Our Civ and Leader

[Swiss Pauli]

Might as well get this one rolling as there's (understandably) not much interest in the interminable settings votes.

Seeing as the map is Terra, I think we'll be wanting an early game power-Leader. Seeing as I have zero MP experience my suggestions may be :dizzy: but here are some initial thoughts:

Pacal - FIN/EXP. Resourceless Holkan available with Hunting and BW.

Darius - FIN/ORG. Immortals available with Horses connected (AH & Wheel).

Brennus - SPI/CHM. Gallics available with IW and connected copper.

Alex - AGG/PHI. Phalanx available with connected copper.

Gilgamesh - CRE/PRO. Vultures available with connected copper.

Shaka - AGG/EXP. Impi available with connected copper.

Rome for Praets (connected Iron); Egypt for War Chariots (AH 6 connected horses).

Pacal gets my vote. (I'll also enquire about how leaders will be assigned as the result of many teams selecting them - which is highly likely.)

[Zeviz]

Since this is a custom map, we will probably have access to most resources from the start, so resourceless UU might not be as important. I generally like Financial trait, but am not familiar enough with BtS leaders to have a firm opinion.

[ruff_hi]

Traits ... just to remind people ...

Aggressive, "Melee and gunpowder units start with combat I; Double Production Speed of barracks and drydock"
Charismatic, "+1 happiness per city; -25% XP needed for unit promotions; +1 happiness from Monument, Broadcast Tower"
Creative, "+2 culture per turn per city; Double Production Speed of library, theater, colosseum"
Expansive, "+2 health per city; +25% Production of Worker; Double Production Speed of granary, harbor"
Financial, "+1 commerce on tiles generating 2 or more commerce"
Imperialistic, "+100% Great General emergence; +50% production of settler"
Industrious, "+50% wonder production; Double Production Speed of forge"
Organized, "-50% civic upkeep cost; Double Production Speed of lighthouse, factory, courthouse"
Philosophical, "+100% great people birth rate; Double Production Speed of university"
Protective, "Archery and gunpowder units receive Drill I and City Garrison I; Double Production Speed of walls and castle"
Spiritual, "No anarchy; Double Production Speed of temple"


This is MP so I think stronger military units are a must. This leans towards aggressive and Charismatic with Imperialistic being a sad 3rd. These leaders are ...

Boudica (Agg, Chr)
Genghis Khan (Agg, Imp)
Cyrus (Chr, Imp)

... all of which have early UUs.

Another leader I would suggest we look at is Hannibal (Chr, Fin) because of his UU (Numidian Cavalry (5/2/50)", "Replaces Horse Archer (6/2/50); +50% vs. melee units; starts with the Flanking I promotion")

[sooooo]

Their terra does not necessarily mean pangaea. The number of old world continents could mean it's more like a standard continents map.

Hmm, who here has MP experience? I've only played a handful of games. From what I remember, the good players seemed to like Mansa and Gandhi, though that was in Warlords.

[ruff_hi]

We should contact Atlas and ask him that question ... I will email him.

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by sooooo
Their terra does not necessarily mean pangaea. The number of old world continents could mean it's more like a standard continents map.

Swiss will vote 1 old world landmass today, though.

mh

[sunrise089]

Good MP traits are Expansive, Creative, and Imperialistic in the early game. The best early UUs for actually taking out an enemy are probably War Chariots, Impis, and Immortals. We're also really liking Ballista Elephants right now. Generally people don't get excited (or actually hate) Dog Soldiers, Vultures, Holkans, Bowmen, and Queches. Phalynxs are OK.

The problem however if we're not just playing a short game. Taking Zulu for a quick kill is a great MP strategy in a 100 turn ancient game, but not a great strategy for a 320 game Quick ironman. And anything past quick really isn't even MP anymore.

For what it's worth, William is generally favored in MP Ironman games, for the huge creative bonus early and then the long-term power of Financial. I wouldn't consider that a bad choice.

[Swiss Pauli]

Good inputs here, guys :thumbsup:

I looked into the Warlords game, and multiple instances of the same leader were allowed (4 Hannibals!), so we'll need to bear this in mind when selecting our leader, as well as the settings, which should be decided today.

[Kylearan]

I doubt this can really be compared to a normal MP game. Not playing alone but within a team tends to make decisions less risky, at least that is what happened in the CFC demogame. I think we should choose traits for a longer game if we plan not to rush a neighbour ourselves. (Do we? I'd be against it. ;) )

In the CFC vanilla demogame, we chose fin/ind Qin, managed a CS slingshot and are winning at the moment. :D In the end, it all depends on the kind of game we want to play.

