RB Pitboss #2 [SPOILERS] - Iamjohn, Kodii & Zeviz

[Zeviz]

Thank you.

We could take HC (Fin/Ind), but that would put a big "kick me" sign on our forehead.

Exp/Cre leader looks good. (Cheap workers might make up for not being Financial.) Or we could go with Incas and pick an Exp leader on the way back. (Incas with an Exp leader is like having a free Creative trait, so it could be a good pick.)

In fact, I am tempted by that idea. (Especially if it forces somebody to take (Imp/Exp) leader just for denial. )

Spi isn't as useful with Golden Ages giving free civic swaps, and while Agg could be useful, I'd prefer early UU for defense and economic traits. Org probably will not be useful for a team not planning aggressive military strategy.

So my vote: Incas (almost Cre) > Sarywhatever (Exp/Cre) > HC (Fin/Ind)

[Iamjohn]

I really don't see much of the point of industrial, imo wonders really don't play enough of a role to be worth spending a leader characteristic on. From what I've seen unless you're in an ideal spot it's usually better to be spending the hammers on something else.

I like the thought of Victoria, financial would help with the research/side of things (though hugely cliche... ), and imperialistic would help us spew settlers everywhere, a strategy that Krill has shown to be powerful if done right (and left alone). We arn't in a two city elimination, so if we can push the advantage enough, I think the risk could be worth it, especially since the last PB has generally taught that wars are easier for the defender then the attacker.

Suryavarman does pique my interest though, I'd be willing to give that a shot.

I guess I'm Victoria > Sury > Inca.

[Kodii]

I like Zeviz' idea. I never really gave the Incan UB much thought. We could even try for a rush if we're feeling dastardly.

I would say we take Inca and then spend some more time discussing leaders later.

[Zeviz]

...
I would say we take Inca and then spend some more time discussing leaders later.

I like this idea.

Victoria doesn't sound as appealing to me, because Imp alone isn't enough to power early expansion. Krill's strategy combined Incan UB for border pops with cheap workers for economic growth and chopping out cheap settlers. If we are going to be chopping out Settlers, the difficulty of building Workers would seem to be a bigger roadblock than building settlers.

So I'd put Victoria below HC in my list of preference. (Industrous also gives cheap forges, which could help with production.) And being the only Industrious civ would give us an advantage of people thinking twice of starting wonders for which we have technology.

[Iamjohn]

Victoria doesn't sound as appealing to me, because Imp alone isn't enough to power early expansion. Krill's strategy combined Incan UB for border pops with cheap workers for economic growth and chopping out cheap settlers. If we are going to be chopping out Settlers, the difficulty of building Workers would seem to be a bigger roadblock than building settlers.

I guess I can agree with that.

So I'd put Victoria below HC in my list of preference. (Industrous also gives cheap forges, which could help with production.) And being the only Industrious civ would give us an advantage of people thinking twice of starting wonders for which we have technology.

Again though, how many wonders are you exactly planning on building? I just don't think it's important enough to be worth it. Yes, it is nice to have cheap workers, but other then that how many times will we be taking advantage of it?


I'm willing to go with choosing Inca as a civ, but we need to make sure we get a leader that mixes well with it as well (and have a high probability of getting one once everyone has made their first leader or civ choice as well). If we're willing to try that than I'm willing to make a go of it.

[Kodii]

We will be taking advantage of workers for the entire game. Workers are essential, especially in the early game.

I'll post that we'll take Inca.

[Zeviz]

For leader, I guess Exp is an obvious choice because of cheap Granaries (that we'll need for culture) and cheap workers, and the other trait we can select when we see what's left by the time the pick gets back to us.

[Kodii]

Just a heads up, I'm going to be away this weekend between Friday and Sunday.

[Kodii]

There are only three teams ahead of us who have to choose leaders. I doubt all of them will choose Expansive, and if we do, we will still have a solid selection.

Here are the remaining Expansive leaders:

Washington (Charismatic)
Mao (Protective)
Bismarck (Industrious)
Surya (Creative)
Mehmed (Organized)
Joao (Imperialistic)
Peter (Philosophical)
Isabella (Spiritual)
Shaka (Aggressive)

Mehmed is probably the obvious first choice, but I doubt we'll be able to grab him.

[Zeviz]

Peter is out, so here is my ranking of the remaining leaders:

Bismarck (Industrious) - since we are one of the few non-financial civs, should we go for a specialist economy with early Pyramids?
Joao (Imperialistic) - this worked very well for Krill, but what exactly does it do? Just give cheap settlers?
Isabella (Spiritual) - with BtS golden ages, anarchy is less of a problem, but ability to freely switch between civics is still good for things like dropping into cast system to get a GP, then to slavery for a round of whips.
Mehmed (Organized) - not sure about this trait Is there a sizable benefit for our difficulty level and map size?
Shaka (Aggressive) - a good military trait, but I think economy would be more important
Washington (Charismatic) - not as good as aggressive
Mao (Protective) - one of the worst traits in the game
Surya (Creative) - takes away the point of Incan civ

Note that these are just initial thoughts and isn't the real vote. I'd like to hear more opinions before voting.