I think we need at least one military trait in there really. A duel will mean a greater chance of harasssment and chokes and a C! 1 bonus or cheap promotions could be a deciding factor.
I'm definitely sticking with Rome as a top-tier option here, especially for the fishing mining start for the bottom opening position. Praets are going to be strong and last for a while.
We could do an Agg/Phi combo for the bottom start - if we use that as our military civ then we will want farms for using the hills for production of military and we could then swap off the hills to specialists if we wanted to pop out some GP for quick bulbs - helped a bit by the Roman forum later if we get that far.
Or we go Agg/Ind even and then we go major production for military and wonders?
We have to be careful with a duel that we don't plan like a normal PBEM to come strong in the middle game and leave our combo choices to that design. The maximum benefit will come early and I think we need to focus on that.
I might also suggest a look at Persia perhaps for the top start. Immortals could be useful but I like the Agri- Hunting start given the double deer on the top site. We can then go AH out of the gate and find out where horses are.
Then we have the tech to hook up all food resources by the time our first workers/work boat comes out. I think that could be a good shout.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
If we're thinking Persia, I'd rather just grab Egypt in most cases - better UU and hunting is cheaper that the Wheel. Persia synergizes better with Mali and Byz, however. Both synergize equally well with Rome (actually, I think Egypt synergizes slightly better, but that's just because war chariots are better than immortals at killing axes) and Egypt synergizes better with the Aztecs. Neither synergizes well with Inca.
I'm really not sold on needing fishing to start, but something that I somehow missed until now: The north also gets the expansive bonus, so no need to place the exp leader in the south if we decide to go wb first.
If we are sold on Rome, than Rome/Inca synergizes well, plus quechas gifted to Rome and upgraded into praets retain their C1 bonuses.
I do think this is basically the perfect map and set-up for the Aztecs-combined with Egypt, this gives us a great early punch in War Chariots plus the sustained ability to out-whip the enemy and a nice, but not perfect suite of starting techs (Agri/Hunting/Wheel/Myst, notably no fishing or mining). Probably still not as good as Inca, but synergizes better with Egypt.
Mail is intriguing if we go with Ind (not sold, but I'd prefer it to Imp, Chr, Pro, Agr [with anything but Rome], and probably Org), but I suggest not combining it with Rome. Only getting three starting techs, even if they are nice ones for the map, is going to slow us down majorly at the start.
I'll take your word on Byz/China coming into play too late.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Rome is really not that terrifying in a duel if you know it's coming - 2 movers are always a lot scarier. So I'm not sold on Rome at all. Keshiks are much scarier, for instance. 2 movers is how you raze cities for minimal investment. Aggressive Rome is an all-in play. If it works, yay the game is won. If it fails, the game is lost. If you pick Aggressive Rome and don't rush, then you lose out on having made a subpar civ + leader choice. Egypt, Mongolia, and Carthage are so much more flexible in that you can harass for minimal investment while still pushing hard economically, and you don't have to eat up a trait taking Aggressive either.
Persia is just a bad civ. Immortals are pretty pointless, and you actually really want to avoid Hunting or else both players will start with a scout which is such a huge disadvantage.
I guess I don't follow the Aztec thing either. I don't think that UB is even remotely impressive. It doesn't hold a candle to the Terrace anyway, and you certainly don't take Aztec for the UU. I dunno, it's just that first it doesn't even pay back until you've built a Courthouse (you won't be in a rush to build these, especially without ORG which would be a terrible trait for this game), and even then it gives you what, a couple extra whips? By the time you're slapping down Courthouses it's because your cities are big enough that you don't want to whip them all that much anyways. I guess I can't think any time that I've been wanting to whip a city with a Courthouse but held out because I had too much whip anger.
(I'm not sure they're necessary here, but I certainly wouldn't consider China/Byz to be bad for their impact being too late and then promote the likes of Aztec/Persia which don't really impact things at all )
Sorry, just think this is overthinking it a bit - Persia and Aztec is trying to be way too clever for not too much benefit IMO. If I was dueling somebody and they could pick anything except India and they picked Persia or Aztec I'd leap for joy. Also, yes having C1 for your ancient units IS useful, but that's one of the many perks of taking Inca. You get C1 warriors without having to bother with Aggressive which is super nice. Plus, you know, the best UB in the game by a mile . Yeah you don't get the C1 later, but IMO C1 can be highly impactful in the warrior choke phase - a C1 warrior on defensive terrain is just not possible to easily dislodge in the early game. Trust me, Commodore gets to be Aggressive every dang time we do one of his UU matchup duels and the first 30T are the most terrifying with nothing but my non-special warriors.
