Legoland intel

[Meshelic]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, you feel devious. You know you do. I'm sure they will tell their team how you play.

Not quite sure if the LegoLand guys even know you're on our team! Until your avatar's show it then you're technically an 'under-the-table' agent.

[alva]

[Quote]They did the paper-rock-scissors thing. I was the judge. Roleplay won. However, they're thinking of gifting the builders Carthage.[quote]

hmm. interesting way of building good will before the game.

unfortunately in that case WE weren't in the position to give another team our civ.

damnit, we should have thought of that!

Whose says we can't??
Nothing stops us negotiating about a civ that isn't really ours
We can alwayss pretend to have chosen the same civ, and give it away, (either as a sign of good will, or on a return-favour condition). And since we don't actually have it, it's not that hard to give it away.

If we do this a hour before the game starts, I willing to bet that some of them would be very anxious to loose their civ on a paper/scissor/ decission. (not a very sportive/nice tactic, i agree , but a powerfull one.
But even 'giving' it in the next couple of days will get us to a 'polite' status.

[DeepO]

Okay, here's a question: the legos are builders, right, but how far will this go: will they be trying to outbuild the AIs as well, or would they archer rush them?

The reason why I ask is that they will prolly realize that if they don't war early against AIs, they will lose valuable territory, but OTOH this will somewhat deviate from their initial goals.

DeepO

[Meshelic]

Depends on what civ they are as well. Some civs are great for churning out settlers and planting them all over the place, while others....not so great.

I think the Legolanders will build as much as possible, but are mostly keeping their fingers crossed, hoping they aren't really close to anyone so they can expand appropriately. Just a thought.

[DeepO]

Yeah, that's what I thought as well... they certainly will have an able military, but one that is focused on defense.

As to their civ: they will almost certainly have Carthage.. so if someone could remind me what their traits are (I know, I'm lazy ) Oh, building settlers will never outREX an early warmonger, not even if they start in the middle of floodlands. I do hope they think they will, though

DeepO

[Meshelic]

Carthage : Commercial/Industrious UU: Numidian Mercenary (2.2.1)

[DeepO]

Hmm.. that would certainly seem a good UU to get some AI bashing done, after which you retreat in your fortified towns. They are an alternative for spearmen, right? so that way they can be upgraded as well. Getting a slightly offensive unit which doubles as a defender, and is in the upgrade path of defense certainly is the builder approach, this way they shouldn't focus on offense early on.

Other choices of them seem to indicate the same thing: Egypt would have been a better choice for the same strategy, with one problem: they blow their golden age too early (for us too, of course, but I couldn't care less). Persia the same, but their UU is timed a bit later, which will have it's uses on certain maps, and some not. Both civs have the problem that their UU needs a resource, which possibly they should war for, I can imagine that as a builder they choose the more conservative approach. And commercial... well... good for less corruption, but it is a gamble as they could end up with the least cities of all members. But the biggest for sure.

Further thoughts: wonders. They will certainly go for them, and we should look out here. Certain key wonders should not fall in their hands, certainly not the happiness wonders... let them pay for their luxuries they need to keep those marketplaces going.

DeepO

[Dominae]

The Numidian Mercs are 2/3/1 for 30 Shields. So they're perfect for Legoland's overall strategy.


Dominae

[Meshelic]

Originally posted by DeepO
Hmm.. that would certainly seem a good UU to get some AI bashing done, after which you retreat in your fortified towns. They are an alternative for spearmen, right?

Yes that is correct. The only problem I foresee for Carthage is just their VERY early Golden Age, which starts right off the bat it seems. Same way for Egypt though as you pointed out as well.

For their goals, Carthage is a very good defensive builder-type civ, and I think Legoland made a pretty good choice, although I'd like to also comment that it was the Roleplayers who gave up their claim to Carthage so they could give it to Legoland....

this way they shouldn't focus on offense early on.

I don't believe they will either. Legoland knows that there are three pretty good warlike civs out there, LI, GS and GoW. So they are certainly going to be on guard, as war has not been mentioned as a primary goal of the Legolanders. I think that they picked probably the best defensive civ, other than Greece, who's Hoplite has a significantly strong defense....

And commercial... well... good for less corruption, but it is a gamble as they could end up with the least cities of all members. But the biggest for sure.

Their cities will be full of gold that is for sure. Any city captured of theirs will probably yield quite a bundle of captured booty, workers, etc.

Further thoughts: wonders. They will certainly go for them, and we should look out here. Certain key wonders should not fall in their hands, certainly not the happiness wonders... let them pay for their luxuries they need to keep those marketplaces going.

DeepO

Which wonders would you designate as 'key' wonders that should not be allowed in their hands? Adam Smith's Trading Company comes to mind personally, that combined with their commercial trait will make them tons of money. I could see them building Colossus pretty early...at the risk of not building enough units.

