Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eHalcyon]

Here's an open question for you. If Baker isn't conveniently in the Black Market, are you really going to hold off on Moneylender and spend your first $5 on Counterfeit?

[jomini]

Here's an open question for you. If Baker isn't conveniently in the Black Market, are you really going to hold off on Moneylender and spend your first $5 on Counterfeit?

4/3 open Moneylender/Silver
5/2 open Counterfeit/[useful $2 like Haven or nothing]

For a Venture deck, early copper trashing is much better than later copper trashing. As I said previously, and you disagreed with, the big reason Moneylender works better is that you can more reliably open it; the only reason I bury the Baker coin is to remove starting hand variance without having to wade through the inevitable about the (quite correct) fact that Counterfeit/Baker is likely a better go than Counterfeit/Venture. I could hold out for for spending my first $5 on Counterfeit, but I'm not sure where we'd find a $4 that I think is strong enough to go it then Counterfeit but not so strong you'd skip Moneylender. Would you go Smithy or not? I'd be inclined to give Smithy/Counterfeit/Venture a go for fast cycling & fast copper trashing if we have Colonies in play.

This let's me clear out the final coppers faster, avoid having a truly dead card, and have the option to say trash out instead of a copper when I'd otherwise just be drawing $8. With a longer time horizon, I'd be fairly confident that skipping Moneylender is worth the risk of missing $5 on T3-T4 for better odds & more options later. Even if I do drop a 6-4 split, I'm still sitting pretty nice with Plats.

And my point throughout has been that the relevant synergies were mostly covered by posts before yours, and that your points did not say what you have been arguing that they said.  I never said that there weren't small synergies.  Just that the ones that really mattered had already been stated.

Your point throughout has been, "Most of these things aren't special synergies; they are just things that are true about each card individually.  The only one that seems OK is the last point (Counterfeit can trash Copper in hand when drawn by Venture), but I wouldn't really call that a special synergy."

And throughout my point has been that these are small synergies of the type we most commonly face when have to make actual decisions in game.

You seem to have some contradictions here.  Among weaker players, small synergies will matter less because they'll be trumped by the various mistakes they make, or if one player just happens to recognize a big combo that another misses.  I'm pretty sure you said as much previously, that these smaller synergies matter more at higher level play, when the little things count.  And this is why I defer to stronger players on that.

No, I have been very specific about these things. Among skilled play - where there is no unskilled play - small synergies and weighting cards for small synergies matters. If you take the top 10 players at Dominion and play matched hand tournaments, my guess is that game outcomes will be determined by:
1. Shuffle luck.
2. Timing choices.
3. Small synergy choices.

Shuffle luck one cannot learn. Timing choices are very hard to explicate - we've all seen times where optimal timing looks screwy as all get out - and not really easy to learn even if you just play a lot.

Strong players rarely have equal opponents, so yes if there is a bias towards certain playstyles among the elite, we will see them winning a lot of games even if their preferences shave a percentage point or two off their deck strength. When you have huge skill disparities, actual value of cards is much diminished in its utility. This should not surprise us - how rarely have long, long played cards stayed in the same ranking slots on the annual lists? If highly skilled players really did know actual card valuations down cold just from play, then those rankings should not change nor have significant deviation between top ranked players.

So yes, when discussing anything that improves the strength of you deck by less than, arbitrarily, 10% you just aren't going to see it in statistics from strong players. You are also going to have a real devil of a time sorting out if this is a preference which strong player skill overcomes or if the small effect is really of the magnitude that gut instinct tells strong players. Part of "it depends on the board" is learning how to make ranked order evaluations of things that are close, but not quite the same. Moneylender & Counterfeit are both copper trashers that act like Silver - when is one better than the other? It helps to consider small synergies - like how Moneylender works better (albeit still a bit less than normal during build up) with Wandering Minstrel than Counterfeit.

It is all well and good to say that learning the game should focus on major combos, timing, and the like ... but honestly most of the big combos have been flogged to death and there isn't any real strategy there anymore (barring the odd stuff like Hermit/Market Square). I wish we had more timing articles, but those are the sorts of things that tend to be hard to really quantify.

