Civ Choice

[notyoueither]

We will need to choose a civ/leader. However, before we make final choices, I think we need to know map type (at least).

Although we shouldn't pick yet, we can have a discussion about the traits, starting techs, and UUs.

This thread is for that.

This post to be edited with pertinent info re traits, techs, and UUs.

Info from v52 Civilopedia.

The leader traits:
Aggressive- Free promotion to Combat I for melee and gunpowder units, double production speed for barracks and drydock
Creative- +2 culture per turn per city, double production speed for theatre and colosseum
Expansive- +2 health per city, double production speed for granery and harbour
Financial- +1 cpt on plots with 2cpt, double production speed for bank
Industrious- +50% wonder production, double production speed for forge
Organized- 50% less civic maintenance, double production speed for lighthouse, courthouse
Philosophical- +100% GP birth rate, double production speed for university
Spiritual- No anarchy, double production speed for temple

The leaders with traits, civ starting techs, and civ UU:
Alexander- Philosophical, Aggressive, Greek (Fishing, Hunting, Phalanx: 5 str spear[4] with +25% hill defence)
Asoka- Organised, Spiritual, Indian (Mining, Mysticism, fast worker: worker with 3 moves)
Bismarck- Expansive, Industrious, German (Hunting, Mining, panzer: tank with +50% vs armoured units)
Catherine- Creative, Financial, Russian (Hunting, Mining, cossack: 18 str cavalry[15] with +50% vs mounted units)
Cyrus- Creative, Expansive, Persian (Agriculture, Hunting, Immortal: chariot with +50% vs archery units and extra 10% [30 vs vs20%] chance to withdraw)
Elizabeth- Financial, Philosophical, English (Fishing, Mining, redcoat: 16 str rifleman[14] with +25% vs gunpowder units)
Frederick- Creative, Philosophical, German (Hunting, Mining, panzer: tank with +50% vs armoured units)
Gandhi- Industrious, Spiritual, Indian (Mining, Mysticism, fast worker: worker with 3 moves)
Genghis Khan- Aggressive, Expansive, Mongolian (Hunting, The Wheel, keshik: horse archer with first strike and ignores terrain movement costs)
Hatshepsut- Creative, Spiritual, Egyptian (Agriculture, The Wheel, War Chariot: 5 str chariot[4] immune to first strikes)
Huayna Capac- Aggressive, Financial, Incan (Agriculture, Mysticism, quechua: warrior with +100% vs archery units)
Isabella- Expansive, Spiritual, Spanish Fishing, Mysticism, conquistador: knight with +50% vs melee units, receives defensive bonus)
Juliues Caesar- Expansive, Organised, Roman (Fishing, Mining, praetorian: 8 str sword with no city attack bonus)
Kublai Khan- Agressive, Creative, Mongolian (Hunting, The Wheel, keshik: horse archer with first strike and ignores terrain movement costs)
Louis XIV- Creative, Industrious, French (Agriculture, The Wheel, musketeer: musketman with 2 moves)
Mansa Musa- Financial, Spiritual, Mali (Mining, The Wheel, skirmisher: 4 str archer with extra first strike chance)
Mao Zedong- Organised, Philosophical, Chinese (Agriculture, Mining, cho-ko-nu: crossbow with extra 1st strike, causes collateral damage)
Montezuma- Aggressive, Spiritual, Aztec (Hunting, Mysticism, jaguar: 5 str sword[6] with +25% jungle defence, no reource req)
Napoleon- Aggressive, Industrious, French (Agriculture, The Wheel, musketeer: musketman with 2 moves)
Peter- Expansive, Philosophical, Russian (Hunting, Mining, cossack: 18 str cavalry[15] with +50% vs mounted units)
Roosevelt- Industrious, Organised, American (Agriculture, Fishing, Navy SEAL: marine with 1-2 1st strikes)
Qin Shi Huang- Financial, Industrious, Chinese (Agriculture, Mining, cho-ko-nu: crossbow with extra 1st strike, causes collateral damage)
Tokugawa- Aggressive, Organised, Japanese (Fishing, The Wheel, samurai: maceman with 2 first strikes, req iron[loses copper])
Saladin- Philosophical, Spiritual, Arabian (Mysticism, The Wheel, camal archer: knight with 25% withdraw chance, no resource req)
Washington- Financial, Organised, American (Agriculture, Fishing, Navy SEAL: marine with 1-2 1st strikes)
Victoria- Expansive, Financial, English (Fishing, Mining, redcoat: 16 str rifleman[14] with +25% vs gunpowder units)

someone please review for mistakes.

Corrected Montys' traits, Monty is Spi/Agg, not Spi/Fin - Krill

[notyoueither]

Current Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 21: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1, Krill 3, Aro 2, Dominae 3, Theseus 3, Solomwi 2, asleepathewheel 1, vmxa1 1
Saladin 18: dejon 3, DeepO 3, Aro 3, Dominae 1, Theseus 1, Solomwi 3, NicodaMax 2, Blake 2
Qin Shi Huang 11: Arrian 2, Krill 2, Dominae 2, asleepathewheel 2, vmxa1 2, Blake 1
Montezuma 8: DeepO 2, Theseus 2, NicodaMax 1, vmxa1 3
Elizabeth 4: Arrian 1, asleepathewheel 3
Alexander 4: Solomwi 1, Blake 3
Asoka 4: dejon 1, NicodaMax 3
Isabella 2: Krill 1, Aro 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa
Krill: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Izzy
Aro: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Isabella
Dominae: 1. Mansa, 2. Qin, 3. Saladin
Theseus: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Montezuma, 3. Saladin
Solomwi: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Alexander
asleepathewheel: 1. Elizabeth, 2. Qin, 3. Mansa
NicodaMax: 1. Asoka, 2. Saladin, 3. Montezuma
vmxa1: 1. Montezuma, 2. Qin She Huang, 3. Mansa Musa
Blake: 1) Alexander, 2) Saladin, 3) Qin

[notyoueither]

My general approach to a new game is leader more than civ. I find the traits are the largest factor in the game, followed by either starting techs and or UU (those are more map dependant).

Anybody have a good summary of the traits?

[notyoueither]

Off the cuff.

I rate Financial, Industrious, and Philosophical as very important.

Financial: Extra cash helps in all situations. Probably the one trait that crosses value between SP and MP the most.

Industrious: Faster wonders can break a game open, if you get the tech soon enough. Grab a couple, like Oracle, Parthenon and Great Lib, and you are well on the way to leading for the rest.

Philosophical: Probably stronger in SP where you decide where and when to fight more often. However, a prophet sooner (constructing a Shrine which then pushes your religion and gives cash) or an artist to swamp a hostile civ can't hurt to have sooner. Then there are merchants grabbing massive cash, or adding critical food to key cities...

I don't normally pay a lot of attention to Aggressive, Creative, Expansive, or Spiritual. However...

Aggressive in a smaller MP situation could make or break an empire. Give me time to build and it won't matter too much, but will I have time and space to build?

Creative in the early MP, with peace, can help a lot in securing land and closing choke points. With peace... anyone fancy having the Horde for neighbours?

I don't often hit the healthy cap in SP, but there are maps where it happens. Not sure about this one.

Spiritual... the hidden war monger trait. Why? Heh. From war civic to peace civic to war to peace to war to peace... You have a lot of options in CIV. The civ that can max the civics for the changing situation is to be feared, if you knew what was good for you.

Organised... I don't rate it very highly at all. There are other solutions to cash shortages, so long as you plan for them, and we will plan for them. Right?

[Dominae]

Montezuma is Aggressive/Spiritual (not Financial).

Qin will probably be many teams' top pick, for good reason. If we can snatch him, we should.

Alexander is a nice choice for giving us a bye to round two: Phalanx will ensure that we will not be rushed (I doubt many teams will be able to resist a Horse Archer rush). I would much rather be defending against Axemen than Horsemen.

Mansa Musa's another great choice in the "defense is the best offense" category. It's hard to get Skirmishers off a tile unless they want to leave.

Regarding the traits, Philosophical is a great way to surprise our opponents with unexpected plays. I'm sure we can bend this trait to our advantage, leaving the other teams scratching their heads and unable to anticipate our next move. We would, however, need to be left alone for a bit, which is perhaps wishful thinking.

Creative seems like a great way to piss off other teams. No one likes to have their territory encroached upon. It could be very valuable strategically, but at what cost diplomatically?

More thoughts to come at a later date...

[Krill]

Do not underestimate the effect of Expansive. Lter on it means an extra 2 health, and that can make or break the late game.

We should not expect this game to be decided before cav ;) I would expect it to go the distance.

The cheap granaries and harbours are useful as well ;)

One chop nets you that granary. You have to admit that it is good when you are trying to get your cities up and running. And you also start with Hunting, so you have a scout to start off with, so you can get some nice techs from huts. Like Bronze working, or iron working, or animal husbandry...

---

Oh, and I am the person who had the horde for neighbours in the last game. What I can say is that if they are your allies, they will be your allies for a very long time, so long as you don't try to screw them over. If they want you dead on the other hand, they will come after you. If they are our neighbours, we will have to take the war to them, asap.

Personally, for MP, I prefer to go with either Mansa or Bismark.

---

I'll weigh in more later, when I have time...

[Theseus]

I'm an even bigger fan of Egypt than I was for Civ3.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
Do not underestimate the effect of Expansive. Later on it means an extra 2 health, and that can make or break the late game.


I agree that Expansive is better than many seem to give it credit for, but let me play the devil's advocate for a second.

Happiness is not so easy to come across in MP. Fewer opponents will be willing trade their resources, and going for an early Religion is accepting a slow start. Hovering near our Happiness cap may spell disaster in case of war, as War Weariness is a definite issue in this game. It may well force us to build Theatres and Colosseums prematurely, which are good not but not great builds. Marketplaces are hit or miss.

All this means that I expect Happiness to be the limiting factor in our game, not Health. There will be stiff competition for Pyramids/Representation. The Expansive Health bonus may come in useful some cities, but most of the time will be doing nothing. Of course we might get lucky and get a Happiness-heavy resource distribution around our capital.

Super-fast Granaries are absolutely fab, no argument there. Harbors I'm not so sure. We would have to be trading with multiple large neighbors to make them really worthwhile, which is not easy as it sounds. We cannot expect the same return from Harbors as we do in SP. The Health bonus is, of course, nice, but again I predict Happiness to be our limiting factor.

Taking a look at the Expansive civs:

Isabella. As mentioned in a Strat forum thread, Conquistadors are pretty nuts, countering their own counter and benefitting from defensive bonuses (as opposed to most other fast units). Since she's Spiritual and starts with Mysticism we could reasonably go for an early Religion, which would help us exploit Expansive.

Victoria. Any Financial leader deserves a good look. Redcoats are pretty dominant, but come at a very awkward time in the tech tree for warfare.

Genghis Khan. A bit too predicatable for my tastes. I imagine the Horde will pick him or Kublai (probably Kublai), and I look forward to defending against their rush.

Bismarck. Nice synergy here between Forges and the Expansive bonus. He can whip an economy into shape quickly enough; other demogames have proven this to be a deciding factor. However his middle game is weak-ish, and it's long long way to Panzers.

Gotta go, more later...

[Krill]

Truth be told, Creative is probably a good trait to pick, as it will allow us that free culture expansion, and the 20% defence bonus along with it.

Sure, it is a passive trait, but if we get (cheese)rushed, that extra defence is important. We don't have to rely on Obelisks to pop the borders, and anybody settling near us wil get swaped, unless they build Stonehenge in that city to culture bomb.

---

Industrial becomes more important if we actually focus on wonders. Now, I know that we could well end up doing that, but it pails in comparrison to Financial. A tech lead can get you to extra turns required to build a wonder, along with all of the other benefits a tech lead gives.

---

Do not, under any circumstances, underestimate the power of aggresive, in an aggressive persons hands. With a barracks you can build units with Shock, Cover, Medic, Amphibious...if we went with Aggessive, I would suggest we rush someone and then build up with more land. Parallel would be the ND sword ruh of Lux, I suppose...

---

Carpe Jugulum. Lets grab this game by the throat.

[Krill]

Sorry, just saw your post, Dom. Two civs were mised off your list as you had to leave, but here they are, with a few of my thoughts...

Cryrus is Exp/Cre, which does not a great combo. Not much to say, but Immortals can really eat up archers if you get a couple out early on. Not much staying power...

Caesar is Exp/Org, and is, well Caesar. Speaks for itself. Beeline to IW, hope like hell you have iron, build Preats to go with allready built axes (if you have Cu), kill someone. And it pretty much is "Kill someone", 'cos not much stands up to Praets...

[Dominae]

To me, Civ4's Caesar/Praetorians is similar Xerxes/Immortals from C3C: a civ that it utterly defined by its UU. Although it makes little sense to compare two games, I personally feel Xerxes' traits were better in PTW/C3C than Caesar's are in Civ4.

Praetorians are great, but they can be countered by intelligent opponents - just like we did with Civ3's Immortals against Vox. Axemen, particularly Aggressive Axemen, are a Hammer-efficient counter.

As I mentioned in some Strat forum thread, the problem with Organized is that requires successful (let's assume "military") expansion. Combined with a very strong UU this would make our game plan very predictable; without a Praetorian rush, what good is Rome?

If, for example, another civ puts an early choke on us, we would have a real tough time competing in the long run. Things have to "go right" for Rome to be good, and they may not.

That said, it's a strong choice; we could do much worse. I'm sure more than one team will put Caesar as their top choice.

[Cort Haus]

Some thoughts (for and against) one of my favourite SP civs - the Mali.

I think Mansa Musa is a very flexible leader. OK, I don't know MP at all, but it seems that if I wanted to rush a neighbour, I wouldn't choose the guy with the Skirms. FIN is widely considered the best civic, and SPI opens up the kind of strategic flexibility that people like us should relish.

We can't base our decision on being alone on an island with the Horde any more than we can predict anything about the map, but even if we we're, would it be wise for one of those two civs to crush the other before contact was made with the outside?

Is FIN+Cottages weaker in MP? Do humans do a better job at pillage-wars? If so, PHI+farming may be better. Farms can be quickly replaced, towns cannot.

Also, might SPI be nerfed by the UN in the late-game if a non-SPI civ controlled it.

[Dominae]

Theseus - nice to hear you're playing, I thought you had disappeared from the world of civ!

I have to admit, your support of Hatshepsut took me by surprise. Taking "the Culture civ" is an interesting metagame choice.

I would like to point out, though, that Egypt's UU is not exactly my favorite. Spearmen is too effective a counter.

To make the War Chariots shine, we would have to really rush (build 0-1 Settlers, research Animal Husbandry, hope to have Horses), which unfortuantely is not really synergistic with Egypt's trait strengths: rapid expansion to maximize Creative, and a Religion to maximize Spiritual.

I have played Egypt a lot, and it seems that the War Chariot "window" is very small. If your target does not have Copper, it does get a lot better. During this time, Egypt can do a lot of other things. So one way of playing Egypt is to aim to maximize its traits, while keeping War Chariots as an alternative if the right situation arises.

