|
CGE name is J-Man. I can do either live or async, doesn't really matter to me, I just need to make sure I find the time for games.
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
I can't decide if I hate Dark Ages more than Rats now. On the one hand, Dark Ages doesn't murder all your science so you still have some wiggle room to work with if it's poorly timed. Whereas a poorly timed Rats could just completely murder your economic momentum and handcuff you for the entire game. And yet losing science, especially the science needed for a really crucial tech you need right the hell now, can be incredibly game changing in a way that Rats isn't. As of now I still cringe more when the Rats I was hoping wasn't seeded totally was but I'm still wary of that one time where a Dark Ages really screws me beyond what I can deal with. Both of them of course still pale in comparison to the biggest FU event in the game, Terrorism 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
hito posted:Also, let's get some more thread content going and do some rankings of Age A leaders. I'll put out preliminary writeups and y'all can weigh in on how you feel about them. I'll use a system of two 1-4 scores: Strong, strong disagree on both Hammurabi and Cleo. Hammurabi was and still is the best Age A leader imo and Cleopatra isn't far behind. Cleo is very flexible in a way a lot of Age A leaders aren't, and the worrying about corruption or urban building yellows is overblown because the entire point of using her is providing an immediate, turn 1 jump start to your economy without having to sacrifice anything or rely on fortuitous card row movement to do so. You must invest in both long-term science and happiness in all but the most edge of edge cases to succeed in this game and the way you do that is, surprise, wonders and/or urban buildings.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
hito posted:To me, it feels like a game going really scrappy really early (especially when it's Sun Tzu getting Fighting Band/Legion in their first draw - you can't even copy your way out) is still a rough situation for the Hammurabi player, who has to choose between blanking their leader card or getting the tar kicked out of them by aggressions or a torrent of strength events. Whereas Aristotle and Hippocrates, I feel, don't have any comparable situation where you're like "well, if I had known it would be like this, I wouldn't have wanted this leader". It's exactly this type of flexibility that makes Hammurabi work honestly. Yeah, you might be forced into a situation where you may want to forgo using the MA as a CA in order to properly protect yourself but at least you have that option, which is the same as any other leader with an ability that assumes any sort of risk. Incidentally, the situation you described is explicitly why Hammurabi in the original TTA actually was total garbage. In that game it straight up converted the MA to a CA which meant you never had a choice in the matter and you were always stuck with a hand size of 1 and a max draw of 1 and could only built 1 unit a turn and it was a total nightmare and almost never worth the trouble unless you pulled Monarchy turn 2 or something (and keep in mind using non-defense cards on aggressions wasn't a thing in that game either). As for Cleo, I think a problem I see from comments about her in general is the way people mentally approach her power. "Oh, you have to build wonders slowly turn by turn to make the most of her ability or else you're not being optimal, but that leads to corruption issues." Uh no, her power isn't being efficient, her power is being an accelerant, which is a completely different thing altogether. You do all the same stuff you usually do building up your Age I economy, you just do it faster. She's not the type of leader you can ride through all of Age I like an Ahsoka or Boudica or Aristotle. She gets your second philosophy and/or temple/arena up (maybe some alchemy if you get lucky) she gets your Age A wonder and maybe an early Age I wonder up, and then you cut bait and transition to your Age I leader and midgame strategy. That's the roadmap you're looking for when using her. And, as I alluded to in my previous post, her ability is entirely 100% free, a fact that I think isn't stressed enough when considering her power relative to other leaders. Using your rating system, I'd probably put both Hammurabi and Cleo at 3/4. Other leaders have effects with greater potential impacts (an Aristotle or Sun Tzu when luck breaks their way is NOT to be trifled with) which is the reason why I think 3 fits them best.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Game 3 is up and ready to start whenever rchandra and Phelddagrif are ready
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Alright our game just finished let's see how it shook out--  Have a lot to say about this game. Let's just say that Age III was absolutely wild.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Hard to say how the game would have turned out had you ended the game a round early. That would have been 18 extra culture for me and 1 turn less of your culture rate and I had the armed intervention in my hand anyway. Not sure if you had the cards to defend it on that turn but given that you didn't on the last turn I assume you didn't? Perhaps if the game had ended there I wouldn't have had the means to get to a 20 harmony score and yours would have been higher? I think the turning point for me in that Age III was a really clutch Cold War event near the end of the game that let me develop Fundamentalism, Rockets, and then Mil Theory (though that last one was replacing Strategy, so not a huge swing) within two turns which allowed me to minimize the damage from rchandra's first war against me and setup to then declare on Phel right afterwards. Wasn't expecting rc's war though, that ended up being sort of an unintentional kingmaking move on his part, though given how close we were to each other at that time that could be forgiven. Speaking of, I had a pretty shaky 16 culture lead going into the impacts and almost lost it there. The only thing that saved me there is that I was the one who seeded Harmony and I had both Strength and Competition in my hands so I knew I could spend my last turn sacrificing all the strength I needed to maximize my Harmony score (me and Phel matched at 20) and squeeze every bit of culture from my buildings I could, though I screwed even that one up by building a second arena instead of a third temple. The idea was to maximize happiness in case that impact showed up but I totally forgot I had the Basilica so even three temples would have been enough there 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Apocron posted:Anyone got thoughts on the new wonders? Any new combos to watch out for with the expansion? I'm starting to lean towards the conclusion that Himeji Castle is the best wonder in the game right now. It just does so much. It provides near-ironclad protection from any war or aggression until at worst Age III. It gives you an extra push of offense for that crucial aggression or that crucial WoC you need to win. And even if your opponent(s) try to whittle you down by forcing you to sacrifice units, each sacrifice provides +3 culture no matter what which blunts the cost of having to replace them. And on top of that the wonder just gives a flat +2 culture per turn, same as the other best wonder in the game (Basilica). For extra fun, pair Himeji with Marlene in Age III and laugh at your opponents' attempts to do anything to you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Guess I should say just for clarity's sake that I don't really care what the format of the league is since it's not a super serious thing to begin with, and it'd be much easier to let people opt out then to explicitly require opt-ins every time. Just my two cents.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Silk Road is a nice wonder with a nice effect but that 5 step requirement is back-breaking. You pretty much need extra blues and an extra Age I CA (likely 2) for it to be worth the headache, unless you go hard early on production and just decide to eat the corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Treaties are pretty hilarious, because if you propose one that almost certainly means you have a really strong plan in mind that can be enabled at the expense of the putz who's accepting the deal, but by the same token if the opponent accepts the deal then you immediately worry whether you accidentally enabled an even stronger play by said opponent. Silly theoretical mind games aside, I find that Sci Coop is almost never worth proposing or taking, Open Borders is risky but still worth it if you need that crucial third military action early on, I'm more than happy to take the free blue tokens from Naval Trade if I have no colonization plans, and all the Age III pacts are useful in their own way, most hilarious being screwing over the military player by insulating their only useful target from war decs 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
if you're in the lead and you can guarantee avoiding a WoC by ending Age III early then I think it's worth passing on a wonder to do so. Although a lot also depends on what Yellow's infrastructure looks like and if he can gain more on this last turn than you can with internet or UN. Also Yellow has a prime opportunity to AI you on his next turn if he has it and a strong enough unit to sac. That's a 17 point swing right there and there's not much you can do to respond on the final turn. I suppose that situation also begs the question, would you as yellow risk an AI against green in this situation with 8 cards and 5 MAs defending? If you can Himeji your way up to +11 you have to take that chance, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2020 05:39
|
|