[eHalcyon]

4/3 open Moneylender/Silver
5/2 open Counterfeit/[useful $2 like Haven or nothing]

For a Venture deck, early copper trashing is much better than later copper trashing. As I said previously, and you disagreed with, the big reason Moneylender works better is that you can more reliably open it; the only reason I bury the Baker coin is to remove starting hand variance without having to wade through the inevitable about the (quite correct) fact that Counterfeit/Baker is likely a better go than Counterfeit/Venture. I could hold out for for spending my first $5 on Counterfeit, but I'm not sure where we'd find a $4 that I think is strong enough to go it then Counterfeit but not so strong you'd skip Moneylender. Would you go Smithy or not? I'd be inclined to give Smithy/Counterfeit/Venture a go for fast cycling & fast copper trashing if we have Colonies in play.

This let's me clear out the final coppers faster, avoid having a truly dead card, and have the option to say trash out instead of a copper when I'd otherwise just be drawing $8. With a longer time horizon, I'd be fairly confident that skipping Moneylender is worth the risk of missing $5 on T3-T4 for better odds & more options later. Even if I do drop a 6-4 split, I'm still sitting pretty nice with Plats.

When did I disagree that Moneylender can be opened more reliably?

If Smithy is available, Venture is not my top priority.  I'd probably get a second Smithy and maybe a second Counterfeit before any Ventures, with Ventures after that being a consolation prize at $5 with nothing better to get.

But really, with Black Market, there is probably an engine to play.

Your point throughout has been, "Most of these things aren't special synergies; they are just things that are true about each card individually.  The only one that seems OK is the last point (Counterfeit can trash Copper in hand when drawn by Venture), but I wouldn't really call that a special synergy."

And throughout my point has been that these are small synergies of the type we most commonly face when have to make actual decisions in game.

I refer you once again to your first post in this thread.  That post was not about synergies between Venture and Counterfeit, big or small.  What you wrote there is not what you have been arguing since.  So yeah, most of those things weren't special synergies, they were just things that are true about each card individually.

And yeah, these small synergies that we've since discussed are not special.  They are small and make very little difference in actual competitive play.  As other players have said and you yourself have admitted, Venture-Counterfeit is not actually a thing.

No, I have been very specific about these things. Among skilled play - where there is no unskilled play - small synergies and weighting cards for small synergies matters. If you take the top 10 players at Dominion and play matched hand tournaments, my guess is that game outcomes will be determined by:
1. Shuffle luck.
2. Timing choices.
3. Small synergy choices.

Shuffle luck one cannot learn. Timing choices are very hard to explicate - we've all seen times where optimal timing looks screwy as all get out - and not really easy to learn even if you just play a lot.

You said that it is "highly overrated" regarding deference to stronger players.  So what's that supposed to mean?  I took it to mean that you wouldn't trust stronger players regarding these small synergies.  This is in contradiction to the point that the small synergies are how top players distinguish themselves.  If that is not what you meant, then my point (of deferring to those stronger players) stands.

Strong players rarely have equal opponents, so yes if there is a bias towards certain playstyles among the elite, we will see them winning a lot of games even if their preferences shave a percentage point or two off their deck strength. When you have huge skill disparities, actual value of cards is much diminished in its utility. This should not surprise us - how rarely have long, long played cards stayed in the same ranking slots on the annual lists? If highly skilled players really did know actual card valuations down cold just from play, then those rankings should not change nor have significant deviation between top ranked players.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this paragraph.  The rankings change for many reasons:

1. There are still new cards.  Guilds has only been available for one of Qvist's lists so far, so it hasn't fully shaken out.  Those new cards also affect how older cards rank.
2. Qvist's lists also include weaker players and players who didn't submit their rankings before.
3. Even top players continue to improve their game.  It is not a static thing.

The rankings between top players may differ because they personally value different
things when ranking the cards, like how often a card is good vs. how amazing a card is when it is good.  And what they value more for ranking can change over time.

So yes, when discussing anything that improves the strength of you deck by less than, arbitrarily, 10% you just aren't going to see it in statistics from strong players. You are also going to have a real devil of a time sorting out if this is a preference which strong player skill overcomes or if the small effect is really of the magnitude that gut instinct tells strong players. Part of "it depends on the board" is learning how to make ranked order evaluations of things that are close, but not quite the same. Moneylender & Counterfeit are both copper trashers that act like Silver - when is one better than the other? It helps to consider small synergies - like how Moneylender works better (albeit still a bit less than normal during build up) with Wandering Minstrel than Counterfeit.

