Actually, now I'm rereading the startup thread and I seemed to have missed comments like these:
Thoth Wrote:Just ran a quickie test to check out tech costs:
On a Large Map at Immortal Difficulty T1 techs will cost 178 Beakers, T2 techs are running 300-350 beakers. This is going to make for some painfully slow teching.
We may want to reconsider the difficulty level.
DaveV Wrote:Not sure I see the problem: with three civs dumping their commerce into a common pool, that's at least 27 beakers/turn, even without any other commerce than the palace and city tile. So, about 6.5 turns for the first tech, and you can start with three free techs if you pick your civs right.
Thoth Wrote:True, the early techs won't be too bad (12/13 turns for things like Myst/Calendar). But the mid/late game techs are going to be painful, especially if we go with a Huge map. We're looking at ~2x the normal beaker cost (plus map size factor)
I haven't run a full test game to see what the midgame is likely to look like wrt tech pace, but my gut says it's going to be slow. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something we should be aware of before we commit months of leisure time to this game.
Do we want to reconsider Lanun? I know I argued against them before, but if tech's going to be a problem then Lanun will help us get out of the early game quicker which otherwise we want to avoid, having no real early military advantage aside from Centaurs. If they're taken then Valledia is still good of course.
I'm with Lanun. I also think Hannah might be as good a choice as Falamar in this situation. We don't need another expansive leader, but financial can help the team. And if the Kuriotates are going down the mounted line for centaurs, Hannah can contribute raiders horsemen.
My vote's on Falamar actually. An expansive leader, which will swap to financial later. It's not like we need raiders horsemen if the kurios are going non-raider centaurs...