* Do we plan to do a rush? ->agg, strong early UU

* Do we want to be aggressive later on, from a position of superiority? ->fin, later UU

* Do we want to go wonder-happy? ->ind

* Are we planning to do a SE or CE? ->phi or fin

* Do we want to found an early religion? ->start with mysti

...and so on.

Personally, I'm no fan of early rushes. Diplomacy plays a major role in a demogame, and eliminating one or two opponents early definitely weakens your diplomatic position all game long. Besides the CS slingshot and some great MM, having a fantastic diplomat on our team was the main reason for the winning position of my team in the CFC demogame.

My votes would be Elizabeth (fin/phi) for some powerful early research plus a mid-game war with redcoats, but I'd be content with any leader, as adapting to the situation at hand is what I like most about the game.

-Kylearan

[sunrise089]

In general I agree with Kylearan. I supported a smaller map size and a quicker speed, and would have preferred a more MP feel. That has not happened however, so we may as well adapt to our circumstances. As long as we're not looking for really fast early expansion or an early kill (which from a score perspective may still be strong plays, and I expect at least one other team to go this route) then Fin/Phi, Fin/Ind, Fin/Cre , or Fin/Spi all seem like good plays. IIRC those leaders are Elizabeth, Huyana, William, and Mansa.

If we expect the game to be generally peaceful, I lean towards the first two...who have UUs that don't factor much in the early game. As a bonus, the Incas start with Mysticism IIRC.

On the other hand, if we expect a competitive early game then the latter two might be nice. Mansa for the obvious huge edge skirms offer (my biggest fear with Lizzy would be starting next to Shaka and getting slammed by 20 Impis early), and William for the very powerful early creative bonus to let us secure land more safely and take an early tech lead.

Playing against humans, overall I really like Mansa or William. Mansa will let me sleep soundly with skirms, keeps financial, and allows the still useful spiritual trait. William also keeps financial, has a great UB, and has creative, which I think is at least as useful economically as Ind or Phi...probably much more so in the early game. Not having to chop a monument or build a missionary in early cities, plus fast libraries is indeed a really nice boost.

[ruff_hi]

I PM'd Atlas and got this reply ...

Ruff,

Until i got your pm i was unsure what this game was that you are playing. But i read the thread back to front and it seems that the game is some weird mix between SG and MP. In a pure MP it is all aggression and from turn 1. So I like Shaka (Agg./Exp) and Genghis (Agg./Imp) because they allow for ultra aggression and still expand easily. However it sounds like the other teams would be ultra pissed if you poached one of their workers, put a choke on them, or on turn 50 showed up with 20 swords. If that seems appropriate take one of those leaders (if unrestricted leaders is being played I really like the Persians, India, Egypt, and Zulu for early aggression-all have great UUs).

For more of a builder game I think the best 3 leaders are Suryvariam (Exp./Cre.), Willem Van Oranje (Cre./Fin.) or Pacal II (Exp./Fin.). If unrestricted leaders I would take Elizabeth (Phi./Fin.) of India. MP civ (like all civ really) is about getting that early advantage, whether it is cheaper workers/settlers or cheaper libraries or a tech lead as a result of better/earlier cottages and never letting that advantage fade. I imagine that at some point you probably will go to war, but if you are not planning for an early war then one of these guys is fine until the Medieval era otherwise take and aggressive leader. If unrestricted take India- fast workers are better than being Exp. (imho) so it is like getting a third trait.

Tell me what you (and others?) think of this so far and get back to me on a general plan and maybe I can provide more input.

BTW- here is a thread I wrote about Ancient MP for Warlords 2.08- it is geared for always war, but may be helpful
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203782

[sooooo]

I also would not be in favour of going for an early rush. Creative is sounding like a nice trait to have, and should be great for a cramped pangaea. So I'm liking Willem, Surya or even Louis.

[Swiss Pauli]

Some more Leaders to consider:

Hatty - CRE/SPI

Pericles - CRE/PHI

Kublai - AGG/CRE

Cathy - CRE/IMP

Judging by Krill's comments in the Map Type thread, and by the fact that half the other teams now left voted for Terra, I think there's a good chance we'll have to defend against a rush, if we choose not to try one oursleves.

[sunrise089]

Hatty, Kathy, and Kublai all lack a long-term economic trait, and IMHO that's giving up too much in the long game.

Also, Expansive is simply better than Imperialistic in MP, so I don't think Cathy should be really considered.

Pericles is nice (decent UU, good traits), but I think a CE is easier for a team to manage than a SE. Other than that, I'm ok with him. If we take an ancient UU leader though, I'd like to consider some sort of rush.

PS - Krill is (or was before BtS made lots of people stop playing) a dynamite MP player. I would definitely expect a rush from their squad.