We're not looking at statistics from top players here, just opinions.  Counterfeit-Venture is not a thing, and the small synergies you've been pushing just don't matter in real game situations.

It is all well and good to say that learning the game should focus on major combos, timing, and the like ... but honestly most of the big combos have been flogged to death and there isn't any real strategy there anymore (barring the odd stuff like Hermit/Market Square). I wish we had more timing articles, but those are the sorts of things that tend to be hard to really quantify.

There are plenty of synergies that aren't big combos while still not being of tiny significance.  There are plenty of little things top players do that actually matter.  There are plenty of little things worth considering.  You talk about them plenty of times.  This was not one of those times.

[jomini]

When did I disagree that Moneylender can be opened more reliably?

[/quote]
"Transmute, Stonemason... these cards are not strong, early Copper trashers.  Why not compare to the ones you've already mentioned?  Chapel?  Steward?  If I look to these actual competitive cards, Counterfeit is one of the weaker Copper trashers for Venture because it competes with Venture at $5.  The conflict between Moneylender and a terminal X matters far less than the conflict between the two treasures at $5."

"The bigger issue, by far, is that Moneylender can be an opening buy all the time while Counterfeit is most often T3/T4 and that may require a sliver purchase.
"

"Again [previous deferral was towards a negative assessment], I defer to stronger players who have said as much."

You have consistently held that the major reason Moneylender, a pretty much objectively weaker copper trasher, works better/more often is that it doesn't compete for Venture buys. I have held, consistently, that the biggest issue is that I can open Moneylender always and Counterfeit has to wait until T3/T4 most games.

If Smithy is available, Venture is not my top priority.  I'd probably get a second Smithy and maybe a second Counterfeit before any Ventures, with Ventures after that being a consolation prize at $5 with nothing better to get.

For a game with Colonies out? Because my priorities would be Counterfeit -> Smithy -> Plat. With Counterfeit often able to double play Silvers, I can pretty quickly expect to nab Venture every hand and Plat most Smithy hands. A second Smithy doesn't add much here.

But really, with Black Market, there is probably an engine to play.

Why do you keep doing this? We all know that a typical Bm deck has enough villages/draw/payload to build at least a decent engine; I wanted the Baker coin so I could ask you a question about your preferences without getting bogged down in the question of how valuable the trashing is for opening vs second shuffle. Nobody here is an idiot and doesn't know how to play a Bm board.

So because I can't seem to get you to straightforwardly engage with the questions: the black market consists of Transmute, Gardens, Rats, Farmland, Scout, Great Hall, Sab, Silk Road, Possession, Vineyard, Tunnel, Fool's Gold, Peddler, Treasure Map, Talisman, Thief, Stash, Chancellor, Moat, Secret Chamber, Coppersmith, Pearl Diver, Duchess, Duke,  and Baker

I refer you once again to your first post in this thread.  That post was not about synergies between Venture and Counterfeit, big or small.  What you wrote there is not what you have been arguing since.  So yeah, most of those things weren't special synergies, they were just things that are true about each card individually.

"There is a small bit of additional synergy:"

Remind me again about how this is not about synergies big or small? Sure I had assumed that after delineating in the first line item that it would be clear we were talking about a type of deck where Venture is assumed to be good; hence stuff like A synergizes with B, B synergizes with C, therefor A synergizes with C would be obvious.

Now sure, I didn't go into great length about minor points, but the fact of the matter is that when Venture is strong, Counterfeit is among the strongest copper trashers - it gets played disproportionately often and it gives you flexibility - both what else can be thrown into the Venture deck (e.g. terminal draw) and what you can do at end-game (it more often than most other comparable options will give you a +buy).

Since then you've have decided that because these things happen with all treasures, they aren't "special synergies"; even though the Venture case is one where you have precisely the definition of synergy (total more than the sum of its parts). That is what I don't understand; I have always been talking about how if a Venture deck is a given, then this stuff pushes you to pick counterfeit over other options.

