Map Setting Reactions

[PurpleTurtle]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way as well, but I am very surprised that barbarians will be turned on for this game. There seemed to be considerable confidence that this would not be the case. I am therefore posting this thread in the hopes that a discussion can be had that will either reaffirm our team's faith in the results of our leader discussion or help us quickly arrive at a solution to any discomfort with said results.

A large part of my support for going with Victoria stemmed from the belief that with barbarians off we could leverage that Imperialistic trait and send out many early settlers unescorted. This is clearly not the case now. My experience has been that it is easy enough to protect settlers and that the production bonus would still be useful. However, it has also been my experience that it takes considerable resources to guarantee safe passage for a settler. The loss of a settler early on can be rather difficult to recover from as well.

I believe that I can be persuaded to either continue to be comfortable with Victoria, or to lean in favor of a leader with a different second trait. IE financial and something.

 

[oyzar]

Since this is monarch we should be able to easily fogbust with warriors, as such i feel that imperialistic/expansive is still rather strong, even if it is not as good as without barbs. This should really be in the leader discussion thread though... Barbs do make pacal/mansa stronger(due to UU), but they are not capable of influencing the game the same way the redcoat is. That is even though redcoat doesn't have a massive impact on the game it is still an ok bonus.