EDIT: After talking things over with some of the top MP players, there is lots of support for Ethiopia's Creative/Organized. They point at that that will aid in New World colonization and that there is great synergy between the early Creative and later Organized trait, irrespective of land. Plus they point out the Terra maps are crowded in the early game, and Creative provides a nice boost there, and then Organized allows a higher tech rate for 6+ cities than financial with less-than-perfect land.

[Swiss Pauli]

Good spot on Zara, sunrise. I was sure I'd missed one of the good CRE leaders, but couldn't think which one!

[Zeviz]

I have no MP experience, so I can only say that I also wouldn't want an early rush, because that might create diplomatic difficulties later. However, somebody might try it against us, so we should be ready to defend from it.

[Compromise]

I confess that I've only just now been catching up on all these threads (my subscriptions here at apolyton were in woeful disarray), so I might have missed this but...has our RB team decided on a list of 5 leaders it would prefer for this one?

Also, @Kylearan I'm curious to know what the "great diplomat" (maybe not an exact quote from your post) did to help your team in the other demogame.

My default approach toward diplomacy would likely come from game theory: think of this as a kind of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game where the "tit-for-tat" is a simple strategy but often a winner. (Explanation available upon request.)

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by Compromise
Also, @Kylearan I'm curious to know what the "great diplomat" (maybe not an exact quote from your post) did to help your team in the other demogame.
Essentially, he maintained good relations as long as possible with as many teams as possible. Before he sent any official letter, he would post it in the private forum for discussion. The letters were always very polite and positive, and yet still right down to the point. He would also chat with key players from other teams from time to time, including some personal, non-game stuff in the conversation to build up personal relations. I think other teams thought he (and thus, our whole team) could be trusted. And, contrary to other teams, our diplomatic channels were always active, and fast-responding.

It's hard to pinpoint what exactly made him successful, but we all think he did play a major role in our success. At least it allowed us to be the first team to declare war and eliminate one team completely and still not be enemy number one for the rest of the world. Even now, as we're attacking a second team, do we have an ally left... There were other factors involved of course, like always doing trades favoring our trading partners, but the other teams never communicated as much as we did, thanks to General_W.

My default approach toward diplomacy would likely come from game theory: think of this as a kind of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game where the "tit-for-tat" is a simple strategy but often a winner.
I'm not sure the Prisoner's Dilemma applies here, as (as far as I remember) it assumes an infinite game length. If the game length is limited, the egotists might have an edge if they reveal themselves late enough. But tit-for-tat is a solid base to start from, I agree.

-Kylearan

[Swiss Pauli]

Time to start the serious deabte on leaders. It looks like we'll have to nominate 5 in order of preference. We had some good arguments in favour of the creative civs:

Zara (CRE/ORG)

Willem (CRE/FIN)

Pericles (CRE/PHI)

Sury (CRE/EXP)

Gliga's cheap courthouses and beefed-up axes might make up for his PRO trait.

Hatty's SPI will be a bit less useful in diplo, but it's always a useful trait.

Cathy's IMP might help in the early land-grab, but otherwise it's not very exciting.

Kublai's AGG will be useful for fighting, which is bound to happen at some point.

Louis' IND will give us cheap forges and Wonders, and in BtS his UU has a shelf-life.


I think Willem will be an extremely popular choice, so I only think he'll be worth including as our first choice.

Finally, this doesn't mean we have to choose a CRE civ. If a better argument for another leader is presented, I don't have any problem going with that choice. However, it'll need to be a very strong argument to outweigh the benefits of free early culture, and cheap libraries!

[Sullla]

I'm a huge fan of the Creative trait, especially for MP; it was already good in Civ4, and then Firaxis gave it another (unneeded!) boost with the cheap libraries in Beyond the Sword. Zara Yaqob especially is a nice choice, with about a billion different cheap buildings from Creative/Organized pairing.

I'd like to request we not play as Willem, if only because EVERYONE is going to be requesting the Dutch. We can be more inventive than that. :)

Here's a wildcard idea to throw out there: take an Industrious civ. Everyone downplays this trait, because on high-difficulty single player the AI is going to build most of the wonders anyway. Yet in MP, sometimes you'll have major wonders getting ignored, if only out of habit. Maybe it's not powerful enough to be worth consideration, but I thought I would throw the idea out there.

Regarding Kylearan and Compromise's diplomacy posts... I've never played the Avalon Hill game Diplomacy, but I have read dozens of different AARs posted on the Internet (it's a fascinating game to watch). One thing that proves true over and over again is that the most communicative players/teams always have the most success. Talk to everyone constantly, even those with whom you have little action going on, especially if you can do so in-character and/or include amusing anecdotes. The players/teams that usually fail and are eliminated are those that stayed silent and did nothing to make others like them. We at Realms Beyond should have a HUGE advantage in this regard, so we will want to make the most of it during the game!

