RBPB4 [SPOILERS] - Locke and Cervantes

[Locke]

OK this will be our spoilers thread.

[Locke]

I think most people talk in first post about why they pick their leader and civ. So I will do that now.

This game has many banned leaders. Cant take the best options. So we look at traits.

Fin is best trait for long game. But it is only available with Pro in this game. That's not terrible cause Fin is still best and no one else has Fin. You get one trait basically. So we rated Fin/Pro leader (Wan Kon) pretty high but he was gone even before we picked.

Cre and Exp are next best traits. They are about equal for long games. You cannot get Cre + Exp because Sury is banned. So you must get one of them because they are next best traits.

Phi is next best after Cre/Exp. But all leaders that pair Phi with Cre or Exp are banned. So we did not want Phi leader and I guess noone else did either lol.

Ind/Org/Spi are next best traits and about even. Ind is mostly good for cheap forges. Ind wonder boost only works if other teams dont have Ind too. We saw lots of Ind leaders not banned, thought that lots of teams would take Ind. That means its less good. And we were right cause there are like 4 Ind leaders out of 10.

Org is pretty overrated. You need high difficulty for it too be real good. Cheap courthouses arent that great. I think we are on Monarch so Org is only OK not great.

Spi is underrated. Saving anarchy turns in early game helps a lot. You can swap Slavery and Caste system a lot which is really good. If you get AP religion then cheap temples rule. We liked Spi a lot for this game.

So who are best leaders? We liked:

Isabella (Exp/Spi)
Louis (Cre/Ind)
Bismarck (Exp/Ind)
Wang Kon (Fin/Pro)

Wang was gone before we picked. Other three leaders have Cre or Exp. But we think that Spi is better than Ind, so we took Isabella. She was our #1 rated leader and we got her with the fourth pick so we are pretty happy.

OK so I guess I should talk about civs to. Good civs have good UU, good UB, and good starting techs. Most people forget starting techs but they are big. Best civs are banned so we drew up our top civs before picking started. We liked:

China
Egypt
England
France
Korea
Mongolia
Zulu

Egypt was gone before we picked. Egpt has good techs (Agr + Wheel) and good UU. UB sucks though. Not bad but Egypt is no Inca.

Zulu also taken before us. Zulu has good UU and good UB but bad techs. Hunting start for scout hurts. We valued Zulu lower than other civs.

For other civs, we ranked in this order:

5) Mongolia has good UU and good UB for attacking. 4XP stable is really good. But starting techs are terrible, another Hunting start. So they get ranked lower.

4) Korea has good UU and good UB. Starting techs are meh (Myst + Min). OK but can do better.

3) France has very good UU. Musketeer is draftable and very mobile. UB sucks though. Techs are good (Agr + Wheel) but didnt start with Min. We wanted Min so we could go BW first if there are forests at start. France is good civ but we didn't pick them.

2) China has best starting techs in game (Agr + Min). UU is OK and UB is pretty pointless. Thought about China and we think they are good but we wanted England instead.

1) England we took. England has good starting techs (Fish + Min) so we can go Agr or BW at start. England has good UU that can be drafted and good UB. They are late in game but hopefully not too late. We thought they were best choice from this group.

Some of the other picks are really good and some are realy bad. I will post on them now.

[Locke]

OK so I will look at who picked in what order and tell you if they were bad or good.

1) Netherlands pick: This is worst pick in whole draft. You guarantee last leader pick to get crummy civ. Starting techs are nothing special. UB comes very late and needs water map to be good. UU is a ship lol. This is terrible first pick.

2) Wang Kon: This is pretty good pick. You are only one with Fin in whole game. Pro sucks but oh well. Not bad.

3) Catherine: Very strong early game leader. Cre to pop borders and Imp for lots of settlers. Hope we dont start next to them. I think there were better leaders here but pick isnt terrible. Might work out good.

4) Isabella: Best pick.

5) Shaka: OK leader and still gets Exp. I think Agg is not so good because economy > rush in these games. But you are only Agg leader in game which could be good. Would have probably picked someone else though.

6) Bismarck: Pretty good pick, one of the stronger leaders. Good economic traits. No problem with this one.

7) Egypt: Silly to pick civ before leader unless civ is really good. Egypt is OK but not that good. Waste of a pick. Now you get #9 leader pick instead of #6. Egypt not worth that.

