Read entire lurker thread!
Well, some criticism are on point for example Rowain about my indecisiveness to use my knights to go on war against TheArchduke or Woden, at that moment I fielded strongest military. But how to say it...since I declared at first page of my thread that I would win religious victory, it sort of became my obsession to achieve it. Once I lost sight of it (when Woden completed Stonehenge at turn 62, wasting many missionaries to keep Woden's pressure in check between turn 80 and 115 and failing to grab religious victory around turn 140), I promptly switched to militaristic building, mass producing units. Then every time when I am about to go war, religion again passed before me eyes as better option, as result I rather went to sign DoF again to ensure safety of my missionaries/apostles. Sulla said once that my play didn't make any sense, well for myself it didn't make some sense sometimes, yet it somehow sometimes manages work out well!
It was bit chaotic. Looking back to my chaotic suddenly changes of my flavor from military to religious or back to military made bit difficult for my opponents to keep me under control. I expand my military power aggressively which causes my opponent invest into military and once DoF is signed, my opponents cities are suddenly flooded by my missionaries and my opponent is forced to invest in religion. When DoF is almost expired, I yet again build up my military strength, and when again DoF, again missionaries (and apostles).
Well about map then, one of first comment is no horse resource for me. It forced me to field swordsman based army in classical age with oligrachy bonus and with low mobility. But since I am Russian civilization, I don't have cavalry but Cossack instead which don't need horse resource, so I didn't complain too much about it. Only thing that would hamper me was lack of ability to mass building horseman to upgrade them in Cossack in future. I actually solved that problem myself by capturing Toronto which got horse resource at third ring without possibility for Woden to claim it with other cities, so things did work out themselves and I manage to produce some horseman before finishing military science for Cossack.
Also that four luxury resources close around my capital did indeed help in big way, also because two of that luxuries were exclusive in my lands: silver and salt. I did have monopoly upon them and could trade with any player for amenities which I lacked, with extra amenities and feed of world belief even my cities with relative many hills/desert/tundra did grew as weed and I constantly were civilization with most population as I did track at C&D myself, even more than Woden with 12 cities. Also two of that luxuries sported 3 gold as natural tile yield, in combination with monk economy it greatly boosted my gold income and allowed me field many quantity and same time quality army. In fact only moment that I got negative income were in war against Woden where I did field 13 Cossacks, 10 knights and many more other units besides them (also to mention that I didn't run triangular trade at that moment, when I did add it at next civic swap, my income again became positive). Singaboy called it mind blowing in his thread when he got view of it due alliance between us.
Hilly/mountain part at center of map played a big role in this PBEM. First contact of west and east were in turn 50. Till turn 100 it was basically 1 vs 1 in west and 3 players against each other in east, it wasn't different than when playing with continents map with shallow water so west and east could come in contact. After turn 100 players started to crawl towards center and world started to integrate. At turn 144 it was first declaration of war of player against other player of different continent (me against TheArchduke). But it basically meant that in order to win, you need to be on top of your own continent. And it was indeed interesting roll that two players with more peaceful minds (one for wonders and other for religion) ended together at west and aggressive players at east. It resulted in both players in west still in race to win at turn 160 while in east only winner of three players remained at turn 160.
The peaceful game play in west was possible due DoF and in lurker thread it seemed to be discussion about it. Sulla suggested to make house rule to ban it. Further in thread I saw some people asking for more blood and were disappointed that I ended game with religious victory and not continuing into modern war with oledavy. Well, ultimately how game goes and ends depends upon players, it is their own decision to sign DoF and they have to accept consequences themselves.
Actually there is one argument that might work in favor of banning DoF, that another thing that I wasn't pleased about it: blocking your cities with units to prevent you converting them or blocking city states to prevent them captured by other players. I especially were non amused about Hattusa, I was stressed about possibility of religious victory and I would be really furious when it was denied by cheesy play around Hattusa. I managed to find way around with Zanzibar with kicking Woden's units out it, also missionaries can bypass blockade if used that exploit that I did with Hamilton. I am in favor to ban cheesy play with city states, but it is difficult to enforce it. Although there is a way: ban DoF, then oledavy's scouts in this case would be attacked by Singaboy from start.
I find it difficult myself to agree to ban DoF, because my religious victory wouldn't be possible without them. But ultimately I think that it would be decided by players themselves before the game starts and afterwards no complaints. In PBEM 2 we didn't agree to any rules, also not regarding diplomacy except just AI diplomacy. I just assumed that I could use interface of civilization 6 diplomacy in any way including sending certain amount gold. There wasn't solid agreements before starting game to ban gold diplomacy for example. The matter of oledavy asking Woden about denouncement, well it was a bug and I decided to overlook it now and not raise the matter anymore.
There was discussion about peace and ceding the cities. I confirmed that only value of ceding is lowering warmonger penalty in diplomatic relationship of AI. AI approve you more if you sign peace while keeping cities through ceding them. In multiplayer against human players it thus actually don't matter whether you cede or not, just blank peace is enough to lift occupation penalty out conquered cities.
One of my closing notes is that playing against humans at civilization 6 is vastly superior compared with playing against AI. I really advise to play multiplayer instead single player with civilization 6. And with this I have read all threads of PBEM 2 and I shall answer any questions that arises in any thread. But I am going miss this PBEM greatly, it has become part of my life past 3 months.
Finally I want thank you all for following my play this PBEM and I am quite busy next months. Not sure whether I can hook up with another PBEM quickly, but I shall lurk all current ongoing PBEM's and I might dedlurk next PBEM's. Have much fun, guys!
