The Thread Where We Insult The Other Teams

[BRickAstley]

so I guess I'm gonna ded-lurk/root here (until I get bored enough to start global lurking). HX3 is too green for me, smackdown is too good (7, mackoti, and krill, jeez), and I'm too worried oledavy will disappear a month into the game to lurk them. But this team is just right .
so googogogoogogogoggogogo win!

Wait Krill is dedlurking MackSeven?

[Commodore]

so I guess I'm gonna ded-lurk/root here (until I get bored enough to start global lurking). HX3 is too green for me, smackdown is too good (7, mackoti, and krill, jeez), and I'm too worried oledavy will disappear a month into the game to lurk them. But this team is just right .
so googogogoogogogoggogogo win!

Wait Krill is dedlurking MackSeven?

Hah, who cares? He's a fairly useless dedlurker by his own admission. MackSeven's scariness levels ain't budging*.

*From their already stratospheric levels.

[BRickAstley]

Yeah but I'm not much better

I'll keep posting comics and insults and pretend that that's helpful.

[Qgqqqqq]

What Bigger said!
(Except with extra suck...)

I think a good path is looking at top 8 leader/civs are wanted, so obviously there's India(banned?) HRE, Inca, Zulu, Viking, Maya, Egypt, ottomans...and then it depends on combos for leaders.
Any takers on sumeria? The UB is nice early and the religious line will also be more important in a game that pushes vertical.

[scooter]

I'm a little confused by Krill's comments about the duplication. Here is a quick and dirty possible snake pick (leaders only):

t1: darius
t2: huayna
t3: lizzie
t4: mehmed
t4: mansa
t3: zara
t2: gandhi
t1: bismarck

(I put about 5 seconds of thought into that, don't take it TOO seriously) Unpicked leaders who could be good: Asoka, Washington, Hannibal, Ragnar, De Gaulle, Pericles, Frederick, Peter, Tokugawa, Brennus, Ramsses, Isabella, Hatshepsut, etc.

So I have no real clue what Krill is talking about.

[Commodore]

Interesting as picking in response to map settings is (If this is Large/Immortal/Cylindrical we're still looking at expensive, but it's certainly livable), I'm curious about civ/leader picks for the team setting too. Lewwyn, Ellimist, you both have actually played teamers before, what are your thoughts?

[Lewwyn]

Well I think ideally you want each team to have a specific purpose. IE: The tech civ and the war civ. Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly that. One civ could be IND and focus on wonders and a specialist economy and the other could be all cottages and whips. As a result though, and this is what Krill means by seeing difficulty, is that you aren't picking four traits you're picking two pairs of traits one for each civ that synergizes with what that civs purpose is supposed to be.

Thus, from scooter's list, maybe both Lizzie and Huyana are not great leaders for this and maybe not Mansa either. Williem has to be banned because he's a perfect example of pure synergy in a single civ with Fin powered cottages and double speed Libraries. I think in this game setting he's better than Pacal.

After Willem and Pacal, Darius actually works good because you could make the fin civ the larger of the two civs and have it be focused on economy. Then the other civ could be Bismark and could focus on getting workers to the fin Civ and also focus on wonders over settlers.

SO yeah if we could get Darius and Bismark I'd be ecstatic.

[Bigger]

question.. if we have a SPI trait does it make both civs spiritual (for the no-anarchy, not cheap temples obviously)? Not real clear how revolting works in a team game.

[scooter]

Now that we're pretty close to decided on settings, let's talk about top choices. FWIW Lewwyn - that list was not meant to be very serious, I was just dumping that off the top of my head. That's definitely not a "ranking" from me or anything.

I don't think that thinking in terms of tech civ and war civ is really all that helpful. This game will be 85% won by tech. Immortal still has massive unit costs - ancient UUs will be totally irrelevant for example. I would be really surprised if war will be a good idea before Knights. Some leaders that are pretty great:

Elizabeth - I really disagree with Lewwyn's dismissal of Lizzie. Lizzie is pretty great in a techer/funder relationship. FIN is obviously great for teching, you can use PHI to generate a quick scientist for an early Academy (much more valuable when you have someone feeding you gold post-Currency), you can use PHI to get a fast Oxford with the University bonus, etc. A techer/funder setup makes FIN and PHI go together really nicely.

Darius - This is just about snagging two really strong traits. If he's still there at the 3rd or 4th pick or so, it's nearly a no-brainer to grab him.

Hannibal - This is an attractive later-round pick to me as a leader that I suspect could be undervalued. CHM would be a nice boost to grow vertical, and what leader is better to grow vertical than the guy who also gets a bonus to commerce tiles? This doubles a fairly attractive war leader in the later game - pairing it with Mongolia for the Ger sounds pretty nice to me.

Pericles - Another leader that I'm really drawn to as an ideal techer. Pericles is the king of early academy, and you get cheap libraries and universities (fast Oxford too). You can use the other leader on a FIN funder. Really takes off post-Currency. I think Pericles is actually really strong in this type of setup if paired with a strong funder


We're looking at 4 "rounds" in which we need to take 2 leaders and 2 civs. I think the key is figuring out what we take with our first round pick. Admittedly that's hard to predict right now as it could be anything from 1st to 4th... but best strategy to me seems to be to take best available option in round 1, and then try to complement it as best as we can with our next 3 picks. Unless we get the 4th pick, in which case we can grab two things that we think synergize especially well (either two leaders or a leader/civ that goes together really well). For instance, I think Mansa is a bad first round choice because you need an ideal partner to make it strong, but I don't think that's necessarily true with Darius or Elizabeth.

So I think what we really need is to figure out what we estimate to be the best 3-5 overall choices - a top tier. To me, the most attractive 3 are Darius, Elizabeth, and Holy Rome (roughly in that order I think). My initial thought has been if we have a top 3 pick, we take one of our top 3 choices. If we pick 4th, we work out two leaders that we think mesh together really well.

Little long-winded, sorry. Thoughts?

[Commodore]

Lewwyn, I'd actually rank Bismark based on turn order; If we're first, he's great, second, still viable, third or forth a bit meh. Being able to start out with Agriculture/Mining/Mysticism, there is no reason why the Ind guy can't go Stonehenge obscenely early, and giving both civs on the team a cheap way to pop borders is pretty huge. If you're going all-in for 'henge, of course, Hannibal starts looking even nicer.

I kind of hate Quick speed for this setup, although the point about turn pace is well taken. Honestly, I think the windows for almost all UUs will be heartbreakingly narrow. Immortal, large, +150% for teams...even so, once you have an efficient techer/funder relationship going, techs are going to fly.