Looking at it this way, are Egypt's traits any good? Yes, in a sense. We could surprise the opposition by founding a bunch of Religions and completely dominating them culturally. This could hamper their economy and really scare some less experienced teams. It would be a lot of fun for us, but would also, unfortunately, make enemies out of our neighbors.

Problem is, later on in the game Egypt's traits really begin to decline; she has no staying power. That's what worries me the most.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Dominae
As I mentioned in some Strat forum thread, the problem with Organized is that requires successful (let's assume "military") expansion. Combined with a very strong UU this would make our game plan very predictable; without a Praetorian rush, what good is Rome?

If, for example, another civ puts an early choke on us, we would have a real tough time competing in the long run. Things have to "go right" for Rome to be good, and they may not.

That said, it's a strong choice; we could do much worse. I'm sure more than one team will put Caesar as their top choice.

I was about to try and say something like this. Org requires SIZE to shine, and we can't be sure that'll be an possibility. It certainly channels us, as does the AGG trait, IMO, into predictable priorities.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Is FIN+Cottages weaker in MP? Do humans do a better job at pillage-wars? If so, PHI+farming may be better. Farms can be quickly replaced, towns cannot.


Even playing a Philosophical civ, a fair number of Cottages is essential; the "Cottages or Farms?" question makes sense on a city-by-city basis, not empire-wide. It's true that we may build more Farms if we select a Philosophical civ, but we would still have plenty of Cottages for our enemies to pillage.

I like Mr. Musa too, although I wish he started with Mysticism. :)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Dominae
To make the War Chariots shine, we would have to really rush (build 0-1 Settlers, research Animal Husbandry, hope to have Horses), which unfortuantely is not really synergistic with Egypt's trait strengths: rapid expansion to maximize Creative, and a Religion to maximize Spiritual.


I see SPI as more of a civics thing than a religious one. Maybe because not all SPI civs start with Mysticism.

[Cort Haus]

The other thing about Caesar is that he starts with Fishing, which can be a bit of a damp squib if you're inland.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I see SPI as more of a civics thing than a religious one. Maybe because not all SPI civs start with Mysticism.

But Hatshepsut does start with Mysticism!

Temples are very good builds for Spiritual civs, but very average for everyone else. The "no Anarchy" ability is quite relevant when first switching to a State Religion, since it's often very early in the game.

I completely agree that, over the course of the game, Spiritual primary benefit is with respect to Civics. I was just pointing out that Hatshepsut packs a powerful one-two cultural punch in the early-game: Creative, plus the cultural benefits of a Religion and Temples.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It certainly channels us, as does the AGG trait, IMO, into predictable priorities.

Agreed with respect to ORG, but not so much with respect to AGG.

Aggressive is really good on defense, too.

One "secret" that I have learned from CIV MP (Internet MP I'm talking about here, which may or may not apply to PBEM) is that it's better to be the (prepared) defender than the aggressor. A failed offensive in CIV is crippling, leaving you very weak for a counter-attack.

Aggressive civs, on the whole, have more flexibility with respect to Promotions, which I believe is better for D than for O.

If we do end up with an AGG civ, I hope some other team makes the mistake of attacking us. Just like Vox did!

[Cort Haus]

Because I'd got used to avoiding adopting a religion (for diplo reasons) in SP, I'd forgotten how useful religion + cheap temples were until recently. +2 happies for the pair is more than handy when calendar & monarchy are a long way off.

In fact, the thought of being able to run religious civics in this game is wierd, so used am I to avoiding the -4 heathen penalty.

[asleepathewheel]

I think we should play to our strengths: micromanaging.

What traits are enhanced the most by close micromanagement? Philisophical and Financial. Elizabeth :b: Though her UU sucks, imho, I think we can specialize our cities to create a powerful economy and GP enhanced empire.

[notyoueither]

The redcoat kicks ass.

It is 16 to 14 in str, and more importantly, gets a bonus vs gp units. That makes it 20 str attacking a 12 str grenadier and 20 defending vs an 18 str grenadier.

And it eats mounted units as a nice, light snack.

You have to live to rifling though, but other civs have much later, and less dominating, UUs.

[notyoueither]

Liz is one of my favs, btw.

[Dominae]

Elizabeth is definitely one of my top choices, too.

Stats-wise the Redcoat does a fine job, as nye mentions. But as I said before, it comes at an awkward time in the tech tree: a beeline to Rifling leaves so much untouched (like the Scientific Method and Democracy branches), and that whole part of the tech tree just seems builder-ish to me. Maybe our opponents will feel the same way, so we could catch them off guard...

[Krill]

Hatsheput does not start with Mysticism. Hatsheput starts with The Wheel and Agriculture. Hatsheput is not a good civ if you wish to beeline for one of the first three religions.

[Krill]

One "secret" that I have learned from CIV MP (Internet MP I'm talking about here, which may or may not apply to PBEM) is that it's better to be the (prepared) defender than the aggressor. A failed offensive in CIV is crippling, leaving you very weak for a counter-attack.

I would agree with the gist of this as well, as it does agree with my experience of MP in Simultaneous turns. In simul turns, cottages are not usually built right at the start of the game, as most people focus on getting production set up so they can defend themselves. I would say that this might be different here however, as I doubt most teams would rush anybody, with the exception of the Horde...

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
Hatsheput does not start with Mysticism. Hatsheput starts with The Wheel and Agriculture. Hatsheput is not a good civ if you wish to beeline for one of the first three religions.

My bad, I thought Mansa Musa was the only SPI civ to start without Mysticism... :(

[Krill]

Below are all ofthe civs that start with Mysticism. Note that the Incans are not Spi.


Asoka- Organised, Spiritual, Indian (Mining, Mysticism, fast worker: worker with 3 moves)

Gandhi- Industrious, Spiritual, Indian (Mining, Mysticism, fast worker: worker with 3 moves)

Huayna Capac- Aggressive, Financial, Incan (Agriculture, Mysticism, quechua: warrior with +100% vs archery units)

Isabella- Expansive, Spiritual, Spanish Fishing, Mysticism, conquistador: knight with +50% vs melee units, receives defensive bonus)

Montezuma- Aggressive, Spiritual, Aztec (Hunting, Mysticism, jaguar: 5 str sword[6] with +25% jungle defence, no reource req)

Saladin- Philosophical, Spiritual, Arabian (Mysticism, The Wheel, camal archer: knight with 25% withdraw chance, no resource req)

[Arrian]

Interesting discussion so far. My thoughts:

I like the discussion about PHI. That certainly makes Elizabeth an interesting choice. It also could make Saladin a good call (given the discussion about founding a religion). Given that I expect open borders will be harder to come by than in SP, Mercantalism becomes more interesting, and PHI civs get the most out of MERC, wouldn't you say? That's down the road and thus a minor consideration, but it's there.

...

I like Mansa Musa a lot, even though he doesn't start with Mysticism. He's a builder with a solid early defensive UU. That works nicely.

Qin is a pretty obvious choice and I think we'd do fine w/him.

I love Rome in SP... but I fear taking Rome is just placing a big fat bullseye on ourselves (don't let them get iron hooked up! kill them now!!). Good trait synergy for SP, but Dom's point about trade being different in this game is probably true. So, IMO, scratch Rome. :(

I don't like Isabella. Tried her once, didn't like the traits.

I guess the main mitigating factor I see w/regard to the EXP trait is that it's carte-blanche to clearcut forest early. Quick granaries can add pop growth, to add poprushing to the equation with cheap temples to deal with the unhappiness... I dunno, though.

Elizabeth... vulnerable early, venerable late. Redcoats kick ass, btw.

I gotta think some more and organize my thoughts, because I'm just rambling now.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Ok, more organized now:

Saladin - Maximum Flexibility.

PHI for reasons already stated, and SPI for civic changes. Personally, I love being spiritual when somebody sneak attacks me post-nationalism. Switch to nationhood that turn, and draft 3 defenders which, with luck, can arrive at the battleground that very turn. Sure, ideally you don't want to put yourself in a position where you need to draft, but it happens. Oh, and if memory serves, the Camel Archer is a decent UU.

[note: wow, by far the longest writeup... maybe I'm leaning towards Saladin!]

Qin - FIN gets you the tech you need for wonders, IND lets you build them faster. Decent UU (I guess... actually, I don't really like them). I play him a lot in SP.

Ghandi - hey, you're pretty much guaranteed to get to use your UU! That's nothing to sneeze at. He builds wonders, he founds religions... but he's neither FIN nor PHI.

Elizabeth - techie. PHI for GS's + FIN. Redcoat comes a bit late, but it's solid.

Mansa Musa - Builder traits w/good defensive ancient UU. A little slow out of the gate, perhaps, but solid all-around.

Cupac - AGG/FIN. His UU kinda screams early rush and I kinda doubt we want to do that. Well, maybe. FIN always good, AGG is decent even if you don't rush anyone.

Bismark - IND/EXP. Run to forges, chop, and hit somebody hard? Late UU.

Alexander - PHI/AGG. Played him once and played him poorly. Solid early UU. I dunno.

Isabella - SPI/EXP. Maybe. I need more convincing, though.

I would avoid creative, both because it will piss people off and because I think it's a meh trait overall. I also don't want us forced into one strat - so somebody like Ghengis Khan is out, IMO.

Organized... I generally agree with you all that it requires expansion to really shine and we cannot count on that. Sigh. I like ORG. But in this context... no-go.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

First impressions, before reading the debate above:

Please give us SPI (with the only exception being when we would go ORG, as ORG means less changing around). The anarchy bonus is the same as 2 GAs, spread out (at least 5 turns of anarchy in all my games), but it truely shines in adaptability, and major efficiency. Really... if there is one GS-trait out there, it's SPI.

Further, let's be careful in picking Caesar. Praets are amongst the best units there are, but there are rumours of them being unbalanced. I would hate to play for a year on a certain path, just to get those Praets running around, only to find some patch changes our UUs and thus disrupts the whole plan.

---------

In general, I think this discussion has to come second. First of all, we need to talk about which general tactics we're going to pursue. Without Mysticism, there won't be an Oracle gambit, while an ancient UU might give us some rush potential. Stuff like that.

DeepO

[Arrian]

:b: I totally agree with you regarding SPI and also regarding Rome. Praetorians may not actually be as game-breaking as some people think (faced with hordes of axemen, they don't look so good, do they?), but I think that a civ playing Rome will get labeled as a dangerous civ that must be destroyed quickly. We don't want that, do we?

As for tactics... um, to win! :D How to win kinda depends on how best we can leverage our civ... which leads us back to picking a leader. It's the chicken and the egg, DeepO.

-Arrian

p.s. Why no oracle gambit w/o mysticism? We could start with another tech that helps us complete the Oracle before another civ. What if we start with mining and get BW quick and chop the Oracle? Let's say we're Qin. IND/FIN, starts with mining (and agriculture?). Surely we could still pull off the Oracle. I'm not saying that's definitely the way we SHOULD play, but I don't see why it's right out just because we don't have mysticism to start with...

[Krill]

Well, I for one don't like choosing tactics until I have seen the land. For example, we could plan on rushing someone but dind out we got a flood plains start that deserves nothing but cottages.

---

Oh, and with regards to an Oracle gamble, I would say in a demogame there is a better strat.

An Alphabet Beeline, and trade for everyones techs, while making one of our first 2 cities a research city.

The ideal Civ for this, IMV, is Mansa. A pain to rush, needs either fishing or agri to research pottery to get cottages, and pottery is on the way to alpha. Cottages speed that, as does Fin.

Oh, and he is Spi as well ;)

---

(and don't forget, if none of the other teams start with myst, there is always the chance of an oracle beeline)

[DeepO]

I agree it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, yet there are differences.

If we want to play agressively, there are plenty of leaders to take. And while last time we didn't really want to be aggressive, we fought continuous wars from war chariots on wards.

If we want to go the religious route (Oracle, perhaps), we might want to focus more on that too. Personally, I like one early religion (being one of the first 4) myself, but don't care for more.

Chopping focus is another question... this will be more important compared to MP than SP. As such, I think chopping is a must, and as much of it as early as possible. easy access to BW, and possibly the Indians are going to be more important to us than in a normal SP game.

A lot will depend on map options too, so in case we know we have map specific things (like loads of coasts), we should try for that too. Or, OTOH, we might want to go with a rather blend early leader, in favour of a later boost. Such a leader will be less risk to leverage than e.g. the Romans: if you don't have iron, you're screwed.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oracle is not so interesting at all, but with the right land we could get e.g. IW, Alphabet, or CoL from it. All very nice techs we don't want to give to others that easily.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Well, thinking of over-arching strategy, I'm just not a warmonger. I'm a builder at heart, and I feel that we (with our good MM abilities) are also best at that as a team, despite our military prowess at times in the PTWDG.

I'd prefer to play as a builder... with teeth, so to speak. And if an opportunity presents itself (such as a neighbor who presents their soft, white underbelly to us), certainly we should grab it (by ripping their guts out).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

I'm not really sold on Spiritual. Is 2 GAs worth a whole trait? As for flexibility, yes, that can definitely come into play. But it may not.

Let's list the multiple-switch tricks that Spiritual enables:

1. Switch to Organized Religion to build some quick Missionaries, then switch back to avoid Maintenance costs. Problem is, unless we have Theology for Theocracy, we would probably want to stay in Org. Rel. at the time when Missionaries are needed - early on.

2. Switch to Theocracy to prevent foreign Religion spread. This sounds cool but would probably not come into play. If it does, it means that we do not have our own Religion and want to control who gets "in", or we're waiting to found our own. I think that if a neighboring civ founds an early Religion, Theology is too far off for us to use this as an effective countermeasure.

(This gets me thinking that we need to seriously discuss Religion - the line of sight ability scares me.)

3. Switch to Universal Suffrage to rush-buy stuff with Gold, then back to something better while the Gold accumulates again. This seems like a nice one, but it presumes that we have constant supply of free cash on hand. There's definitely some nice synergy with the Kremlin, but I would prefer not to base our civ choice on something that comes so late.

4. Switch to Police State, Vassalage and Theocracy for a military buildup, then back when ready to build again. This is the one classic "swap" that we will probably need to do in this game. Spiritual makes it easier, no question there.

5. Switch in and out of Slavery to maximize poprushing. Unless we run Caste System, though, Slavery is our best option until Emancipation. Caste System is a nice Civic, but something of a luxury unless we're Philosophical: to make it shine requires a lot of pop, and I imagine we're going to need that pop for Mines/military.

And that's all I can think of right now.

All of these tricks assume that we have access to the relevant Civics, which is not a given tech-wise. For a large periods of the game there usually is one best Civic option, at least in my experience.

[Dominae]

If we do pick Spiritual, Mansa Musa and Saladin are my picks. Of these, only Saladin starts with Mysticism.

I do not particularly like India and it's Fast Worker. The resource turn advantage that it provides is at its best when Forest-chopping (since it can enter and chop a flatland Forest on the same turn). This advantage quickly disappears once there is no more Forest. Is early momentum worth a UU?

[Arrian]

Dominae,

1) Religion/line of sight - yeah, that's a worry, isn't it? I suspect teams will keep borders closed and/or negotiate open borders with the caveat of "no missionaries."

2) I think we really want our own religion (just one).

3) You're right that Spiritual's value can vary quite a bit. I'm certainly open to suggestions for a different trait (Financial I think we all agree is powerful).

