What Civ and leader for our first game?

[nbarclay]

What civ and leader do we want to play for our first game? I'll go with whatever seems to have the most support at the time I'm ready to lock in that aspect of the scenario (using my vote to break a tie if there is one).

[ducki]

Arabia is a fun one with a nice trait combo, especially for a "lazy" game where we're concentrating on getting back into the swing of things.

Actually, all the civs are "good", IMO.

Hmm... in order to avoid stepping on the toes of a non-Orientation course, how about something with a late late UU, like America or Germany?

This is for the Orientation, right? Where we're just learning/relearning how these things go, how to write our DARs, how to gamble in-game for the sake of learning something valuable, etc?

Edit: I'd avoid India, because I can definitely smell a course centered on the worth of the Fast Worker.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Washington is a good choice; many players don't realize how effect the Organized trait is, and playing a full game with him would be an excellent chance to demonstrate the considerable savings, if the civics used are appropriate.

[ducki]

When it says Organized reduces Civic upkeep by 50%, does that mean "everything", city upkeep from distance/number, etc, or is it just the upkeep cost of the Civics options you employ in the F3 Civics Advisor?

[Krill]

Just the upkeep for Civics.

[V3nom]

I would recommend starting with a civ that is spiritual simply because

1)it gives everyone an increased ability to try things with religions
2)people will be more able to experiment with their civics.

either that or philisophical to allow testing with great leaders.

[nbarclay]

I think it would probably be better if we pick a civ/leader combination that's fairly strong in the early game rather than one that doesn't really come into its own until later. If players get too far behind early, they may either quit or find themselves in a hole they can't dig their way out of.

[monkspider]

I would agree with Friedrich that Washington would be a good choice since I have been skeptical of the organized trait thus far and would like to see the benefits it would reap in the hands of experts.

I would even go so far as to suggest perhaps "The Chairman" also since he is philosophical and organized. Philosophical would provide more benefit in the early game, and more exposure to great people. Their UU the Cho-Ko-Nu would also highlight another new game concept, the first strike.

[Fireb]

Some good ideas posted.

However, in order to see the benefits of something somewhat abstract (organised trait, first strike, etc) you need to be able to compare it with something else...(for example, compare organised with financial for different sized empires, and see which one reaps you the most accumulated benefits).

Regarding organised, in SP at least, the first part of the game is the usually the most important in detirmining the final outcome. Organised is a good thing to do for a course, once we have the basic idea of how things work.

As to the crossbowmen, I have (in 5-6 games) yet to find a use for them! I'm usually building wonders when I research the tech, and by the time I build units I already have macemen, longbows, knights, etc. They might be effective in a game with tech stagnation (epic I guess)? Of course, the fact that I havn't figured out how to use them doesn't mean that they're not usefull

So...to be constructive ,I would suggest not one race...one big first course....but many! Rather than playing through a whole game, how about playing through many parts of many games - after all, the object here is to learn, not to get a high score This way the course can give a brief glimpse to the many different races/options/strategies, offering insights into their benefits, without getting into too much detail, just right for a first course!

Some things that might be included in such a course:
- pillaging an enemy with mongol horsemen (good for money, weakening oponent, gaining xp)
- specialising cities for great people/science/unit production
- defending effectively against a large invasion, guerilla warfare, delaying tactics, hit and run, counterstrikes, diversionary raids, etc.
- attacking effectively against well defended targets in the early/mid/late periods
- different ways to make money (religion, organisation, financial, burning and pillaging, tribute, specialists, science/resource/map trading (e.g. get 5-10gc/turn for your extra resources instead of a luxury item you don't need yet)

basically an amalgram that lets people see the various advantages/dissadvantages of different nations/UU's/civics/strategies, etc.

Any thoughts?

[DrSpike]

I don't think it matters much.

[Arrian]

It's hard to go wrong with Ghandi. I highly recommend the Gman

-Arrian

[ZargonX]

My vote would be for Washington, as I think Ghandi should be saved for a "fast-worker" related course later.

[donZappo]

Well, if we're really interested in making people appreciate what power the Organized trait has, then we really need a control group to compare it to. Perhaps it would be of interest to have two different games for the start of the AU, with everything being identical except for the starting leader. To take it a step further, the alternate civ trait should give a similar sort of bonus so that the AU course could also function for a rudimentary comparison between two very similar traits as well as a quick introduction to the game as a whole.

With that being said, I think it would be interesting to use Roosevelt as one of the leaders, and Qin Shi Huang as another. Considering their minor differences in starting techs, their less important unique units, this might serve as a good comparison between the Financial and Organized trait for an early AU course while also being a quick introduction to the game as a whole.

-donZappo

[DeepO]

I would go with a balanced one instead, to see a lot of different tactics. And a spiritual one is probably best as well, you want people to switch to multiple civic combinations to try them out, not 'guess' at how strong a civic combo is, needing to stick with it for hundreds of years just to avoid the anarchy.

Saladin is nice, easy at first. I don't think an organized one would be good: keep washington for course 2 or 3. Hatsheput might be a good one to choose too.

Also, I agree on picking an early UU. But please make sure that the needed resources are somewhere near... no Saladin without horses please. Not yet at least

DeepO

[V3nom]

yeah as I said earlier, pick traits that emphisise flexibility at first. Testing the power of certain traits can come later after we've all got a more solid feel for the game imho