PBEM 5H Vampires vs Ogres, Vampire spoiler thread

[Irgy]

Are the Calabim too good? Irgy thinks so:

Calabim. There's not one thing about them that's broken, they just have too much love. Every single thing that's different about them is good. Moroi are good. Every single ability that Vampires have, is good. Governer's Mansions are really good (once you know that they add a ton of "secret" hammers). The civ has three leaders, and all of them are good. Breeding pits are good. Any one thing on its own is fine, but put them all together and it's too many pros for too few cons.

(and i forgot to even mention river of blood...)

But Bobchillingworth disagrees:

The Calabim are balanced right now in the same way that the Clan and Amurities are balanced- they're very strong once they get going, but getting to that point takes a lot of effort and time. Cities have to be grown, vampires babysat until they have enough exp, tech is slow. If you're thinking of nerfing the Calabim, then you should also make it so the Clan can't produce two base strength 8 Ogres at once and Govannon can't give spells to priests. Both are at least as good as vampires.

The gauntlet was thrown down:

Anyway, maybe the only fair way to resolve this Bob is a duel. We'll set up a map that avoids a warrior-fight between capitals or some such rubbish, then I'll take Flauros, and you can play Clan/Amurites/Your Choice. If I can't set up a deathsquad of Vampires faster than you can get enough double-Ogres, spellcasting priests or whatever to defend yourself then I'll conceed the point

And accepted:

Is this offer genuine? Roll up a non-islands mirror map (small size, I guess), and I'll be happy to duel you. Ancient Era start, barbs, all unique features, double events- standard settings used for these games. I'll take Sheelba of the Clan. Just be aware that the game will probably take around a month to complete depending on how often we play, so come in with the intention more of having fun and less of proving a point

We can't have an experiment like this without a spoiler thread, so here we are. Little does he know though, that proving a point... is how I have fun! However long it takes! Bwahahahaha!

Actually it was more just an excuse to find someone else to duel against. I really do enjoy this game.

[Irgy]

The start. If you're wondering what Bobchillingworth's start is, use a mirror. This is a symmetric map. In this image, I've moved the settler 1NE, because there was a hill there and there's nothing better than a starting settler on a hill for scouting the terrain.


I chose to settle like so:


The more observant of you will figure out what I popped from the hut. I'm taking a punt on worker/agriculture first. My hope is that Bob will go growth first, and I can then steal 2 population from him with the worldspell and finish my worker even faster. Taking 2 population hard earned population from the enemy capital early on is in my opinion the best use of River of Blood.

If he goes worker first as well though I'm not so sure, the capital will grow back population very quickly, and I'll be growing myself to 5 pop and suffer unhealthiness as a result. So in that case I may well save it for boosting a whole lot of freshly settled expansion cities later on.

My warrior will grab the hut to the east, then head back and defend the capital in case Bob's scout gets to it.

[Selrahc]

Flauros or Alexis?

Alexis kind of seems like the fairer leader for this comparison.

[Irgy]

Of course, shortly after I settled, I realised it was a bad location. At the time I thought "floodplains! floodplains! I'll try and get as many of those in my BFC as physically possible!". Um, no. They are strictly better than the unirrigated rice (until construction irrigates it anyway), and the sheep as well since it takes so long to tech animal love. However, there's only so many flood plains that you actually want to work, any more are superfulous. And more to the point, unhealthy. My health cap is now 3 population

Better to have settled somewhere with more production (only 3 hills, and one is the wine so no mine there), more health (via less floodplains) and leaving more flooplains for future cities instead. Although, looking at those screenshots below, I'm not really sure where such a location would be.

In any case, the good news is it appears Bob almost certainly settled the same location. Or at the very least, one with the same health problems:


The GNP difference is his -10% research. Otherwise everything identical. The only thing I still can't tell is whether he's building a worker first or not. He's a barbarian civ, so he has nothing to fear from barbarian attacks, so I can't imagine why he wouldn't to be honest. Especially with all these flood plains around.

[Irgy]

Flauros or Alexis?

Alexis kind of seems like the fairer leader for this comparison.

Fair?

Part of my original point was that the leaders of the Calabim were too good. So choosing the leader I consider best is a critical part of the experiment. If we were trying to compare the civs independent of the leaders I'd agree with you. Similarly if we were just comparing vampires to double-ogres and nothing else I might skip Moroi, and avoid my plans for rampant abuse of the Governer's Manor (though I'd obviously have to build a few anyway). But the whole argument was that it was a "whole package" thing, so I'm not leaving out any parts of that package or it's missing the point.

Ok ok so maybe I'd make my point better about all the leaders of the Calabim being good with Alexis. I'd also probably have made my point more decisively if I left raging barbarians on, which I shamefully wimped out of.

[Irgy]

Ok, we played with a direct connection this morning and got through a fair few turns. Not too much news, but a few pictures at least.

Earlier, I'd popped crafting from a hut. This was great news, because I'd been stressing over the precise timing of when I should research it, whether to get Calendar first and maybe even finish my Code of Laws beeline. Now I don't need to decide


Then a map of the south, giving me a scale for the map overall, and saving me some time exploring down there when there's no huts:


And, I continued to get lucky with huts, as you can see me confessing in the screenshot. Look at that score difference!


I'm getting Calendar, for Agrarianism, which will boost expansion. I'll then make something of a beeline to Code of Laws, at which point tech will hopefully skyrocket, as will production thanks to the Governer's Manors. I'll probably get mining along the way, as I'll have not even enough production to build garrison warriors otherwise. In fact maybe I should have done that before Calendar, not sure. Otherwise, just marking time and hoping I don't get too much of a barbarian barrage.

[Tredje]

In a game where the goal is to determine whether a civilization is overpowered or not, isn't it a bit counter-productive to play with huts? The difference between getting 3 early techs or 3 maps can turn out to be quite substantial. At least that's how it seems to me. In fact, wouldn't it be prudent to turn off events as well? Sure, it won't resemble most actual games, but wouldn't it give you a clearer picture of a civilization's strength in vacuo? Whatever you do, the outcome of the game will be influenced by random factors (player decision making, RNG rolls etc.), but you could try to limit their effect. I do not intend this post as criticism, it is more of a question since you stated at the outset that you wanted to determine a civilization's strength.

[Krill]

In a game where the goal is to determine whether a civilization is overpowered or not, isn't it a bit counter-productive to play with huts? The difference between getting 3 early techs or 3 maps can turn out to be quite substantial. At least that's how it seems to me. In fact, wouldn't it be prudent to turn off events as well? Sure, it won't resemble most actual games, but wouldn't it give you a clearer picture of a civilization's strength in vacuo? Whatever you do, the outcome of the game will be influenced by random factors (player decision making, RNG rolls etc.), but you could try to limit their effect. I do not intend this post as criticism, it is more of a question since you stated at the outset that you wanted to determine a civilization's strength.

Yeah...you guys arguably played under the wrong settings...

However, playing for fun is never wrong. Should be an entertaining read

[Selrahc]

Technically huts on should favour a barbarian player. They have no barriers to exploration, so should be popping more huts.

Of course sometimes the odds are just in one players favour...


I do like the fact that one set of villagers gave you a map, and then the next set of villagers explained what a map actually was.

[SevenSpirits]

I do like the fact that one set of villagers gave you a map, and then the next set of villagers explained what a map actually was.

Haha, awesome.