seems that both teams currently planning on aggression are trying the 'international trade routes' tactic to road to their fronts, whilst conveniently not having NAP. It just seems like far too obvious a strategy to have any chance of working. Maybe someone will fall for it though.

[newbie]

Technically you're giving away information whenever you post since you modify your behavior based on spoiler information. The only truely fair way would be to not have lurker thread and to lock people into one thread.

Yes, you are right. I was mainly worried about giving my knowledge of the cataphact beelining plan (since at the time I had forgotten most of the other relevant information I had seen...). I don't think that I did, and I don't think any harm was done, since the players had already worked out for themselves that it was a highly likely plan. But I will definitely be more careful, and just not even comment on matters that I know about.

[novice]

One intriguing hypothesis for a no-tech-trading game :
Since the tech will go slower than with tech-trading on, then people will run out of buildings to build more quickly. So more hammers will probably end up in units than otherwise. I wonder if this will contribute to higher aggression levels?

That's interesting. Might well become the case as the high maintenance costs of a toroidal map will put initial limits to expansion as well. In other words, those units won't be settlers.

[novice]

I took a gamble and have moved 2 of our warriors outside Paris to start scouting. They haven't gotten too far yet (green squares) but I'd like to have a better idea of what is in the 2 spots we're negotiating over.

I guess Darrell should start brushing up on his Crysis skills...

[BobRoberts]

Heh. I did a 'facepalm' maneuver when I read that... guess they have a very narrow window of grace to figure that out - next turn they could still move back in and all it would cost is some fortification bonus?

It's exciting stuff though, has me on the edge of my seat.

[antisocialmunky]

I just hope there is a level of taunting befitting of the capitol of France if this endeavor fails.

[Maniac Marshall]

Somewhat counter-intuitively, I wonder if the teams that went for the best UBs (or fast workers) rather than the best UUs will fare better in their wars. Since (for the civs choosing the best UUs) their window of optimal military opportunity is a little too obvious to their targets, which will lead to being ganged up on before they get their UU.

I don't think you could possibly be any more spot on correct in your analysis of than this.

Speaker and I have been friends for a good while, and we chat on aim occasionally. We had one such chat about this game right before it started and, interestingly enough, he told me that he and Sulla were hoping to get Byzantium originally. I told him then that I thought they'd be glad they got India instead, because EVERYONE would assume Byzantium would be plotting to start a war just after getting their UU, and would, therefore, be intent upon going after them BEFORE they got Cataphracts, or, at the very least, would be sure to have themselves properly defended against those units.

On the other hand, no one would feel immediately threatened by India. You don't have to be afraid of being rushed by a hoard of Fast Workers . The more this game plays out, the more it looks like I was right (For once!).

[ZPVCSPLFUIFDPEF]

[strike]So, who framed Roger Rabbit?[/strike]

err..

Who founded Hinduism?

[shadyforce]

That's a really good question!

IKZ I think. But Sullla or someone will let us know from the demogs in a turn or two.

[Swiss Pauli]

Looks like ikz to me: they were trying for Buddhism (7 turns to go on T46) so I assume they switched to Poly when they lost that race. They need the luck as their play - aside from eliminatng Mortius - has been rather poor.