Civ/leader pick

[Mortius]

Yes, there was competition for a pre-T40 Stonehenge. That's not unusual in multiplayer.

I will check tommorow other games

I'm saying Stonehenge is probably not a realistic goal with this start without Industrious.

So with Industrius it's not realistic too , becasue the date of landing Stonehange is restricted by discovering Mysticsm. And it will be the same for Huayna or Ragnar.

Moreover, I don't think "being able to defend Stonehenge with slightly better odds" should be part of an argument for picking Aggressive.

Slightly better odds you say
In the mirror matchups (axe vs axe) it's 50% if we are non agressive vs 79,65% if we are aggressive. Going from 50 to 80 odds it's a 60% increase. I wouldn't call it slightly And such increased odds you will have every single fight with melee or gunpowder units all the game long. Not too shabby

[Lord Parkin]

So with Industrius it's not realistic too , becasue the date of landing Stonehange is restricted by discovering Mysticsm. And it will be the same for Huayna or Ragnar.

I don't think we should plan for Stonehenge either way. But with Huayna it's more viable. (The Oracle seems a better bet.)

Slightly better odds you say
In the mirror matchups (axe vs axe) it's 50% if we are non agressive vs 79,65% if we are aggressive. Going from 50 to 80 odds it's a 60% increase. I wouldn't call it slightly And such increased odds you will have every single fight with melee or gunpowder units all the game long. Not too shabby

That number is assuming an unrealistic scenario where an invader doesn't build Barracks. Why warp the numbers to be higher than they'll realistically be?

Axe vs Axe = 50%
Axe with combat I vs Axe = 68.1%
Axe with combat I and anti-melee vs Axe with combat I = 75.7%
Axe with combat I and anti-melee vs Axe = 79.7%

Also, the way combat works, quantity matters far more than quality - especially when units are stacked. An Aggressive Axe will take almost as much damage (and die just as quickly) after one blow as a non-Aggressive Axe. Plus, in a stack the opponent will likely have a few units promoted to a higher level leading the pack, which we'd have <=50% odds against early on.

The main problem with Aggressive is that it becomes nearly irrelevant after Catapults. Obviously there are slight upsides early on. The question is, is better early defence worth trading out any other trait for? I really don't think it is.

This game's going to be about who can build up the best long-term economy (and the best alliances), not about early rushes and defence. If we make our leader pick based around early defence and have only one economic trait while everyone else goes for double economic traits (which I'm positive most or all will), then we've already lost.

There are two general scenarios possible here: we get ganged up on and attacked early, or we expand economically and fight later. The map parameters point towards the second scenario being more likely. But regardless, I'd rather assume we're going to have time to develop a good economy and play for the long-term.

If we get ganged up on early and taken out, then so be it - we can have fun watching the game or join another team. I'd much rather that than the alternative - choosing only one economic trait and playing for months on end while falling slowly behind those with two economic traits, with no real shot at winning. You have to accept a certain level of risk to be in the running for first place.

[Elkad]

Toroid multiplies "distance from capital" by 1.5, so maintenance will be higher. Another strike in favor of Zulu. Since you want the Ikhanda everywhere for the cost benefit, it also provides more flexibility for troop production. Still not sure that justifies Aggressive. Organized (Darius) would provide more economic benefit, and even bigger (though delayed) hammer savings. Of course it's Prince, so maintenance is pretty well nerfed anyway.

But still not decided on Zulu vs Khmer. Early happy from guaranteed Ivory is a decent economic benefit of it's own (of course, the mapmaker might give everyone else gold instead of Ivory..), BallistaPhants when nobody else has them, and +1 food in every city is pretty nice as well.


Maybe we should just toss the whole discussion and request Random of Random for our choice

[Lord Parkin]

Indeed. I'm in favour of the Zulus as one of the top options myself (next to Khmer and Egypt)... just not sure about the Aggressive trait is all.

Heh, I hear Random of Random is a pretty good combination...

[nabaxo]

Mortius, if you're so concerned about having a militaristic trait, why not Charismatic? It's a decent military trait and it comes in handy in peace-time as well, with +1 happiness or +2 with a monument and makes Stonehenge that much more attractive of a target for us.