4) I love Mansa Musa. I'm down with that.

...

The best non-spiritual choices, IMO:

Qin (FIN/IND), Crossbow variant dude. Agriculture, Mining.

Elizabeth (FIN/PHI), Redcoat. Fishing, Mining. Fishing is a crapshoot, but if you start on the coast with one or more seafood specials, it's great.

Also interesting:

Bismark (IND/EXP), Panzer - scout to start? Hunting, Mining.
Peter (EXP/PHI), Cossack - scout to start? Hunting, Mining.

-Arrian

[Krill]

Yeah, Bismark gets a scout to start. We would know of our surroundings alot earlier, and could plan accordingly...one tech away from archers, and Bronze working, so you can choke someone with archers if you want to. It's worked for me in MP.

[DeepO]

Dom, every switch you describe is nearly worth one GA. Think about that... 1 turn switching to something + 1 turn switching back equals roughly the same production and commerce as 0.6-0.8 GA.

GAs are pure turn advantage things in both commerce and production, and extremely important.

And there are more possible switches... in and out of state religions will be less important than in SP, but if we are able to get our hands on a holy city, switching to that religion can give us a full update on all cities sharing that religion. I've used that a couple times so far to scout out an enemies land before invasion, very powerful in specialty situations.

Also, switching to no-state will accumulate culture on all holy cities... 5 turns of that is enough for the first border expansion.

By MMing production, we can really gain a lot... if we've got SPI, we can switch every 5 turns between buildings and units. We can time all our units to get XP bonusses, even if they are mainly build while our civics give no XP. We can really squeeze the most out of our specialists too, without ill effects on our empire. And even things like cottage growth can be speeded if necessary.

The possibilities are seemingly endless, and I'm sure we can come up with new strats in any era of this game... we're still over a year away from rifles...

DeepO

[DeepO]

Besides, it's just fun. ORG is extremely powerful too, but you always end up with all the high civics, and ecology. If we can switch every 5 turns, it gives us something to discuss in building lulls.

BTW: Ecology? Wow!!!

DeepO

[Arrian]

You mean environmentalism? +6 health and happiness from forest/jungle?

I used it in a game recently (I was Asoka, on my own continent, and nobody liked me). It was quite useful in that context... for a while (until I stomped one of my enemies, gaining a number of health resources, and made a friend who would trade with me). Then it was back to Free Trade.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

yeah, that's it. It now comes with medicine, which is available very early if you go for it. It's just crazy if you've left some forests around: in very few turns you can have so many specialists that they offset the commerce from an extra trade route.

It's also the perfect isolationists choice: you don't need food/happy trades. Could become quite important in this game...

It's fairly useless if you don't specifically play for it, though. You need to keep the forests, and you need some extra growth in every city when you just switch... you'll need more workers to turn improvements around a bit.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Ok, there are basically three important things and a fourth less important thing we need to evaluate:

1) Traits
2) Starting Techs
3) UU
4) Scout or warrior to start

We've mainly focused on #1 so far, with some discussion of #2 (wrt Mysticism) and a few mentions of #3.

It seems to me we've largely dismissed a few traits, for various reasons:

Organized (requires size to really shine, and also picks up value once expensive civics show up - mid to late game)
Creative (may piss off neighbors, extremely weak after the early game)

Three others haven't really been discussed much:

Aggressive
Expansionist
Industrious

And then these three we've talked a lot about:

Spiritual
Philosophical
Financial


Based on the above, it seems to me that the frontrunners are (in no particular order):

Mansa Musa
Saladin
Qin

Several other interesting possibilities have been bandied about, of course.

If I had to pick right now, going with the gut, I'd pick Mansa Musa.

Hopefully we'll get the thoughts of some newcomers soon, though...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Starting Techs:

Mysticism would be nice, but IMO it's not that big a deal. We could make a run on CoL, for instance.

I like starting with mining b/c we're then just one tech from BW.

I like starting with Agriculture or Hunting b/c then we're just one tech from Animal Husbandry.

Fishing has to be viewed as a negative, despite its usefulness in certain starts.

...

UU's:

It seems we want a UU that is solid, but not uber. Uber screams "don't let them get that thing, kill them now!!" We also don't really want a late UU (this discounts the Redcoat somewhat). UU's that require resources are also obviously a bit of a worry. Mansa Musa (skirmisher), Qin (Cho-whatever) and Saladin (Camel Archer) all shine there... all are solid, IMO, and none require resources.

...

Having a scout to start is a nice bonus, IMO. It's something to ponder when thinking about some of the alternatives we have (Bismark, for instance).

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Elizabeth or Catherine would be my choice. I like FIN. It's maybe even a bit overpowered. Both are not SPI, though, which might lead to Mansa Musa, who also would be a good candidate.

[DeepO]

It might be worth to pinpoint choke-techs too... for instance writing is extremely important, whatever we'll do, we want an academy in our capital asap. Some starting techs help us towards it, some don't.

Naval techs, archery, religion techs (but mysticism has been talked about), and iron can be the same. Our strategy will of course be adjusted to specific terrain, but I much prefer techs that are en route to one of our choke techs, so these fall naturally.

The worker techs we obviously need too, but these will be more decided by our starting position, and not so important to decide beforehand.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Critical techs...

Bronze
Iron
Animal Hus.
Writing
Alphabet

Polytheism? Founds Hindu, leads to Monotheism (judaism). Required for alphabet or literature, IIRC...

Archery... well, maybe. Especially if we're Mansa Musa.

...

Thoughts on early religion: it really depends on what leaders the other teams pick and what our start looks like. Say several other teams pick civs that start with Mysticism. Say our start has a plains hill on fresh water and we burn a turn to found there. No way we're getting an early religion in that situation. But, alternatively, if the other teams pick civs that lack Mysticism, it's another ballgame.

Basically, I'd like not to make it a keystone of our strategy. It's an opportunistic thing.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

the thing with the resource techs is that we (hopefully) don't need all of them at the very beginning. Iron is a goal in itself, though, especially with others close by. MC similarly.

DeepO

[NicodaMax]

That was a lot of reading...

FIN is very important in the late game for a stable economy, and while CRE might piss people off its a great benefit (specially for luring those resources into your cities with early expansions). So for me the choice is Catherine. Also, she starts with mining and hunting (good combo) and a scout (for some important goodie hut popping early on).

[Hot Mustard]

Lots of input already here. :b:

I have purposefully avoided playing with Mansa in SP - why? Because I would MM the switching game to death and end up not having as much fun.

Now, someone mentioned earlier that we should be playing to our strengths, and from several comments in this thread, and from evidence I'm seen in prior games, the top GS strength is extremely organized, almost demon-possessed micro-management. :) If I've got that right, then I don't see how Spiritual can't be our number one Trait priority.

So that's one trait aligned with our strengths, and no one amongst the other teams would be surprised by it. Do we want the other picked along the same lines, or do we want to pick something that might surprise people a bit?

If the former, I would think Financial and Philosophical would be best (Mansa Musa and Saladin).

If the latter, I would suggest Expansive or Creative (Isabella and Hatshepsut). Either of these proclaims to the other teams, "GS will not be isolationists this time around." I trust the members here play an organized, balanced game from the outset, so what's wrong with putting ourselves 'out there' from the very beginning? I think it would definitely surprise folks and maybe put them on their heels a bit.

I'm just spit-balling here...what do you think? :)

[Dominae]

Shall we start posting our short-lists? Say, three civs each?

[notyoueither]

Could do, if people want to. Feel free to change them if game rules change suddenly (all of a sudden we are on a pangaea).

Last time we ranked 1-2-3 with 1 getting 3 points, 2 getting 2 points, and 3 getting 1 point.

[Arrian]

So I have to actually start making choices! Oh dear. Here goes:

1. Mansa Musa
2. Qin
3. Elizabeth

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by NicodaMax
That was a lot of reading...
:lol:

you haven't seen nothing yet ;)

No, seriously, at certain points in time we generate this much text that only a few of us can read everything. If rl takes you for a week, it's hard to catch up without spending whole days reading (or nights in case you don't browse from work). That's why it's important to structure our threads: so that all can follow, including those that are casual GSers.

Once the game gets going, you will see turnthreads popping up. These are our operational threads, and normally will also contain some basic info (like the status of our military, and a screenshot). To get up to speed after an absence, read the last turn thread.

Further, there will be threads on specific subjects, and normally also some collection threads. I want to try to get some hub threads going as well, with pure links to important posts. Sometimes, threads go off topic, and as there is no search feature (at least not last time I checked), it can be hard to find something back.

All this organisation takes effort, but it does pay off. The more structure, the more people can participate. We're not going to turn GS into a bureaucracy, though.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Last time we ranked 1-2-3 with 1 getting 3 points, 2 getting 2 points, and 3 getting 1 point.

1. a SPI leader
2. another SPI leader
3. an ORG leader.

Basically, I don't mind which trait gets added, and which UU/starting tech is present. All of them can work well... ORG is still the most powerful trait, especially on higher levels, but I consider SPI the most fun one for this game. And whether it's the best or not doesn't matter, it's the fun that counts.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Based upon your own words, it would appear that you favor Asoka (SPI/ORG).

Other candidates matching your criteria would include Mansa Musa, Saladin, Ghandi, Washington, Caesar (problematic for other reasons, though)...

We've got to narrow things down a bit, wouldn't you say?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

not really, a SPI/ORG combination is less powerful then either of the two. ORG is only good if you don't switch every 5 turns as you can run the highest civics anyway. 3-move workers are good, though, early chopping, and late surprises (they can road hills and forests in 1 turn)

I don't want to make the selection more difficult at all. But could we tally my votes last, so that whatever SPI leader is near the top gets some more votes?

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
ORG is only good if you don't switch every 5 turns as you can run the highest civics anyway.


Are you saying that Organized is good because it lets you run the most expensive Civics, which must necessarily also be the best Civics? Most of the "best" Civics (effect-wise only) are low Upkeep. I think the Spiritual no-Anarchy "tricks" are all still valid regardless of what your Upkeepk is (the "free GA" effect).


I don't want to make the selection more difficult at all. But could we tally my votes last, so that whatever SPI leader is near the top gets some more votes?


That's not really fair, is it? Maybe we should change the process, and vote for our favorite traits first instead?

[Arrian]

Heh, I was looking at the old GS forum and we had like 5 civ choice threads. We came within one vote (less, actually!) of picking the Iroquois over Egypt.

...

I think we just need to suck it up and pick some leaders (1, 2, 3). I feel like I could make reasonable arguments for as many as 10 choices, but we've got to make a decision at some point. I of course reserve the right to alter my choices once we get down to the final poll (there will be a poll, I assume?) based upon further discussion. But we've gotta leave a few leaders on the cutting room floor, so to speak...

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
ORG is still the most powerful trait, especially on higher levels,

Sorry, I just have to pick on DeepO again...!

I play Immortal, and Organized has been a "win more" trait to me. The AIs out-expand you before it really starts to kick in, which means you must go to war to make it effective. This assumes that you can reliably wage war with a small-ish empire, something for which Organized does not help with at all.

It's definitely more powerful on the higher levels because the Upkeep/Maintenance "noose" is on tighter, but at the same time it's harder to leverage.

In this game I cannot see us really making great use of Organized unless we do some serious conquering in the early to mid-game. That's not necessarily going to happen.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae


Are you saying that Organized is good because it lets you run the most expensive Civics, which must necessarily also be the best Civics? Most of the "best" Civics (effect-wise only) are low Upkeep. I think the Spiritual no-Anarchy "tricks" are all still valid regardless of what your Upkeepk is.
It's true that tricks are still important, but less so. For instance you most of the times want 1 civic giving you 2 XP, not both of them. Vassalage is normally not preferred as it is high upkeep, while Org religion is easy to lose as it is high upkeep too. Running both Org Rel and Vassalage (both high) is only really feasible with ORG.

Now assume you want both the XP boost, as the 25% on building infrastructure... either you have to switch (SPI), or you half the costs (ORG). anything else is a serious disadvantage.

I don't want to sound like I think Asoka can't be a good choice with the SPI/ORG combination, but it think that having e.g. ARG/SPI or ARG/ORG combinations would be better in this game. SPI deminishes the return you get from ORC, and vice versa.

That's not really fair, is it?
Why not? If everyone's 1st choice is a +3, all I'd like is to add my +3 to whatever SPI choice comes first. Or a +2 if you think that's fairer.
Maybe we should change the process, and vote for our favorite traits first instead?
One track might be to limit our choices first. Put all choices in a huge poll, and let everyone pick his 9 favourites (half of the leaders). Count, and the best 9 leaders go to the next round.

Then, start the discussion again to limit these into e.g. 4 choices.

Last, make a final choice.

This is similar to pick traits first, but might be a bit more dynamic... like I said, Asoka is not my favourite, while either SPI or ORG is a near must for me ;)

DeepO

[Arrian]

One thing: discard the AI. There is no AI here. We will not be out-expanded by opponents pumped with difficulty bonuses. ORG *does* require some expansion to be useful (aside from the cheapo lighthouses, which, while nice, aren't enough on their own to be enticing), be it peaceful or military. I agree we cannot count on this (especially if we end up on a small map/7 civs!), but I don't think we should discount it entirely.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae


Sorry, I just have to pick on DeepO again...!
well, thanks! :cute:

It's definitely more powerful on the higher levels because the Upkeep/Maintenance "noose" is on tighter, but at the same time it's harder to leverage.

In this game I cannot see us really making great use of Organized unless we do some serious conquering in the early to mid-game. That's not necessarily going to happen.
Dom, have you seen Trip's CIV equivalent [edit: of PTWDG I]? I'm not sure it was released with v1.52, though, so if not: please don't mention it in public ;)

The reason is that in that game, we certainly did not get the best land. We fought one war at the point in time where the scenario starts, but we vastly outnumber, outproduce, and outcommerce everyone... we've got twice the amount of cities of the 2nd team.

If we want to go for superclose spacing, ORG can make all the difference. And superclose spacing certainly has its strengths: many scientists, no health/happy issues, and efficient use of your land. Without ORG, we'll spread out more, simply to avoid getting hammered with the civic upkeep cost. Which means vertical, instead of horizontal growth.

We might need a war to get to such extremes as the Bobian scenario, but not neccessarily so. A lot will depend on map settings, though.

DeepO

[Hot Mustard]

I'll try to get the "make your picks" train moving again:

1) Saladin
2) Mansa Musa
3) Asoka

[DeepO]

BTW, PHI might be interesting as well... if only the other teams would not be warned we get a GP ;)

DeepO

[Arrian]

That's a good point, DeepO, about city spacing: I used fairly tight city spacing in AU100 (Washington, ORG/FIN) and it worked wonderfully. Granted, we had great land, which helped a lot.

ORG can allow you to utilize a tighter build pattern and leverage what land you can grab...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Dom, have you seen Trip's CIV equivalent [edit: of PTWDG I]? I'm not sure it was released with v1.52, though, so if not: please don't mention it in public

??

What's this?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian


??

What's this?

-Arrian
So... I take it it hasn't been released yet? I thought it would have been in v1.52...

