The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[Winston Hughes]

if you are telling me that it is not more of a gamble to gun for wonders in higher levels at the risk of being boxed in/attacked I simply don't believe you.

No, I specifically said that it is more of a gamble. It can still be a worthwhile gamble, though.

I have played some emperor games and the need for military (to avoid being attacked/overrun by barbs) and expansion (to avoid being boxed in) is generally much higher.

But that doesn't stop most players from grabbing a few early wonders when the opportunity arises, and when it looks to be a strong move in the circumstances.

And playing some (which sounds like not many) Emperor games isn't necessarily going to give you a decent understanding of what is and what is not possible. The situations you face are tougher. And, as with any step up in difficulty, it takes a while before you really get a grip on what is possible/sensible in a given situation.

Sure, I can accept that some games (e.g., you are isolated; you have stone in capital; etc.) you could still strategically gun for certain wonders, but I am speaking generally that the strategic options diminish somewhat compared to monarch because of the greater needs of military and expansion.

Well, if you want to wonderspam in every game then, sure, Emperor+ is probably not for you. Personally, I find it much more enjoyable to make those decisions once the game has started and I can see what I've got to deal with.

The options only diminish in that you usually can't do X, Y and Z. You have to make a choice between them based on the circumstances.

But that's what strategy is all about imo.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I play roughly a quarter of my games at Emperor (and probably lose half of those). I'm not sure if it's a matter of not having the chops or just not wanting to hone them.

Emperor seems too much like a chore to me. Like futurehermit said, the available strategic options really seem to diminish a lot.

At Monarch and below, I don't have to match the leader(s), map and strategy. So, if I want to found an early religion and Wonderspam without resources using a Protective/Creative leader without Mysticism ... I can actually pull that off with a fair amount of success!

But at Emperor, I don't have that freedom; I have to match any two of the leader(s), map or strategy together. So if I don't start with IND or Stone/Marble, I might as well send that strategy out to pasture from Turn 0.

Similarly, if I don't start with Mysticism on Emperor, it's next to impossible even to found Monotheism. And even if I do, it's likely I'll be so far behind in Worker and infrastructure techs that the rest of my game will be all uphill.

I guess what it comes down to is that I typically just don't want to involve myself in as much strategy as it takes to consistently win at Emperor. I enjoy being able to play Civ4 late at night to a glass of wine or a couple beers. I like not having to worry about losing my train of thought when IRL stuff arises.

But most of all, I enjoy winning.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@OTAKU

When you say 'chore' it sounds like you mean 'challenge'.

So you like most of your games to be fairly easy. That's fine. Personally I like a good mix of easy and hard games, so I play all the levels from Noble to Deity (I usually adopt tough variant rules on the lower levels to stop things being too comfortable; I always lose on Deity, but I learn a lot about the game from my defeats, and I also have a lot of fun trying to hold things together).

But for a best ball game, surely we have to be able to discuss what are the strongest moves on the map at hand. And in that context, "this is Monarch, so we can get away with it" ain't much of an argument.

And that's not to say this is the only justification for the moves we've taken. While I agree with several of Nares' specific points (and it sounds like Bleys also came to see the value in them), I did not agree with his overall assessment of our situation.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my Round 3 report, my initial reaction to your save was "this doesn't look good". But a closer examination gave me much more to be optimistic about.

But if, having looked at it in detail, Nares thought that we had made a mistake in choosing your save, then I think we should welcome his input, but also point out why we think he's got it wrong.

Trying to shut him up with comments like "this is Monarch" serves no purpose at all imo.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Chore ... challenge ... tomato ... tomatoe.

I don't necessarily want my games to be "easy" ... but I certainly want to know from Turn 0 the game is stacked in my favour to win. That means Monarch or a strong leader/map combo on Emperor.

I like a challenge, but not if it means the risk of having an elevated blood pressure after 15 hours of 'wasted' life. If I wanted to think that hard, I'd go back to work.

Plus, I like being able to do whatever I want and still get away with it (for the most part).

--------

Well, if the statement, "this is Monarch, so we can get away with it" is a rebuttal to the statement "well, that won't work on Emperor", then I think it's valid.

But if that's the whole argument and the initial comment, then I'd have to agree it's pretty weak.