This will show up in 1/10,000 games, so you can ignore the specific card interactions and have really, really minimal impact on your play. Of course, you can completely ignore Stash/Chancellor (or Stash/Scavenger), Market Square/Hermit, Pstone/Herbalist, and Tactician/Bm (or Outpost sometimes) ... and it would effect <1% of your games too. The thing I do think is important is being able to approach a board where you have choices between cards that do close to the same thing. When is Treasury going to be stronger than Baker & vice versa? When is Rabble going to be stronger than Journeyman and vice versa? This going to depend a lot on stuff like card type (e.g. Rabble is a lot worse when the opponent is using Horse Traders a decent bit), how frequently will you get benefit from the secondary effects on the card (e.g. when will Rabble top deck green vs when will Journeyman skip dross), and which works best with other enablers for whatever your real payload is? Walking through these sorts of interactions does make you a better player; saying "meh all the copper trashers are the same" does not. I know you do this sort of thing when you read a real kingdom, I don't know why you can't get over your inability to see that Venture/Counterfeit is a rare specific instance of a general procedure.

You said that it is "highly overrated" regarding deference to stronger players.  So what's that supposed to mean?  I took it to mean that you wouldn't trust stronger players regarding these small synergies.  This is in contradiction to the point that the small synergies are how top players distinguish themselves.  If that is not what you meant, then my point (of deferring to those stronger players) stands.

When I've had these arguments about specific cards in the past, I've just played people and just about always the card interactions play out as logic dictates. But they are generally stronger Dominion players than me. How can they be stronger, but objectively wrong about the strength of card interactions they rarely see?

Largely because below a certain threshold it rarely matters to them. Their tacit knowledge is enough to carry them through unequal play and their tacit knowledge is often enough to pick out the small synergies without explicitly knowing they are doing it. Superb tactical play, which most of the regulars on this board manage routinely, does wonders even when you play a suboptimal strategy. As the gap in player skill increases, the relative strength of the cards played has less and less predictive power.

And yeah, these small synergies that we've since discussed are not special.  They are small and make very little difference in actual competitive play.  As other players have said and you yourself have admitted, Venture-Counterfeit is not actually a thing.

I still have no idea what makes something "special", you last attempt was pretty much useless. Are these "small synergies"? Yes. Does this example matter in competitive play, not really, but mostly because Venture is just that weak (you need a really constrained board to make a go of it). Does the ability to pick out small synergies when deciding between villages or between draw? Yes.

You said that it is "highly overrated" regarding deference to stronger players.  So what's that supposed to mean?  I took it to mean that you wouldn't trust stronger players regarding these small synergies.  This is in contradiction to the point that the small synergies are how top players distinguish themselves.  If that is not what you meant, then my point (of deferring to those stronger players) stands.

I don't trust them to explicitly know them. This is born out by past experiences. A lot of good players don't see small synergies or undervalue them, yet play them in practice. When they specifically talk about the actual value of things that show up in <1% of games, they are quite often wrong explicitly. Basically, people play better than they talk.

1. There are still new cards.  Guilds has only been available for one of Qvist's lists so far, so it hasn't fully shaken out.  Those new cards also affect how older cards rank.

And this would be a demonstration of fallacious player thinking. The vast majority of boards for any random old card will not contain a new card that significantly changes its strength (e.g. adding Masterpiece a Goons board doesn't do a lot to Goons' ranking). Rank ordering for the old cards should be largely unchanged by the mere addition of 13 cards. Players are often much better with their tacit knowledge (the skill they have at playing they cannot articulate) than with their explicit knowledge.

2. Qvist's lists also include weaker players and players who didn't submit their rankings before.

a. People on this board are very, very rarely weak players. The worst person who reads the board is likely on the stronger side of the dominion population.
b. We are talking some serious movement. Iw went up 17 places last year. Even if every single new ranker moved Iw up, that doesn't explain everything here.

3. Even top players continue to improve their game.  It is not a static thing.

Yeah, but like, of virtually every other strategy game ever, the incremental improvements tend to be ever smaller and smaller. We are not yet seeing that with the cards.

The rankings between top players may differ because they personally value different
things when ranking the cards, like how often a card is good vs. how amazing a card is when it is good.  And what they value more for ranking can change over time.

Indeed, which is why when a top player says "meh this doesn't matter", I'm not inclined to write the matter off. I've seen people change their tunes too often. You need to be able to say why this doesn't matter. Now sure in this particular case, Venture is weak enough that you really won't play this much ever, but the change in deck strength of going this instead of say Junk dealer/Venture is going to be of a magnitude that similar improvements with other cards on other boards would have significant impact. Again this is a particular case of a general set.