Trip made a scenario, which you can play in CIV (well, if you've got it, of course). Just try Custom Game/Scenario/ Bobian war or something like this.

The scenario starts the moment we completed the Voxodus, and RP gets attacked by ND. It has been tweaked for CIV, but is very realistic otherwise... just open it for several civs, and browse around. You'll be amazed how far ahead we were, especially in infrastructure. If only we hadn't burnt out, and globally lost interest in the game at that point in time...

DeepO

[DeepO]

That reminds me of a semi-truth when it comes to demogame warfare: the best moment to attack any team, is right after their last war ended. Not only will their empire be unbalanced, but burnout and disinterest after too long wars will make any team play weaker. In some cases, a lot weaker.

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
One track might be to limit our choices first. Put all choices in a huge poll, and let everyone pick his 9 favourites (half of the leaders). Count, and the best 9 leaders go to the next round.

Then, start the discussion again to limit these into e.g. 4 choices.

Last, make a final choice.


Sounds great!


This is similar to pick traits first, but might be a bit more dynamic... like I said, Asoka is not my favourite, while either SPI or ORG is a near must for me.


Then when not just pick 3 of your favourite SPI or ORG leaders? Uner the 3-2-1 system, I see no reason to give preferential treatment: just vote for three SPI leaders if you really want that trait.

If there really is no advantage to your "vote last" request (i.e. it's fair), you should not care either way.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
Trip made a scenario, which you can play in CIV (well, if you've got it, of course). Just try Custom Game/Scenario/ Bobian war or something like this.

The scenario starts the moment we completed the Voxodus, and RP gets attacked by ND. It has been tweaked for CIV, but is very realistic otherwise... just open it for several civs, and browse around. You'll be amazed how far ahead we were, especially in infrastructure. If only we hadn't burnt out, and globally lost interest in the game at that point in time...


Neat, where can I get it?!

I took me a moment to understand why you were bringing this up in our ORG discussion...are you saying there was a point in the PTWDG1 that we could have gone on a rampage - and missed the boat!?!

NOoo...

[Krill]

It was called "Battle of the Bobs".

Personally, I like it, but I would prefer to have the game start at 4000BC...

BTW, I would also be willing to start a PBEM up using that scenario set at 4000BC, if we can get Trip to edit the map for us...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae
Neat, where can I get it?!
Dom, you're a tester too, right? You should have it for sure... and I think it was released to all.

This might be a good idea for all new members too, to see where we come from.

1. open CIV
2. select SP
3. Select 'play a scenario'
4. select 'Battle of the bobs'.


I took me a moment to understand why you were bringing this up in our ORG discussion...are you saying there was a point in the PTWDG1 that we could have gone on a rampage - and missed the boat!?!

NOoo...
I haven't played it yet, but you're damn right we missed the boat. We could have taken both ND and GoW on our own with better intelligence, better planning, and better play. At least one of the 2 should have been destroyed completely given our advantage...

DeepO

[Hot Mustard]

I don't see it. :(

[Dominae]

Philosophical.

There's a lot of (hidden) potential in this trait. I already think this trait is very powerful, and have some game experience to prove it.

However, I do also have an ulterior motive in that I believe there's still a lot to learn about maximizing it, and I'm hoping that, as the best bunch of strategists around, we could use this game as an opportunity for exploring it (and leveraging it to defeat our enemies, of course!).

I think it's as much of a "GS trait" as DeepO thinks SPI is: many teams will not make the best of it, nor be able to anticipate our moves via adequate intelligence.

It's an open-ended trait that can support many strategies: burn Great Engineers for military techs, grab an super-early Religion+Shrine, rush to Liberalism, secure a branch lead and trade the tech around, get the jump an opponent with a Great Artist, etc., etc.

The fact that Great People are announced to the world is definitely unfortunate (especially the Great Artists!). However Civics changes are, too, so SPI's switch-tricks are just as transparent.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by dejon
I don't see it. :(
In that case, it hasn't been released to the public yet, I'm sorry. Please don't mention this to others...

DeepO

[Arrian]

Fascinating. Is it accessable from the beta test forum, DeepO?

By the way, I've no doubt we could've done far better in the Bobian war had we not been burnt out. We were coming off our Golden Age, we'd won a war, we'd micromanaged like crazy, and we had a "free" great wonder (Sun Tzu) from the MGL we got.

Nathan (and others, of course) were awesome in the War of Voxian Aggression ;) , but he bowed out and there was a time where we kinda floundered.

That being said, we would've been far better off if we'd been playing CIV rather than CivIII, because we could've directly defended RP's cities without having them gift them to us. Oh, my, what a difference that could've made!

All that said, we were up against two opponents with 3-move knight variant UUs. They were tough opponents. I'll buy the idea that we could've possibly fought them to a draw, but not that we could've crushed one or both of them. Keep in mind that Lego came to their aid in the end, too. Stalemate, with us saving RP, was the best outcome I figure. Which would've been just fine.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Dom, I agree with PHI, it is a GS trait too.

So, based on the discussion so far, my 3 picks would be

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
3. SPI/AGR : Montezuma : Jaguar (sword)
3. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : skirmisher (arxcher) (not my favourite UU in this game, though, but I might be proven wrong... otherwise it would move up a nodge)

DeepO

[Arrian]

The skirmisher isn't great, but it's solid. It's STR4, IIRC (+33% str over the standard archer). I forget its other abilities... I just remember liking them, and surviving a visit from Montezuma's merry band of Jaguars because of them.

The Camel archer gets a + in my book b/c it doesn't require horses.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
Fascinating. Is it accessable from the beta test forum, DeepO?
I picked it up in one of the builds, and as I don't uninstall scenarios (nor game files or screenshots), I cant say in which build it was. Fairly early after v1.16, I thought, which is why I assumed it was in v1.52.

All that said, we were up against two opponents with 3-move knight variant UUs. They were tough opponents. I'll buy the idea that we could've possibly fought them to a draw, but not that we could've crushed one or both of them. Keep in mind that Lego came to their aid in the end, too. Stalemate, with us saving RP, was the best outcome I figure. Which would've been just fine.

-Arrian

What is so clear when fooling around in the scenario is that my plan would most likely have worked: forget about RP's original land, just delay ND and GoW there. Move all chariots up North, disconnect iron, and keep on building horses like crazy. Move galleys up North as well. Than, the moment we're ready, upgrade all our war chariots and horses to knights, and invade GoW right into their belly, aided with a combat settler or two. We could have slashed them before they had the chance to return their troops, and their home lands were virtually undefended.

Lego wasn't even near. When you get to play the scenario, it doesn't show one thing: just how many units we had... to balance it, Trip had to remove most of them. Obsolete units for sure, but with plenty of cash and all those cities on wealth, we could have had 100 knights easily, up against in total 70-80 3-move knights. Like I said, we could have destroyed one of the Bobians for sure... and the land we gained we could have used for saving RP, instead of banning them to that piece of land as we had nothing else to offer.

All hindsight, though. But the lesson learned is that we simply can't fall into disarray in such a critical time, no matter how the public forum acts towards us.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Camel archer gets a + in my book b/c it doesn't require horses.
The only knight I ever build, otherwise I always leap straigth at cavs. Or go the slowmover path.

Jaguar the same, BTW: resourceless too. You've got to be prepared to use them at exactly the right time, tough, so you're very predictable in when your attack will start.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I don't like the Jag. It's resourceless, yeah, but it's also weaker (str5). It's bonus is a defensive one (+25% defense in jungle/forest?), which I find irritating on a unit that replaces the standard str6, +10% city attack sword (sure, that needs iron). And axes absolutely eat it for lunch.

It's an early rush tool, and thus (like you said) is rather predictable... or it goes largely unused.

-Arrian

edit: but, given that I have never used it, I'm open to learning why it's better than I think!

[Solomwi]

I may be gunshy from PTWDGII (Arrian will understand ;)), but the resourcelessness of the camel archer makes it extremely appealling in a game like this, IMO. I know resource disappearance has been removed (or at least toned down to the point that I've yet to see it), but knowing we're guaranteed the use of our UU, especially when the base unit requires two resources, is nice.

Combined with Dom's post on PHI, much of which mirrors my own opinion of the trait, I agree that Saladin looks very, very good.

I'm also in Arrian's boat on the Jag, having never seen enough attraction in it to actually try it out.

[Arrian]

Oh yes, I understand. CoD had, what, 15? 20? warriors standing by for upgrade to swords when that ****ing iron depleted. Man, that sucked.

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh yes, I understand. CoD had, what, 15? 20? warriors standing by for upgrade to swords when that ****ing iron depleted. Man, that sucked.

-Arrian

^^understatement^^

(member of ally, Monty Python)

[Solomwi]

And wasn't much better for us once Monkey hit our stack. Having to nursemaid our handful of remaining swords really bit into their usefulness.

[Harovan]

Is that a Python-CoD discussion? :expect:

Can I join in?

[alva]

I want to try to get some hub threads going as well, with pure links to important posts.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, we can still edit each others posts. :b:

[alva]

Jaguar the same, BTW: resourceless too.

Just wondering, but if we have a mapchecker, would/will he allow for a team to have no iron?
What are the variables/conditions for him to dismiss/accept a certain map?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by alva
Jaguar the same, BTW: resourceless too.

Just wondering, but if we have a mapchecker, would/will he allow for a team to have no iron?
What are the variables/conditions for him to dismiss/accept a certain map?
I don't know all of them, but here are some ideas:

- relative distance to next civ
- availability of at least 1 of the early strategics (iron, copper, horse)
- relatively the same area to expand in to (no Lego vs Vox terrain)
- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)
- balanced starting pos
- spread out happy and health resources (but this is true for most CIV maps)
- more or less the same risk: not one team in between 3 others (Lux), while another gets a continent for themselves (Lego)
- more or less the same access to huts
- the special resources (stone, marmer, elephants, and the later strategics) spread out: every team having access to some, not all of them.

I'm sure Dom might provide more, he has made more maps than I do (= none, in whole of my civ carreer)

DeepO

[DeepO]

so, Jaguar: iron should not be a guarantee, or we're playing a bad map.

And even if we've got iron nearby, Jaguars will come faster than swords.

DeepO

[Aro]

Originally posted by Arrian

Originally posted by DeepO


Dom, have you seen Trip's CIV equivalent [edit: of PTWDG I]? I'm not sure it was released with v1.52, though, so if not: please don't mention it in public ;)


DeepO

??

What's this?

-Arrian

Indeed... Does it mean what I think it does? :eek: :D

… please don't mention it in public ;)
:lol:

[DeepO]

I mean outside of these forums, of course ;)

I know, maybe not the best thing to do, but I didn't want to PM only the testers of our team... I'm a bit lazy. It's more a question of not ruining Trip's surprise, he worked hard on that scenario, he deserves the credit and public recognition for it. I would hate to be the one to spoil that.

DeepO

[Krill]

Well, yeah, Trip did a great job on it. I just wish he would release the 4000BC map. I want to play the map without neutered opponents if I play as GS, and I want to see what RP could have done if they were aggresive in more than just settling territory...

OK, On topic:

How would each person expect this team to play? well, the two things that characterized GS was the MM, and the aggressiveness. Well, this time we might not have the advantage of being stuck on an island, we may well end up on a continent, and we may end up involved in an early war if we are on a continent the size of Bob. I would prefer it if we hedged our bets: as nice as Phi is, the only civ that would preform well under these conditions is Greece.

I would like it if we could be Phi, I just don't see any civs that would help us if we were thrown onto a continent with several other teams without hamstringing us later on in the game.

[Aro]

I like Trip, he's a great guy and a very skilled programmer. I would hate to spoil anything to him (or anyone else). :)
Don't worry, I'll not mention it. :b:


About the civ... I like Asoka's traits, but the fast worker... well, maybe is just me, but I don't like it. I guess I don't know how to use it.
But I would like to have a spiritual civ.
Saladin rocks, IMHO... Although a little vulnerable in the early game. Camel archer it’s a great UU.
Never played Mansa Musa. The financial trait is better in the middle game. I may be totally wrong, btw. However, its UU seems very strong in the early game, especially when the barbs come out.

Who am I kidding? :lol:
Actually, I don’t know so much about the game, I’m playing my firs noble game (Apolyton University :D ) and any choice will be a great chance to learn. :p

But I really like Saladin… :cute:

[Aro]

Originally posted by Krill

I would like it if we could be Phi, I just don't see any civs that would help us if we were thrown onto a continent with several other teams without hamstringing us later on in the game.

Mansa Musa could be a good choice. Spi is almost as good as Phi (better, IMHO :) ) and Camel Archer is a great unit. No resources needed, IIRC... :hmmm: Is this right?

Mansa would be my second choice, but maybe the aggressive-spiritual combo suits best the team. Aztecs. I don't know the jaguar so well. A swordsman cheaper but weaker than regular ones... on the other hand, no resource is needed. However, it’s weak... ;), and so on.

Decisions, decisions… Well, we asked for it! :)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
- relative distance to next civ
- availability of at least 1 of the early strategics (iron, copper, horse)
- relatively the same area to expand in to (no Lego vs Vox terrain)
- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)
- balanced starting pos
- spread out happy and health resources (but this is true for most CIV maps)
- more or less the same risk: not one team in between 3 others (Lux), while another gets a continent for themselves (Lego)
- more or less the same access to huts
- the special resources (stone, marmer, elephants, and the later strategics) spread out: every team having access to some, not all of them.


I have never actually drawn up a list myself - looks like you have the essential points, though.

When making/checking a map, there's a give and take between trying to make a perfectly balanced map (according to your points above), or making a map that's less balanced but still fair.

For instance, I have made some maps for PBEMs where some civs were more isolated than others, but got worse land and/or fewer resources. This can backfire, of course, but I have not heard any complaints to date.

The other option is balance through symmetry, which is what I toyed with in the map for the C3CDG. Everyone had the same access to everything initially, down to a few key tiles around the starting location (most importantly, Ivory). Many players do not like such maps because they feel cooked.

CIV makes map making/checking a bit harder, I think. You simply cannot give everyone Stone, Marble and Ivory. Who is to say which is better? On the other hand, it makes map making easier because there's more strategic possiblity, so success depends a lot less on sheer tile quality (in Civ3 you could heavily load a particular starting location by adding just one Cattle, or a few Bonus Grasslands).

One secret to map making/checking is asking yourself: what would I do with this starting location, and "do I have game" (i.e. is this enough to feel competitive)? If you know the game well enough this is a good test. Oftentimes I have been pleasantly surprised to find that players/teams do wildly different things that I expected them to do, making the best of what they have.

In demogames there's a big pressure for the map to be "balanced", but I think this is because of bad experiences in the past. The PTWDG map was only really unfair for one team - Vox. When you consider how much of an effect diplomacy has in demogames, the particulars of the map seem a lot less important than in PBEM or SP. In fact, giving one civ/team a strong starting location can actually put them at a disadvantage because they will more likely be targeted first.


- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)


This is the one factor I would consider non-negotiable, not from a balance point of view, but simply because experience has shown that players dislike isolated starts. We are playing demogames to interact with other teams, not to write spreadsheets (although we, of course, do both!).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
How would each person expect this team to play? well, the two things that characterized GS was the MM, and the aggressiveness. Well, this time we might not have the advantage of being stuck on an island, we may well end up on a continent, and we may end up involved in an early war if we are on a continent the size of Bob. I would prefer it if we hedged our bets: as nice as Phi is, the only civ that would preform well under these conditions is Greece.