Which is another question : at what point do we all think that the Legolanders will risk building city improvements over military units? Are we all under the impression that they will build MINIMAL military and focus naively on building wonders and city improvements, or do we think they'll catch on and realize that military might is a huge necessity in this game?

[Dominae]

Depending on how warlike we're feeling, it may be a good idea to attack Legoland early in order to get their GA out of the way (just throw a Warrior at one of their Mercs). Needless to say, this will cause a bad rep with them, but with a UU like that we simply can't take them on early, and if they can still jump into a GA in the Middle ages we're at a disadvantage. Thus, we can feint them into thinking we're crazy enough to assault them early on, and they'll waste a lot of precious resources preparing for war while we're doing something else.


Dominae

[DeepO]

A few remarks: I don't know how far this game is going to get, but I wouldn't think Smith is that important for the simple reason that game will be won / lost by that time. Otherwise I'd agree. Key wonders I was thinking on was indeed the Colossus, which would be a good wonder for smaller civs with large cities (which fits the profile of the legos) & the happiness wonders. military wonders won't be so important, with possibly the exception of the great wall: I don't think anyone will be going to build a lot of city walls, except the defensive legos, the GW would be a very powerful wonder for them (at least, if I was on that team it would be my number one goal)

Golden Age: Egypt is around the same time as they will be, but we choose instead of be attacked. That's a big difference: if the terrains is right, we can hold off until we are getting Monarchy (if that is going to be our goal, instead of Rep.). They don't have that choice. However, we will have to be very careful to start a war to trigger their GA: it has to be super early, and we need good defense / offense ourselves. Plus, it will make them hold a grudge for the rest of the game.

I think the legos themselves will trigger it relatively early, by warring against an AI. That UU is too sweet to pass on.

DeepO (off to lunch)

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Meshelic


Yes that is correct. The only problem I foresee for Carthage is just their VERY early Golden Age, which starts right off the bat it seems. Same way for Egypt though as you pointed out as well.

The early golden age is only an issue if you get in a fight. If Legoland gets their way, they won't get in any wars that force them to use their UU, so they can trigger their GA with wonders at whatever time is both feasible and appropriate.

Egypt also has the option of deferring its GA, at least if no one forces its hand. One of my favorite Egyptian tactics is to built up a large War Chariot force while researching Monarchy and then trigger my GA right after switching governments. Not only do some tiles produce more under Monarchy, but a lot less of the extra production and wealth is lost to waste and corruption.

Their cities will be full of gold that is for sure. Any city captured of theirs will probably yield quite a bundle of captured booty, workers, etc.

"Builder" does not automatically mean "rich." My bet is that they'll invest very heavily in science, meaning that if the rest of us fight each other, they could pull away with a pretty nice tech lead, at least for a while. Further, their builder approach will probably keep them from getting big enough to do 4-turn research with a gold surplus, in which case they may tend to stay pretty cash-poor. Also, Carthage is industrious, and so can't be expected to have as many workers as a non-industrious civ would need.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Depending on how warlike we're feeling, it may be a good idea to attack Legoland early in order to get their GA out of the way (just throw a Warrior at one of their Mercs). Needless to say, this will cause a bad rep with them, but with a UU like that we simply can't take them on early, and if they can still jump into a GA in the Middle ages we're at a disadvantage. Thus, we can feint them into thinking we're crazy enough to assault them early on, and they'll waste a lot of precious resources preparing for war while we're doing something else.

A bad reputation with human players can cause a LOT more problems than a bad reputation with AIs. For the most part, a furious AI is willing to make pretty much the same trade deals as a polite one. In contrast, a furious human player or team is likely to strongly prefer to trade with others instead of trading with us whenever practical.

Before we get anyone mad at us, we need to be very careful that our prospective gains outweigh our prospective losses. And in my view, making a game-long enemy just to get a civ to blow its golden age early doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Nathan

[Dominae]

nbarclay, I posted in another thread concerning "game ethics", so I will try not to repeat myself here.

I think the fear of having a bad rep with human opponents is largely unsubstantiated. Are we never to attack anyone, and if so, on what terms? I hope that most of the other teams (that is, the members that comprise them) will not start holding grudges for no good reason. I don't consider an early attack to be a good reason to be permanently pissed off, because it is clearly a part of the game. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to give us all their techs anytime in the near future, but you're making it sound like anyone we attack we will be on bad terms with forever. If that is really how MP works (my experience being negligible), then I much prefer the SP experience where you can attack someone yet still have diplomatic agreements with them in the future.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

The questions of rep vs humans is something that will have to evolve. I think most teams will adopt a pragmatic view over the long haul.

There is an early scrap over a choice piece of land. We take the land and offer terms. Fair terms. Sure, they will not like it, and won't forget it, but if we behave honourably and reasonably they may come to accept us as neighbours again. Especially if the borders become crowded, and they feel they can trust our word that we will not harass them further.

That last bit is crucial. If a neighbour has no reason to believe what we say, that border will never be safe.