Hey guys,
I'd love to voice some extreme frustration here. Never have I wanted to scream at my computer more than listen to you guys 'discuss' my comment about episode 206, read it out, and STILL not give my an accurate account of what I said
.
Seriously, it was very frustrating to hear people chuckle as if I was suggesting doing things I didn't suggest. I never said to open Patronage in lieu of finishing Tradition. I specifically said to open AFTER completing Tradition but before you can open Rationalism. And yet you guys were chuckling and laughing at how stupid I am and how I am 'doing it wrong.'
Second, you guys were chuckling and laughing at how stupid I am for for not going right side with the +20 Influence... which makes me think that you guys didn't understand my premise at all. And frankly, if you aren't going to take 30 seconds to actually think about what I proposed/thought then ignore me and don't include me in an episode!
To repeat: the issue is beakers. And if you're desperate for happiness, the ton of happiness after beakers. If you've completed Tradition and not able to unlock Rationalism, you have choices to make. And if you're preparing for CS Allies early (gold gifts, quests, barb camps) then you'll already be friends or Allies with several city states and the issue is getting Science (and a LOT of it). The +20 influence doesn't make your friends and allies give you science. And of course, that will delay your science, delay your Rationalism game, et al. Basically going right side proves the point your players were making that Patronage is worthless after it was changed. But if you
thought about what I proposed you'd understand that i'm advocating a different perspective.
Now, the issue (which was somehow not discussed) is whether you can get a quick +15-30% science via CS beakers very early, which will
stack with Rationalism and other things (not in lieu of them). And it would be nice if someone actually mentioned that rather than chuckle and say I'm 'doing it wrong' by somehow not understanding that Monarchy in Tradition is good or that Rationalism is overall more science.
The issue is whether in the medieval era you spend a few policies unlocking other things (i.e. Commerce, Exploration, or Aesthetics) or Patronage. And the science from a good Patronage game is not, repeat
not insignificant. I can show you all kinds of saved games to that effect.
I'm an Immortal player in that I win 95% of my games on Immortal, so I'm not suggesting some lower-level game strategy. I thought it a prescient point to suggest that people don't understand the early science boost available if one plays the left side of Patronage.... And your conversation stunned me because no one actually examined my point. The right-side is mostly irrelevant to take before the left side (you can take it after the science boost if you want to play Patronage in lieu of Rationalism/Ideologies, but I wasn't suggesting that).
I also thought it important to add because one of the Hosts from 206 was saying he only plays on Emperor level because he didn't like higher difficulties. I thought a perspective from a high-level player would be a nice comparison given that many people don't think of Patronage as viable.
And finally: Please, please understand that laughing and chuckling about how 'I'm doing it wrong' and 'the game is pretty much over' if you have 10-15 CS Allies as if I'm some low-level player just frolicking through a game with no priorities... well, it's kind of insulting to hear. I'm someone taking the time to listen and participate to a fun podcast. I'm not listening to it to have people butcher my ideas and then laugh at me.
Any game can be 'Pretty much over' if you do something well. Games are 'pretty much over' if you beat the AI to Education. Like 100% of the time. A game is 'pretty much over' if you take a juicy AI capital with lots of Wonders. Still, you play to do those things.
Sooooo, I guess I just wanted to post my reaction to what I felt was a dismissive and condescending use of my post, which I frankly wouldn't have made if I knew your reaction to it.
To be clear: I expect and have no problems with anyone disagreeing with my take or explaining how they do things differently. But to hear a glib chuckle from the group when no one, I repeat no one, correctly articulated my reasoning in the first place... is tough.
It makes me inclined not to listen. It's a trivial thing to get annoyed over, obviously, but it's immensely frustrating to hear a group of players quote your post, quote it incorrectly and laugh about things I never suggested, then utterly refuse to even contemplate for 30 freaking seconds what I was suggesting:
That 6, 10, or eventually 15+ CS Allies
can produce a gross benefit of 15, 20, or 30% of your total beakers (at a very early point in the game) if you lineup your CS game early and well, and have a few policies to burn before getting to Rationalism. The choice isn't, wasn't, and never was proposed to be Left-side Patronage vs. completing Tradition or opening Rationalism.
The choice was to get to left-side Patronage science as soon as possible, and having at least two medieval era policies to use and maybe even all three before Rationalism. But likely just two and then delaying Rationalism opener just one policy timeframe (possibly less if you burn a Great Writer) and taking the Allied science bonus to get MORE than just +10% science. Often twice as much.
I didn't say this was always achievable. Just that if you're playing in maps and conditions where lining up a an early group of CS allies is feasible, and well-executed Patronage game (left-side) is very strong. But that most people never actually try what I was suggesting, and therefore people never play it. Which, your dialogue confirmed, frankly.
I'm really disappointed by the dialogue and the inference that I'm an idiot...and I don't think I'm overreacting
. If you re-listen to that section, the inference that I'm an idiot with nothing positive to add to the gameplay of a good player is pretty overwhelming. The group was incredibly dismissive and not one person tried to examine what I was saying. Not even for a few seconds to play Devil's Advocate.
It was really disappointing. Disagree with someone all you like, but mocking them while 100% failing to talk about their game suggestion is aggrevating.