This argument could also be made for Mansa Musa's Skirmishers.

Skirmishers are good but not great in SP; I rarely build Archers at all anymore, preferring to be on the offense when at war and at peace the rest of the time.

In MP their value goes up because of the increased chance of being put on the defensive. They thus act much like Hoplite or Numidian Mercs from Civ3: as deterrents. Skirmishers are a "pass" into the mid-game. It's okay if Skirmishers never see play; unlike Alexander's, Mansa Musa's traits are just great at peaceful building.

[notyoueither]

2nd post updated with voting for civ leader.

Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 6: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1
Saladin 6: dejon 3, DeepO 3
Qin Shi Huang 2: Arrian 2
Montezuma 2: DeepO 2
Asoka 1: dejon 1
Elizabeth 1: Arrian 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa

[DeepO]

Originally posted by DeepO
So, based on the discussion so far, my 3 picks would be

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
3. SPI/AGR : Montezuma : Jaguar (sword)
3. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : skirmisher (arxcher)

DeepO

nye: Fixed. Sorry.

[Krill]

FIN/SPI : Mansa Musa : Skirmisher (Archer)
FIN/IND : Qin : Cho-ko-nu (Crossbow)
SPI/EXP : Izzy : Conquestador (Knight)


Krill

[notyoueither]

DeepO, I listed Monte as your second choice for 2 votes since he is listed second.

[Aro]

My votes:

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
2. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : Skirmisher (archer)
3. SPI/EXP : Isabella: Conquistador (knight)

[Dominae]

1. Mansa
2. Qin
3. Saladin

[Dominae]

What's the worst that can happen if we fail to get an early Religion?

Looking at the civs that start with Mysticism, only Gandhi and Saladin are really popular choices, and I'm not sure how popular Saladin really is outside this forum. I think the chances of some team picking Montezuma or Huyana are pretty low, given that they broadcast a rush strategy and people know that that's bad (broadcasting, I mean). I'm betting there will be a Gandhi, though. So it seems safe to say that Religions will not go that fast.

How many Warriors do we want to start out with? The more Warriors we want, the more an early Religion makes sense. Mansa Musa is a doubly-bad leader for Religion, because he does not start with Mysticism and also because he's so close to the great tier two tile improvement techs: Bronze Working and Pottery (he starts with The Wheel and Mining).

[Krill]

Mansa is also only 2 cheap techs away from his UU. Hunting and Archery...

I say to hell with the first 3 religions, try for CoL via pottery and writing. Bronze working is damned close as well, so we can always research that early if we really want to.

[Krill]

Assuming we used Mansa:

Cottage the starting area if it is good, FIN really helps there, and speeds research to CoL (we could then do alpha after and try to trade for what we need), or bronzeworking to deforest if we need to, and we can already mine hills and go for a major shield producing cap.

If we start with grains we get agri early, if animals we go via hunting and are closer to our UU.

[Theseus]

Play it safe... SPI and no resource req. I also lean towards early game safety and the most directly realizable benefits, so:

1. Mansa Musa
2. Montezuma
3. Saladin

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae
What's the worst that can happen if we fail to get an early Religion?

That's one thing to talk about before the first turn starts...

I think, that if we want to have it easy, we have to go for an early religion, so one of the 4. One is enough, but not taking advantage where we can have multiple would be bad, but let's see this when we get there.

Of those 4 religions, the only sure way to get CoL first is in building the Oracle, although a writing beeline for an academy can also work. So, CoL demands us taking the HinJuIsm path.

CoL is important in any case, but getting Confucianism is the biggest bonus, especially if you missed out on the previous 3. Seeing as I place getting a religion very high on my priority list (the games I played without one were disasters early on, until I got a relgion spread, and missionaries to distribute it), if we decide not to go for the first 3, racing towards CoL is paramount. If we fail the first 3 but start on them, going to Theology (GP preferred) might be better.

Now, if we were to start with mysticism, we will get an early religion for sure. All it takes is a river, or some coast (or anything else that will give you more commerce): people always have the tendancy to focus on growth or production for their first tech, I will gladly give some growth if it nets me a religion.

By putting all on commerce from the first turn onwards, we should get an idea how we're doing by analyzing GNP figures: we should be first in stats (equal to the other teams going straigth for commerce). If not, it might be better to start on Polyhteism so if we lose it, we can go for either Priesthood (Oracle) or Monotheism. Otherwise, Meditation first, Oracle as a backup.

If we don't start with Mysticism, going for mysticism might still be an option, depending on who else starts with it. Or, we forget about the first 3, and go for CoL

--------------------

Something else worth considering is the use of GP... if we are PHI, we can very quickly churn them out, at least the first 2-3... a GPr will net us a religion if it comes around the time of Monarchy. A GPr + GS gives a golden age, which creates more then enough turn advantage to discover a religion first, or conquer a holy city. You don't need a religion to get a GPr, Oracle and IIRC some other wonders give GPrP as well. And a GE from the Pyramids starts a golden age too...

DeepO

[Krill]

Stonehenge gives GPr points as well...throw that in a second city via forest chopping, and we would have a good advatage there...

[Solomwi]

As I said above, resource independence is high on my priority list. I'm very intrigued by what this team could do with PHI, and SPI is at its best in the hands of micromanagers.

1. Saladin
2. Mansa Musa
3. Alexander (being able to use copper or iron mitigates the resource dependence, and if this game turns out to be the slugfest MPDGs are known to be, AGG will be nice to have).

[Krill]

I would not be certain that we got a river or coast. I have failed to get both a number of times.

Now, what to we gain if we don't go for an early religion?

We can go a number of different paths: Bronze for forest chops and copper, AH for animals and horses, Pottery for cottages, and a straight CoL beeline, Archery for defence, fishing if we are coastal...

In other words, we would not be pigeon holed.

That is ione of the big advantages of Mansa. We could do all of those I listed well. We could research agri straight off to go for pottery (yes, I know about fishing) or AH, we can go for hunting if we want archery (Skirmisher) or AH again...we would be financial, so 3 early cottages would puch us ahead of the pack in research by a far way (assuming no one gets gold, gems or silver etc...)

[Krill]

DeepO, have you ever considered what 3 Skirmishers can do to someones economy? Just pillaging and standing on someones land?

[DeepO]

What will be the most wanted traits in this game? I mean, my distinct wish for a SPI leader comes more from creating a fun atmosphere to play in... there might be better traits, but this one is certainly the most dynamic and thus entertaining from a strategic perspective. But what about other teams?

Personally, I think the main 3 traits will be IND, AGR and FIN. EXP too, especially at Monarch or up. SPI might come in 4th, possibly with CRE from the MP crowd. PHI will not be on most wish lists, I think.

So, expect to see some harsh competition for wonders. We're chosing a path away from easy wonders, I hope everyone will understand that... as much as I like them, I think we'll have to do some serious planning, and invest considerable focus to get those that we want.

That said, are there favourites?

For me, I don't care that much which one, but if at all possible we should aim for an early wonder. Oracle or Pyramids preferred, but even Stonehenge is important. GLighthouse, Colossus, GLib and Hanging Gardens I don't consider early, but more second wave... getting one of those might be excellent as well.

Without stone, there is no way to get the pyramids with our choices so far: Everyone knows how to chop, the IND and stone civs will beat us for sure. Oracle might be a problem too, but not if we are willing to spend it on a less than ideal tech (writing, IW), and chop like crazy. Stone Henge, or Colossus might be our surest way to get those extra GPP we need....

DeepO

[Krill]

Stonehenge is a good wonder, better in MP, but we would have to remember that it would be better in the 2nd city, but we might not even get that...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
I would not be certain that we got a river or coast. I have failed to get both a number of times.
I've seen very little starts where there is no way to get extra commerce from the start... half the resources give commerce. We might need to stop growth to get that commerce, but normally there is some.

If there's none, we'll have to adapt ;)

Now, what to we gain if we don't go for an early religion?

We can go a number of different paths: Bronze for forest chops and copper, AH for animals and horses, Pottery for cottages, and a straight CoL beeline, Archery for defence, fishing if we are coastal...

In other words, we would not be pigeon holed.
CoL is the last of the early religions, as it is quite easy to reach, and is on one of the other paths away from the 3 others. CoL is a very good goal, but I would hate to reach it unexpectedly: either we plan for it from the get go, or we try something else... After failing to reach the first 3, going for CoL is most of the times not so good as going for e.g. Christianity.

As to other paths: We need a religion, somehow. If we don't go for one, we'll have to acquire it. Most obvious other choice is doing it militarily: choking is perfect, but only if it will net you an advantage later... a holy city would be the best possible spoils of war a religiousless team can dream off.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
DeepO, have you ever considered what 3 Skirmishers can do to someones economy? Just pillaging and standing on someones land?
Well, yes, sure... and if we don't do it ourselves, we'll have to take the possibility of it happening to us into account. But choking is not enough, we need happiness.

Well, if we're not playing noble, that is.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
Stonehenge is a good wonder, better in MP, but we would have to remember that it would be better in the 2nd city, but we might not even get that...

It depends on our starting spot. Stonehenge will be wanted by others as well, and we are certainly not focusing on those traits that will help us getting it. I think that teams starting with IND might go for the Pyramids more often, however if one of them decides on Stonehenge, it's hard to get it. Certainly in a second city.

BTW, I do like a hunting-first research too, you can go worker-scout or warrior-scout in your capital and still get some huts in SP. All this religion talk does not mean I don't like archers, and I'm aware that we'll need them early.

DeepO

[Krill]

If there's none, we'll have to adapt

true enough. I'm sure we can, it is just that I would hate to pick a civ that relies on extra commerce that we can't plan for, to get an early religion.


CoL is the last of the early religions, as it is quite easy to reach, and is on one of the other paths away from the 3 others. CoL is a very good goal, but I would hate to reach it unexpectedly: either we plan for it from the get go, or we try something else... After failing to reach the first 3, going for CoL is most of the times not so good as going for e.g. Christianity.

well, that is one of the reasons I love Mansa so much, I suppose. 2 techs away from pottery, and FIN. Maximal use of cottages means you will a good commerce producer. After throwing out a settler, build a lib, and you can get those 2 scientists for the academy to further speed research. And because you have not got a religion (yet...) you only need 100 GS points to get the academy, so it is cheaper. After researching pottery you can fill up on a few techs, like archery, AH, BW etc, then press on to writing, and then straight to preisthood. By now those 3 techs should only take 6 or so turns for all of them, worst case scenario.

Now pick that apart please. I know I will have made a few mistakes, or maybe played it a little risky...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
well, that is one of the reasons I love Mansa so much, I suppose. 2 techs away from pottery, and FIN. Maximal use of cottages means you will a good commerce producer. After throwing out a settler, build a lib, and you can get those 2 scientists for the academy to further speed research. And because you have not got a religion (yet...) you only need 100 GS points to get the academy, so it is cheaper. After researching pottery you can fill up on a few techs, like archery, AH, BW etc, then press on to writing, and then straight to preisthood. By now those 3 techs should only take 6 or so turns for all of them, worst case scenario.

Now pick that apart please. I know I will have made a few mistakes, or maybe played it a little risky...

Too risky for my taste: I would have put AH or archery in there before going for CoL. Or BW, and hope for copper... poprushing or chopping to get a lib faster.

That will complicate things a little as it will be not so easy to get the prereqs for CoL, but basically it's the same path... and a good one, I think.

DeepO

[Krill]

Oh, of course, it would likely be sonething along the lines of:

Agri if grain/otherwise Fishing > pottery > AH/BW/Hunting+Archery > Writting > (Myst through Preisthood) > CoL

[Krill]

The Key, of course, is in the early cottages. The problem is then shifted to production; the best way around this is forest chopping, or going for a big capital, and this means it is better suited to lower levels, Prince at the highest really.

[DeepO]

Other path (depending on location, and level):

Mysticism first. Once reached, start for 2-3 turns on Meditation... if it falls in the mean time, switch to BW. If not, continue, and get Budhism first.

Second goal, BW. If bronze: good. Otherwise, continue on Meditation, next Priesthood. Build a worker in the mean time.

Once Priesthood completes, chop the Oracle together. If no bronze, go for archery. Use the Oracle's tech to get writing. Normally, the Oracle before a settler is not something people will do, and the least someone wants in return is alphabet or MC. So, we get writing for free.

settler, then lib, or lib then settler depending on what we can rush most efficiently... meanwhile we gather GPrP. We should finish the lib before the GPr if we don't have a PHI leader, but there's a good chance we get a GPr even if we add scientists the moment the lib completes.

At any rate, it should be possible to get a second GP next, to build an academy. We might reach CoL before that time, though, but normally we should be looking for worker techs, or more defense.

--------

Using the Oracle 'too soon' can be very good denial trick: more teams will work on it for sure, and we don't want to give e.g. MC to an IND civ if we can get writing for free.

DeepO

[DeepO]

BTW, using the Oracle on IW might be a very good alternative if we get Budhism.

DeepO

[Krill]

Mysticism first. Once reached, start for 2-3 turns on Meditation... if it falls in the mean time, switch to BW. If not, continue, and get Budhism first.

Second goal, BW. If bronze: good. Otherwise, continue on Meditation, next Priesthood. Build a worker in the mean time.

Once Priesthood completes, chop the Oracle together. If no bronze, go for archery. Use the Oracle's tech to get writing. Normally, the Oracle before a settler is not something people will do, and the least someone wants in return is alphabet or MC. So, we get writing for free.

settler, then lib, or lib then settler depending on what we can rush most efficiently... meanwhile we gather GPrP. We should finish the lib before the GPr if we don't have a PHI leader, but there's a good chance we get a GPr even if we add scientists the moment the lib completes.

At any rate, it should be possible to get a second GP next, to build an academy. We might reach CoL before that time, though, but normally we should be looking for worker techs, or more defense.

--------

Using the Oracle 'too soon' can be very good denial trick: more teams will work on it for sure, and we don't want to give e.g. MC to an IND civ if we can get writing for free.

If we have a lot of "spare" forests, I can see that happening. excess Commerce as well would be help here.

I especially would like the wonder denial, I have to admit to that...

[DeepO]

For it to work, we'll have to sacrifice 3 forests/pop, preferably 1 or 2 more for the lib and settler. It's a lot, but not terribly much... and big sacrifices are going to be needed if we want to get an edge somewhere. This would require running a one-city empire for longer than ideal, but at least we're not forgetting about defense: we should have all the room we need to fit in defenders and defensive techs.

I'm sure there are other possibilities, though. What I think would be good to draw out, are some distinct plans on where to go for: make a list of e.g. 10 different goals. (one of them being CoL, another MC, another one of the 3 religions, etc). This way, once the first turn arrives, we can look at our terrain, and decide which path to follow. The first turn is critical... before the second turn arrives, we can have a basic plan drawn out for the next 30-50 turns, but we don't have that luxury on the first turn. Better to do as much preparation beforehand as possible...

