Civ/leader discussions

[caveman1917]

Actually, this is no longer the case with BTS. The ability to abuse having a Charismatic/Aggressive/Protective civ on your team by gifting around your units and getting maximum free promotions no longer exists. When you gift a unit from a non-Charismatic to a Charismatic civ, it loses experience, so your proposition with switching the Praetorians between civs will not work. Just thought I'd let you know.

But if they are immediately gifted upon their creation (assuming no extra experience 'left over' after initial promotions from barracks and stuff) and only then sent off to battle would it not have the same effect as having them created by the charismatic leader, meaning faster promotions?

 

[Lord Parkin]

But if they are immediately gifted upon their creation (assuming no extra experience 'left over' after initial promotions from barracks and stuff) and only then sent off to battle would it not have the same effect as having them created by the charismatic leader, meaning faster promotions?

Almost the same effect, yes. If the unit had 3 XP from the building civ, it'll have 2 XP once it's gifted, or a similar reduction if it has higher XP. So it's like building a Charismatic unit but with a weaker Barracks/XP civic/etc.

 

[caveman1917]

Almost the same effect, yes. If the unit had 3 XP from the building civ, it'll have 2 XP once it's gifted, or a similar reduction if it has higher XP. So it's like building a Charismatic unit but with a weaker Barracks/XP civic/etc.

Do you mean weaker barracks/... only in absolute terms or also in relative?
If the gifted unit progressed in the game in exactly the same way as the hypothetical charismatic-created one, exact same battles with same dice rolls on the exact same turns, would it get promotions at exactly the same turns? (again assuming no 'extra leftover' XP upon gifting). Because if that's true we might as well look at it as having a charismatic leader with praetorians

 

[Lord Parkin]

It wouldn't get promotions at exactly the same turns, because a non-Charismatic unit gifted to a Charismatic civ will always have at least 1 XP removed. Thus it will frequently require an extra battle to get to the next level, compared to if the unit had been created by the Charismatic civ.

Still, it will level up faster than if the unit remained with the non-Charismatic civ, so it's worth considering doing if we have double civs.

 

[caveman1917]

It wouldn't get promotions at exactly the same turns, because a non-Charismatic unit gifted to a Charismatic civ will always have at least 1 XP removed. Thus it will frequently require an extra battle to get to the next level, compared to if the unit had been created by the Charismatic civ.

Do you happen to have a (link to a) formula for this at hand? I found the ones which give the XP needed for promotions in either chm or non-chm, but not the one which gives how many XP are lost upon gifting (probably relative to starting XP i guess).

In your example of the 3XP becoming 2XP it would seem to match up, both need 2 'turns' (1XP battles) for their second promotion, and from thereon chm speeds up. There seems to be no loss, but i suppose the formula might show that's only a local optimum on 3XP

 

[Lord Parkin]

Do you happen to have a (link to a) formula for this at hand? I found the ones which give the XP needed for promotions in either chm or non-chm, but not the one which gives how many XP are lost upon gifting (probably relative to starting XP i guess).

I think it's roughly that the XP goes down by 25%, rounded down. So 3 goes to 2, 6 goes to 4, and so on. There are a couple of exceptions though, which I think are due to some kind of rounding issues. For instance, I think (not sure) that 10 XP with non-Charismatic goes to 7 XP when gifted to Charismatic (have to double check that). Also, when you gift back to the non-Charismatic civ, the experience often does not quite match up - the unit always loses a bit of experience in the process of these two gifts.

In your example of the 3XP becoming 2XP it would seem to match up, both need 2 'turns' (1XP battles) for their second promotion, and from thereon chm speeds up. There seems to be no loss, but i suppose the formula might show that's only a local optimum on 3XP

You're technically right, but I was talking about the comparison if the Charismatic leader built the unit themselves. In that case, the unit would have 3 XP and be only 1 XP from its next promotion.

It's certainly true that it's more efficient to gift units over to a Charismatic civ when they have lower XP than when they have higher XP, if you're planning on permanently gifting a unit.

 

[caveman1917]

You're technically right, but I was talking about the comparison if the Charismatic leader built the unit themselves. In that case, the unit would have 3 XP and be only 1 XP from its next promotion.