Also, I don't think only getting 3 starting techs is that big of a deal (not that we need to go out of our way to avoid 4 of course, just that I think the starting techs just need to be OK and not amazing). As long as we're 1 tech away from having what we need, we can have it researched by the time the worker gets out. 3 starting techs is still 1 more than normal, and with 2 good starting techs you often are growth-constrained more than tech-constrained in the worker tech times, so that'll be extra true here. Say we theoretically start with, say, Agriculture, Fishing, Mining, and we open with Hunting first. Is that such a disadvantage? I don't think we'll run into problems at all in that scenario or any similar one.
Somewhat stream of consciousness-like (and not exactly in order):
Everyone automatically has a scout start. And hey, I did not suggest Aztec/Persia. That's a terrible combination (and I don't like Persia for this in general). I'll bow to your superior dueling experience, and I will fully admit I am quite biased when it comes to the Aztecs.
The three techs versus four techs is just that we are delayed from getting BW, basically. Not important, but I find it highly unlikely we actually end up with that specific scenario.
Question, probably for Commodore: Is this like a normal snakepick, where if they pick Inca, we cannot pick Inca and vice-a-versa?
If so, I suggest our priorities are probably Inca (if we choose to take Inca)-Leader-Leader-Civ-Civ(if we don't want Inca). Unfortunately, if that is true, we are almost guaranteed not to be able to take Pacal of Inca. In that case, would say, Peter or Bismark of Inca plus Willem or Mansa or Huyana be better than just not having Inca? Maybe...This would basically all but prevent us from getting a military trait, unless we want Hannibal of [civ] (Byz?-doubled Myst tech; phracts; okay UB if creative or if only one source of dye is available) plus Inca.
Inca is the best civ here, in my mind, but I would love to see China-Byz if you think we can survive the early game. Heck, if you wanted to slow the start to Agr-Myst-The Wheel, which isn't horrible, even if it does feel like a small waste, we could go Byz + Inca. That could be good.
What's everyone's opinions on how soon we should take the worker labor to attach our two empires together? I assume the answer is "When we have naturally grown close together," but I am not sure.
Side note: Am I remembering correctly that we can't double traits?
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Just a little paragraph I found about Sac Altars that I like-perhaps I am overrating the value of whipping, but it seems like something we'd want to do very often in a quick-speed AW duel, even if it is a teamer. If the rest of the map is anything like the capitals, we will have lots of food to whip.
Edit: Not to suggest that you don't know how this works, I am sure ya'll do. I just like the way it's worded-it presents it nice, cleanly, and orderly.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(December 18th, 2012, 02:34)Merovech Wrote: Everyone automatically has a scout start. And hey, I did not suggest Aztec/Persia. That's a terrible combination (and I don't like Persia for this in general). I'll bow to your superior dueling experience, and I will fully admit I am quite biased when it comes to the Aztecs.
Oh I definitely wasn't implying those two together, just saw those two mentioned and was explaining why I don't think either one are worth picking in this game. I definitely don't want "I'll bow to your experience" though as I've been wrong many, many times . Also, you and TT get final say as far as I'm concerned since you'll be playing them in the important early turns, in the end I'll happily roll with whatever gets picked.
(December 18th, 2012, 02:34)Merovech Wrote: The three techs versus four techs is just that we are delayed from getting BW, basically. Not important, but I find it highly unlikely we actually end up with that specific scenario.
Oh I know and agree, I was just trying to make the general point that I don't think we need to take a subpar civ just for techs here. The value from a Terrace, Keshik, Praetorian, or Numid is going to outweight the value from techs here IMO. Rather if we're choosing between two or three strong civs, techs is good factor to consider to narrow it down further.
(December 18th, 2012, 02:34)Merovech Wrote: If so, I suggest our priorities are probably Inca (if we choose to take Inca)-Leader-Leader-Civ-Civ(if we don't want Inca). Unfortunately, if that is true, we are almost guaranteed not to be able to take Pacal of Inca. In that case, would say, Peter or Bismark of Inca plus Willem or Mansa or Huyana be better than just not having Inca? Maybe...This would basically all but prevent us from getting a military trait, unless we want Hannibal of [civ] (Byz?-doubled Myst tech; phracts; okay UB if creative or if only one source of dye is available) plus Inca.
Inca is the best civ here, in my mind, but I would love to see China-Byz if you think we can survive the early game. Heck, if you wanted to slow the start to Agr-Myst-The Wheel, which isn't horrible, even if it does feel like a small waste, we could go Byz + Inca. That could be good.
