Leader-to-map fit: When it fits and when it doesn't

[futurehermit]

I think that playing the map is the strongest way to go. Or, let me put it more precisely: I think that "mapping" the leader's traits/techs/UU/UB onto the existing map in a way that maximizes your chances to win is the strongest way to go.

So, let's imagine a few examples:

-You are playing as Hatty
-You tech AH while spotting a close enemy
-Horses pop up between you and your opponent
-You get a settler out there asap
-You crank war chariots to rush your opponent
-Afterwards/during you generate some GPs off your UB and settle them to pay the bills and to fund further expansion

-You are playing as Roosevelt
-You get a coastal start with a few seafood and good production
-Scouting reveals a number of nice, nearby coastal cities
-You have some neighbours, but no one close or nasty
-You get out some workers/settlers to get a couple cities going
-You build the GLH and continue expanding along the coast

etc.

These kinds of "good fit" situations are games that I generally win (monarch/normal/hemispheres).

The games that I really struggle with and give up on (even if I may win in the long run) are what I would classify as "bad fit" situations.

Let's mix the above:

-You're playing as Hatty
-You get the coastal start
-No horses, no close neighbour
-No bonuses toward the GLH
-Don't start with fishing

This isn't the worst fit, and I'm not saying it is an unwinnable position. Hatty is still a strong leader and the map position I am describing doesn't seem unreasonable. It could still be possible to get the GLH.

Call this something like "average fit".

"Bad fit" might be something like:

-You're playing as Boudica
-You get an isolated start

I don't know, hopefully others can come up with additional examples. I hope what I am trying to communicate is coming across.

What I am wondering is how people handle "bad fit" situations. What do you do when your leader's strengths don't fit well with what the map is showing you?

The obvious answer might be something like: "Play the map and accept that your game will be slightly subpar compared to a leader who would fit that start better" or "Tough it out in the early going, while playing to the map, and try to play to the strengths as the game goes on". Maybe someone might argue "try to adjust the map to play more to your strengths; beeline MC and Guilds and lay down workshops if you lack production"

Thoughts?

[DaveMcW]

Obviously you should restart if the game doesn't give enough goodies to make it fun for you.

The more boring and flexible answer is learn how to win with NO traits, NO wonders, and NO unique units. Then every variation can be seen as an advantage, instead of a disadvantage.

[futurehermit]

haha, i was avoiding saying an obvious answer would be "regen"

true, perhaps i should try and think of it more as "no traits, no wonders, no unique units". maybe i'll go back to playing random leaders again and try and random up the settings a bit more.

thks!

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by DaveMcW

Obviously you should restart if the game doesn't give enough goodies to make it fun for you.

The more boring and flexible answer is learn how to win with NO traits, NO wonders, and NO unique units. Then every variation can be seen as an advantage, instead of a disadvantage.

Good advice IMO. It's why I almost always play random leaders in non-forum games these days.

Also, isolated Boudica/bootycall isn't terrible. Charismatic has some early game help, and you do get the promo gunpowder for a gren/cannon or rifle push. Same deal with Toku in iso, though he's a bit weaker.

Just minor variations in resources could vary the games though. Example:

You get Roosevelt in iso. Relatively few food resources, no stone, no pre calendar resources, only dyes.

You get Toku in iso. You can get stone with your 2nd city. Food is abundant, and most of the land is green. BFC has 2x gold and seafood. Island also has ivory, an area with 2 seafood resources and fur, and gems.

Now tell me, which would you rather play out . Traits do affect decision making to an extent but the game situation does moreso IMO.

No wonders isn't bad practice to learn but they can really help in starts where immediate surroundings aren't prime real estate or you can take time settling (like in isolation). Scout scout scout. Information is necessary to make these decisions.

[futurehermit]

Scout scout scout. Information is necessary to make these decisions.

Another reason why I LOVE starting with hunting

[semirami]

You get Toku in iso. You can get stone with your 2nd city. Food is abundant, and most of the land is green. BFC has 2x gold and seafood. Island also has ivory, an area with 2 seafood resources and fur, and gems.

Where is the silver?

just kidding

[josephstalin]

Some civs like Dutch and Portuguese are obviously more fit to play on islands map. I do not think that anything else affects the game that much to make some more favorable over the others.

[OTAKUjbski]

When it does fit, the difficultly level might as well be one (or sometimes two) notches lower than you have it set.

Conversely, when it doesn't fit, the difficulty level is either just right (the "average" fit) or one notch harder (the "bad" fit).

So I guess that is to say I guess it all depends on the difficulty level you're at and how good you are at it.

----

That being said, I play everything Random at Monarch (same settings as the Monarchist Cookbook).

