We're third in turn order and therefore get to pick our snake pick position... third.
I suggest we choose the earliest slot possible as I like the top 3 options the best (india, pacal and inca) and this way we can get one. However if someone wants to make the case for trying to get 4th or 5th pick, now's the time.
As I consider this a fairly uninteresting decision I suggest we rush it along so we're ready when it's our turn.
SevenSpirits Wrote:We're third in turn order and therefore get to pick our snake pick position... third.
I suggest we choose the earliest slot possible as I like the top 3 options the best (india, pacal and inca) and this way we can get one. However if someone wants to make the case for trying to get 4th or 5th pick, now's the time.
As I consider this a fairly uninteresting decision I suggest we rush it along so we're ready when it's our turn.
My preference for draft position is:
1
3
2 (rather have the earlier leader choice than the India/Inca decision)
5
4 (I'd rather have control over the entire combo than praying the other team doesn't screw us over).
Let's just go as early as possible if we want Khmer. In my opinion the other teams will think Khmer as too risky, and thus go for other civ picks indeed, leaving it last for us. (Inca/India, Egypt, Zulu, Mali, Maya as 6 other potential civs out there, while top 5 leaders are Pacal,Sury,Williem,Darius,?)
Amelia Wrote:Let's just go as early as possible if we want Khmer. In my opinion the other teams will think Khmer as too risky, and thus go for other civ picks indeed, leaving it last for us. (Inca/India, Egypt, Zulu, Mali, Maya as 6 other potential civs out there, while top 5 leaders are Pacal,Sury,Williem,Darius,?)
I'm still leaning towards India/Inca with the 3rd slot, and leader on the reverse.
Other top leaders:
Mansa
Huayna
Most Exp Leaders with Inca. Note: Because of high-quality leaders being available, I consider that a point against Inca, as Inca need Exp to really shine, but it's a 5p game, so you're giving up an awesome leader to get...Bismarck? Izzy? Mehmed?
Due to that, I re-order my draft choices to:
1
2 (India >> Inca when we get 5th leader choice)
5 (Can do something fun at 5th)
3
4
India and Inca are considerably better than the other civs. There are therefore 2 'top tier' civs.
There are lots of top quality leaders. I don't know why we've suddenly got dislike for Bismarck and Isabella. My leader preference list assuming no civ in particular:
Pacal
Huayna
Willem
Suryavaraman
Mansa
Bismarck
I think that we should aim to get top two in the snake pick. It would be smart to pick a civ first, rather than leader, in this circumstance as we could quite feasibly get a top tier combination. If we pick third or lower, I reccommend a leader first. My preference in terms of when to pick:
First
Second
Third
Fifth
Fourth
I prefer the guaranteed nature of fifth to the slightly higher preference of fourth. This guarantees us one out of: India, Inca, Pacal.
Sury of India
Bismarck of Inca
Pacal of whatever
These are all very decent combinations and entirely realistic I think.
Honestly, I'm liking Mehmed of Inca more and more each day-city spamming like it's going out of style (also, fair amount of water according to Commodore).
That being said, I'd rather have anyone of the top three than being stuck in 4th or 5th.
My preferences: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
1-2-3-5-4 sounds right. In a game with [strike]overpowered[/strike]the most strong leaders/civs banned, taking 5th pick for synergy would make sense. But when there are 3 choices which are clearly stronger than the rest, we do need one of the first 3 picks to land one of them
1-2-3-5-4 is my preference. I agree with the consensus that Top-3 is preferable because Pacal/India/Inca are the top tier. However, I rank Inca as 3rd out of those 3, primarily because it ties you to an Exp leader AND removes Exp/Cre which is really limiting. For instance, I'd personally rather have Sury/Willem of India than Bismarck/Isabella of Inca. Because of that, I rate India as better as it doesn't tie our hands and force us to take an Expansive leader. I get that we don't HAVE to take Exp with Inca, but non-Expansive Inca isn't really the top-tier choice that India is, so to make it worth the 3rd pick you really need Expansive. So yeah, if for some reason #2 and #3 are both available to us, I'd take #2 so we can guarantee either Pacal or India.
We definitely won't be taking #4 or #5 - I think there's a clear consensus of 1/2/3 being preferable because of the Inca/India/Pacal tier. In that case, we'll just take either #2 or #3, depending on which is left to us by the team in front of us. So if they pick either 2 or 3, we just take best spot available. If they pick #4 or #5 (not real likely I don't think), then we have a little bit less of a consensus.
Edit: Actually, looks like everyone is ranking their top-3 as 1-2-3. So we can probably just pick highest spot available as soon as we are up unless someone wants to make the case for bottom of the snake pick soon.
