Discussion in 'Team Cavaleiros' started by oyzar, Nov 23, 2008.
Duplicate leaders yes or no?
Definitely no. I see absolutely no reason to play the same as someone else. I see only drawbacks (from a roleplaying perspective) and not a single benefit. If we can't find more than one leader we could consider playing, we are a sorry lot indeed.
Mind you, this has nothing to do with which specific leader is first or second in the vote. I don't mind playing Victoria (our current #1 choice), and I much prefer her to Pacal (our current #2 choice), but if someone else plays Victoria then I'd rather play Pacal.
I see no reason not to play duplicate leaders. We chose our first choice over the second one for a reason(and over 3rd etc). You can roleplay just fine with the same civ as someone else or you can just rename the civ to whatever you want to roleplay as...
I agree that the roleplaying would also be shot if we had a duplicate leader with another civ; however this is not the main reason I'm against a duplicate. I'm just simply not convinced that two teams playing the same leader, aren't going to attempt similar enough strategies and gambits that we'd have to compete for everything. Pretty much exactly what Niklas said (although I don't know if Pacal will end up #2, he's ok by me) if someone else is dead set on Victoria we go to #2.
For reasons I stated several times now at different places, I am strictly against duplicates...
I voted no... but see my sig
But in anycase, if they are ON I don't get why we are making a list of leader?
Well good to have that out of the world at least... 8 against 2 is pretty resounding majority...
Now a more relevant question might be duplicate civs? (i think the chance of someone picking lizzy is higher than someone else picking viccy, despite our apparent unious decision...)
I am against both forms of duplicates.
Unfortunately, same vote again for me too (no duplicate civs). Our first choice is Victoria and part of this vote is I don't want to see a duplicate English. If we were going with some other wacky, completely different strategy (like two Mongols) I wouldn't care, but that's not the case.
Viccy is more similar to pacal than to lizzy so i don't see how this(game play similiarity) is an argument against it...
A beeline for Rifling would be similar, though the way there would be different. I don't feel as strongly on this issue, but if a vote is required of me then it would be a no.
I don't see why a beeline for rifling is required for the english any more than other civs.. The redcoat is not that strong... Ignoring the possiblity of currasairs/cannons/infantery just because your UU is a rifleman is a bit silly... The difference between the way the traits work is so huge i doubt you would see much similarities..
Sure, it is a good point to bring up, so I want to be a bit more clear and say I think one of the most important things for me is the relation to ALL the other teams. It's possible two English would not be that close to the same; however, as 2 out of only 5 total teams, that opens up some huge possibilities for any of the three other teams to take advantage of. Part of it is not that there is just one strategy (easily a few variations for any civ) but that there are plenty of other strategies excluded. For instance, in our other thread we discussed how Victoria is not likely to go for any early religions/wonders/lots of great people as some examples... I'm ok with that, though, but it's mostly true. Now, put 2 Victorias into a game with only 5 civs, and that could mean that some 3rd team gets a complete monopoly on one of these other aspects of the game. Plus, people are irrational and I could see some of the other teams deciding to gang up to "kill off one of the Victorias" just cause they can. So, having another Victoria wouldn't just mean a head-to-head duel versus her but it could adversely affect us compared to some other team.
I really don't see how the fact that people are irrational can work against duplicate civs... Going from irrational people would kill off someone just because they can(more likely attack and try to kill though, if they are really irrational), to irrational people would be more likely to attack a duplicate civ is a huge leap of faith i am not in on.
Only wonders you are less likley to go for viccy than other leaders is mids, and that is only because she is financial. That would be true for any financials (which there will no doubt be a lot of in this game). Sure i can see that less civs starting with myst -> less people going for early religion, but joao isn't starting with myst either (i am guessing we end up with him if we aren't willing to play dup civs). We also agreed that going for early religion is not something it is worth wasting early development on anyways so it is a gamble we would lose anyways(since no matter if we start with myst or not we would not go for it off the bat).
The number of great people generated by one team does in no way affect what other teams generate of great people. And if you are saying viccy is going to generate as many great people as lizzy anyways you need to read up on philo. Similary there is no way lizzy will be as strong at rex as viccy. Yes they both favour a cottage economy (but so do any financial leader, which i bet most people would play). And yes they both get a tiny boost on their rifles, but this is by no means game changing, and only matters for a tiny portion of the game(the way from rifles to infantery is really short with tech trading on...).