Yes but for most of the game it can be this way (unit building by chm civ), however for a UU (praetorian in this case) we have no choice. I merely meant to say that having a chm 'buddy' can only improve the impact of your UU, it can never make it worse. But you're right, it's not equivalent to look at it as a chm-produced UU Still a great UU coupled with a chm teammate is good thing to have.

Thinking about it, civics would probably dictate unit building by the non-chm civ for most part of the game as the chm would probably be running pacifism and the non-chm theocracy, so it would lose out a bit on the chm trait, but not too much i suppose

 

[Irgy]

Getting back to the original topic, one thing we might want to consider is what our actual strengths are as a team. What overall strategy do we think we would do well at?

I'm a lot better at playing peacefully for instance, but what's more important is what the experienced players are good at. And what the other teams are likely to be good at, and what counters that. This will give us a clue to what era we want our UU to arrive and whether we want an aggressive or economic leader.

 

[T. Claudius]

If we wanted to really reap the , we could try two financial civs and try to out-tech everybody...

 

[Lord Parkin]

Getting back to the original topic, one thing we might want to consider is what our actual strengths are as a team. What overall strategy do we think we would do well at?

Personally, I'm fairly adaptable. I can be quite a builder/techer if there's no immediate military threat, or I can successfully plan for a full scale war against another civ. Either way I'm reasonable with diplomacy, so can attempt to bend other teams to our will in that way.

I'm a lot better at playing peacefully for instance, but what's more important is what the experienced players are good at. And what the other teams are likely to be good at, and what counters that. This will give us a clue to what era we want our UU to arrive and whether we want an aggressive or economic leader.

I suggest we go for an economic leader over an aggressive one. Wars are easy enough to win anyway if you have the tech lead.

If we wanted to really reap the , we could try two financial civs and try to out-tech everybody...

That would work well with No Tech Trading, but if tech trading is on it wouldn't really work (the other teams would just ally against us). Better to get one economic and one military leader in this game if double civs are on, I think.

 

[azzaman333]

Actually, this is no longer the case with BTS. The ability to abuse having a Charismatic/Aggressive/Protective civ on your team by gifting around your units and getting maximum free promotions no longer exists. When you gift a unit from a non-Charismatic to a Charismatic civ, it loses experience, so your proposition with switching the Praetorians between civs will not work. Just thought I'd let you know.

It's much better to gift units with free promotions to a charismatic leader

 

[Lord Parkin]

It's much better to gift units with free promotions to a charismatic leader

True. I take it that was the logic behind your Shaka/Hannibal pick in the intra-team game.

 

[azzaman333]

True. I take it that was the logic behind your Shaka/Hannibal pick in the intra-team game.

Plus 4 techs, 4 traits, fast workers and super-science.

 

[BLubmuz]

I posted here my thoughts on the Civs/Leaders combo.

Probably is better wait to see if we have a double civ setup and if unresticted leaders are allowed before continue discuss.

 

[Zjoekov]

Willem, if it is only one leader. Extra gold (financial), Extra culture (creative) and maybe most important the UB, extra hammers for late game weapon production/ space ship?

BTW, is it possible to combine the dikes with Moai Statues? Would make an awesome production city with a couple of mines and Iron Works.

 

[AlphaShard]

Yes you can combine Moai statues with dikes. Then if you have a GA you get even more hammers. So then if we put in ironworks it will really be Hammer Time!

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'm definitely leaning in favour of Willem too, if it's just one civ per team and no unrestricted leaders.

 

[GoSkins]

I think it also depends on the map size and number of civs. If it is a cramped map, then the creative trait can help a lot. I've never tried Willem before but he looks promising and fun to play so I could see that.

Otherwise I think we should take a Military trait. Since Financial seems like the consensus for the non-military trait. So that would narrow it to hannibal ragnar victoria and wang kon. Of those I would have to say Ragnar would be my choice.

Overall though, I think financial is overrated (unless you have a lot of water + colossus).

How does everyone like to play? I think that our play style and overarching strategy should help decide which leader we choose. I like to try to grab a religion, wage a war in swordsman/catapults era. Maintaining a tech advantage throughout the game is very important (especially military techs).

I've also played a religious game where try to build apostolic palace and the spiritual minaret. Can be very powerful as well...helps to have great prophets.

 

[azzaman333]

The two military traits, pro and agg, suck.

 

[AlphaShard]

Financial really helps when making river cottages early game. You get three commerce right from it's founding. That's pretty useful to me those extra commerce can really add up.