All of us are pretty good at waxing verbose; for once that should come in handy. :D

[Zeviz]

If we are going to go for early wonders, Cre/Ind sounds like an exellent choise. (Is that Louis?)

Another military trait to consider is Charismatic. +1 :) for an essential early building is always good, and lower XP for promotions is a helpful boost. Are there any good Charismatic leaders? (Who is Cha/Fin, or Cha/Phil?)

And what about more Financial leaders?

[Compromise]

My MP experience is zero, but I have to say that I'd probably interpret a neighbor's Industrious trait as a bullseye....

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by Compromise
My MP experience is zero, but I have to say that I'd probably interpret a neighbor's Industrious trait as a bullseye....
If one is not careful, yes, it would say 'kick me'. But if we took MC with Oracle for the production there wouldn't be any great reason to attack us. Pyramids would be a different story. One shouldn't forget the potential use of the AP as a shield, either.

In principle, Willem will be the most 'at-risk' in the early game to stop him getting too powerful, but I think it'll be a question of land quality as to who gets targeted for a rush.

[sunrise089]

@Zevis - Charismatic is clearly inferior to Creative in my humble opinion. As to the question of other financial leaders, the problem we'll face there is giving up creative, at least if we're not hoping to roll the dice of Willem.

I still like Zara, but Louis also seems like a decent choice. Remember though that BOTH of them have musket-based UUs, so a war in that period could be viable with either.

[sooooo]

Louis or Zara seem like good choices to me. Anyone creative really. Hatshepsut I think would be a nice too.

[Compromise]

First draft, first being most desirable:


1) Zara CRE/ORG - short and long-term traits
2) Louis CRE/IND - Try for Oracle and cheap forges
3) Hatty CRE/SPI - Frequent civic swapping might be nice
4) Pericles CRE/PHI - ???
5) Willem CRE/FIN - just to make five

[sunrise089]

Originally posted by Compromise
First draft, first being most desirable:


1) Zara CRE/ORG - short and long-term traits
2) Louis CRE/IND - Try for Oracle and cheap forges
3) Hatty CRE/SPI - Frequent civic swapping might be nice
4) Pericles CRE/PHI - ???
5) Willem CRE/FIN - just to make five

QFT!

[mostly-harmless]

Looks good.
mh

[Zeviz]

Looks good.

Since we are guaranteed not to get Willem when he isn't our #1 choice, should we include a more realistic #5?

[sunrise089]

@Zevis - I say definitely not. In the unlikely event that all 5 of our choices are picked by other teams in spots higher than ours, and we loose the lottery on ties, I'd like to know it and be able to pick a new leader based on that information (for example, we'd know there were no aggressive civs) rather than pick someone we don't really want merely to fill the spot.

[Zeviz]

Good point. I haven't thought of that situation as an opportunity to gain free information.

[Compromise]

If we lose all the ties and don't get any of our top 5 picks, we should just take Monty. :D

[Swiss Pauli]

Good to see this moving along!

Originally posted by Compromise
First draft, first being most desirable:


1) Zara CRE/ORG - short and long-term traits
2) Louis CRE/IND - Try for Oracle and cheap forges
3) Hatty CRE/SPI - Frequent civic swapping might be nice
4) Pericles CRE/PHI - [Edit: SE and early, allrounder UU]
5) Willem CRE/FIN - just to make five

I quite like the 'Dutch Bluff' concept from sunrise, so we can keep as is as far as I'm concerned.

That said, if we want to take a high risk (variant?) approach with #5, we could pick Joao and try a Carrack gambit (though geography could stymie this utterly, of course).

[Sullla]

I like the current list a lot. Gets my vote. :D

I'd advise against the Joao/carrack idea. When we ran Adventure 19 (Mao's Muse), several individuals took Astronomy tech to start, intending to use it to get a jump on settling the New World. But when it came time for reporting day, none of those players really seemed to get much out of it. The problem is that you pretty much need to advance up the tech tree to Astronomy anyway in order to have the economy to settle overseas. Perhaps this is different with colonies (?) but I would guess it's still not worth it. Certainly a creative thought regardless!

Looks like the PAL team is on the verge of disbanding, based on comments posted on the forum. By the time this game starts, we may be one of the few left. And yet a few folks are still posting the #4 option (wait indefinitely for the patch) in the discussion thread. :rolleyes: At this point, the organization has been so poorly handled, it's starting to become amusing. :lol:

[Sullla]

Another one bites the dust...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176313

Looks like we're down to five teams now. :o

[mostly-harmless]

And if you now go back and look how those already disbanded teams voted, for example in map type ... we would play a different game by now.
I remember the discussion from the beginning, how this was supposed to be a Apolyton only demo game and some guy got a criticized for inviting other communities ...