We're not looking at statistics from top players here, just opinions.  Counterfeit-Venture is not a thing, and the small synergies you've been pushing just don't matter in real game situations.

We are looking at the recall and anticipation of top players, which shockingly tend to reflect their statistical experience.


So yes, I don't think this is one of those synergies that determines boards. Counterfeit is very, very rarely going to be a reason to go Venture. Venture will push you to go Counterfeit on those rare boards where Venture is good and you have other options for copper trashing.

[pacovf]

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Wow.

Just....... Wow.

[eHalcyon]

You have consistently held that the major reason Moneylender, a pretty much objectively weaker copper trasher, works better/more often is that it doesn't compete for Venture buys. I have held, consistently, that the biggest issue is that I can open Moneylender always and Counterfeit has to wait until T3/T4 most games.

I don't think those considerations are conflicting.  The point is, you still open with Moneylender rather than waiting for Counterfeit, and Counterfeit is not a card that pushes you to a Venture strategy.

For a game with Colonies out? Because my priorities would be Counterfeit -> Smithy -> Plat. With Counterfeit often able to double play Silvers, I can pretty quickly expect to nab Venture every hand and Plat most Smithy hands. A second Smithy doesn't add much here.

Yes, I absolutely expect a second Smithy and a second Counterfeit to do more than the first Venture.  Your priorities list doesn't even mention Venture.  Smithy is better early on when you haven't finished trashing out the Coppers.

Why do you keep doing this? We all know that a typical Bm deck has enough villages/draw/payload to build at least a decent engine; I wanted the Baker coin so I could ask you a question about your preferences without getting bogged down in the question of how valuable the trashing is for opening vs second shuffle. Nobody here is an idiot and doesn't know how to play a Bm board.

So because I can't seem to get you to straightforwardly engage with the questions: the black market consists of Transmute, Gardens, Rats, Farmland, Scout, Great Hall, Sab, Silk Road, Possession, Vineyard, Tunnel, Fool's Gold, Peddler, Treasure Map, Talisman, Thief, Stash, Chancellor, Moat, Secret Chamber, Coppersmith, Pearl Diver, Duchess, Duke,  and Baker

I am pointing it out because you are going to such great lengths to contrive this scenario.  This is like that 0.01% of games that you yourself mentioned before.  And hey, I did straightforwardly answer the question already.  Did you skip that part?

"There is a small bit of additional synergy:"

Remind me again about how this is not about synergies big or small? Sure I had assumed that after delineating in the first line item that it would be clear we were talking about a type of deck where Venture is assumed to be good; hence stuff like A synergizes with B, B synergizes with C, therefor A synergizes with C would be obvious.

Here:

Point 1 may indicate synergy, but it's so small as to not be worth talking about.  Point 2 still does not read as synergy; the fact that both are Treasure does not make the sum greater than its parts.  And point 3 has nothing to do with Venture at all.  You've since argued that it's about reliability and frequency of play, but that concept is not there in the original point.

I don't know how much clearer that can be.  The third point isn't even a matter of opinion.  It is clearly about Counterfeit alone.

This will show up in 1/10,000 games, so you can ignore the specific card interactions and have really, really minimal impact on your play. Of course, you can completely ignore Stash/Chancellor (or Stash/Scavenger), Market Square/Hermit, Pstone/Herbalist, and Tactician/Bm (or Outpost sometimes) ... and it would effect <1% of your games too.

All those things are actually combos.  They are in an entirely different class than Counterfeit+Venture.

The thing I do think is important is being able to approach a board where you have choices between cards that do close to the same thing. When is Treasury going to be stronger than Baker & vice versa? When is Rabble going to be stronger than Journeyman and vice versa? This going to depend a lot on stuff like card type (e.g. Rabble is a lot worse when the opponent is using Horse Traders a decent bit), how frequently will you get benefit from the secondary effects on the card (e.g. when will Rabble top deck green vs when will Journeyman skip dross), and which works best with other enablers for whatever your real payload is? Walking through these sorts of interactions does make you a better player; saying "meh all the copper trashers are the same" does not. I know you do this sort of thing when you read a real kingdom, I don't know why you can't get over your inability to see that Venture/Counterfeit is a rare specific instance of a general procedure.