8) Washington: This is rush leader. Exp/Chr is all about early slaving. Must watch this player. But rushing normally loses this game so I wouldnt take this leader. Chr kinda sucks.

9) Asoka: No Exp or Cre on traits. Org and Spi are both OK but I think this is kind of a weak pick. Feel like there were better options here.

10) Louis: This is great pick! We had Louis ranked #2 after Isabella and he gets Louis with #10 pick. Cre/Ind is very strong economic traits for this game. No clue how Louis lasts this long.

11) Babylon (+Louis): This civ is OK but there were stonger picks. Techs are good (Agr + Wheel). UU is pretty meh. UB is bad. Colosseum with extra health is dumb. OK not great.

12) Vikings (+Asoka): Terrrible civ! You have weakest starting techs in game, Fish + Hunt. Scout start. UU and UB are useless unless this is big water map. Not sure what they are thinking.

13) Greece (+Washington): Terrible civ! You also have weakest starting techs in game, Fish + Hunt. UB is awful, coloseum with +1 happy. UU is axe that doesn't die to chariots. Thats OK but pretty weak. Civ pick doesnt fit with leader at all, since Wash is rush leader. Why not take Mongolia or Carthage and rush? I dont understand.

14) De Gaulle (+Egypt): This is worst leader in this game. No Exp or Cre. Ind with 3 other Ind leader. Chr very weak trait. Chr is good for rush and Egpt also good for rush - but Ind is terrible for rush. Dont understand this pick. If synergy is supposed to be Chr + Egypt obelisks then that is stupid. This guy will probably build Stonehenge which is noob build in these games. Think this is terrible pick.

15) Sumeria (+Bismarck): Terrible civ! You have UU that is worse than normal axe. You have UB that offers no advantage. Courthouse that comes 2 techs earlier on tree. Starting techs are good but this is awful civ. Why would you pick this when CHina, France, England all available? Is stupid.

16) Zulu (+Shaka): This guy didnt need Unrestricted leaders lol. This is a pretty good pick though. UB is good and paired with Agg leader so its cheap. UU is awesome at choking. Hunting start is bad though. Pretty good combo overall. Good for rush/choke espcially.

17) England (+Isabella): Good pick.

18) China (+Catherine): This is also a good pick. China never should last this long before getting picked. Awesome starting techs and OK UU. UB even has synergy with Cre trait. This is one of the best combos.

19) Arabia (+Wang Kon): Terrible civ! Starting techs are pretty bad (Wheel + Myst). UU is a knight that doesnt need iron, sucks. UB is a library than can run prists - which you wouldnt want to do anyway. This is just a bad civ.

20) FDR (+Netherlands): This is OK pick for leader #10, really dumb to give yourself last leder pick though. No Cre or Exp. Traits are OK for economy but they are second tier. Taking Dutch first really screwed this guy.

Here are best combos IMO:

Catherine/China
Isbella/England
Louis/Babylon

Shaka/Zulu
Bismarck/Sumeria
Wang Kon/Arabia

Asoka/Vikings
FDR/Netherlands
Washington/Greece
De Gaulle/Egypt

Put them in three tiers in rough order. Top three are all good combos, Louis a little lower than the others. Middle three all have some kind of flaw in them. Shaka is best but weaker economy. Bismarck and Wang has lousy civs. Bottom four are weakest pairs. These are bad civs and bad leaders. Maybe they will surprise but they have uphill battle.

I think Ive learned that many people here dont know what to do after best civs/leaders are banned. Leader picks were pretty good but many civ picks were just terrible.

[novice]

Agree with your analysis except Washington is not a bad leader.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Thanks for the analysis. I enjoyed reading it and it seems very well thought out.

[Cervantes]

I don't have anything to add right now, but am going to post to let you know that I am here. It looks like we have a fun civ, and not some crap like some of the other teams.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Tilting at windmills. Always liked that phrase. Don Quixote is an amazing read.

[Kyan]

Firstly guys, welcome to Realms Beyond!

I can already tell that i'm really going to like this thread. Very nice analysis. Looking forward to seeing how you do. I have you down as a dark horse

[Krill]

Your start:

[Locke]

What why is our civ black???