We will soon have vote whether to allow the AI to take over those places, I guess.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by Sullla
Another one bites the dust...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=176313

Looks like we're down to five teams now. :o

Maybe some GS players will join PAL to give us six teams, but it's hard to escape the fact that the set-up process is badly flawed. In hindsight, I think the Poly admins should have proposed two or three complete set-ups for the teams to discuss (for 'brokenness' only) and then vote on. It can be hard to see the interdependencies with these micro-votes (e.g. Terra & Vassals).

[Swiss Pauli]

[SIZE=1]I'd advise against the Joao/carrack idea. When we ran Adventure 19 (Mao's Muse), several individuals took Astronomy tech to start, intending to use it to get a jump on settling the New World. But when it came time for reporting day, none of those players really seemed to get much out of it. The problem is that you pretty much need to advance up the tech tree to Astronomy anyway in order to have the economy to settle overseas. Perhaps this is different with colonies (?) but I would guess it's still not worth it. Certainly a creative thought regardless!
'Jain': the most successful strategy was the guy who took a scorched earth approach, and got the AI to capture his former capital. Unfortunately, the AI he picked was Toku who never forgave him for the initial DoW, and later attacked him furiously. No such problems would occur here.

That said, we probably don't want to run the risk of getting a landlocked start!

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by mostly-harmless We will soon have vote whether to allow the AI to take over those places, I guess.
No, as the map hasn't been set up, we won't be replacing any teams with Noble(!) AIs.

[mostly-harmless]

In that case, it will get less crowded then feared, since the map size is fixed. An early rush might be less likely.
mh

[sunrise089]

I'd think with 5 rather than 7 teams we'd consider dropping the map size.

[sooooo]

The civs list seems fine to me

[Swiss Pauli]

It seems we have a general consensuc for the list below, which I'll PM to Cybershy tomorrow, barring any last minute objections!

1) Zara CRE/ORG
2) Louis CRE/IND
3) Hatty CRE/SPI
4) Pericles CRE/PHI
5) Willem CRE/FIN

[Compromise]

Leader choice list looks good.

Since we're down to 5 teams, should we request a decrease in the map size too? (As it looks right now, the "letter to the mapmaker" still calls for a Standard-size map "subject to the number of teams").

[sunrise089]

@Compromise - Yes

[Zeviz]

I agree with asking to decrease the map size.

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by Compromise
Since we're down to 5 teams ...
What other team dropped out?
PAL says they will be back once the game gets started.
And I thought I saw some bananas posting lately.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

mh is right: we're still at six teams, which I think is OK for a Terra map (esp the starting landmass).

[Zeviz]

I thought team Banana also has no turn players. (It doesn't matter how many people they have on the rolls if none of them are willing to play turns.)

[mostly-harmless]

I think they are just missing their leader, but another member was just granted leader powers. Also some of the willing GS folks might distribute themselves over the other teams.
I would advise against a reduction in map size even if we are down to five teams. The additional free land should do us good in avoiding being rushed and putting our cultural trait to good use, grabbing loads of tiles.

mh

[Zeviz]

They are asking for the team password for the game. Is there some standard RB password we should use?

[Swiss Pauli]

We can use the same one as for the team email address: VariantScum

[Swiss Pauli]

The map is now ready for hosting, so we're almost ready to go (though we don't know our civ yet).

In terms of organization, I'd suggest setting up an initial turn player's thread (for 'got its' and reports), and an opening strategy thread. I want to keep these separate to avoid confusion over who's doing what and when. How does this sound? And any other threads to open at this time?

[mostly-harmless]

Sounds good. I am glad out team captain is still with us.
I hope a few more people will come back to this.
mh

[Sullla]

Those sound like excellent suggestions, Swiss Pauli. We should post a message back at RB when the game actually opens for real. You can't blame people for wandering off during the... let's see... 86 days this has been in planning. :rolleyes:

[Compromise]

Strategy thread and separate player's thread...sounds good.

[sunrise089]

The only problem I have with the 2-thread split is that where is the turn player supposed to post their thoughts on what to do next?

I think the above 2-thread system would work fine, but to me it makes the most sense to put "got its," reports, AND thoughts on what to do during the next turn in one thread, and the longer term planning, analysis, and discussion in the other, so that way a player who only needs to know what to do next only has to look at one thread.

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by sunrise089
The only problem I have with the 2-thread split is that where is the turn player supposed to post their thoughts on what to do next?

I think the above 2-thread system would work fine, but to me it makes the most sense to put "got its," reports, AND thoughts on what to do during the next turn in one thread, and the longer term planning, analysis, and discussion in the other, so that way a player who only needs to know what to do next only has to look at one thread.

I think that the suggestion for the next turn would sometimes (often) belong in turn player's thread (there will be lot of 'hit enter' in the early going), and sometimes (occasionally) belong in the strategy thread (starting a new build, new tech etc) where there should be some (short) discussion, if practical given time constraints.

