[PB56] NobleHelium Tells It Like It Is

[vanrober]

Okay so about your pick.  I think I meant to include it in the list of synergy combos near the end but maybe I accidentally deleted the line when I was moving things around or something.  As compensation you get a longer explanation than the likely one-liner that would have originally been included!

Charlemagne was certainly a good leader to pick and maybe the second best leader available for this map.  I would have been tempted to pick it instead of Willem if it had been available, even though I really wanted to take FIN.  I don't like the Celts and I don't really understand why Charriu thinks duns are awesome, heh.  I basically said as much in my preview post for PB55, but 25h (with PRO) walls that are monuments aren't that good - you can't build them until Masonry and walls just aren't that good.  Even with stone, which you may or may not have and have to hook up first, they're not that good.  And Gallic warriors are also not that good, replacing a unit that's also not good?  I don't know, I just don't see why anyone would want to pick this civ when the starting techs aren't good either. "Not that good" is really all I can say about this civ.  Like sunrise's forum title.

Thanks!

Why do you rate this high Charly without FIN? I feel i overrated pro as a eco trait.

And i dont rate celts that bad. Its not only a cheaper monument, it is also doing more things like defense, some free promo... But of course it is really situational, we had deer as food on the capitol and that was the reason to pick him, otherwise it would have been really slow start.

[NobleHelium]

PRO is weaker than FIN as an economic trait, but IMP is certainly the best expansion trait and the GG bonus is very significant, so that can make up the difference.

[vanrober]

Yeah but for that reasoning you would have IMP/ORG for example which has better economy and also IMP right? Didnt you rate that so big? why?

[NobleHelium]

I did not think the map was big enough for ORG to be as good as FIN or PRO.

[NobleHelium]

The following turn Laz completed a longbow in Constantinople but otherwise could not muster any additional defenses other than the existing axeman and chariot.  So we attacked.

Horse Archer vs CG2 D1 Longbowman @ 0.1%: LOSS, down to 88 HP
Horse Archer vs CG2 D1 88 HP Longbowman @ 1.2%: LOSS, down to 10 HP
C1 Shock Horse Archer vs 25% Fortify Axeman @ 25.1%: WIN, down to 78 HP
C1 Horse Archer vs Chariot @ 96.0%: WIN, down to 10 HP
Horse Archer vs CG2 D1 10 HP Longbowman @ > 99.9%: WIN, no damage




He was able to move lots of units into Angora however so we could not attack that city.  Given that, we stuffed the captured city with the rest of the horse archers.




On t126 we started moving some horse archers back northwest to try to take Nicaea, which was our secondary war aim (Nicomedia and Constantinople were the primary targets).  But it would turn out too be too slow and we would not be able to muster enough forces to take the city without sustaining unreasonable losses, so we pulled back and waited.  t126 was also the turn that Gira would declare on Laz and quickly take his southern cities.  We maybe should have moved on the city south of Constantinople (now Flusterstorm) instead of trying futilely to take Nicaea, but it's hard to say without being able to see it and there was certainly substantial risk moving forward into the unknown.  This decision would come back to haunt us later however.

Also note that Laz has a "zone defense" stack between Nicaea and Angora, except that Gira declaring on him meant that the stack could not get into Angora anyway.




As you can see, we finished Feudalism on t126 which meant that we could launch our Golden Age on t127.  We swapped into Hereditary Rule, Vassalage, Caste System, Organized Religion, and Hinduism. GA city screens below.

Demos for t127.

[NobleHelium]

It looks like we're about to be dogpiled by civac joining our war with Gira (and Laz). civac played before Gira and Laz this turn and I'll have to ask that he plays before them every turn while this situation continues. If absolutely necessary I could declare war on civac this turn, but I don't think that should be required to lock in a turn split and civac may or may not declare next turn so I'd rather not create a war state sooner than necessary. I won't be finishing the turn until this is resolved. I'm asking lurkers to sort this out since we need a deterministic turn order between everyone we're at war with if they are going to be coordinating attacks. We're also still at war with Laz, so then turn split can be civac - Laz - Gira - us which is the order that players played this turn. Laz and Gira have not been following a turn order which hadn't mattered previously because Laz was not really moving any units, but he is doing that now so I also ask that they lock in a turn order with respect to each other.

Also I have to ask that lurkers to be careful not to reveal information regarding this to Amica because he doesn't have any scouting units in the area.

[naufragar]

To be clear, you're asking to establish a peacetime turn split with Civac, keeping whatever order you're in now (second? I'm not following closely) and also that Civac/Gira/Laz maintain a turnsplit amongst themselves?

That first split seems like something you or the lurkers could do by PM'ing Civac: "Hello. Our borders are tense. Could we keep the current turn order for the next ten turns?" (Throwing in a random number of turns so one side doesn't claim a timer half in perpetuity without a war dec.)

For the second split, is there a way you're disadvantaged by Civac/Gira/Laz shuffling amongst themselves? Otherwise, it's probably not your call but theirs if they need to keep turn order amongst themselves.

[NobleHelium]

For the second split, is there a way you're disadvantaged by Civac/Gira/Laz shuffling amongst themselves? Otherwise, it's probably not your call but theirs if they need to keep turn order amongst themselves.

Uh, yes? I need to be able to determine who is going to attack first if they're both attacking the same city. And they can't do things like having one player use all their cats and then another player use their cats and then the first player uses their non-cats, etc., all in the same turn. This came up in PB53 and AT and Commodore followed a set turn order while both being at war with scooter.

I can insist that Commodore and AT play in order, correct? So, last turn Commodore started his turn before AT, but that was very brief. The majority of his turn was played after him. I want to ensure there's no turn sharing shenanigans to make sure the units hit Pillage in the ideal order. I can insist on that, right?

id hope so.

NOTE: Pillage is the name of a city, scooter is not talking about pillaging.

[The Black Sword]

And they can't do things like having one player use all their cats and then another player use their cats and then the first player uses their non-cats, etc., all in the same turn.

Playing their turn at the same time like that would for sure be an abuse of the rules IMO. What about if they always have to play their turns separately, but not in a fixed order, how much of a disadvantage would that be? I guess you think it's big enough to warrant a four-way split, but can you confirm just so we're clear?

[NobleHelium]

It would be a big disadvantage for me to have to figure out my defenses without knowing who is attacking in what order when they can be attacking the same city, yes.