PHI would give us other options... Fried mentioned one of his tricks, where Stonehenge in city #2, and a lib in the capital gives a GA around turn 50, a rush follows soon after. While I never tried it that extreme, I can see us doing things like that as well.

-------------

Let's take a look at starting techs: which are more important than others?

I think there are 2 key techs: mysticism, and mining. You need at least mysticism or mining for a certain religion (mining because BW gives you the possibility to rush Stonehenge or Oracle). Without one of the two, it will be more difficult. I think we should try to have one of those two present.

OTOH, hunting is excellent as well: a scout, and the ability to build another scout fast might give us the tech we want from huts.

The rest are filler techs... agri and fishing are situational, while the wheel is great to give your workers something to do and speed settling along, but in no way critical at first.

DeepO

[asleepathewheel]

1. Elizabeth
2. Qin
3. Mansa

Once we know the order of play, it will be pretty easy to predict if we can land one of the first two religions-that actually plays a big role in me picking a civ.

I'm not concerned with a lack of resources, at least up until coal. A proper defese can be manufactured with non-resource units.

:q: to the current Jag Warrior. IMHO, needs to be 6-1 rather than 5-1. just not that great a unit. And I've played a ton of SP games using the Aztecs.





I thought battle of the bobs was in the public patch-I'm pretty sure that I used a completely clean install of 1.5whatever.

[notyoueither]

2nd post updated with voting for civ leader.

Current Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 20: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1, Krill 3, Aro 2, Dominae 3, Theseus 3, Solomwi 2, asleepathewheel 1
Saladin 14: dejon 3, DeepO 3, Aro 3, Dominae 1, Theseus 1, Solomwi 3
Qin Shi Huang 8: Arrian 2, Krill 2, Dominae 2, asleepathewheel 2
Montezuma 4: DeepO 2, Theseus 2
Elizabeth 4: Arrian 1, asleepathewheel 3
Isabella 2: Krill 1, Aro 1
Asoka 1: dejon 1
Alexander 1: Solomwi 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa
Krill: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Izzy
Aro: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Isabella
Dominae: 1. Mansa, 2. Qin, 3. Saladin
Theseus: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Montezuma, 3. Saladin
Solomwi: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Alexander
asleepathewheel: 1. Elizabeth, 2. Qin, 3. Mansa

Edit: Fixed.

[Arrian]

NYE - You've got Elizabeth on their twice (once w/3 pts, once with 1)... she should be tied for fourth with Monty.

...

I'd definitely make early BW a priority if we end up with Mansa Musa (subject to change if our start is forest-poor, of course). Chop rushing the Oracle for, say, CoL would be nice. But even if we don't go that route, we can chop other things... not to mention the advantage of seeing copper (or the lack thereof). If we have copper, yay, IW can wait a little bit. If not... perhaps we prioritize IW a little more.

We would also want hunting relatively early, both b/c it leads to archery for the Skirmisher but also Animal Husbandry for pastures & seeing horses (or lack thereof). I typically get to writing via Animal Hus, by the way.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
:q: to the current Jag Warrior. IMHO, needs to be 6-1 rather than 5-1. just not that great a unit. And I've played a ton of SP games using the Aztecs.
I like it, but it's not special. And SP it will probably have more uses than in MP because of the predictability...

One thing to keep in mind here, is that there are as much reports of the Praets being overpowered, as the Jags being underpowered... I wouldn't be surprised if by the time we could build them, they have been tweaked upwards.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I typically get to writing via Animal Hus, by the way.
Me too, but that's SP... and without cottages it can be tough to expand your territory early on.

Even if we would go for writing from a superearly Oracle, we could go for AH before going towards CoL or alphabet. But at least we've got the choice: if we discover bronze before that, and have no cows/pigs around, delaying AH is not that bad... we'll pick it up fast enough. An academy is very powerful, and multiple teams will go the AH route: we don't have to be there first, so we can maximally take advantage of the bonus we get when researching an 'old' tech. AH might just be 3 or 4 turns later on...

DeepO

[Krill]

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147338

Bollocks I say. Mods, don't try to pull a gerrymander here. simply have a run off poll if it is a tie, to decide between the two.

[Dominae]

Our starting location will dictate what our options are with respect to our opening strategy.

The Religion question we can sort decide on in advance, though: if we prioritize it, we have a good shot at founding one, it's just a question of what we are willing to give up to get it.

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to depend on the Oracle so much. Almost every team will want it, and at least half of them will try for it. I actually think that going for one of the three early Religions (even without Mysticism) is safer than expecting to get Confucianism via Code of Laws. In other words, if we think getting a Religion is important, we should not depend on the Oracle to deliver it to us.

Early Cottages and a Financial civ are great, true, but there are definitely associated costs: Cottage tiles do not help produce Settlers/Workers faster, nor do they help in building up an adequate defense (or building that Wonder!). Setting up your capital as a research instead of a production powerhouse is a risk in MP.

Regarding Skirmishers, would we be willing to use them to harass a neighbor early on, as Krill suggests? Traditionally we have been more cautious diplomatically, trying to make friends with everyone and hoping that our superior (or so we think!) empire-building skills would prevail. In this, we treat our opponents much like we do the AI. Would we be willing to take a "reputation hit" from leveraging our Skirmishers to weaken an opponent before they get properly set up?

Effective harassment is something that needs to be planned for almost from turn one. Rather, from the point when we first start chopping: do we want a Library, or a bunch of Skirmishers? We seem to be leaning toward the former, but there's definitely something to be said for the latter.

I voted for a Normal-size map (which would have us a bit crowded) just to make sure the early-game is not a build-fest, which would probably be to our advantage (or so I think!) but also a bit boring.

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I agree that we cannot plan on getting the Oracle. In fact, we might do better to specifically plan on NOT getting it.

Skirmishers... well that depends on the circumstances. Our start (do we have lots of juicy stuff around that we can leverage best if we are peaceful, or are we close to a civ we're worried about) will dictate that, I think. I'm not opposed to it in general.

-Arrian

[Krill]

Planning on getting a wonder is not a particulary good strat, I'll agree there. And that is the reason I would suggest a more cottage heavy strat, if we were to aim for CoL/Confucianism as our religion...

That is one of the things we could plan for. The Skirmisher rush...now, that is risky. I would probably be safer to go for such a thing right off the bat, starting research on hunting on turn 1, and trying to get a warrior for homeland defence outwhile growing to size 2, then worker, then skirmishers. Find someone to rush with the warrior first, then scout around.

The biggest problem is that it is a choke, and not a rush, unless we find someone with just a warrior or two for defence when the skirmishers are spotted right outside their borders. We would have to go for BW and IW (hopefully just the former, and yes I admit that it is a bit of a gamble) to actually crush them once and for all.

[Dominae]

Yeah, CIV is more about choking than rushing.

This may have some consequences for diplomacy: if we choke, we must expect to be at war or on that civ's bad side for the foreseeable future. They will kick and scream as long as they're being choked, so it would be to our advantage to finish them as quickly as possible. But that means we would have to follow through on our choke sooner than later, which is a major inconvenience.

On the world stage, I expect that an outright war would probably be looked upon more favorably than an opportunistic choke.

[Krill]

Well, yeah. It would also be a good idea, if there was a third party civ on the continent, if they would be willing to help us ;)

Get them to do some of the lifting, and we should still have enough land to build into for long enough, and set ourselves up for a later war when the economy has recoveered and matured.

Dipomacy works both ways...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dominae
The Religion question we can sort decide on in advance, though: if we prioritize it, we have a good shot at founding one, it's just a question of what we are willing to give up to get it.
That's the problem: as little as possible... but we'll be able to plan a bit better on this once we know which civ we've got, and which the others have picked.

I think we should aim for our own religion, and any off-chance to get another one later, we should take as well. If not going for a religion, we have to take other cities, it's as easy as that. we can build units, ut in that case we'll have to use them early on.

I'm not sure it's such a great idea to depend on the Oracle so much. Almost every team will want it, and at least half of them will try for it. I actually think that going for one of the three early Religions (even without Mysticism) is safer than expecting to get Confucianism via Code of Laws. In other words, if we think getting a Religion is important, we should not depend on the Oracle to deliver it to us.
That's precisely why I think we should try to aim for it, but in such a way no harm is done in case we fail.

The last path I described handles exactly that: a shot at Budhism (BTW, in case we know only one team starts with Mysticism, we might want to go for Polytheism instead), after which a near-certain Oracle build will deny it to others. And by gaining e.g. writing, we have the time to backfill some techs to best defend ourselves. So, we go for a religion, we go for Oracle, but we don't rely on the Oracle to get a religion. In case we would get it, it would help in racing towards CoL if we decide to, of course.

One remark here: generally I always try to go the high-science route, I always have done that. It's only one of the possible options for a game... while I wouldn't recommend it, we might prioritize IW over writing...

Early Cottages and a Financial civ are great, true, but there are definitely associated costs: Cottage tiles do not help produce Settlers/Workers faster, nor do they help in building up an adequate defense (or building that Wonder!). Setting up your capital as a research instead of a production powerhouse is a risk in MP.
I don't like setting my capital as a research center in SP either... I rarely build more then 2 cottages near it. However, I will try to get an academy asap: as long as the palace bonus (+8 commerce) still matters, that extra 50% is huge.

Regarding Skirmishers, would we be willing to use them to harass a neighbor early on, as Krill suggests? Traditionally we have been more cautious diplomatically, trying to make friends with everyone and hoping that our superior (or so we think!) empire-building skills would prevail. In this, we treat our opponents much like we do the AI. Would we be willing to take a "reputation hit" from leveraging our Skirmishers to weaken an opponent before they get properly set up?
I think it's map dependent, but I'm willing to do it, yes. We've played an agressive game in PTWDG1, however only started 1 war, very late too. Choking a civ might not be anticipated, and thus a very powerful thing to do.

However, not without gains, and with the very distinct understanding that that team has to be annihilated down the line.

But this is very map dependent: pangaea? probably no choke, as we open ourselves for risks on other fronts. 2-team continent? Yeah, why not. 2-team continent with a visible continent on our side, the other part isolated? Definately. Teams aren't allowed to communicate directly before making contact in-game, right? In that case, Arrian's deception holds... "we've not done anything to the other team, they must have been destroyed by barbs!"

DeepO

[Arrian]

Choke in order to conquer, yeah. Or don't choke at all. Choke and then back off... works against the AI but I'm dubious about the impact in an MP game.

Would you guys consider researching BW right off the bat, or maybe 2nd (if we're the Mali)? The advantage would be to see if we have copper nearby and thus know if an early axe rush is viable.

Meh, we need to see the start before we decide such things. If we have cows and pigs lying about the place, we want Animal Husbandry, so it's Hunting -> AH (and hope for horsies!). If we have wheat/rice/corn... we may have to consider agriculture first (which actually would be a bit of a bummer, IMO).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Teams aren't allowed to communicate directly before making contact in-game, right? In that case, Arrian's deception holds... "we've not done anything to the other team, they must have been destroyed by barbs!"

Surely there would be enough chatter on the public forum to give it away.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Of course.... but chatter doesn't harm in the same way as detailed battle plans going all around the globe.

I mean, if someone says something like: "heh, there is this Stormian unit who has been hanging around our bars for ages", it's different than seeing from day to day a couple of skirmishers pillaging the lands of an opponent. Chokes take long... and would be a form of extortion too (techs for freedom!)

DeepO

[NicodaMax]

My choices are:

1) Asoka
2) Saladin
3) Montezuma

I've been reading this thread and everything I could've said has been said. My choices speak for themselves, I'm convinced mysticism is a must/have in the beginning and grabing an early religion. I'd have to leave at #4 my inicial choice of Catherine.

Updating the vote...

Mansa Musa 20: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1, Krill 3, Aro 2, Dominae 3, Theseus 3, Solomwi 2, asleepathewheel 1
Saladin 16: dejon 3, DeepO 3, Aro 3, Dominae 1, Theseus 1, Solomwi 3, NicodaMax 2
Qin Shi Huang 8: Arrian 2, Krill 2, Dominae 2, asleepathewheel 2
Montezuma 5: DeepO 2, Theseus 2, NicodaMax 1
Elizabeth 4: Arrian 1, asleepathewheel 3
Isabella 2: Krill 1, Aro 1
Asoka 4: dejon 1, NicodaMax 3
Alexander 1: Solomwi 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa
Krill: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Izzy
Aro: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Isabella
Dominae: 1. Mansa, 2. Qin, 3. Saladin
Theseus: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Montezuma, 3. Saladin
Solomwi: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Alexander
asleepathewheel: 1. Elizabeth, 2. Qin, 3. Mansa
NicodaMax 1. Asoka, 2. Saladin, 3. Montezuma

[Arrian]

I wonder if this will come down to the wire like in the PTWDG (Egypt & Iroquois tied, Egypt won the tiebreaker).

-Arrian

[Krill]

Well, seeing as barely a third of all of our members have voted, it could well be that even an unnammed civ was chosen...

Nah, I reckon it will come down to Mansa and Saladin, chosen by second and third votes mostly...

[DeepO]

If it would be so close, we better have a second poll just between the two. Or to rank the top 3...

DeepO

[Arrian]

Only a third have voted? VOTE, people, VOTE!!

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Silly lurkers! De-lurk!

[Arrian]

Well, having read the Vel thread, I think he's got an excuse! :eek: Incredible.

As for the rest of you, vote if ye be not hospitalized! Yarr.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

No great preference so here is a vote:

Montezuma
Qin She Huang
Mansa Musa

[nbarclay]

My apologies if this is redundant (since I haven't had and probably won't take the time to read through the flood of messages thus far in this thread), but I think the Financial trait is likely to prove a game-breaker. Directly, it means extra wealth. Indirectly, it can transform some of that extra wealth into a larger and hence more productive empire than is practical without the Financial trait. I haven't played enough yet to be positive, but my impression is that Financial is powerful enough to make it worth taking any Financial civ over any non-Financial one (at least assuming they haven't changed the rules in the latest patch).

Nathan

[DeepO]

FIN is indeed very powerful... however it's also the most obvious one. More teams will play it, I think, which negates much of its appeal. By not chosing it, we might be more unpredictable, and by e.g. focusing on GLs we might offset any disadvantage towards FIN teams.

That's of course true for most traits, which is why I'm such a proponent of SPI: lots of options, and while it perhaps might not be the 'best' civ in all respects, there's a lot of fun to be had in figuring out new and exciting ways to leverage the trait to the best. Switching civics all the times to squeeze out a few hammers here, and a few beakers there seems more GS-style to me than running a 'flat' trait like FIN (or e.g. IND)

DeepO

[Arrian]

There is a reason that FIN civs are #1 and #2 right now in our voting.

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

DeepO, I don't see how choosing an offbeat combination of civ traits would add significantly to our ability to gain advantages of surprise in the game. Whatever traits we choose, the other teams will know our traits and therefore will know what options our traits give us. It's not as if we could hide our traits and take advantage of a trait our rivals don't know we have in order to do something unexpected.