I expect the turn players to check the strategy thread before playing: it doesn't take long to do so, and there's always the chance that someone spots something of interest overlooked by the last turn player.

[sooooo]

How "demogame" is this demogame going to be? Are we going to have ministers for xxx and whatever?

[mostly-harmless]

Maybe we can assign "responsibilities" as we grow as a tribe/civ. And specialize should the need arise. That should fit fine with some role playing.
No point assigning a chief of the navy at this point. :-)

mh

[Zeviz]

I'd like to have at least a dedicated diplomat who would conduct negotiations with other teams.

Later in the game, we might also need people in charge of specific aspects of micromanagement (military, micromanagement, great people strategy, etc.) Overall, SG-like format seems best at running things smoothly, but I am fine with any team structure.

[Sullla]

I've never really gotten the whole Demogame "thing", where individuals will adapt certain roles and then pretend to act out their in-game interests. From watching the CivFanatics demogames, at times this gets almost comically silly. I'd personally be much more comfortable with the succession game format: one person playing the turns, with a number of others looking at the saves and offering comments/suggestions. That seems like a more productive avenue to me.

We may well want to have different individuals focus on certain areas, of course. The notion of tagging one team member to focus on diplomacy and write messages to the other teams sounds like an excellent suggestion.

Another related question: I don't know most of these Apolyton players on the other teams. Does anyone here know them by reputation (?) The Gathering Storm team that dropped out had some pretty well-known MP guys, for example. This might help us to figure out playing tendencies/likely strategies, and who's likely to be the most dangerous longterm. (Quick example: I'm extremely unimpressed by this Rob guy. He seems to be 95% talk, 5% action. ;))

[Swiss Pauli]

As to role playing, I'd like us to make a tounge -in-cheek nod in that direction by employing Orwell's 1984 ministries on an occasional basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministries_of_Oceania

For example, when making a public post, sign off as username, RB Minister for Truth; in private diplomacy, Minister for Peace, etc.

What do you guys think?

[Zeviz]

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli
As to role playing, I'd like us to make a tounge -in-cheek nod in that direction by employing Orwell's 1984 ministries on an occasional basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministries_of_Oceania

For example, when making a public post, sign off as username, RB Minister for Truth; in private diplomacy, Minister for Peace, etc.

What do you guys think?
Sounds like an exellent idea, Comrade.

Zeviz,
Minister of Plenty :sick:
(Where is that :whipped: posticon when you need it? :p )

[mostly-harmless]

Any suggestions / volunteers for the diplomat?
I always like Kylearan way of working the AIs, but I think he won't have much time? (hint, hint, any good news yet?)

mh

[darrelljs]

Is uberfish around? He's a diplomacy master. If you want to have no chance of winning diplomatic victory, nominate me :rolleyes:.

Darrell

[Compromise]

Any comment I'd make would surely advance the aims of our adversaries.

-Minister of Intelligence

[Kodii]

1984? :lol:

Sorry for my apparently "not-here"-edness. I got lost in the discussion a while back and had neglected to keep up until now, but I'm here and ready to offer my (lowly) expertise wherever needed.

By the way...

Our team has two Big Brothers :eek:

[sunrise089]

Well I guess we need to divide ourselves into 1 Inner Party member, 2-3 Outer Party Members, and the remained proles.

So long as I don't have to join the Junior Anti-Sex League, I'm happy with any of the above :)

[Zeviz]

Originally posted by Kodii
...

Our team has two Big Brothers :eek:
There is only one Big Brother. You are just seeing double.

Zeviz,
Minister of Truth :twoface:

More seriously, Rob started treating me as co-leader when I was substituting for Swiss a couple weeks ago. I didn't even notice that he promoted me on the roster until you pointed it out.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by mostly-harmless
I always like Kylearan way of working the AIs, but I think he won't have much time? (hint, hint, any good news yet?)

No good news yet, but it can happen any day now :) (it will happen next week one way or another, as my wife is not allowed to overcarry).

I don't think I'm very good at diplomacy. Especially, I think this should be a position for a native speaker who does not miss semantic nuances, hidden meanings etc. :)

-Kylearan

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by Kylearan
(it will happen next week one way or another

The best of luck to you three. It will change everything. We will let you know in 2 years time how this demogame went. :D

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

All this really belongs in the General Discossuion thread, but so long as we don't pollute the strategy and turn thread I don't mind.

Originally posted by Kodii
1984? :lol:

By the way...

Our team has two Big Brothers :eek:

There were always two big brothers, even when there was only one. That's the beauty of Doublethink.

[ruff_hi]

Originally posted by Zeviz
I'd like to have at least a dedicated diplomat who would conduct negotiations with other teams.Do we have a volenteer for this post yet? If not, I'd like to do it.

