[SPOILERS]Specialist of Everything: JC of the Zulu

[Gaspar]

I like the cut of your jib, Gawdzak - I caught the end of your PB20 thread and decided I'd check this out. If this game wasn't RtR I might dedlurk you.

I agree and disagree with you on Spiritual. I think it tends to be overvalued because people like to feel like they're doing something and Spiritual in the hands of a bad player is basically a null trait. That said if you leverage it properly, it can be very strong - I can point you to several games where Spiritual played a significant role in the winning of the game. Just because you don't like to build wonders doesn't mean roided up 40h temples aren't strong. That said, it is a clear midtier trait. I'm speaking mostly for BTS here - I've never played RtR.

I also think trying to interpret anything from PB18 is insanity.

[Gawdzak]

I like the cut of your jib, Gawdzak - I caught the end of your PB20 thread and decided I'd check this out. If this game wasn't RtR I might dedlurk you.

I bet you approved of my naming scheme there then.

I agree and disagree with you on Spiritual. I think it tends to be overvalued because people like to feel like they're doing something and Spiritual in the hands of a bad player is basically a null trait. That said if you leverage it properly, it can be very strong - I can point you to several games where Spiritual played a significant role in the winning of the game. Just because you don't like to build wonders doesn't mean roided up 40h temples aren't strong. That said, it is a clear midtier trait. I'm speaking mostly for BTS here - I've never played RtR.

I would be interested in games where Spiritual was used well. However I'm probably too set in my preconceptions and attribute its strength to something else entirely or see it as "win-more".

I also think trying to interpret anything from PB18 is insanity.

Can't disagree here.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

Very good stuff here.

I particularly like your trait evaluation method. I'd be interested in seeing how these traits have fared in their current state (RtR) over several games. PB18 is a bit of a statistical outlier on just about every level you can imagine. A better metric for success (or lack of) in that particular game would be to measure time logged into the game. Some folks could be adequately described as giving less than a full effort in that one.

Regarding your rankings though, it would be kind of neat to see how the traits fare at set benchmarks during the game, maybe every 25-50 turns. I expect some traits would nosedive later on (CRE for one) and others to pick up strength (ORG/FIN as cottages mature). We are getting a decent body of work for RtR now so this may be useful information. Or, just amusing to civ junkies like me.

Anyway, looking forward to reading more.

[Gawdzak]

Very good stuff here.

I particularly like your trait evaluation method. I'd be interested in seeing how these traits have fared in their current state (RtR) over several games. PB18 is a bit of a statistical outlier on just about every level you can imagine. A better metric for success (or lack of) in that particular game would be to measure time logged into the game. Some folks could be adequately described as giving less than a full effort in that one.

Regarding your rankings though, it would be kind of neat to see how the traits fare at set benchmarks during the game, maybe every 25-50 turns. I expect some traits would nosedive later on (CRE for one) and others to pick up strength (ORG/FIN as cottages mature). We are getting a decent body of work for RtR now so this may be useful information. Or, just amusing to civ junkies like me.

Anyway, looking forward to reading more.

Of course, player skill/commitment is a much bigger determining factor in individual player standings. I think the sample size is big enough in this game to at least get a small picture of how the traits match up against each up. However the sample size is obviously not big enough to be able to draw real conclusions. PB18 is biggest game ever on RB, data from smaller game is much more likely to be skewed due to player skill.

Well maybe I will a similar analysis for this game at set benchmarks, assuming I live long enough to tell the tale of course.

[The Black Sword]

Fog gazing is punishable by potential time wastage.

[Gawdzak]

Plains cow...... Surely you must be joking?

[Gawdzak]

Well this start have very high production, so both EXP and IMP would be good. With EXP I can get a 10 turn worker without losing out on commerce because of the plains cow.

For the other trait, I want either FIN or ORG to carry me through the late game so that leave me:

Pacal (FIN/EXP)
Victoria (FIN/IMP)
Julius Caesar (IMP/ORG)
Mehmed (EXP/ORG)

I think I'm pretty guaranteed to get one of these leaders but you never know. Out of those I prefer JC the most, because FIN is not great at this capital: I don't see many non-riverside tiles that I would want to cottage. I'm ambivalent about Mehmed because I see EXP and ORG as somewhat anti-synergistic: with ORG, the science slider tended to run high, which makes the EXP cheap markets/grocers less valuable. However, the worker bonus alone is still valuable enough to warrant a pick.

As for civs, the only essential tech is Hunting. Doesn't matter about the other one, as long it's not Fishing or Mysticism.

So we get:

Zulu (Hunting/Agriculture)
Mongolia (Hunting/Wheel)
Ethiopia/Khmer/Germany/Russia (Hunting/Mining)

Out of those, Zulus was stated before as the best civ. So if it's open, I'm picking it before leader. I'm not going to take AGG, though, for the synergy, because AGG kinda sucks.

Mongolia is good here but not worth picking before leader.

All the Hunting/Mining civs are nothing flashy, although EXP Khmer synergy might be worth a thought.

The only other civ I'm even considering taking is Holy Roman Empire if I'm ORG.

[pindicator]

Keep in mind that RtR means you only need Hunting to pasture the cows. And it costs the same as Agriculture to research.

[Gawdzak]

Keep in mind that RtR means you only need Hunting to pasture the cows. And it costs the same as Agriculture to research.

Fully aware of that fact.

Looking at the picks, there's definitely some good picks there, with a touch of .

I'm definitely getting either my first choice civ or my first choice leader with just Furungy to go before I make my pick. Sounds good to me.

I just realized that Sumeria's starting tech was not changed in this mod: that was the ToW. Ah, the burden of knowledge.

The most unbalanced aspects about base BTS were:

a) Traits
b) Starting techs

Both RtR and ToW have done a good job at addressing these issues. Very good attempts were made at balancing the traits. Whether the attempts were successful is still up to debate.

ToW addressed the starting tech inbalance by making every early tech very cheap, while RtR addressed the inbalance by moving the ability to build pastures to Hunting. These are both very good balance changes.

However I think changing the starting tech for civs themselves might be a step too far. It contributes less to balance and more to add confusion for the players, hence the term burden of knowledge. For a new player, it's hard to keep track of all the changes both within and between mods. Which potentially raises the barrier of entry. Maybe we need to run more base BTS games with a pick method similar to PBEM62, with a lot more success at balancing the given leader/civ combos of course.

[Gawdzak]

Got the Zulus.