Because it is poorly done in this case.  Let's go back to that toy kingdom you asked about.  We assume that Venture is the key to this kingdom.  This is a stretch already, but we'll go with it.  I am choosing between Trade Route, Moneylender, Counterfeit and Junk Dealer.  Trade Route is such a weak trasher that it can be easily tossed out in the face of the other options.  Counterfeit and Junk Dealer both cost $5.  Counterfeit has +Buy and more flexibility while Junk Dealer's main advantage is that it can trash Estates/Shelters.  The choice between those two will depend on the other cards.  With Venture in mind specifically, the advantage of trashing Estates isn't as big, so Counterfeit wins out.  But Moneylender only costs $4 so the coin token can be saved to help win the Venture split.  And as previously explained, Moneylender does pretty much as well as Counterfeit in the early game, so that makes it the better choice IMO. 

All the small synergies you've posted about in this thread are dwarfed by other considerations.

When I've had these arguments about specific cards in the past, I've just played people and just about always the card interactions play out as logic dictates. But they are generally stronger Dominion players than me. How can they be stronger, but objectively wrong about the strength of card interactions they rarely see?

Largely because below a certain threshold it rarely matters to them. Their tacit knowledge is enough to carry them through unequal play and their tacit knowledge is often enough to pick out the small synergies without explicitly knowing they are doing it. Superb tactical play, which most of the regulars on this board manage routinely, does wonders even when you play a suboptimal strategy. As the gap in player skill increases, the relative strength of the cards played has less and less predictive power.

Am I reading correctly here that you consider yourself better than stronger players, and that they only beat you because of their better tactical play?  It all sounds a bit arrogant.  (Note: I see you clarified this a bit later on.)

I still have no idea what makes something "special", you last attempt was pretty much useless. Are these "small synergies"? Yes. Does this example matter in competitive play, not really, but mostly because Venture is just that weak (you need a really constrained board to make a go of it). Does the ability to pick out small synergies when deciding between villages or between draw? Yes.

I can agree with all of this.  Which is why I don't understand why you've pushed so hard on this.  I said previously that "special" here just means that it's worth consideration.  And you say, right in this paragraph, that this is not really worth consideration in competitive play.  So... yeah.  This is it.  This is what I've been saying.

I don't trust them to explicitly know them. This is born out by past experiences. A lot of good players don't see small synergies or undervalue them, yet play them in practice. When they specifically talk about the actual value of things that show up in <1% of games, they are quite often wrong explicitly. Basically, people play better than they talk.

Eh.  OK, but I don't really agree.  I mean, for this thread specifically, the conclusion that I am deferring to is actually the same you one that you yourself have just drawn -- that this example does not really matter in competitive play.

Rankings...

The insertion of 13 new cards changes rank, by definition.  If I rank a new card #1, everything else shifts down.

There are plenty of players who are new to the board and have not yet improved.  Remember when silverspawn argued vehemently that Lookout was the best trasher?  Good times. 

Regarding Ironworks, one possibility is that a lot of Dark Ages cards (new in the 2013 rankings) were overrated.  Just skimming the list, I count at least 8 Dark Ages cards that pushed Ironworks down.  As some of those went down, Ironworks went back up.  Considering that, the jump for Ironworks is not as big.

Moreover, Dark Ages added a lot of cards that were better for engines.  This, in turn, makes Ironworks better, since it excels at picking up cheap engine components.

But I think most of the movement is due to more players, and more players getting better.  Also keep in mind that all the (relatively) weaker players from previous rankings are improving as well.

So yes, I don't think this is one of those synergies that determines boards. Counterfeit is very, very rarely going to be a reason to go Venture. Venture will push you to go Counterfeit on those rare boards where Venture is good and you have other options for copper trashing.

Agreed on the first part, not as much on the second.  Already explicated above in discussion on your scenario.  But you may disagree, since it sounds like you prefer Counterfeit over Moneylender.  C'est la vie.

[Gherald]

My opponent bought Develop, then embargoed Develop and then Province.

So I thought, what can I do on this board that is tolerant of buying provinces with a curse? Counterfeit + Venture for 5 provinces on T16.

Log: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20150301/log.50babbafe4b05a8d74969537.1425229435307.txt

[Seprix]

Nice! I think it's funny he embargoed Develop though.

Followers and YW seem irrelevant with Lightouse. I think you were right to go with a more heavy Econ game.