----

I'm not really sure where the initial "this is Monarch" comment first arose, but I know where and when mine came in. It was only after Nares had made the comments I quoted here, which seemed more like a chauvinistic affront than constructive criticism.

--------

In the end, constructive comments are welcome. But there's unfortunately nothing constructive about coming back after the fact and pointing out why the already-made decision is wrong and then subsequently dismissing the series.

There has been plenty (even an excess) of discussion before any voting or decisions have been made. At the end of each round, we've all voted, and the decisions have been made based on the discussion and those votes.

After that, pointing out all the ways the decision was wrong just isn't constructive.

----

[Especially if the best ball decision comes down to two saves,] If anybody disagrees with a best ball decision, the constructive (correct) way to make the point is to play a shadow off that #2 save to show how it was better suited.

And if it comes down to a different strategy being superior, then utilizing that strategy based off the best ball for comparison given the same set of starting circumstances is the best (and possibly only) way to effectively make that point.

The wrong way to go about making a point is to not even play off the best ball save or even the save purported superior but instead play off only your own save whilst pointing out "I'm doing better in my game".

----

Specifically related to Nares, he's an excellent player. I have no doubt about that. But I feel like if he truly wanted to make a point [for the sake of educating us] about how a particular strategy or whatever was better, he would've taken r_rolo1's Round 1 submission (the Round 2 best ball) and utilized those strategies from that save.

Had he done that, we would've had a direct and applicable comparison to our own attempts given the same set of tools to work with. Then, if he had gone on to shadow from his own save to show how pre-planning it from the start would've made it even stronger, then the comparisons he made to his game would've seemed less like boasting and more like bolstering.

But, that's not how it happened. There was no 'official' report, and many of the references he made to his game came across simply as "I'm doing better than you" and less like "let me help you do better".

--------

All that being said, the situation we found ourselves in with Nares is not entirely his fault. In fact, it's probably more our own fault!

For one, we were (are) ironing out the format and finding it hard enough just to judge the 'official' saves. So I think seeing Nares' shadow was hard to digest amidst the chaos that was the Round 2 Bazaar.

In the future, after we've gotten the hang of reporting and comparing saves, I'm sure shadows will get the cycles they merit.

We also encourage(d) players to shadow our game. However, we had an unspoken expectation shadows wouldn't occur without (and only after) a report based on the Round's best ball save.

Since that request wasn't made clear, Nares didn't post an 'official' report and instead only shadowed his own game in Round 2. Based on our own rules and spoken requests, he did nothing wrong, but it still managed to rub some of us the wrong way and spiraled down from that point.

----

I think we should learn from this and decide just what level of shadowing (with our without official reporting) we really want and can handle.

 

[Winston Hughes]

All fair points, and I agree very much with the last one.

 

[Bleys]

Its my fault, I was definitely overly sensitive to Nares' comments, I freely admit that and take a lot of responsibility for this situation upon myself.

My problem wasnt the "level" of his advice, it was the way he went about it, as OTAK said. Had he followed our format, and used his methods on the formats chosen saves, I think there would have been a LOT less friction. But he didnt. In fact, each round he sort of "threw it up in our faces" that our saves were inferior. I dont deny that, but THIS FORMAT isnt about last round, its about THIS round and NEXT round.

I definitely learned from him, and from Vale and OTAK and future and rolo and Diamond . . I learn from everyone who participates. But if your going to be a part of this concept, then the CONCEPT has to be a priority to some extent, doesnt it? I mean, look at the comment I quoted, about not offereing a save, and continueing from his own save, which was continued from his own save in the first place! It bothered me quite a bit. As it has been noted, there are plenty of threads where he is welcome to fully shadow the game.

Sure we want to get better. Of course we want to gain more knowledge of the game. But there is no need to play Monarch like its Deity. Wonders are FUN, and if there is one thing I notice about my mates in this series, they are ALL very skilled players who seek an element of FUN as well as strong play. Are Wonders not as strong at higher levels? Of course not, its not about the Wonders, its about the "wasted time and hammers" building them. Monarch has a LOT more flexibility with that regard, so why not take "advantage" of it and stick in a few powerful buildings that will influence the game for many turns to come (GLH was obvious, Oracle is a free tradable tech, Colossus will get better and better as our cities get bigger and bigger, ToA is an instant +4 gold a turn and +5 GPPs a turn, etc etc). We didnt hurt ourselves building those Wonders, we all have a comfortable lead, and there is TIME to build them, as we pretty readily demonstrated in our games. Were they the "best" options? No. Were they "very playable" options? Absolutely.

Nares showed us how a city-packing, landmass REXing style can really utilize the power of the GLH. Cool! Thanks man! Now, play the next round and show us again, or show us something different, whatever, but play the next round ACCORDING TO THE FORMAT we are trying to develop. As OTAK said, shadowing is fine, but not even bothering to try to play the format and constantly referring to our mistakes and his superiority comes off sounding elitist and condescending.

Anyway, I think its time to move on. You and Vale are showing strong play, powerful shadows, and solid best-ball offerings, and still playing in the designed format. There is a huge difference between that and "I am not offering a best ball save, I am playing from my own save"

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, I've been trying to stay away from this, but now that things are less heated, I want to toss my not so humble opinion:

- Nares acted in a way that can be intreperted as condescending... I can clearly live with that. I don't have any kind of problems with playing Emperor and have some team games won in Immortal, so I don't feel affected by that....

- IMHO " This is Monarch, we can mess a little" is not a good argument, but it can be a good motto : I don't play civ for competion and I reckon that sometimes i play some lower level games just for fun.

- One thing that people consistently forget as they get up in levels ( I made that mistake, so I know what I'm talking about ) is pretending that a Deity working strat will be the best strat for all the other levels. High level playing has diferent constraints that make some strats the best option when that option would not be the best in lower levels. For a example: in Deity it is possible to chariot rush and get CoL out of the peace deal ( try that in Noble ) or to only build 2 cities and expect that the AI builds the rest to take with rifles or Cavs.
The high levels do not select the best strats for a map: they prun out the ones that let let you weak for a while, but that can give the edge if you can pull it... one good example is making the Mids. What the high levels select are strats that work and that will not make you too weak in any moment , like the good ol'axe rush ( given that the only thing that is not boosted by the levels is the AI tactical inteligence ).
I'm saying this specifically because of the anti-wonderspam comments of Nares and his insinuation that it was a bad Monarch habit. Wonderspamming can be the better strat to follow if you can snatch the wonders of the AI ( try to WB a game with all the wonders in a innacessible barb city and see how even the Deity AI becomes somehow lost ) and if they give any cost effective revenue ( no Chichen ), but in higher levels you simply can't try it because you'll look a sitting duck while doing them ( temporary weakness vs later revenue ). Early warring is a consistent strat in any level ( mainly because AI does not get better in warfare issue as the levels go up ), but just because it would be the best strat in Immortal or Emperor in that map, it clearly doesn't mean that it is the best strat in that map in Noble or even in Monarch, where you can still get some wonders with ease. Or do you think that moving the settler for 15 turns against a AI capitol to be able to pin down and quickly rush a AI ( like Snaaty liked to do in Deity warlords ) is always better than to settle in place and get some cities to do a later war effort in every level? I'm pretty sure that in monarch normally the 2nd option is far better....

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Bleys
Again, fair points.

But I am slightly worried that those of us who aren't possessed by wonderlust are going to be somewhat marginalised in this format.

Spamming wonders doesn't do much for me - striving to leverage particular wonders is much more to my tastes.

The funny thing is, while I very rarely spam wonders on Monarch or lower, on Emperor (and occasionally Immortal) I am much more likely to go for it when the conditions are right (some combination of IND, marble/stone, and lots of forests or hills, plus no serious warmongers nextdoor).

The main reason is that, on higher levels, the wonders you build are denied to AIs who might actually make good use of them. On lower levels, however, no amount of wonders will save an AI civ from teching at a snail's pace.

Taking the last round as an example, when it came to the Colossus, I saw that I was already blowing the AI civs away on the research front, so there was no real reason to bother with it (especially since I was aiming towards taking Astronomy from Liberalism nice and early). Had this been Emperor, though, I would probably have built it, both for denial and for improving my chances of winning a much tighter Liberalism race.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... those of us who aren't possessed by wonderlust are going to be somewhat marginalised in this format.

Only if every game features an Industrious leader with Stone or Marble.

But offer an Aggressive or Charismatic leader with Copper or Iron, and I think you'll see a wildly different approach.

 

[Bleys]

But I am slightly worried that those of us who aren't possessed by wonderlust are going to be somewhat marginalised in this format.

Spamming wonders doesn't do much for me - striving to leverage particular wonders is much more to my tastes.

And I think this is a perfect example of doing exactly that. I leveraged the IND trait and 2 resources (Marble and Copper) into a set of very cheap, yet very effective Wonders for this map. I guarantee that without Marble, the ToA doesnt get built by me, Oracle still does because I am a Forge addict and I love the Colossus on maps like this, so I would have gone GLH, Oracle, Colossus, GLibrary.

Heck, I didnt even BUILD that many Wonders this game. OTAK built the Parth, which fits in line with the spam in the capitol to drive the GPP machine even higher, but again, without Marble, or IND, he likely skips a bunch. No stone, so you didnt see me chasing the GW, Pyramids, or HGs. I would love Ivory for the SoZ (next set, likely), but I feel very strongly that mixing an IND leader with resources opens the door to VERY cheap Wonders that build amazingly fast with solid whip overflow management. Could I have applied that whip overflow effectively into better infrastructure or more units? Certainly, but look at the numbers, I got a MASSIVE return on overflow by having all the bonuses lined up, IND, Resource, Forge, and OR. Thats like 3 to 1 on my hammers. Makes Colossus cheaper than a Cat when its all said and done.

And that is exactly the kind of "play" that is very strong and absolutely solid on Monarch level. Keeping Wonders like Colossus and SoZ out of the AIs hands is strong in and of itself, but the cost is what really appeals to me.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... without Marble, or IND, he likely skips a bunch.

Did you notice in Round 1 how I completely skipped the religious techs? I had every intention of nabbing only the GLH and going on about my merry way.

It wasn't really until after I saw you guys' Reports I put IND and Marble together for all the Wonderspam.

The only Wonders I make part of my M.O. are GL, MoM, Taj & SoL. To a lesser extent, I also like the 3 late game 'entertainment' Wonders, but they only really come into play for me in Space Race games.

I would love Ivory for the SoZ

I'm after Gold for Shwedagon Paya (more GP gpp).

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Bleys
The wonders built in the current game weren't what concerned me. Even though I still think taking out Sal was a better plan, they were (as you say) suited to the map.

It was the whole "I don't like playing games where I can't spam wonders" bit that troubled me. That and the fact that much of the discussion (and, I think, some of the saves) seemed more focused on building wonders than exploiting them.

But if you guys say we'll only go wonder crazy if the situation makes it the best option (in the opinion of the group), then that's fine with me.

 

[Bleys]

I dont see that happening in this series. I may spam some wonders in LHCs or NC games, but for the most part, I plan a definite strategic wonder path much the same way I choose a tech path and a building queue path. If I am not IND, and dont have the resource, my "list of wonders" gets shortened by a HUGE amount. In fact, in most of my Pangaea type games, I MIGHT go after the GW for the ESP points, and MAYBE Oracle if I have forests to spare, but mostly I build settlers and axes/chariots. On water based maps, at Monarch, I usually push for the GLH, Oracle, and Colossus, and thats about it til the GL, and then MoM and Taj, but I rarely push for stuff like HGs (harbors = health), Parth (I rarely build this ever), or ToA (I am JUST starting to try it out, and I must say, its only "fair" in my book) and even that is a stretch if I dont have marble and/or copper (neither is rare, both is uncommon).

I actually feel like I showed a lot of wonder-restraint in this first game, if it was an offline game, I almost guarantee I would have had at least 4 more Wonders, LOL, mostly because thats HOW I challenge myself on this level in some ways, especially maps where I feel relatively safe (shared religion with my only culture-touching neighbor is pretty safe in my book).

But again, I dont think the idea of "this is only Monarch" is coming out right. What we (me at least, I dont mean to speak for my mates) mean is "this is Monarch, so there is time for this longer-term strategy to develop as opposed to higher difficulties where speed is so critical".

I cannot forsee a game where I build no Wonders, or even none of the "early" ones (of GW, Oracle, Mids, GLH, Colossus, Parth, ToA, SP, up through the GLibrary or so, I am almost always going to build at least 1 of those), because I think they hold a lot of power. I readily agree that one of the goals of this format is to learn to plan a better, stronger path to success, and if that means trimming wonders, then I can, and will, trim wonders.

My "rep" as a Wonder Spammer is more because of my game selection (LHC is my favorite series, NC is my 2nd fav), and lets face it, at Monarch (actually Monarch Light for both the LHC and NC, since the AIs are mildly handicapped by not starting with Archery) Wonders arent hard to build in those. The last LHC, Kublai Khan, I built the GLH, ToA, Oracle, Mids, GL, Colossus, Taj, and SoL, I think. Every city was coastal, I had 4 landmasses in my "galley radius", so it was a reasonable approach. I actually built the Mids for CASH! I never thought I would get them, I spam-whipped settlers, workers, galleys, LOL, and I STILL beat the AIs to them somehow. WonderCashing is something I actually do alot in the LHCs, since often I dont care if I get beat, and still build stuff, I just overflow into the Wonders, and stick something else in front, its like money in the bank. I find it helps me make up for the lack of cash I normally get in more normal games where I often sell techs for gold, or resources for gpt. Without those options, Wondercashing can be pretty helpful.

 

[Nares]

That and the fact that much of the discussion (and, I think, some of the saves) seemed more focused on building wonders than exploiting them.

Thanks for the starting point, Winston.

Not to fuel the flames further, but the only discussion pertaining to leveraging any wonder(s) was started by (and practically limited to) me. And the rebuttal was, essentially, "you didn't play from the best ball save," above any other concern.

This kind of blind gameplay, while perhaps acceptable to you, is not the kind of gameplay I would expect or want in the strategy forum.

Beyond that, I could just as easily have said what I did within the context of "theory," by which I mean from a generic standpoint not specifically attributed to any save. Discussing how to leverage the Great Lighthouse, for example, is not a discussion that is based in a save; a save merely serves as a demonstrative tool, nothing more.

Which is why I find it so difficult to understand the reactions I received. I chose to refer to my own save so as to have a basis of referral. As I said, I could have conducted any of these discussions absent of a save-game reference.

I could have discussed it (in undoubtedly more "negative" tones) in reference to one of your own saves. Would your reactions be better if I was "nitpicking" one of your saves? The questions I did ask of specific saves were largely generic; don't feel as if they were personal attacks, because I could have asked the same questions of anyone else. Almost everyone took an identical approach, but I chose to address questions to specific players with the hope of involving more players in the discussion (which was largely limited at that point).

As with my delay in posting a second round report, which Bleys jumped on me for, I had a decision to make in referring to my save. I don't think the first round saves were so divergent as to eliminate the validity of what I discussed. I understand that they would have become so in subsequent rounds, including the third round in this case.

But I felt they would offer a good contrast between approaches that could only be highlighted effectively by presenting and referring to my own save. This would have been especially true with the third round, the final round in which I would have offered a save from my own game, where no other approach can be explored given the extremely divergent approach OTAKU took.

In regards to the wonderspam, I understand the obsession with big shiny testaments to your glory. But, for typically a similar investment, you can build another city, some workers, some units, etc. Often, the return is greater than what you'll get from the wonder, especially in settling another city.

And as with settling a great person, typically the benefit is greater the earlier you take such action. The fact that it is compatible with strategies that work successfully on higher difficulty levels is only a bonus.

I don't see lower difficulties as being strictly an avenue in which you can build all those shiny wonders. The real difference lies in which tech path you can choose, and how you handle diplomatic relations.

(Almost?) all of you teched Aesthetics and Literature, a tech path you're practically forced into on higher difficulty levels. On monarch, you don't need to research those techs because you aren't nearly as reliant on the trade bait.

They're still nice for trading, because they don't offer the AI any military advantage, but arguably most (all?) of you are already playing some parts of the game as if you're on a (much) higher difficulty setting, yet you're hesitant to apply that philosophy to other aspects of the game.

 

[Bleys]

As with my delay in posting a second round report, which Bleys jumped on me for, I had a decision to make in referring to my save.

I sincerely wasnt trying to "jump on you" for that, I tried to do my best to be as informative as possible, since we had JUST had the discussion in this thread (the Bullpen thread) about visiting the main game thread before you have played your round, and I did not know if you knew of that decision or not.

Maybe thats where we started going bad, and if so, I apologize again if I came off as sounding like I was accusing you of something or "jumping" on you, it was NOT my intention at all. I just wanted the "rule" about posting rounds made as clear as possible, because it was not very clear at all before that.

With regard to the Wonders, yes, we discussed them, we discussed which ones would be worth it to build, though, it wasnt some wild crazy wonder-spam thing. Being IND and having a couple Wonder resources, it seems pretty natural to figure a "Wonder Plan" into the overall equation of the game. And again, not to be a broken record, but the pace of the Monarch AI makes it more feasible to try to leverage a few Wonders, especially the 3 we were the most focused on, GLH, Oracle (for MC) and Colossus. ToA got tossed into the mix as well, once we decided to secure the Marble (which may not have been the "strongest" move on the table, I readily admit that).

If you crunch the numbers, a lot of these wonders are cheaper than a settler with IND and the proper resource. I think Colossus is less than 100 "actual" hammers when you do the math (in OR with a Forge). Not trying to re-open the argument, but the "loss" isnt that significant, IMHO. As OTAK said, if we were CHA or AGG and had close neighbors to rush, I doubt we would have built ANY of those Wonders, with the possible exception of the Oracle if we had a "reasonable" marble tile to settle on as we did in this game, but I can almost say with 100% certainty that if I had Copper handy, I WOULD rush a close AI and skip the Wonders altogether.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Not to fuel the flames further ...

, lol.

... I find it so difficult to understand the reactions I received.

I think it was largely a matter of "wrong place, wrong time".

Round 2 was rather stressful for some of us, so I think some of your comments were taken more personal than I think you intended them to be.

However, I do still stand by my interpretation of your latter comments ... whether they were meant as condescending or not, they came across that way!

This would have been especially true with the third round, the final round in which I would have offered a save from my own game, where no other approach can be explored given the extremely divergent approach OTAKU took.

I want to see that comparison. Now that I've regrouped my thoughts and gained perspective, I think I'll be more apt to appreciate it.

That being said, I think you would've appreciated my original strategy better. Before I got struck with the IND+Marble wonderlust, my initial plan was to build the GLH (hence why I rushed it in Round 1) and spam coastal cities virtually everywhere they would fit. The only other early Wonders I would've likely built would've been Colossus, GL & MoM.

... most (all?) of you are already playing some parts of the game as if you're on a (much) higher difficulty setting, yet you're hesitant to apply that philosophy to other aspects of the game.

That's because we all occasionally play on Emperor, so some of those chops are undoubtedly "leaking" down.

I don't know about the others, but I'm "hesitant" to apply that philosophy to other aspects at Monarch because in one way or another, those applications lessen the fun factor for me.

 

[Diamondeye]

By "we all" I am not included, by the way

 

[Bleys]

Dont sell yourself short Diamond. I have seen a lot of your games, and you could compete on Emperor with a bit of discipline. It just requires a more focused plan, and double the units you usually make, heh.

Have a go at Emp sometime. You will be surprised at what you can accomplish when you just streamline your teching and build-queues and skip a few Wonders. Remember, you play Emp from the middle of the pack, not the lead, so tech trading, stronger GP management, less "unnecessary" buildings and more units overall are all more efficient at levels above Monarch.

 

[Diamondeye]

Hehe... Right now I am keeping focus on this series and some Monarch games...
Oh, and my exams too

By the way, I have updated 1st reply with a short list of noticable changes to the format, I would like feedback suggestions as to whether the additions are good or bad and if anything is missing?

 

[Bleys]

Snaaty and some others have an interesting twist on the Concurrent Succession Game. Check out this thread. Its Deity, but their system for playing and selecting which save to play is rather cool, I think. In a nutshell, they use the same basic principle we use here, but once the game is REALLY swinging, they turn it into a regular succession game with alternating turnsets and avoid the complications of the saves at those mid-game points, where its kind of hard to decide because there are so many variables.

Heh, I found it amusing that they started on a crappy island and followed a similar Wonder plan, ecnomy based on GLH, try for Oracle sling to MC to grab Colossus, having Marble made a few of them look at the ToA. And they arent even playing an IND leader, they drew Toku in a Random/Shuffle. I feel somewhat vindicated that we were able to really put our game away so quickly with a couple Wonders.

Should we consider moving to Emperor? Futurehermit is right (in the game thread), our first one is pretty much a done deal. Executing the rest is a matter of course for all of us, REXing the available land, tech to Rifles, start Island Hopping at Combustion with Transports and Destroyers to wipe defenses (if not sooner, I will likely look to invade with Galleons carrying Rifles and Cannons, but thats me)