RB Pitboss #1 [SPOILERS] Willem of Persia

[shadyforce]

Hi all. This is me:

[shadyforce]

This is my start:


It's ok but not great. My main problem is that I have the wrong starting techs for it. 6 turns of Fishing before I can start on the workboat. This is all assuming there is nothing of interest in the tiles obscured north of the settler by the fog.

I've done the math and going warrior first, switching to WB when fishing is in but not going max shields until size 2 is the best start.

Then I'll finish the warrior, build a worker and I should get my first settler out the door around turn 35. The start does make it a bit harder to go for an all-out Immortal rush early in the game as compared with an inland start with an aggriculture or AH food resource.

[shadyforce]

As this is my first multiplayer game and I'm against a talanted field, I don't expect to get anywhere close to winning this game. But I would like to do well. I suppose my goal is to have a reasonably high score and be a player of significance on the world diplomatic stage. And even if I don't win, to be on "winning side".

My short term goals are:
- Place relatively highly in power early in the game. I expect there will be a few people looking for early war targets (based on some people's civ choices and the fact that there are a lot more teams) and I want to discourage me as a target.
- Expand rapidly and grab as much land as I can. My financial trait will give me a long term edge but if I'm too small, I'm going to get out-teched and out muscled later in the game unless I do.
- I'm not going to prioritise research early on because imo, it will be relatively easy to catch up with the field due to 11 civs and tech trading allowed.
- I'm going to completely ignore early religious techs, I have creative for culture and hopefully more than ivory for happiness.
- I'm not going to bother with much of the traditionally sought after wonders, oracle, pyramids, etc. Though I may take a shot at Colossus or Great Lighthouse.

[shadyforce]

I'm winning. Hurray!

[Sullla]

Glad to see that you connected to the game OK and got started. Good luck.

[shadyforce]

Thanks! It should be fun.

[haphazard1]

Thanks for outlining your goals -- makes your thought processes clearer to us readers/lurkers. Could you perhaps give some thoughts on your leader and civ choices, and how they fit into your plans? Some of it is already plain from your goals (e.g. financial and land grab), but I am curious about all the combinations and why each player chose what they did.

Thanks, and good luck.

[shadyforce]

No problem.

I chose my civ and leader based on two things: 1. My own personal playstyle preferences and 2. Wanting to keep my options open and let the game dictate my strategy.

I'm a big fan of Creative for the obvious reasons and because my personal playstyle is to not bother with religious techs and the race for a religion or the stonehenge wonder unless I have to. I decided this was definitely for me. (And so did plenty other people apparently.)

I'd have been fairly happy with any other trait but I wanted to be flexible. So while, for example, Aggressive or Protective would be good for an early rush or as a deterrant, if the situation was not suitable for an early rush then it might be wasted and I'd lose out to those with an economic advantage. I like Philosophical in single player games, but it imo doesn't have the same bite if you don't land the pyramids so I stayed away from it too. Expansive/Imperialistic would be great if I was sure I was going for rapid unchecked expansion but what if the geography or disposition of my neighbours makes that impractical? In the end, I just went with Financial because it is easy, flexible and fairly powerful later in the game. (Organised would do just as well as evidenced by pick #2.)

I was happy to pick last for civs because I think there is much more varied opinions on which ones are the good ones. The only one I would definitely have picked if I could would be India. I also considered Mali because the skirmisher is useful. I decided to try Persia (I've never played them before) because it seems like immortals are a useful unit to have around - good for an early rush in case the situation requires it. I don't want to seem like a guy definitely going for a peaceful builder setup and I think having immortals alone keeps people guessing (and rightly so because it keeps my option for an early rush very much open.)

I would have liked to start with mining, but I wanted to avoid Mysticism and Fishing. (I wish I had fishing now though )

[shadyforce]

All's quiet so far. Based on Sullla's comments about the map (mixture of land and sea invasions possible, everyone contactable by galley) and my map so far, I'm starting to think this is sort of a snaky continents boreal-ish map. I'll post a new screeny in a few turns when I have more of a map, but it's basically more of what you see above.

[haphazard1]

Thanks for explaining your leader/civ choice in more detail.

I am very fond of Creative myself (it is my favorite trait) for the flexibility in choosing city sites and the excellent set of cheap buildings. Not needing to chase any of the religious techs early so the key worker techs can be grabbed quickly is also very helpful. Financial pairs well with this, and gives benefits both early and late.

I do not really understand why you wanted to avoid Fishing as a starting tech, since Sulla did mention water invasions would be possible (implies at least a modest amount of water). But I guess excluding Myst and Fishing means more early worker techs, which has its advantages.