I really can see where you're coming from so I'm not saying you don't have a valid point of view-much of this is either opinion or speculation on what we think the other teams will do. But if I was to extend the situation a little further, I could hope you can see how having 2 Victorias might not work out so well. If we took the absurd scenario of, say, three Victorias, then looked at what other leaders could do, we'd see that Victoria becomes less optimal not because she is bad but because of the other niches opening up. So, with 2 or 3 Viccys, a team with Ramesses, for instance, could really wrap up everything in the early game (religions, oracle, mids, great library) and just become really powerful while all the Viccys are REXing. Or, say some team had the guts to choose Ghengis Khan and an early rush pays off-before anyone knows everything or all civs even have good contact, Khan could have a large military advantage and have killed someone. A REX Victoria does not have any traits suited to deal with those (no early UU, no military traits like Agg/Chm).
As far as some of your other points, I still see other potentially powerful wonders/options that Victoria doesn't lean towards - the Oracle, the Great Wall being two early ones, even the Great Lighthouse is harder because it gets no bonuses from resources. About great people, sure, how we generate them isn't changed, but we'll probably not take advantage of many options besides the scientist pops. While some people view, say, GA as weak, a team who has a flood of early great people from wonders/philosophical could claim a lot of land with a GA; get massive espionage on their neighbour (that lasts well into the midgame) with a Great Spy; a team could also cheese through a bunch of wonders with a couple lucky engineers. Certainly no one has to do this to succeed at the game-but Victoria most likely won't, leaving opportunities open.
Again, I'm not saying Victoria is bad because we all agree there are a ton of advantages to her- but part of these advantages are being able to do things other leaders can't. If we have another Viccy or Liz, the tech lead/Liberalism strategy gets more competitive. Rifles in the midgame also gets more competitive. Meanwhile, some other team could recognize that the English are not a military power earlier in the game, and take advantage of that to kill someone. It doesn't even have to be us-if we're REXing, can we really do much about a second team killing off a third team, which then puts them in a solid lead? If you want me to be more clear about opinions, I do have some which don't match with yours-eg. I think at least a couple teams won't be financial and will pursue some different strategies than what we consider "optimal." Of course I'm hoping no one else chooses Victoria, but I don't think it would be that bad just to go with our second choice.
We are not discussing 2 victoria's as we already decided on that . Btw if you could come on msn sometimes that would be nice...
I see nothing that makes it worse for victoria to build oracle than for other leaders.. If the land is good for it we will certainly go for it(oracle is mostly constrained by tech speed rather than hammers, since you can pretty much always chop it out, but you could not tech priesthood early enough to build it with most starts)... Great wall is similar, very few leaders would get more benefit from this than others(though interesting lizzy, the other english leader would get more benefit from this than viccy). Pretty much all great people are going to be somewhat useful. I don't think we should ignore this no matter what leader we play...
I am pretty sure there will be at the very least 3 financials in the game, the race to liberalism will be very competetive no matter what leader we play. I don't see why it would matter if there was another lizz or a willem or whatever(pericles is the best for fast lib anyways).
A second team killing of a 3rd team won't really be disadvantagous to us as they are very likely to use more hammers on that than we are on expanding normaly...
Well, I see another Liz as almost the same, and I think it's still very unlikely anyone will choose Churchill. I guess I can get set up with msn too, again I know there are some time zone differences but I can work it out on my side (like, I should be in a class seminar right now except it's off for Thanksgiving break ). And I don't mean to appear too aggressive or anything because you're always giving well thought out reasons- this is something that people just decide on by a vote and I encourage everyone on the team to give their own voice too. I'll definitely be back later tonight to see what Sulla (and hence the other teams) have come up with!
Two points, one of them hairsplitting:
Redcoat is not only a minor boost. I know they are obsoleted quickly in some tt mp games, but they are huge until the other team has infantry/machineguns - mention one defender who can handle an attacking redcoat.
Victoria has more use of GW than Lizzy. On all points. She rexes more and her GGs pop faster.
The main reason to build the GW is because of the gspy points.. Lizzy get twice of those compared to viccy. Also because mods are additive she get a bigger boost from the gg part of GW than viccy...
The two GG mods are multiplicative in this case. I dont know why but they are.
Separate names with a comma.