Has anyone on GS actually used the Spiritual trait's civic-switching ability effectively enough to feel like they can get more advantage out of it than they can the steady, almost beginning-to-end power of Financial? "A few hammers here, and a few beakers there" sounds good until you consider that Financial can give extra beakers and/or hammers (via using extra income to pay for an extra city or two or working more production tiles and fewer wealth tiles) practically throughout the game - including during the time before the techs for more advanced civics are discovered. (Most of the best civics aren't available until long after the critical early portion of the game.) Unless someone feels confident he knows how to make Spiritual as effective as Financial, I think it would be better to go with a bird in the hand than with something that might be a bird, maybe even two, flying around somewhere where we're not quite sure what we see. If most of the teams go with Financial, and if Financial is in fact the most powerful trait by a non-trivial margin, those that don't could find themselves in trouble (all else being anywhere near equal).

Nathan

[Dominae]

Financial may be the best trait, but I do not think being non-Financial would be such a big disadvantage. The traits are more balanced than Civ3/PTW (Industrious) and C3C (Agricultural).

Civ4 MP is a lot more Hammer-intensive than SP. While the Financial research-fiends may look impressive on paper, most games I have participated in have been decided on raw production advantage. Prioritizing Cottages early often spells disaster, and spamming them later on (to pay for additional territory) is also dangerous. With fewer Cottages, Financial loses a lot of its appeal. There's still the bonus to coastal cities, but these are no means guaranteed and somewhat of a luxury.

Compare to Philosophical, which can retool military cities for GP generation in times of peace. While Financial is better in terms of raw power (if you're left alone to abuse it - see above), Philosophical is a lot more flexible.

I would rate both these traits above Spiritual, but Spiritual is a fine second trait.

Even if other teams know that were are Philosophical or Spiritual, there's so much we can do with those traits that other teams will not be able to anticipate our every move.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by nbarclay
DeepO, I don't see how choosing an offbeat combination of civ traits would add significantly to our ability to gain advantages of surprise in the game. Whatever traits we choose, the other teams will know our traits and therefore will know what options our traits give us. It's not as if we could hide our traits and take advantage of a trait our rivals don't know we have in order to do something unexpected.
That is true for all traits, except for SPI. It's the most varied trait...

Has anyone on GS actually used the Spiritual trait's civic-switching ability effectively enough to feel like they can get more advantage out of it than they can the steady, almost beginning-to-end power of Financial? "A few hammers here, and a few beakers there" sounds good until you consider that Financial can give extra beakers and/or hammers (via using extra income to pay for an extra city or two or working more production tiles and fewer wealth tiles) practically throughout the game - including during the time before the techs for more advanced civics are discovered. (Most of the best civics aren't available until long after the critical early portion of the game.) Unless someone feels confident he knows how to make Spiritual as effective as Financial, I think it would be better to go with a bird in the hand than with something that might be a bird, maybe even two, flying around somewhere where we're not quite sure what we see. If most of the teams go with Financial, and if Financial is in fact the most powerful trait by a non-trivial margin, those that don't could find themselves in trouble (all else being anywhere near equal).

Nathan
I've played quite a bit of civic-swapping games, yes, and they really can make a difference. There's also a more flat bonus: normal games will at least require 5-8 civic switches, which means 5-8 turns of anarchy. As said somewhere in this thread, that's about 2-3 GAs...

If I'm talking about a few hammers here, a few commerce there, I'm talking about each turn a little bit of gain. What is most important here, is that you gain the ability to better 'transform' food to production to commerce and vice a versa.

FINs have one specific path: they have more commerce, and have to somehow leverage that to gain in the other two areas. SPI can chose to go that route too (not so good, though, but MMing e.g. representation is a valid options until late in the game to maximize what you get from science), but can more efficiently swap between other types... too much food? swap to slavery, and rush. Too little production? Police state and Org Rel. Etc.

SPI can be at least as good as FIN, IMHO, but I've not played enough games yet to fully make a definate list of what's best in all circumstances. I know SPI is the most flexible of traits, runs for the whole game, and is fun because of the versatility. Those are to me better reasons than to have the utmost efficiency in one area.

Besides, my #3 choice was Mansa, being SPI/FIN. And Qin (our current #3) would play well, even if I prefer a SPI leader.

DeepO

edited to correct my one vote ;)

I agree with Dom, though: PHI is the other flexibility / unpredictability trait.

[Theseus]

I've used SPI's civic switching in SP to pretty good effect for two things: 1) in and out of military production... repeatedly, and 2) for Wonder production in the capitol.

It's pretty great.

And I'm basically a newbie. :)

I am very much with DeepO's sentiments on this: SPI lends flexibility, has perhaps untapped brilliance, and will be a heckuva lot of fun. :D

[notyoueither]

2nd post updated with voting for civ leader.

Current Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 21: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1, Krill 3, Aro 2, Dominae 3, Theseus 3, Solomwi 2, asleepathewheel 1, vmxa1 1
Saladin 16: dejon 3, DeepO 3, Aro 3, Dominae 1, Theseus 1, Solomwi 3, NicodaMax 2
Qin Shi Huang 10: Arrian 2, Krill 2, Dominae 2, asleepathewheel 2, vmxa1 2
Montezuma 8: DeepO 2, Theseus 2, NicodaMax 1, vmxa1 3
Elizabeth 4: Arrian 1, asleepathewheel 3
Asoka 4: dejon 1, NicodaMax 3
Isabella 2: Krill 1, Aro 1
Alexander 1: Solomwi 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa
Krill: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Izzy
Aro: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Isabella
Dominae: 1. Mansa, 2. Qin, 3. Saladin
Theseus: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Montezuma, 3. Saladin
Solomwi: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Alexander
asleepathewheel: 1. Elizabeth, 2. Qin, 3. Mansa
NicodaMax: 1. Asoka, 2. Saladin, 3. Montezuma
vmxa1: 1. Montezuma, 2. Qin She Huang, 3. Mansa Musa

[asleepathewheel]

I'm almost convinced to switch my number 1 vote to Saladin...

[nbarclay]

I got to thinking, and it occurs to me that some of the traits get more powerful as the difficulty level goes higher. Perhaps most notably for the purposes of discussion here, unless my eyes and/or brain have been playing tricks on me, the number of civics you can change at once without more than one turn of anarchy goes down as the difficulty level gets higher. (I still haven't played above Monarch, so I don't know how bad it gets on the highest levels.) Do we know yet what difficulty level we'll be playing on? And if so, what do we know about the anarchy parameters associated with that level?

The Financial trait is one that's power in absolute terms does not go up with higher difficulty levels. On the other hand, with the worse upkeep costs on higher levels, the extra income it brings becomes a higher percentage of total net income.

[Arrian]

I doubt we will be playing any higher than Monarch (our preference, it seems). I figure most teams will vote for Noble or maybe Prince... leaving it to us to try and drag them upwards.

-Arrian

[Blake]

Okay in some defense of ORG.
At emperor and higher, civic upkeep starts at 2, reducing early research by 2/turn. ORG eliminates that early upkeep, effectively giving you an extra 2 commerce for early research, which is nothing short of huge - in the vicinity of a +25% bonus - this is like getting to work an Oasis in terms of start quality. I think this must be a consideration if difficulty is Emperor+. I don't think Asoka can be beaten to a religion at those difficulties, a fin leader can get at best +2 commerce early on (found on +2 comm tile, work +2 comm tile), it's far more likely the Org leader will get their +2, so at least statistically, Asoka is the best bet.

I could not in good conscious vote for Asoka at below Emperor difficulty though, so my vote is very settings-dependent.

edit: votes changed.

[Krill]

That is the problem, this game is not going to be on Emperor, no matter how much some on this team will want it on that setting.

The most likely settings would be prince and Noble, so ORG does take a beating...


That is why I voted for Monarch. We have a better chance to get Monarch, than Emperor. We sure do not want to get Noble.

[Arrian]

Agreed. I love the ORG trait, and if I thought the game would be played at a higher level, then I'd have lobbied harder for it. But Noble or Prince seem likely, possibly our team preference (so far) of Monarch. Emperor seems highly unlikely.

Given that, Asoka becomes less inviting.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

By the way, you can counteract the non-Org -2gpt Upkeep on Emperor+ by getting Gold from Tribal Villages, which IIRC is much more common on the higher difficulties (techs and units are more rare).

[Blake]

Good points, vote changed to

1) Alexander
2) Saladin
3) Qin


Alexander is an excellent leader, he can focus on military and allow the great people to prop up his economy. Capable of great dual-focus and unpredictable play style - there is no "obvious" alexander strategy. The phalnax is sure to help deter others who might be thinking about mounted harrassment.
(Okay, I just really love Alexander, so screw strategic voting ;))

Saladin rocks being very flexible even if there is no great synergy between his traits, other than prehaps in using Great Prophets to yoink religions. His traits do mesh well enough anyway. On the other hand if I were the Arabs neighbours, I'd probably want to kill or bully them, especially if they too-aggressively pursue religion, there is very little to be said for Arab military prowess and they are the kind of civ that just gets stronger if left unmolested.
Part of my motivation for wanting Saladin is for learning - I feel my play with such a civ is weak.

Qin has some fantastic synergy, one problem with Industrial is that you need to get to the techs in time to actually start and finish the wonder, and there's no better trait than Financial to make that happen. On the other hand, Industrial is STILL very much for a gamblers game, especially in such an intensely competitive game. While Qin may have the strongest hand of the industrial civs, he can still easily lose out on wonders due to others having marble/stone, others lightbulbing techs, great engineers plonking wonders and so on. I prefer to not gamble rather than go with a best bet.

[Arrian]

Interesting points in favor of Alexander.

-Arrian

[Aro]

I'd say the same. Tempted to change my vote too...

[Arrian]

I'm sticking with Mansa and Qin, but I could easily switch my third place vote (Elizabeth) to Alex.

-Arrian

[Aro]

Same here, with Saladin in first... (I really love SPI trait)

However, I could change my second or third vote to Alex.

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
2. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : Skirmisher (archer)
3. SPI/EXP : Isabella: Conquistador (knight)

Of course, I would listen to everything you experienced folks have to say... And I'll probably change my vote two or three times. So, I'll hold my second and third vote for a while, and see. :)

[Theseus]

I've been thinking about this a lot... I gotta tell, ya, I am deathly afraid of an early attack by a neighbor.

(As in, if I were on another team, I'd be friggin' yelling and screaming about the PTWDG: "Ya mean Vox suprise attacked with IMMORTALS and still got their hat handed to'em?" :eek: )

And the idea of defending with mass Warriors doesn;t cut it for me... that may work in SP, but I figure it'd be more like chum in the water in MP.

So, what to do? The gamble on horses and fastmovers is just too much. So, that leaves Spears and Archers and their equivalents. The more I think about it, the more I want us to know if we have iron or copper ASAMFP, so that if we don;t we can field Archers of some kind instead.

Pointy-tipped food for thought.

[Solomwi]

Elizabeth is definitely stout, with FIN/PHI. If the game makes it to riflemen, redcoats are fun to go slogging with. Mining's usually a good one to start with, and lets us get a jump on Theseus' worries, but fishing can be hit or miss. Still, that's a pretty small downside for a lot of upside.

I'm kind of nullifying Arrian's potential switch above. I'm really intrigued by Alexander, but could easily switch to Elizabeth for third place. :D

[Krill]

Originally posted by Theseus
I've been thinking about this a lot... I gotta tell, ya, I am deathly afraid of an early attack by a neighbor.

(As in, if I were on another team, I'd be friggin' yelling and screaming about the PTWDG: "Ya mean Vox suprise attacked with IMMORTALS and still got their hat handed to'em?" :eek: )

And the idea of defending with mass Warriors doesn;t cut it for me... that may work in SP, but I figure it'd be more like chum in the water in MP.

So, what to do? The gamble on horses and fastmovers is just too much. So, that leaves Spears and Archers and their equivalents. The more I think about it, the more I want us to know if we have iron or copper ASAMFP, so that if we don;t we can field Archers of some kind instead.

Pointy-tipped food for thought.


The other problem with fastmovers is that they, well, don't get defensive boni. So yeah, we would want BW for copper, so we can send our first settler out to get some if we don't have it near our capital. Mining would of course help, and Mansa and Lizzie start with mining, but Saladin, Alex don't. That pushes me closer to Mansa, as Mansa is just, well, safer in the early game. One of the things that would push me closer to PHI though, is that with all of the extra GP that we could create could be turned into extra beakers for techs.

Um. I think that would be one of the things we could try to do with a PHI civ, right? Grab Stonehenge/Oracle early, and under what circumstances would a great priest grab CoL as the free tech? Myst would be a requirement, Saladin starts with Myst, and so could try to get an early early religion the normal way, but Alex could try the GPr route...food for thought...

[Blake]

One thing to note is that Henge will PROBABLY go to an industrial civ, especially one with mining.

Philo civs, while benefiting immensely from henge, are not in a strong position to get it. Like if Ghandi is in the game - forget about Henge.

Oracle would probably be feasible with Saladin though, for other leaders I don't think the risk is worth it, unless there is good reason to believe we are in a strong position to get the wonder.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
I've been thinking about this a lot... I gotta tell, ya, I am deathly afraid of an early attack by a neighbor.

(As in, if I were on another team, I'd be friggin' yelling and screaming about the PTWDG: "Ya mean Vox suprise attacked with IMMORTALS and still got their hat handed to'em?")

And the idea of defending with mass Warriors doesn;t cut it for me... that may work in SP, but I figure it'd be more like chum in the water in MP.

So, what to do? The gamble on horses and fastmovers is just too much. So, that leaves Spears and Archers and their equivalents. The more I think about it, the more I want us to know if we have iron or copper ASAMFP, so that if we don;t we can field Archers of some kind instead.

Pointy-tipped food for thought.

Mansa Musa. :)

(Starts with Mining, Skirmishers.)

[Arrian]

That's essentially how I came to pick him #1 as well. Decent (not great) early UU, solid, fairly flexible traits.

-Arrian

p.s. Should we try and wrap these debates up and post our team choices on the main forum?

[Dominae]

Yes, please, before we all decide to change our votes again!

[Arrian]

Ok, shall we do a run-off poll with the top three choices (to determine order), or should we just go with the order they're in now?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Blake: the problem with ORG is that this game will probably not be on higher levels, we'd need to have a very sizable amount of cities to really gain from it. I'm sure we can play such a game, though, so if we end up with ORG we'll do just fine. But for me at least, there's no real need to do so.

Wrapping up the discussion: I don't think that would be fair to the newest members: some of us had a week to discuss this, and form an opinion. Others just joined... keep it open for the moment, who knows, maybe we all change to something else.

The way it is looking now, there is no need to repoll with only the first few choices: Mansa gets picked by 10 members, Saladin by 7, Qin by 5. Even if only 3 choices are allowed, it's most likely that people will still pick the same order...

DeepO

[Theseus]

Hang on just a second there... I'd like to post a new thought. Gimme a couple of minutes.

[Arrian]

Ok... but let's maybe shoot for wrapping this up next week?

EDIT: crosspost with big T. Sure, man, get that thought out there.

I don't mean to seem overly pushy. It's just that the game was theoretically supposed to start on 1/15/06 (5 days ago). I favored 2/1/06 personally, but at this rate we will be lucky to begin then.

Since I'll be gone for most of March, I'd like to get things moving before then, that's all...