I typically regenerate obviously win-win starts (like Gems in the BFC, etc), frequently quit early on games that become win-win (like successfully Axe-rushing two neighbours in the BC's, etc) and almost always play out the "average" or "bad" starts.


-- my 2

[Roxlimn]

The bad starts are always the most interesting. The worst start I've ever had was with Sitting Bull. No Horses, No Ivory, No Iron, poor Food map with two Imperialistic Civs for neighbors.

That game was very hard.

[Jet]

Originally Posted by futurehermit

maybe i'll go back to playing random leaders again and try and random up the settings a bit more.

The variation in starts is so wide that if you're using settings where you can beat most or all starts, some games are going to be very easy. One can always try to win faster, but personally I usually prefer games where I'm not dominating the AIs.

[SenhorDaGuerra]

Joao on a Terra map is almost unfair on the AI because you can leverage the carrack so much. like Madscientist did in one of his RPC's.

Joao on an Great plains map would be one of the worst fit becaue u cant use your UU or UB. But then someone out there will try to leverage something somehow and have a lot of fun. i think i would regen!!!

the best part of the game and the reason i keep playing it so much is the endless and countless scenarios you can dream up, or indeed are thrown at you for whatever reason. endless replayability!

But yes, it is all about playing the map, so a Joao on Great Plains could start with 3 gold in the BFC and cruise to victory. it all depends.

[futurehermit]

Joao on great plains I would rex so hard...

[Yeosol]

I agree that map fit is important. When I play hotseat games I find I chose leaders with more versatility because you can't re-roll. Not that I do often but Persia w/ no horses just isn't fun. Also because playing against a human opponent you need to be able to keep up if they get a good start.

I think some leaders/civs (like Persia) are ridiculously powerful if they get a good (above average) start. While others aren't quite as overwhelming with a good start but are less behind with a "bad fit" start (Mehmed)...and then there are leaders like Toku that I always fail with.

[Diamondeye]

Originally Posted by semirami

Where is the silver?

As a rule of thump, on a tundra island.

Originally Posted by OTAKUjbski

When it does fit, the difficultly level might as well be one (or sometimes two) notches lower than you have it set.

Conversely, when it doesn't fit, the difficulty level is either just right (the "average" fit) or one notch harder (the "bad" fit).

So I guess that is to say I guess it all depends on the difficulty level you're at and how good you are at it.

----

That being said, I play everything Random at Monarch (same settings as the Monarchist Cookbook).

Me too. Works very well, and you get to play some leaders you would not play that much. I have recently fallen in love with playing Toku, and Napoleon.

I typically regenerate obviously win-win starts (like Gems in the BFC, etc), frequently quit early on games that become win-win (like successfully Axe-rushing two neighbours in the BC's, etc) and almost always play out the "average" or "bad" starts.

I only quit when I'm doomed or the game's in the box too easy (we all know the Combustion mob-up, don't we?)

Originally Posted by futurehermit

Joao on great plains I would rex so hard...

Me too! Slider @ 0% for the win

[futurehermit]

Me too! Slider @ 0% for the win

nothing wrong with that if you are getting your beakers from specialists and once your economy matures no one can stop you really

[Diamondeye]

Exactly for that reason Joao and Catherine games tend either to go completely wrong or be far too easy

[futurehermit]

When I can rex with Joao or Cathy --> far too easy When I can't rex with Joao the game is tough. Cathy can at least rush well also.

[futurehermit]

I played a number of random starts last night, about 4-6 can't remember exactly. I gave up all of them and restarted when I felt I was in a winning position. So, things are going nicely.

The most interesting by far was a coastal start with Genghis Khan and no close neighbour. I would characterize this as reasonably bad fit.

However, I had a monster 2nd city with THREE gold pits and enough food (farmed floodplains) to work them all. I also had a number of smallish islands near my capital. So, after getting the settler out for the 2nd city, I built the GLH. I then settled about 8-10 cities peacefully until the land ran out. Mansa was closest to me to the south. Fortunately, he was late getting to longbows because he was going hard on religions (going cultural Mansa?). He also didn't have a lot of defenses. I attacked with about 13 keshiks and took 3 cities, including his capital quickly. Ceasefire to heal with medic3. War again to finish taking his cities. At that point I had close to 15 cities and a stable economy ca. 800AD. Very, very winnable. I quit the game here, but would've finished it out with drafted rifles clearing my continent of Darius (pleased) and Bismarck (friendly).

[Diamondeye]

Sounds nice. If one plays that aggressively (and one often does ), it's a win easy or lose early scenario, imo.

[futurehermit]

yep, that summarizes my games pretty nicely