[NO PLAYERS] Witnessing Democracy Inaction

[Commodore]

Please turn back if you're not committed 100% to Team Global Lurker

[Commodore]

Okay. Just one thing. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF PETE IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT PAIRING INCA/INDIA WITH EXPANSIVE?

Okay, expansive is great, cheaper workers and granaries. India's fast workers are downright broken and having free border pops is wonder, so India and Inca are very strong, and I get why you want to discount FW or terraces. But I have yet to play a game where I don't build workers, even at full price. And even when I'm not Expansive, the only thing I ever build before a granary is a monument...I get the appeal of synergy, but this is a bit silly.

[Mist]

Because it has always been done?

I'm with those few people that think Org is undervalued. I'm also genuinely curious what would Mack pick here given free hand, sure Fin is strong. Fin is always strong, but probably not to the point of thinking any Fin/x pair is worth more to pick than any other option.

[Commodore]

Mehmed is his opinion, which is a solid pick. The only trouble I have with anyone other than Darius as Org are those lovely cheap lighthouses open up pretty marginal 2/0/2 tiles. In a map where a lot of fishing is taking place I'd rather have even Wang Kon over Mehmed, 20 hammers saved per lighthouse isn't quite the same as having Fin coast. Now if they pair it with the Great Lighthouse or Colossus, that objection is of course nullified...but that's dicey where everyone else wants them too.

The 'mids are a viable other option, as always, but then I'd really rather be Sury for the cheap libraries. A Representation economy with Sury is just frankly ridiculous, settle a tight grid with each city needing only +4 food, whip twice (cheap granary, cheap library), and enjoy your +15bpt even at 100% gold.

[Commodore]

Heheh, and Gaspar mind reads again. Watching Lord Parkin Sith-mind-trick his pack of CFCers ought to be interesting.

[timski]

Okay. Just one thing. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF PETE IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT PAIRING INCA/INDIA WITH EXPANSIVE?

I'm only skimming the threads, but such discussions generally result from :

1. Not accounting for the likelihood that everyone else is having similar discussions. Sure Expansive Granaries are strong and Indian Workers change multiplayer wars dramatically, but sometimes being the only Industrious (or whatever ) civ in the game can be very powerful, because one isn't competing on an identical strategy.

2. Too much democracy! With so many participants, picks which are typically thought of as strong, will typically emerge as consensus opinion. Oddball plays, the likes of which mackoti might favour, are drowned out by conventional wisdom.

The important point now is how the teams subsequently resolve failing to get both the perfect textbook combination (because none will get Pacal of India) and a perfect oddball combination (whatever mackoti was going to pick). Will they all lurch towards OK-but-not-terribly-coherent picks? Or will we see some leadership (or whatever it is Parkin does) to prevent too much democracy.

Game and thread was well-titled.

[Zargon]

I play a lot of boardgames, and I've found that people very often overestimate the power of synergy. Like, they get to pick something from groups A, B, and C, and there's a few combos that obviously work together, then people will tunnel-vision on those combos, placing less weight on the downsides of the combo, and placing less weight on the upsides of other combos, because there's no synergy.

My amateur psychological analysis is that the synergy is viewed as gaining something for free. Like, they pick AB, which has synergy, they're gaining 3 things, A, B, and the synergy. But if they pick CD, which doesn't have synergy, they only get 2 things, C and D. Then, 3 being larger than 2 impedes the ability to step back and actually evaluate AB vs CD.

[T-hawk]

Yup, synergy can be overvalued. Sullla once posted about Philosophical Korea being broken. Half price on a building that gives an extra 10% science? OMGHAX!

That said, I think the synergy of Expansive Fast Workers is overrated but Expansive Terraces are pretty attractive. India doesn't build more FWs than other civs build regular workers. But an Expansive Terrace gets you the border pop much sooner than a regular terrace. Especially if whipped, since there's a hidden mathy advantage there: a whipped granary/terrace comes three times sooner with Expansive, since the whip happens at size 2 (one growth) instead of size 4 (three growths).

[timski]

True, Zargon. It is something of a paradox that synergy is associated with consistency, while multiplayer games are played because of their inconsistency (relative to computer opponents). But then the same paradox is so routine in Anglo-American culture that none seems to notice...

I'm currently intrigued by the tendency to split leader/civ discussions from map discussions, even though the start poses some facinating choices that should inform overall play-style: Broadly, to priorise food, or commerce, or chopping out The Great Lighthouse...? Each favours different starting leaders/civs. While those leaders/civs last beyond the first city, the early game snowballs to such an extent that an appropriate leader/civ for one's initial development plan is just as good a basis for a decision as any other.

Seeing only the screenshot and the description of the map (everyone starting on the same continent but with outer islands) it should be fairly simple to guess that the coastal choice is there for a reason: It probably opens up a lot of the uncontested map. But because most discussions are running along the lines of Financial Cottages and Expansive Granaries, most seem to be ignoring the Fish bait completely.

[Zargon]

Eh, it's my understanding (only an understanding, since I don't actually play civ anymore and wasn't particularly good when I did, which is why I have no idea which synergies are and are not worth giving up financial), that fishing capitals are generally slower starts than inland capitals, even if you take an appropriate civ to start fishing. You can see Gilette toying with the idea of doing a fishing start, but if they do it, it would be on the merits of the start in and of itself, rather than any islands it might open up, because realistically, even if they opened fishing, they're still going to settle several cities on the mainland before going to the trouble of settling an island, even if a convenient one is nearby, at which point, who cares if the galley comes from the first city or the second?

And people go for financial cottages and expansive granaries because those are safe, consistent plays, regardless of what the map looks like, and regardless of what other teams do. Nobody will pick a leader based around a specialist economy, because that requires pyramids and thus committing to an all-in play before the first turn. Similarly, nobody's going to base their leader pick around islands that may or may not be convenient and good.