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Let's look at this from another angle: paranoia. :scared:

GROUP A - Hunting & Mining

Absent all other considerations, what would be the safest overall choice from a research perspective? Seems to me any leader starting with Hunting and Mining, thus providing the fastest avenues to all of BW, AH, and Archery (prolly in that order, as and if necessary).

So that points to the Russian and German civs. Unfortunately, I don;t think we'd be in love with any of those four leaders but one:

Catherine, anyone? Seriously, CRE/FIN is definitely playable, as far as I'm concerned (and I like CRE from a defensive perspective, both in terms of territory expansion and city defense).

GROUP B - Agriculture & Mining

Next would be those civs starting with Agriculture and Mining. Makes Archery a bit further off, but with the exception of Mansa, that's prolly okay. Of the Chinese leaders, I think we'd want to go with Qin, as already indicated in voting.

GROUP C - Archery

Well, it's not really a group... Mansa Musa. I guess here's where I come to on Archery: Whereas Archery is a dead end, and in SP it'd be a low priority, WE ARE GOING TO WANT IT SOON ANYWAY. This is aggressive MP, and we have a target painted on us. We gotta bet that somebody not too far off is gonna have horsies. So, to heck with it, if we're gonna research it anyway, let's go for it with gusto.
_____________

Not too much new there, but I wanted to throw in this viewpoint. I expect this'll be more important if we don;t get our first or second choice of civ (i.e., I'd seriously campaign for Catherine), but it also indicates to me a change in my own order of voting: Mansa Musa is #1 for me.

[notyoueither]

2nd post updated with voting for civ leader.

Current Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 21: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1, Krill 3, Aro 2, Dominae 3, Theseus 3, Solomwi 2, asleepathewheel 1, vmxa1 1
Saladin 18: dejon 3, DeepO 3, Aro 3, Dominae 1, Theseus 1, Solomwi 3, NicodaMax 2, Blake 2
Qin Shi Huang 11: Arrian 2, Krill 2, Dominae 2, asleepathewheel 2, vmxa1 2, Blake 1
Montezuma 8: DeepO 2, Theseus 2, NicodaMax 1, vmxa1 3
Elizabeth 4: Arrian 1, asleepathewheel 3
Alexander 4: Solomwi 1, Blake 3
Asoka 4: dejon 1, NicodaMax 3
Isabella 2: Krill 1, Aro 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa
Krill: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Izzy
Aro: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Isabella
Dominae: 1. Mansa, 2. Qin, 3. Saladin
Theseus: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Montezuma, 3. Saladin
Solomwi: 1. Saladin, 2. Mansa Musa, 3. Alexander
asleepathewheel: 1. Elizabeth, 2. Qin, 3. Mansa
NicodaMax: 1. Asoka, 2. Saladin, 3. Montezuma
vmxa1: 1. Montezuma, 2. Qin She Huang, 3. Mansa Musa
Blake: 1) Alexander, 2) Saladin, 3) Qin

[Dominae]

Archery is really not that good.

Even as Mansa Musa, there's a bunch of techs you want before Archery. We could theoretically go Bronze Working then Archery, chopping out a couple of quick Skirmishers, but do we really want to be that aggressive? This is not a 1v1 game...

[Aginor]

Votes tallied here to save notyoueither time:

1) Qin
2) Mansa
3) Elizabeth

Reasoning follows:

I'm going to argue quite a bit differently than I have on the forums here. In SP, where the computer has massive production advantages and hitting it early, hard, and in a predictable fashion wins games, this just isn't the case in MP. This game's still going to be won by hammers in the end IMO, but early rush is not necessarily the way to go about it.

I can only see Expansive if we plan to rush early - the cheap Granaries are indispensable to an early rush technique, so we'd be planning full-on warmonger aggression against the first thing we see. However, as others have noted, it's pretty obvious that this has to be your plan as an Expansive (doubly so with Rome) to good players. Worse still, early aggression and player elimination will develop general ill will among the remaining teams, as well as marking us as the largest (by land area) threat and thus everyone's primary target. As a consequence I suggest that we pass on Expansive.

As with Dominae, I'm not sold on Spiritual. I suggest that we change civics infrequently in order to maximize not being Spiritual, and thus get two full traits rather than trying to get our second one from aggressive civic switching. While we might learn more from running Spiritual, we're also a lot more likely to make mistakes with it, particularly in a democracy game.

Have to concur with many that Financial is probably the best trait. Anyone that does not plan to win the game as a pure warmonger probably has to have this. We may not necessarily be trying to maximize this trait immediately, but you can be darned sure that by the midgame we'll want it to keep up with all the other Financial civs still standing.

In this environment I value Philosophical much more highly...the specific tech turn advantage of it is much more valuable when you're facing opponents with equal starts. Without the cheating AI, we don't need gobs of units right away just to clear some living space for ourselves. However, there's an attendant risk to running Philosophical - if our powerhouse cities do get taken from us, we lose immediately. With Financial, we still have key cities that we cannot afford to lose but they are not AS vital to us.

While I agree that Industrious is probably the only realistic way to hit one of the earliest Wonders, I'm not sure that we will really *need* any of the earliest ones (Stonehenge, Oracle, Pyramids, Great Lighthouse). The Great Library is the only Wonder I consider absolutely non-negotiable, particularly if we go Philosophical, and building it is largely a function of outteching the other players early on. If we go Industrious, I'd say we're doing it for the early Forges rather than for Wonder output, and that we should plan our tech tree accordingly.

Aggressive would be nice, but isn't necessary. I think that we've dismissed Creative out of hand, and rightly so. Organized just isn't going to be much of an advantage in this game, in my opinion.

My true preference is Elizabeth, but I'm voting strategically for civs more likely to win, as I feel that we would greatly err in the long run by playing Saladin and missing out on Financial entirely. IMO if we're not going to run Financial, we'd be better off running something akin to the Mongols and playing an accordingly aggressive game (accepting the attendant risks to that strategy noted above).

Also, I note that there's a ton of us (27 actual members by my count, plus the two mods) but comparatively little voting going on. We appear to be last or nearly last in posting preferences in the main forum. Two things spring to mind:

1) Do we need to just go ahead and decide, non-votes not withstanding?

2) How can we best exploit having a ton more members than other teams in terms of division of labor?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aginor
1) Do we need to just go ahead and decide, non-votes not withstanding?


Yes, I think so.


2) How can we best exploit having a ton more members than other teams in terms of division of labor?


Many of our members explicitly said they would not be very active. I'm intrigued by your ideas concerning this team's organization (as per the Diplomacy Nazi thread); if it's a way of getting more people involved, super.

I'm guessing that many of the lurkers do not post more often because they do not want to get too involved/immersed. But perhaps if more people were posting it would be easier on everyone; thorough analysis is easier when you're not the only one doing it.

[Arrian]

Current standings:

Mansa - 23
Saladin - 18
Qin - 14

Monty is next with 8 and it drops from there. I think it's safe to say we have our top 3.

I say we have a (relatively quick!) discussion of the ordering of the three ;) - removing all the other choices from the discussion and focusing on just these three.

My ordering:

Mansa
Qin
Saladin

I suggest a deadline for a final choice: Friday, 1/25/06 at noon EST. Slightly over 48 hrs.

Any objections/suggestions?

-Arrian

[Aginor]

Concur on the final three choices - it's pretty clear cut.

As above,

1) Qin
2) Mansa
3) Saladin

[Dominae]

1. Mansa Musa
2. Qin
3. Saladin

[DeepO]

I stick to my ordering:

1. Saladin
2. Mansa
3. Qin

Normally, we should end with the same tally as before, BTW. As more people voted for Mansa than for Saladin the first time around, Mansa will be relatively higher in their preferences. While the ratios in votes might change, the end result should not... or people have changed their minds.

DeepO

[Krill]

Mansa
Qin
Saladin

[Theseus]

1. Mansa
2. Saladin
3. Qin

[Dominae]

If some people did not vote for any of those three the first time around the order could change...

[asleepathewheel]

1. Saladin
2. Qin
3. Mansa

[Arrian]

Arg. We need more than just a top three:

By snoopy in the public forum:

Preferential list it is. Please PM me at least 3 selections, more is better ... if you don't PM enough to get selected, you'll be assigned a random one. (Thus, seven civs is the recommended list length :)

We'll get our top three ordered right and then throw in the ones that missed the cut, ok? That means Monty, Alex, Lizzy and Asoka.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

While I posted my 3 choices, I did not bring them in order and hence, they were not counted so far.

My choice is

1. Elizabeth
2. Catherine
3. Mansa Musa

[Theseus]

I'd like us to quickly reconsider the back-ups then... early game paranoia has me by the scruff of my throat.

[Krill]

Don't even bother renumbering them. Just send out the top 7 and be done with it. We are falling incredably behind the prefered start date already...

[Arrian]

I'm inclined to agree... it looks like:

Mansa
Qin
Saladin
Elizabeth
Montezuma (actually tied with Lizzy)
Alexander
Asoka

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

Looks good to me - let's get this game going already. :)

[Aro]

:b:

Agreed. :)

[Arrian]

Well, notwithstanding that I want to get this going too, the internal GS deadline I was going on was noon EST tomorrow.

There is some question as to whether Qin or Saladin should be #2. In the original tally, Saladin was #2. When we removed the other contenders, Qin has surpassed him (13pts to 12 right now). But, since we're going to send in a list of 7, I'm now thinking we should go with the old ranking (including Sir Ralph's picks, which are clearly under the original system):

Mansa
Saladin
Qin
Elizabeth
Montezuma (tied with Lizzy)
Alexander
Asoka

But again, having thrown out the deadline of noon tomorrow, we should probably stick to that. It's less than 24 hrs away at this point.

-Arrian

[Hot Mustard]

I'm sure we're all adult enough to not quibble over the precise rankings or bemoan what we end up with. I'll be quite happy with any of the top 4 and would be content with the others.

[Theseus]

Fine... Arrian, I suggest in the spirit of moving things along, just go ahead and submit the seven as you most recently listed them.

[Dominae]

I have serious reservations putting Montezuma in our top 5. His strengths are not likely to be that useful in this game. There's a serious drop in power between our #4 (Elizabeth) and #5, yet there's a chance we might have to go down that far.

If we really want a resourceless UU and a shot at a Religion, Huayna Capac is a much better choice. Plus he's Financial.

[Aginor]

Actually, if we're going off-the-wall leader on a UU basis I'd recommend Hatshesput - if it's possible to assemble a team better suited to MM abuse a pure builder, especially one with the possibility of going offense early on, it's this crew.

That said, I bet we could take them even with Monty if we had to.

I seriously doubt that we'll fall below Liz or Qin, though. And unless I miss my guess entirely, we're playing Mansa (wagering that Liz and Qin are off the board fast, and that Mansa and Sally are less popular alternatives and that given where we have them ranked we draw one of the two).

[Arrian]

I actually very much agree with Dominae w/regard to Monty, but hey, he mustered 8 pts in our voting...

vmxa1, DeepO and Theseus all voted for him. I'm not gonna just wipe out their votes. If any of those guys wants to change their vote b/c they've changed their minds, fine. Otherwise, I'd leave the list the way it is.

2 more hours... then we should send snoopy the list via PM. If NYE isn't around, I can do it.

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

List looks good to me, even given the reservations about Monty.

[Krill]

Sent yet?

[Theseus]

Okay... I'll vote for Hattie. :D

[Theseus]

Or Cathy. :D

[Arrian]

Oops, sorry, was at lunch (heh, what idiot set a noon deadline on a work day, anyway :lol: ). Will send now...

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Erm, sorry, I don't know why I thought that was so funny.

Seriously, as per my earlier posts, I'd be happy with any other choice which we collectively think would be *safe* in the early game... the necessary flexibility inherent in Civ4 will offer us the ability to shine later.

[Arrian]

Ok, I'm sending:

Mansa
Saladin
Qin
Elizabeth
Montezuma (even with T's switch, he's still 5th)
Alexander
Asoka

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Monty would be fine... I'm not changing anything :D

It doesn't matter, though. If we need to get to our 5th choice before getting something, I think we've run into biased mods (highly unlikely). It would mean the top 5 of at least 5 other teams is identical. Otherwise, some other combination should give us at least our #4...

The top 3 is what really matters. We should get one of those, or I'm complaining officially and demand to see the results of the votes (team A votes for civ A, B, C etc).

DeepO

[Arrian]

IT'S OFFICIAL: WE'RE THE MALI

The others are:

Vox: Catherine (Cre/Fin. Hunting/Mining)
Mercs: Frederick (Cre/Phi. Hunting/Mining)
Sanatarium: Elizabeth (Fin/Phi. Fishing/Mining)
Horde: Kublai (Agg/Cre. Hunting/Wheel)
Banana: Louis (Cre/Ind. Agriculture/Wheel)
AC: Qin (Fin/Ind. Agriculture/Mining)

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

No mysticism starters... interesting.

[vmxa1]

Guess that ends that debate.

[Arrian]

Case closed[/Ming]


snoopy apparently wants to post each civ's lists. Most of the teams appear to have already ok'd it... one already posted their list themselves.

I see no harm in it. I say we allow it. If, however, people want to object, say so soon, so we can object and prevent it.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Why do we have to disclose our options? I'm against.

DeepO

[Krill]

We don't have to, and that is kind of the point, I suppose.. .

[notyoueither]

I'm against.

[asleepathewheel]

against.

who friggin cares, let's get this game moving and forget about the trifles.

[RoyAl]

Undecided
What predictability will it have? If I understand veteran-reactions well, AC and Sanatorium will be our most challenging competitors and not in the last place because of their unpredictability. The Horde seems *very* predictable. But then again: appearances deceive.
Brings this question into mind: Do we play "straightforward" or does anybody (already) have ideas on to how to get the other teams thinking we go for other objectives than we actually do? Without deminishing our chances to reach those objectives, of course.

[Krill]

Meh, I'm against. I can see why, and it makes sense to keep it quite, IMO. Some times might think that this is not our first choice...

[Cort Haus]

I too am not in favour of not declaring our list of civ choices.

___


OT : Krill, yeah, Denmark :b:. You might find these articles interesting :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF58.htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF57.htm

[Krill]

OT: Has anyone considered Nick griffins' Trial result though? He got off scott free, and he was using incredably abusive language.

If that case becomes precedent, then the law is going to have to be rewritten anyway...

[Arrian]

5 against, one unsure, one pro. Pretty decisive.

I guess I'll post our objection...

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by RoyAl
Brings this question into mind: Do we play "straightforward" or does anybody (already) have ideas on to how to get the other teams thinking we go for other objectives than we actually do? Without deminishing our chances to reach those objectives, of course.
I try to analyse that in the KGB thread... if we can map what others will think as 'the GS-way', we can play with that.

Right now, some obvious things: Pyramids (SPI), Oracle (Strat forum), early archery (skirmishers), and early religion (SPI + FIN). Others will think at least 3 of those 4 will be our goals. We can chose to do so, or we can chose something else. Notice that BW first is not on that list. Neither is settler first. Nor GP-frenzy.

I don't think we need to actively play against what others will probably predict, but it's always better to be aware of how others etimate what you are going to do. If they're good, they will have sensors out to check on our strategy, trying to at least hamper us.

DeepO