Not saying we should go with Hannibal, I still think Huayna Capac is better. :P

[Mortius]

Mortius, if you're so concerned about having a militaristic trait, why not Charismatic? It's a decent military trait and it comes in handy in peace-time as well, with +1 happiness or +2 with a monument and makes Stonehenge that much more attractive of a target for us.

Not saying we should go with Hannibal, I still think Huayna Capac is better. :P

Charismatic is so, so trait. Because a little lower exp caps usually don't mean much, until you can have an additional promo that way.

Normal exp caps 2 - 5 - 10
Charismatic exp caps 2 - 4 - 8

With a barracks alone fresh troop has 3 xp and it's one fight from a second promo no matter if you are charismatic or not (winning first batlle with less than 100% odds, as it is usually the case, gives at least 2 exp). So for the second promo it just doesn't matter.

It can matter for the third promo, but we need to ensure we have something to up our starting exp close to 8 xp cap. Usually it's easier with mounted units, because of a stable, which gives an additional 2 exp. But a barrack and a normal stable gives 5 xp together. It's 3xp away from our 8 xp cap, and usualy one fight isn't enough to ensure we will land with the third promo.

To leverage it a bit we need an additional starting xp boost. Mongolia come handy here with his Ger, giving mounted units 4 xp for a total 7xp, and only one fight from 8 xp cap.

But I am not convinced it's realy worth the efforts. IMO Charismatic is situational and only a slight boost, not compared to other traits like aggressive, industrious, expansive.

[Mortius]

I don't think we should plan for Stonehenge either way.

Landing Stonhange dates:
Pitboss 1 - 62 turn - ZPVCSPLFUIFDPEF
Pitnoss 2 - 100 turn - Whosit
Pitboss 3 - 29 turn - regoarrarr (Industrious)
Pitboss 4 - 35 turn - ah it was you LP (Industrious)
Pitboss 5 - 54 turn - regoarrarr
Pitboss 6 - it's medieval start so it doesn't matter
Pitboss 7 - 35 turn - Lewwyn

As we are obviously not playing against you LP and if there is no other Industius civ, we are pretty safe with our 49 turn Stonehange

That number is assuming an unrealistic scenario where an invader doesn't build Barracks. Why warp the numbers to be higher than they'll realistically be?

Axe vs Axe = 50%
Axe with combat I vs Axe = 68.1%
Axe with combat I and anti-melee vs Axe with combat I = 75.7%
Axe with combat I and anti-melee vs Axe = 79.7%

As you see here even the smallest difference in promos gives a huge edge at combat odds. Even the combat 1 promo (teoreticaly giving only +10 % strenght) gives much higher odds 68,1% - (it's +36,2% increase)

The main problem with Aggressive is that it becomes nearly irrelevant after Catapults.

I don't see why it becomes irrelevant. If you peacefuly stay with a big stack next to catapults and allow yourself to be collatered to death, yeap it will not matter what you have in the stack (if that's tha case it only proves we are playing ).

If you attack the catapults with your aggressive troops the greater odds kick in, nomatter what, and it is relevant entire game.

This game's going to be about who can build up the best long-term economy (and the best alliances), not about early rushes and defence. If we make our leader pick based around early defence and have only one economic trait while everyone else goes for double economic traits (which I'm positive most or all will), then we've already lost.

I see you treat Industius as economic trait

Cheap Ikhandas, gives -20% upkeep, and what economic edge gives Industrious?

There are two general scenarios possible here: we get ganged up on and attacked early, or we expand economically and fight later. The map parameters point towards the second scenario being more likely. But regardless, I'd rather assume we're going to have time to develop a good economy and play for the long-term.

Completly agree But even if we fight later, we will be fighting a lot. In that case with aggressive troops, every single time you bring a melee unit to the fight, you benefit from aggressive trait. The entire game

If we get ganged up on early and taken out, then so be it - we can have fun watching the game or join another team.

It's highly unlikly with Ragnar of Zulus

I'd much rather that than the alternative - choosing only one economic trait and playing for months on end while falling slowly behind those with two economic traits.

There are 3 economic traits:
Financial - clearly the best
Philosophical - if someone is going for a specialist economy
Organized - but on Prince difficulty it's weak.

I don't see any economic advantages of being Industrius.

Even cheap Ikhandas gives us more ecenomic benefits.

