Cool observations about 6 player. One of my fav videos from you! But i think i still am not sold on 6 player. Example even if meeple feeds babylon with library still he is almost last and i am almost certain about that and for me like in these two games a big factor is what you get in the last hand. For example in the alexandria game the player is saved by getting gardens in the last hand or else he is 3rd almost 4th.
Yeah 6P proved to be a little problematic in this high competitive environment. In this game with Meeple, it's more about giving yourself the best chance, not seeing how the game would have played out. I think he might be able to save 5th here and who knows what would happen to reds when they realise Iguana has only 1 clay he can access.
From what I've seen in the tournament, red is a lot more important than I previously thought it was in higher player counts. This is exacerbated by having Ludus available; in the second game, I picked a 4th red as Rhodes, passing up a caravansery in that hand, in part because I was pretty sure I could count on getting Ludus is the third age. Even playing as a green wonder, I think focusing on red in age 2 is probably a good idea; that way there's a ton of green floating around in age 3 that is only good for you (this assumes some green play in age 1 and 2). In a5 and 6 I was a bit surprised how merely looking at red came pretty close to telling you who won the games. Green, blue, purple...everything has a tough time making up those points.
I agree. Red can be king in matchups where people try to not "waste" red and you can overpower them. But if the metagame would change (and everyone just starts doing that) then non red becomes good again ;)
I tried to consciously adapt my play (and really focus on Red) in the "Group of Death" because, in my experience (and knowledge from your videos) Iguana is very red focused, Red Meeple is quite red focused and you are somewhat less but still quite red focused. In a 5 or 6 game series, I also thought that winning Red probably guaranteed at least 3rd or 4th (as in the first game as Olympia) place so it was good for avoiding what could be disastrous last place finishes.
Additionaly starting stone is the worst one towards red strategy (there is only one walls in the pool). Even Alex or Hali have a gray that let's them play a green that let's them play a red for free. But what you said also plays a huge factor.
Do you consider giving your direct neighbour better card in your games? Have you got any cool examples? Post them here ↓↓↓
Thank you for calling me an excellent subscriber. Looking forward to the next games :)
Thank you! :)
Great analyses! I'll try hiding for people down the line in my own games from now on. Also feeding is a cool strategy.
Thank you, but make sure not to feed them too much! ;)
Cool observations about 6 player. One of my fav videos from you! But i think i still am not sold on 6 player. Example even if meeple feeds babylon with library still he is almost last and i am almost certain about that and for me like in these two games a big factor is what you get in the last hand. For example in the alexandria game the player is saved by getting gardens in the last hand or else he is 3rd almost 4th.
Yeah 6P proved to be a little problematic in this high competitive environment. In this game with Meeple, it's more about giving yourself the best chance, not seeing how the game would have played out. I think he might be able to save 5th here and who knows what would happen to reds when they realise Iguana has only 1 clay he can access.
From what I've seen in the tournament, red is a lot more important than I previously thought it was in higher player counts. This is exacerbated by having Ludus available; in the second game, I picked a 4th red as Rhodes, passing up a caravansery in that hand, in part because I was pretty sure I could count on getting Ludus is the third age. Even playing as a green wonder, I think focusing on red in age 2 is probably a good idea; that way there's a ton of green floating around in age 3 that is only good for you (this assumes some green play in age 1 and 2). In a5 and 6 I was a bit surprised how merely looking at red came pretty close to telling you who won the games. Green, blue, purple...everything has a tough time making up those points.
I agree. Red can be king in matchups where people try to not "waste" red and you can overpower them. But if the metagame would change (and everyone just starts doing that) then non red becomes good again ;)
I tried to consciously adapt my play (and really focus on Red) in the "Group of Death" because, in my experience (and knowledge from your videos) Iguana is very red focused, Red Meeple is quite red focused and you are somewhat less but still quite red focused. In a 5 or 6 game series, I also thought that winning Red probably guaranteed at least 3rd or 4th (as in the first game as Olympia) place so it was good for avoiding what could be disastrous last place finishes.
@@scottthurmeier2163 red is the safest good strategy, so a lot of top players naturally gravitate towards it.
When you say Giza is not great at red, is that because Giza has to be so focused on getting a lot of resources early for it’s wonder stages?
Additionaly starting stone is the worst one towards red strategy (there is only one walls in the pool). Even Alex or Hali have a gray that let's them play a green that let's them play a red for free. But what you said also plays a huge factor.
11:10 flopinou picks double loom, was this a misclick, gamble on chamber of commerce, or what was going on?
I think chamber of commerce.