Re playing a character - I think this is important when communicating with the other team - it helps with consistency. Do we know our leader yet? We could play it staight up and down based on who that is (ie Play Louis XIV - SunGod as worried about his people becoming decadent while he himself likes to trade wheat for gems, etc). Little inconsistencies and off topic stories that leaders might swap would be good to throw in too.

BTW - are these communications between leaders or between leader's lackies?

Ruff

[Sullla]

Another related question: I don't know most of these Apolyton players on the other teams. Does anyone here know them by reputation (?) The Gathering Storm team that dropped out had some pretty well-known MP guys, for example. This might help us to figure out playing tendencies/likely strategies, and who's likely to be the most dangerous longterm. (Quick example: I'm extremely unimpressed by this Rob guy. He seems to be 95% talk, 5% action. ;))

Bumped for potential discussion. :)

[sunrise089]

Originally posted by Sullla


Bumped for potential discussion. :)

Sorry, I knew Krill very well but my knowledge of players ended with his involvement in the game.

[Swiss Pauli]

From the team list, we know a bit about Dale and Methos. Other than those two, Unorthodox and Locotus seem to be switch on based on their posts, but one point to note is that we're starting on 2 landmasses.

Also, the GS players have been spread around which could well change the their teams approach. Finally, we don't know who's going to play the turns: although I'm Team Leader, I don't intend to play many turns, or dictate the strategy.

I think the best approach is to focus on our own game, but not to get too distracted by shiny things :D

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by ruff_hi
Do we have a volenteer for this post yet? If not, I'd like to do it.

Re playing a character - I think this is important when communicating with the other team - it helps with consistency. Do we know our leader yet? We could play it staight up and down based on who that is (ie Play Louis XIV - SunGod as worried about his people becoming decadent while he himself likes to trade wheat for gems, etc). Little inconsistencies and off topic stories that leaders might swap would be good to throw in too.

BTW - are these communications between leaders or between leader's lackies?

Ruff
Thanks for volunteering: you're hired :cool:

As to character, let's stick with the 1984 theme, but the best approach to diplomacy is to be yourself: trying to act out a persona will make it diffcult for other teams to work you out and so they're less likely to trust you.

[ruff_hi]

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli

Thanks for volunteering: you're hired :cool:

As to character, let's stick with the 1984 theme, but the best approach to diplomacy is to be yourself: trying to act out a persona will make it diffcult for other teams to work you out and so they're less likely to trust you. So much for exercising my acting talents! I'm planning on writing up a history based on our leader and 1984 (maybe Animal Farm too) and will post it here - will share that with teams as we meet them. Typically PBEM games start this way but then quickly just drop the whole leader thing and interact personally.

I'll also use our gmail account that Lee set up for communication - will post copies of emails here (one thread per team?).

[mostly-harmless]

Ah, don't we have a dedicated gmail account already set up by Kylearan couple of months ago? Or are we talking about the same here?
mh

[ruff_hi]

Originally posted by mostly-harmless
Ah, don't we have a dedicated gmail account already set up by Kylearan couple of months ago? Or are we talking about the same here?
mh errr yes. Isn't Lee = Kylearan or have I got that mixed up?

[Kodii]

Lee = LKendter, unless there is more than one Lee o_o

[ruff_hi]

ahh - so Kylearan <> LKendter even though they share a KLER&N ... can we call one Bruce so that I don't get confused again? :D

[Zeviz]

Thanks for volonteering to be the diplomat.

I like roleplaying, but I don't know how other teams would respond to it. It might help relax the mood if done well, so I wouldn't object to you doing it, as long as you don't RP a dystopian dictator, since that might not go over as well.

Zeviz,
Minister of Peace :hammers:

(Or was I supposed to pick one ministry and stick with it for all of my posts? :) )

PS To answer Sulla's question about other teams, here are my guesses based on what I saw in this forum. (These are just guesses, so if somebody knows key players in other teams, please post.)

PAL will probably play this game as a regular MP (early rush)

Templars might roleplay crusaders (based on the discussion I saw near the end of their signup thread), so potential for aggression against those who don't share their religion.

Rabbits sound a little too obsessed with roleplaying to be a serious threat, but we shouldn't underestimate them.

Banana sounds like a 1-person team, so they might end up replaced with an AI.

And Imperio is probably competent, but I have no idea.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by ruff_hi
errr yes. Isn't Lee = Kylearan or have I got that mixed up?
I don't have Lee's impressive game and post record, and never would have thought somebody would mix me up with him... :lol:

Let's hope you won't mix up the other teams as well when forging alliances or delivering a declaration of war... :D

-KyLeearan

[ruff_hi]

Did you guys see the thread about the game historian? Some poor smuck wants to write up what happens during the game for 'publishing' post game. He would like access to our thread to help with this process.

