RR17 - Rage against the machines

[UnforcedError]

Events are random but biassed against slavery, as slavery is (I think?) the only civic that has an associated quite negative event. I think in most of the games where you run slavery for a prolonger period, at least one city will get hit, resulting in lost production and population. So, events off is beneficial to the BW team...

Except that they can whip defenders if they get the barb upraising event while the no-BW team will simply die...

 

[LKendter]

In, though really not sure what team makes sense yet until the NO BW is fully scoped out.

 

[Thrar]

I don't quite understand the value of having a regular game to compare to. Games tend to play out differently anyway depending on player and AI choices so I don't see what it would show.
I'd be more interested in having two teams in parallel explore the non-BW strategy. Comparing the choices they each make is much more valuable to learn about the approach imo.
As for scoping out the strategy and approach, I think each team could do that by themselves so we get different takes to compare later.

I don't think we need a strict rule on when to get BW. The goal should be to explore the strategy. If a team decides that for whatever reason they want to tech BW at some point, I'd see that as a valid outcome of the experiment - a situation was found where the team agreed that it's a better choice to continue with BW rather than without.

I'm in, but only on a non-BW team.

 

[lymond]

Very good point by Thrar. It's like comparing apples to kumquats otherwise. Although I do still think we need some sort of fixed timing on BW, like after Liberalism.

However, I think the whole idea is pretty stupid really. I'll play along though, but would rather have a different game altogether than this ridiculous No-BW crap.

(Why in the world do yall want events on anyway...bleh)

 

[vranasm]

Except that they can whip defenders if they get the barb upraising event while the no-BW team will simply die...

then it would just prove that BW is mandatory for safety....

btw we should then talk about usage of mods since I am like 90% sure BULL changes standard events and for example Verdant Archers (not sure with the name now, the event that spawns 4 barb archers at your borders with task to raze capital) is modded out.

I kind of like Thrar idea since I am more interested to play in non-BW team too .

 

[UnforcedError]

I think Thrar's idea is very interesting. We don't necessarily need a control team as we already have tons of other games as a reference.

TBH I see no reason to play with events on if our goal is to explore the strategies related to skipping BW.

 

[vanatteveldt]

+1 Thrar
-1 events (I am not for events, I just pointed out that "no events" is marginally beneficial to a slavery-heavy approach)
+1 Some Other Good Idea, as I'm not sure 'no BW' is the most interesting restriction to explore... but I don't have any inspiration to go with that surety

 

[Thrar]

Regarding events, I'm fine either way. Most don't have a big impact anyway I think.

In my understanding 'no BW' isn't really meant as a restriction but as an alternative strategy. The article and demo game pigswill mentioned and UnforcedError linked a few posts back propose skipping BW mainly in favor of better GP bulb options. Apparently, if you don't unlock the lower branch of the tech tree, you can bulb a few pretty useful techs much earlier than you would normally get them.

It's a situational choice for sure, so I think the question we'd be facing in the SG is: Can we make it work, and if so, in hindsight, does it feel more like a challenge or a valid alternative?
In that interest, I think we should ensure that we have a start that doesn't absolutely require BW, e.g. not heavily forested or near jungle.
Personally, I'd be very interested to find out if delayed BW works as a strategy or just as a novelty approach.

 

[astre]

personnaly i like events because that give life to the game.

That's why, when i play alone, i always put them on.
But if you don't want them, no problem for me...

 

[vanatteveldt]

@Thrar, I think that delaying BW voluntarily is so situational that you would really need to cook a start to make it worthwhile, e.g. no trees, no food, and lots of hammers.

That said, I suppose a highland or great plains map (start in the west) would be the best maps to give it some chance of being sensible. Highlands have the added bonus of not really stacking in favor of HAs, although the mongols will be even more appealing...

 

[Sengir]

I'm interested. I'd prefer to play non-BW, but I won't mind if both teams play non-BW (as Thrar, I don't see much reason to have the other team play a regular game).

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, on leaders ... I'm ok with anything , but I think that it will be advisable to get one with a early non-BW enabled military UU ... that leaves , unless you want to go unrestricted: the Egyptians, Mansa, HC, Hammy and the Persians. Besides Hammy ( the bowman is really a sad UU ) I'm ok with any of the above ...

@vanatteveldt

Slavery is not the only civic that has a bad event attached. Police state and serfdom also have them ... they just have far less real chances of getting called due mostly the time that people are actually in those civics compared with slavery But in the core you are right ....

 

[vanatteveldt]

Huh, I never knew that; but indeed I almost never run these governments, and certainly not for a long period (although I feel that I am probably missing good opportunities for police state...). I guess that if events are off, the maintenance for these civics should be increased to reflect the cost of suppression, or something like that.

 

[astre]

the Egyptians, Mansa, HC, Hammy and the Persians. Besides Hammy ( the bowman is really a sad UU ) I'm ok with any of the above ...

You left the best one: mongolian army: keshik for the win !
and cartage also have a UU of HBR.
But if there is no horse in the area, we are so scrud

 

[vanatteveldt]

I think going for a HBR 'rush' will not really demo the strength of skipping BW, it will rather show the strenght of HBR rushes (which I think is well established).

 

[UnforcedError]

I think going for a HBR 'rush' will not really demo the strength of skipping BW, it will rather show the strenght of HBR rushes (which I think is well established).

I agree. I'm not sure we need an early UU either. Maybe a PHIL leader is more important if we'd like to test something like the Feud bulb mentioned in the article.

 

[LKendter]

I think going for a HBR 'rush' will not really demo the strength of skipping BW, it will rather show the strenght of HBR rushes (which I think is well established).

IIRC we already did a horse rush theme in a RR game where we were boxed by Japan and China. Absurdly early domination IIRC.

 

[Thrar]

PHI leader without an early UU sounds more interesting to me. Maybe Frederick? Germany's UU and UB are both fairly late and ORG is a low-key trait working under the hood without affecting gameplay too much.
Elizabeth (FIN), Peter (EXP) and Suleiman (IMP) would also work well I think.

 

[vanatteveldt]

What about a mid-game UU that can serve as a nice goal? E.g. Suleiman with jannisary (which I think can be useful if fielded early, so a heavy bulb strat that gets early jannisary might have merit?) or elizabeth with redcoats?

(Haven't actually thought about bulb paths so this might be really stupid)

 

[Habitus]

Suleiman is generally a good leader for bulbing strats, I'm fine with either side of the No-BW if we don't do a dual No-BW.

No BW until Medieval Era (or later Era) could be an option too, so as to not be restricting techs we need by making us head for one to open it up.