So even from economic point of view it's better to take Ragnar than Huayna

[Lord Parkin]

Another way to look at it is that since Pitboss 3, it has only landed outside T50 once. More recent results are more telling.

But yes, if no-one else picks Industrious then we have a better chance. Guess we'll see.

[Mortius]

I see there is not much favor to Ragnar of Zulu I will not ba a politician myself, can't convince people

Most leaning towards Huayna. Ok so let's be it

Now lets pair him with the best possible civ.

Maybe instead of blank civs we choose something viable, ... or even strong?

The strongest civs:

- India
- Inca
- Zulu
- Byzantine

Can we choose any of this?

I know most of you thought :neenernee I would say Zulu.

Nope. Unfortunately, it will not work with Huayna, we will have only more expensive baracks (60 instead of 50) and teethless Impi, who is just more mobile Spear.

But maybe we consider [SIZE="5"]Inca?[/SIZE]

[SIZE="4"]UB - Terrace[/SIZE] [SIZE="4"]- granary with +2 Culture on top of it.[/SIZE]

It's regarded as the best Unique Building, and not without a reason. To put it simple, it's: Free Creative Trait

The biggest early factor is "how to pop our borders". More efficient we cover that problem, more efficient we will snowball. Having tarraces we are at max efficiency. We don't need to invest any additional hammers into it (Monuments, Stonehenge). We can invest that hammers into Settlers and Workers, accelerating our growth. It's the hammers efficiency. It could be a lot. Taking into account that every early city = more production = more future cities = even more production. It's a snowaball.

But Tarraces allow us to be food efficient also.
In new cities the longer we are growing without grannary the less food efficient we are - hampering future growth. With Terrace, we don't need to build monument first, meaning we will go through the growth cycle only once, and in a most efficient way (max growth), and whip Terrace as fast as it is possible.

[SIZE="4"]UU - Quechua - warrior with +100 vs archery, and Combat 1 promo[/SIZE]

Not the best unit , but has it's uses.
If we have barbarians in the game it becomes much stronger, because early barbarians are usualy warriors and archers and Quechua have odds agains both of them.

If we don't have barbs, Quechua is just Combat 1 warrior, which is ... good by itself. In case an early warrior choke, we have odds agains enemy warrior on flat terrain (if it isn't aggressive warrior of cource) and it will not criple us. Our worker turn order would't be interupted, because we can escort our workers even farming flat terrain.

Of course from the same reasons if we find our neighbour early like 10-12 turn we can choke him with easy. Not allowing his worker to work anything.
I am not saying it's viable, only that it's possible


Overal: Very strong. With it we start the game with 3 traits: [SIZE="3"]Financial, Industrious, Creative.[/SIZE]


The biggest concern with Inca is tha fact it comes to us with one dead tech (Mysticism), but the bigest news is, that the other tech is the best possible in our situation (Aggriculture). It still allow us to tech Animal Husbandry from the start, and in absence of Hunting we can farm our floodplains. It wouldn't be so bad. We will be a little behind in teching (like 70 beakers) but now we have a prime civ instead of a blank one.

I think Huayna Capac of Inca can reconcile the supporters of both Huayna and Wilem

[HitAnyKey]

I haven't weighed in much on the Civ/Leader picking since I really am not good at making a decision on things such as that. I do think I prefer the idea of getting a Financial/Industrious leader, though I did also see some nice benefits of the Financial/Aggressive. I'm not sure any of the other combos really do as much for us.

This last option from Mortius does seem like a pretty good one to me. Those Terrace's would be very nice to have, especially in the early game.
I also don't really see why you guys keep talking about Mysticism being a dead tech. Why not make a run for Oracle, and get us a free tech? With Mysticism starting tech, and Industrious leader, we should be able to do that. And we might even be able to pick up a Religion on the way, and I'm always big on getting a religion as early as possible too.

Yeah, I know we're going to need AH first. And yeah, we're also going to want to get to BW as quickly as possible too. But we may even be able to detour to Oracle before BW, or even get to it in a decent number of turns after Oracle.
Maybe someone can do a sim of some sort to determine how many turns to get Oracle in a reasonable amount of time with starting techs of Agriculture & Mysticism?
If we start with Inca, then we don't need Stonehenge, and Oracle is the better choice to go for.