Thoughts? I think - sure, go for it.

[mostly-harmless]

Hmm, don't know about the historian. Why would he need access to the team forums? Couldn't he just open the savegame in the worldbuilder to keep track of history?

Letting some dubious outsider peer at our tribal cave drawings and allow him to count through our stockpile of loinclothes??? I advise caution, but are willing to follow the guidance of your esteemed diplomatic corps.

mh

[Sullla]

I really could care less if Krill wants to be game historian. I do enough of that professionally, no desire to take it up for fun. ;)

More importantly - wasn't the game supposed to start today? (April 28) I was expecting to find the start already posted when I signed on this afternoon, doubly so since RobWorham is "down under" and it's already the next day where he is. Please tell me we're not going to suffer through yet another delay with this thing. Not sure I could take that.

[mostly-harmless]

Hah, I was checking the site all day, which is almost over for me here. I guess the guy hosting the game sits on Samoa or somewhere near, so he is just about to get breakfast. ...

[Swiss Pauli]

Beta, the host, might be in Malta (if his flag is to be trusted), so maybe he plans to start it this evening, though I wish he'd posted something this morning to confirm his plans :mad:

[mostly-harmless]

I believe all Templars chose Malta as their flag, because they are, well, templars?
Unless I am mistaken and Malta has a over-proportional CIV community. :-)

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

m-h was correct...

Originally posted by Beta
I'm here. :relief: Sorry folks. Doing stuff for family is going to be the death of me, along with now being the president of the committee for the new off-leash dog park here in my city.

I plan on launching later today - around 6pm edt. (UTC-5).

And at around 7pm the Templars' nuclear strike will occur - if Cyber Shy got all the appropriate changes made. :cute:

I will be asleep when the he opens the game, so someone else will have to verify that the password - VariantScum' - works, etc, and so on.

[ruff_hi]

I'm assuming there are instructions for how to load the game but I haven't managed to stumble onto them. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Also, are we allowed to open the game and take a look / see? I'm assuming that the designated player will actually play the moves. What happens if I swap worked tiles around to test growth, completion, research times etc - do they 'stick' or are my changes flushed if I don't save?

[Zeviz]

For people waiting for the game, here is the latest news:
Originally posted by Beta
Ok - we do NOT have ignition.

I still have a technical glitch with my router that prevents access via direct IP. Snoop is working with me on it.

Also, my schedule does not looking much better over the next couple of weeks.

So, we have moved the rocket from my launch pad to snoopy369's. He will commence hosting of the game until I get the router issue solved and a bit more free time.

Sorry for the delay. I expect we will hear something from snoop shortly.
If these delays continue, the start date might conflict with reporting for an RB event: Epic 25. :p

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I probably shouldn't start this until next week (monday) if I'm hosting it - i'm out of town this weekend so it's not a great idea to start while that happens (yay random power outages). I should be able to monday evening though.

make that Epic 26...

[Sullla]

You've got to be kidding me! This is the most incompetent group I've ever been around. We're currently on day 94 of planning! Just start the damned game already!

[sunrise089]

Originally posted by Sullla
You've got to be kidding me! This is the most incompetent group I've ever been around. We're currently on day 94 of planning! Just start the damned game already!
I agree (though the MP tournament directors during the Civ Clan Championships may be close behind), I just hope they don't read our forums much. Otherwise we may receive the coveted desert/river, tundra start with plains/sheep for our food :)

[mostly-harmless]

From the Historians book:
"In the beginning the earth was without form and void ...
... and to much surprise of the restless tribes stayed that way ..."

One would think that technical issues should have been tested and solved in 3 months. Or maybe its just me being so used to tight deadlines in the job world?

mh

[darrelljs]

<Pokes head in door, looks around>

I have a minor requst...can someone please post at RB when this starts up finally? I keep forgetting to check the forum :blush:.

Darrell

[Zeviz]

The epic tale of trying to organize a single game continues:

Originally posted by snoopy369
****, totally forgot when I got home (another long day, bad for the memory apparently...)

I will try very hard to remember this tonight!!! Sorry!

If RB events were run with this level of competence and professionalism, we'd still be waiting for somebody to open reporting for Epic 4.

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by Zeviz
we'd still be waiting for somebody to open reporting for Epic 4.
Doh! Epic 4! forgot to report! :eek:

Kidding, but I am getting very annoyed by these people here.

mh

[Sullla]

Yeah, really. With no offense intended to the organizers of this venture, I hope they're never placed in a position of real importance. I'd be fired from my teaching job if I approached it with the same incompetence and lack of punctuality. (Speaking of which... I've literally taught an entire semester while this game has been in planning. Ha! 101 days and counting.)