Announcement

**deity** · April 25, 2008, 21:34

Interesting oz.

I think we might try to force a few changes, agree. But might be hard to agree on the actual restriction. If we get around 18 players it might take care of itself.

**Pinchak** · April 25, 2008, 22:53

For the purposes of this new Pitboss game, I'd recommend banning the financial and industrial traits just to get some more variety in civs.

I think we should ban Elizabeth, Huana Capac and Bismark since they are chosen altogether too much in these games.

...... unless this means Financial whores, being deprived of their go-to civs will start to set their eyes on my first choice...

As a side note, I am surprised Philo isn't more popular.

**deity** · April 26, 2008, 01:19

And I can't believe Joao isn't more popular - particularly on Terra maps.

And am very surprised about the creative trait being so low - philo too, yeah.

**deity** · April 26, 2008, 01:24

You can't really ban particular traits as that wipes out too many choices - definitely agree with Pincak on that.

I think we should ban Hyuana perhaps but the more I think about it let's just leave it be.

The fact that ozzy has drawn our attention to this is enough to encourage free thinking and choices on the matter without introducing draconian restrictions.

**deity** · April 26, 2008, 01:28

If you look at individuals choices and see that they vary their choice over time then that's good, e.g deity:

England (Elizabeth) (Financial, Philosophic) - Deity
Germany (Bismarck) (Industrious, Expansive) - deity
Korea (Wang Kong) (Protective, Financial) - Deity
Ottomans (Mehmed II) (Expansive, Organized) - Deity
Portugal (Joao II) (Expansive, Imperialist) - Deity

**OzzyKP** · May 14, 2008, 12:33

Originally posted by CyberShy

Code:

America		Franklin D. Roosevelt 
Celts 		Brennus 
England 	Victoria 
France 		Louis XIV 
Greece 		Pericles 
Inca 		Huayna Capac 
India 		Asoka 
Japan 		Tokugawa 
Korea 		Wang Kon 
Mali 		Mansa Musa 
Maya 		Pacal II 
Native America 	Sitting Bull 
Persia 		Cyrus 
Rome 		Julius Caesar 
Russia 		Peter 
Spain 		Isabella 
Viking 		Ragnar

FIN_:_6
SPI_:_4
EXP_:_3
IMP_:_3
ORG_:_3
PHI_:_3
PRO_:_3
IND_:_3
AGR_:_2
CHA_:_2
CRE_:_2

FIN is a little overpresent, but seems to be a list of great diversity. Only 3 IND, and no trait-monopoly. Nice pick everyone !

Ok, still have an excess of Financial, but at least the others are all in balance. Great to see less IND too.

Pacal, Tokugawa, Ashoka, Peter and Perecles are all making their diplogame debut with this pitboss game.

Sitting Bull, Cyrus, Caesar, Victoria, Brennus, Roosevelt, Louis XIV are all being picked for only the second time each.

Wang Kon

Isabella

Ragnar

Mansa Musa

Huayna Capac (7th appearance in a diplogame...)

**Vampgelus** · May 14, 2008, 14:23

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Mansa Musa

Huayna Capac (7th appearance in a diplogame...)

I agree.

**deity** · May 15, 2008, 02:43

Hyena Caput

**Heraclitus** · May 15, 2008, 07:03

This is a very good analysis, but I would not be in favor of banning Fin, perhaps just have the elite players try to avoid it and Ind.

**LzPrst** · May 15, 2008, 11:20

let's play it out. who knows, maybe it was Raz, that chose Inca. but it is a very interesting analysis. I'm not 100% sure though if Inca are so great. consider this.

Inca techs to classical and starts building a wonder. nearby Aztecs tech up a bit and then use the same amount of time chopping poprushing and producing axemen.
Great Wall, meet Horde of Axemen.

a bit of ambition and balls will tend to keep wonderwhores down. we also have to keep in mind that Financial seems to be a very common trait, not to mention the most generic and easy to take advantage of. it's practically a passive bonus, as compared to Aggressive which is a bonus that you have to utilize actively way more. the same can be said for numerous other traits.

here's the clue, you have to play to your strengths. if your civ is aggressive or protective, you should be fighting wars. if you're philosophical, make better use of specialists. spiritual can be extremely neat, cheap temples and free vassalage for every war. expansive, throw out those workers and make sure you have granaries early. the advantage of Financial is that you don't have to play to financial's strength, cause it is so generic.

**OzzyKP** · May 15, 2008, 13:31

You are right, rushing wonder builders can certainly be done. But how often does it happen? Very rarely.

**LzPrst** · May 15, 2008, 14:11

who's to blame for that? the industrious civ for utilizing their advantage? or the slackers who could gain gold and more from raiding their lands?

**OzzyKP** · May 15, 2008, 14:20

The slackers. But that is a lot harder to change than by making rules about what traits certain people can have. It is an ingrained strategic mindset that is tough to change in these games. Players look poorly on aggressors. It gives you a bad rep and makes finding future alliances and friends more difficult. Plus everyone wants someone else to topple the leader, no one wants to do it themselves because there is too much risk. So no one does it.

Quite obviously the benefits of building a library greatly outweigh that of building a swordsman or two. So if you can play nice diplomatically with your neighbors and deemphasize the military you will be more successful. An early war against an opponent may cripple them long term, but it'll cripple you long term as well. So those who can avoid wars are the ones who excel in the game.

There are lots and lots of reasons why people don't attack. Generally attacking is not in their best interest.

That would be the best thing to address. But it isn't as easy as stopping certain players from using certain overpowered traits.

**Vampgelus** · May 16, 2008, 06:07

Well, it depends, if building a small strike force in order to take Stonhenge for instance, will get you :

- free monuments everywhere
- a good extra city
- an early vassal

I would probably do it.

Announcement

Analysis of Popular Diplogame Civs/Leaders

Analysis of Popular Diplogame Civs/Leaders

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment