gibson wrote:Well first off the entire premise is wrong, every civ wants to take a tp. Look at Deccan games. You get an extra 200w start and literally every civ takes a tp. It’s just some civs can’t take a tp early. Dutch for example. Maybe on Florida on a 200w start they could, outside of that it’s just not really viable. However, he mentions that both India and Brit don’t like to take a tp. That’s just wrong. It’s been proven that both those civs are stronger if you take a tp on a wood start. The only reason Aztec doesn’t take a tp is cause the fire pit is the same thing but only costs 100w and Russia can’t take a tp cause it’s not possible to 14 vil with a tp. Many people are even taking a tp with China now in age 2 because it’s just a better way to boom. It’s a better way to boom than every civs unique way of booming, reason being that a tp speeds up every civs boom faster than investing 200w into something else.
I don't know where in my entire post I make the premise that not every civ wants to take a tp. Here's what I did write:
Look at the civs that really dislike not having TPs: France, Germany, Iro, Sioux, Spain and Otto.
Look at some of the civs that dont mind no TP maps; Brits have manors, Dutch have banks, india has the consulate, japan has shrines, Aztecs can sort of do a warrior priest boom instead.
I also think that TPs are just strong in general and really strong buildings with regards to FF play
I'm talking about civs that 'dislike' or 'dont mind' no TP maps. What I'm trying to say here is that some civs are more reliant on trading posts than others. While obviously, as I acknowledge in the last quote, TPs are really strong, it is of course preferable as for example a Dutch player to be facing Germany on a no TP map than on a TP map. That's what I meant with "dont mind", which unfortunately you didn't interpret that way. However, you clearly do misrepresent me by saying "he mentions that both India and Brit don't like to take a tp". Nowhere did I say that, I only said that they 'don't mind' no TP maps.
I also never said that the ways other civs can boom are better than getting a trading post. That was never the point I wanted to make. The point I wanted to make is why some civs can cope better without a trading post than others. I explained that by pointing out that these civs have other economical options while other civs are left without any economical options to make up for the loss of a TP. That's the point I'm trying to make, not that TPs are weak for some civs. Again, I clearly acknowledge that TPs are strong. An age 1 TP is one of the most cost effective things in the game I think when going for an FF and I even say that "TPs are really strong buildings with regards to FF play". I'm just giving an explanation that fits the data well. Basically, if you look at the list of civs that depend a lot on TPs, and the civs that don't really depend on TPs a lot, you simply notice that the civs that depend on TPs don't have other boom options while the civs that don't depend as much on them do have other boom options. I then reasoned that this is no coincidence, that not having other boom options makes you more reliant on the TP. That's what I tried to say, but somehow you didn't really get that unfortunately.