PB72 Lurker Thread

[Qgqqqqq]

This is one of the weaknesses of the health/happy system in Civ4. When it binds it's a great motivator, but it's pretty common for it to no longer bind by the mid-life game (and it depends a lot on city size / spacing). I've not really played the others - did they ever solve that problem in a useful way?

[Qgqqqqq]

Should we ask Greenline about concession? He doesn't seem to have a real chance. I might also have missed/forgotten an earlier post.

[xist10]

I think civ 6 could have a okay system ?
I don't like the global happines in civ 5 - the penalties are to much, I think.

And another thing:

I'm ready to concede, but don't mind playing on for fun either.

and

Perhaps I should have taken bing's peace deal. That torpedoes any chance I have of a comeback. Now Aetryn and Bing can just fight it out. happy to concede whenever.

I don't think we should call this, it seems that they still have a bit fun - and for Greenline the situation changed a bit, he took Creation back - but 2 players (of 3) wrote, that they would concede.

[Qgqqqqq]

If they both say they're ready to concede, that means we should tell them. They can choose to continue if they wish.

[greenline]

Small lurker thread, so I was able to blitz through it quickly. Just a couple of things I wanted to comment on:

Re: the map balance. I get that this was mostly a random roll, but some things didn't seem well thought out. The lux balance for instance, going on 'each player gets an ivory, 1 pre calendar, 2 calendar' doesn't account for the significant difference of quality of pre calendar luxes. It reminded me of the Apolyton demogame a bit, where I had a monopoly on tundra furs and everyone else had at least one metal happy that was in more fertile land to settle. One of my calendar luxes was across water, even. Food also was a significant factor even with extra food added, I had almost no cities viable for running specialists and a bunch of cities were capped before biology on their BFC. Bing and xist's land did not seem to have that problem. This was mostly from picking highlands as the script, but it definitely felt like my start had a serious handicap to overcome.

All that said:

You can roast me in the lurker thread if I'm wrong about this

Well, if you insist.  Worker first is fine; it's probably better for your start with these map settings, although it's more complicated and less certain than it looks.  But.  Don't move your Settler east; it's a trap!!!  Spoilers for my excessively-verbose reasons:

Yes, yes, you still hook up the wheat tiles on the same turns as otherwise, and maybe you're not valuing one extra turn of working the fish very highly because you're not hooking it first?  But that's a very good tile, plus you've got a 4FH unimproved tile and a plains hill start, and moving means missing a turn of all of that while you wait for your wheat to be improved.  It might not seem like a huge deal, but you end up missing about three different breakpoints that way and everything gets delayed except the farms:  Lose a Worker turn that builds half a road, lose a turn moving the workboat to the Fish, lose a turn to reach size 3, all compounding each other.  On top of that, you're killing a forest and a full turn of research - and what do you gain?  Giving up a couple water tiles to get land tiles you won't need the capital to work until the Renaissance era?  Giving up three tiles you need a galley to improve to get three tiles that don't need one but that you probably shouldn't bother to improve before you could well have a galley anyway?  Oh, and it makes it harder to plant a city to share the wheat (and/or elephants) too.  Sure, if you find resources in the fog with your Scout move, that obviously changes things, and once you're on the tile 1E, I definitely wouldn't recommend moving back.  If you had your pick, you'd probably be better off on the 1E tile from the beginning, even.  But the difference is isn't worth wasting an entire turn of foodhammer production and tech; it isn't actually even close!

This is probably the correct analysis. In the early game I ended up with cities working plain forests more than I should have, and the city across the water using the fish ended up being a security hazard anyway. The extra lake didn't mean much and not being able to settle a city to share the wheat hurt my opening.

Just huge gaps, very little tile sharing. [regarding my dotmap]

I'd be curious to see how you would have dotmapped it! There was a severe paucity of food resources that could be shared, each city needed to work them 24/7 or else starve or stagnate. Some of my spaced cities ended up being very productive as well (Carmilla, Atlas Shrugged).

[BING_XI_LAO]

It's nice to have dreams.

Needs a Divine Right beeline for Versailles.

Versailles getting built for the first (?) time in an RB game during a Greens game would be beautiful.

I almost built it, but cancelled in favour of defending against being invaded by Tanks and Marines. Or maybe I completed, don't remember.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Btw, I think Bing might be planning an EP economy, which would be interesting.

A what? Spies with gold steal missions? Sadly no spies in this mod
edit: just read other people explain. 'k

[Mjmd]

I'm disappointed in the lurkers. This game had 3 different game leaders at different points out of 4 players. Plenty of war and intrigue and almost 0 lurker activity!!!

[Tarkeel]

I'm disappointed in the lurkers. This game had 3 different game leaders at different points out of 4 players. Plenty of war and intrigue and almost 0 lurker activity!!!

I agree that this game was underlurked, but that has been the case with several games lately (PB66 comes to mind). I do think scooter nailed it for this one though:

This game proves that yes, it IS possible to have a turn pace too good for the game to be lurkable.

The pace was so blazing that even as a ded-lurker it was hard to keep up; I felt that most of what I said was already 5 turns out of date.

[Mjmd]

I'm disappointed in the lurkers. This game had 3 different game leaders at different points out of 4 players. Plenty of war and intrigue and almost 0 lurker activity!!!

I agree that this game was underlurked, but that has been the case with several games lately (PB66 comes to mind). I do think scooter nailed it for this one though:

This game proves that yes, it IS possible to have a turn pace too good for the game to be lurkable.

The pace was so blazing that even as a ded-lurker it was hard to keep up; I felt that most of what I said was already 5 turns out of date.

I get it. When I decided to catch the thread up I had to go by date not turn number as most of the time I had no idea.