If you REALLY want the most horrifying UU combo, Byz+France would just be the most unfair thing to ever exist. Musketeers + Knights is already a winning combo as-is (draftable 2-movers ftw), but give those Knights some extra strength and it would get more than a little silly. And of course China/Byz would be great too for reasons you've described. So anyways I think I'm actually pretty ambivalent on some of the civ stuff - if they take Inca and non-Aggressive anything, I'm pretty confident we could easily survive the early turns to get CKN/Cataphracts/Musketeers/etc in play. If they grab Aggressive, it might be best to adjust that plan so that we have at least one early UU to fend them off.
On your other comments - Peter of Inca would be really great, which lets us choose between Willem, Huayna, or Ragnar for the other leader - and of course those are all solid. The main weakness with taking Inca though is that means you probably put Inca in the south (since you aren't getting Pacal Inca), which means you probably put FIN with a good UU which isn't ideal. Another factor - TT is the one picking at #2. So to some extent, it'll matter some on what he's comfortable with. If he thinks he can play a good Willem then that's a good route to go. I think in a perfect world we take Pacal at #2 and from there we just react.
(December 18th, 2012, 02:34)Merovech Wrote: What's everyone's opinions on how soon we should take the worker labor to attach our two empires together? I assume the answer is "When we have naturally grown close together," but I am not sure.
Probably just when we've naturally grown close together. First 25T will probably play kinda like a FFA.
(December 18th, 2012, 02:55)Merovech Wrote: Just a little paragraph I found about Sac Altars that I like-perhaps I am overrating the value of whipping, but it seems like something we'd want to do very often in a quick-speed AW duel, even if it is a teamer. If the rest of the map is anything like the capitals, we will have lots of food to whip.
Edit: Not to suggest that you don't know how this works, I am sure ya'll do. I just like the way it's worded-it presents it nice, cleanly, and orderly.
Yeah, I get the value, I just find that by the time you have Courthouses everywhere, you really don't want to be whipping that much as once you start hitting sizes above 8, whipping isn't quite as efficient. At that point you're normally only whipping in case of emergency, in which case you're probably just going to whip away anyways and totally disregard the happy problem.
Look at it this way - on quick speed, it's not possible to stack more than 6 whip anger since it wears off every 6 turns. More than likely you'll get overflow and not be whipping every single turn, so a more reasonable cap is you'll never stack more than 4 whip unhappiness (and even that means you're whipping at the whip penalty). In the case that you need to whip 4 times in 6 turns, you probably are saying screw the happy cap and just going for it because you need to or else you die. Practically speaking, I don't think lowering the timer from 6T to 3T actually means you're going to whip twice as much. You probably shouldn't be whipping that much that late in the game anyways. The first-turn whip penalty is the main thing that causes this IMO - if that didn't exist, you could get a city with high enough food surplus to whip every single turn and automatically regrow and get yourself a mini Globe Theater. Anyways, I'm straying off topic a bit, but I just have always been puzzled by the love for that UB. It's better on paper than it is in the game IMO.
Anyways, they pick first in the first round so let's just react to them and try to get something that matches up nicely. What I really don't want is something where we take Aggressive Rome and they go something like Huayna of Mali and Sury of Carthage. That's a terrible matchup for Agg Rome all-around and puts us down a good economic trait. We'll also know their intentions pretty clearly after the first round - if they skip Aggressive altogether then even if they take Rome, that's not too scary. If they take Aggressive, that's telegraphing their intentions to take Rome and would suggest we take Carthage for Numids on the way back (seriously guys, you can get odds on Pikemen with Shock Numids, they're awesome).
If we wanted military then, why not try this combo?
Washington (Exp/Cha) of Mongolia?
and combine it with Willem of whatever's good.
As they pick first, I reckon they will likely take Inca and this might be the best combo of what is left.
---------------
If we do have Inca, I doubt we will get Pacal, so Willem would probably be a bit of a waste of creative so HC/Lizzie/Mansa might be better there.
Or do we go for someone like Bismarck of Inca? Exp/Ind could be pretty sweet and then we could go Hannibal (Fin/Cha) or Willem (Fin/Cre) with the other.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
TT - honestly pretty much all those suggestions pretty solid to me. In the case of Washington/Bismarck/etc, I figure they are really unlikely to take those in the first few picks, so that would be a nice choice for Merovech's 4-5 spot. #2 then is just whatever we perceive to be best available after they pick. That's my thinking. I'm cooling on Inca a bit - kind of hoping they just take it #1 so we don't have to worry about it.
So they picked Bismark. TT's turn is up now. I'm still leaning towards skipping Inca. Give me a few minutes to think about this - I hadn't expected that pick.
)
. Also, you and TT get final say as far as I'm concerned since you'll be playing them in the important early turns, in the end I'll happily roll with whatever gets picked.