Is course 101 being thought out?

[Dubhghlas]

My guess is that it should present a problem in handling military issues; this game's tactics have to be somewhat different than those in prior iterations, especially Civ III. It feels to me a blend of SMAC (where the odds almost told you the outcome) and Civ II, where there were often some shreds of doubt. Also, cities appear to be very hard to take out, requiring some true effort at proper mix of units.

For me, this is what I'll need the most help with: I usually prefer to play as a pacifist and ignore fighting, which flaw will eat me alive in the multiplayer games!

[chriseay]

I like this idea, as I am just finishing my first big warmongering game (relatively, as I too am a pacifist in civ). There are many challenges to the fighting, beyond the units and combat systems, that I think we could explore.

This game was on noble, continents, small map, all other standard settings with Kublai Khan. Problems I had:

- Focus on an early rush precluded me from expansion, meaning while I destroyed my enemy and got three cities, it took forever to fill in the gaps on the continent that ended up being all mine.
- Because of the early rush and lack of expansion, science was hampered greatly. This coupled with no trading partners until optics caused me to fall far behind in tech.
- Once I filled in most of the gaps on the continent I ran out of money. Supporting a large remaining army and lots of cities without the prerequisite techs for markets, banks and courthouses was very hard. I ran on 10 percent research for quite a while.
- Once I decided to take out two other civs in the modern era, I lacked proper planning. I still took one out easily, and the other I should be able to defeat, but this is an area I think lots of people might need help on....tech advantage and numerical superiority alone don't make for an easy win.

If there had been someone else on that continent I would have been toast though. I'm also not nearly good enough at the modern war, because I know that I had the tech and the infrastructure to have won my two modern wars much more easily, but I don't know where or when to attack.

[Dubhghlas]

I think the game could be set up one of two ways:

1. Goal of game is win by conquest. Have a smaller board and three or maybe four AI civs.

2. Put you in a medium sized board, but include all the warrior civs, each one a bit further out from you. That'll make you work a bit!

[chriseay]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
I think the game could be set up one of two ways:

1. Goal of game is win by conquest. Have a smaller board and three or maybe four AI civs.

2. Put you in a medium sized board, but include all the warrior civs, each one a bit further out from you. That'll make you work a bit!

I like #2. Put all of the agressive AI's on a standard map and turn off all victory conditions but either conquest or domination. That'll make it so even us pacifist's are made to fight a lot! Should be a fun game even if it is a change of pace for me (I had zero, zero!, wars in the first AU game).

[Arrian]

I'm up for this sort of approach, sure. I too have been playing mostly builder so far. My wars have mostly been either defensive or late-game "sledgehammer" affairs.

My vote: standard size map, aggressive civ (Inca? Napolean's France?), continents.

If we wanted to make it even more challenging, we could make the home continent full of aggressive types and then stick some really solid builder-style civs overseas (Elizabeth, Mansu Musa... civs like that).

-Arrian

[Dubhghlas]

Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.

[Caligula 37 AD]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.

I suppose that means the AIs will get more units than normal on levels below Monarch?
I'm not against that as long as it is clarified in the intro of the course.

Some of us might plan to skip a level for the next course, in my case I plan to skip Noble altogether.

Anyone know what level the first course was made in, and what units the AIs got?

As for the theme; I never fight wars unless I have to. As chriseay I need fighting experience and vote "ja!".

However:
1. Monarch AI start
2. Forced warmonger play
3. Aggressive opponents only
4. Skipping Noble
, might be one too many new factors for me. Must think

- C

[Dubhghlas]

Hey, if school isn't full of hard knocks, what good is it??

[chriseay]

Truthfully, I don't mind this game being hard. I want a challenging game, and if I end up losing that'll be ok.

I too am thinking about skipping noble all together, as I've been playing some personal games on that level, and I've been winning fairly handily. I've also started a Prince level game, and I am doing alright, though by no means well. I think I still at least have a chance to pull out some sort of win, but I'll probably lose.

I say go for the Monarch AI start to ramp up the difficulty a little, but more importantly to make military a more pressing concern. We'll be far behind to start, and that will make everyone who doesn't focus on military enough do so, or get a hurting.

[Arrian]

There's gotta be a way to set it up such that we can play whatever difficulty we want to play - starting units for the AI (or lack thereof) included.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.

Read that information again, please

As I understand it, the current way of making scenarios will be unbalanced over the difficulty levels. However, by editing out the units, only having the starting positions, it should be corrected... every level starts like it supposes to. There is no problem here, only a bit more work needed to set it up correctly. Part of AU is that we learn how to set up good courses too

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, and those asking for Monarch units everywhere: I think you underestimate what difference one little unit can mean... If you play on Monarch, there is one little thing that will hamper your early game and that's the free worker. The bonusses on research and production are moderate, and really kick in later.

Give that worker to Noble players, and they will have a very hard time. You might end up killing the early wars for them: by the time you can build 3 axes without utmost focus, every AI will have multiple cities with plenty of units (which is what you expect at Monarch. Not on noble). By the time their research and production can outpace that first worker, you passed the Ancient era, and might be half way trough Medieval

DeepO

[joncnunn]

Deep O is correct, in many ways Noble + AI with free worker is tougher than standard Prince.

And Emperor without the AI bonus units is easier than standard Monarch.

What we need is a way that the AI starts with exactly the proper units for the difficulty level chosen.

[joncnunn]

Well, there are the obvious options that we might try:

1. An Ice Age map (extra challenging map)

2. The no tech trades ever option. (To learn how to function in an enviroment where you have to reserach every tech yourself)

3. The always peace option. (For war monglers to build up their building skills)

4. The always war option. (For peace lovers to build up their war making skills)

[nbarclay]

The course number for the next course should be 141 to differentiate the Civ IV course numbers from the Civ 3 ones. AU 100 was a special case, since it's outside the normal pattern of themed courses and is intended not just as a Civ IV course but also to introduce Apolyton University to new students.

We also need to consider whether we want to have a 100-B game - another unthemed introductory one - before we move on to themed courses. I see two advantages to doing so. First, it would give players more time to get used to Civ IV and more chance to learn from other people's strategies so they'll have a better background to adjust their play to the theme, which in turn would make the themed course a little more valuable. And second, there may still be players who don't have the game -- especially if they're planning to get it as a Christmas present - and delaying the first themed course a little would provide less of a feeling that people in that position are falling behind. My inclination would be to go ahead and launch a 100-B now for whoever has time to play it and target the release of 141 for the Friday before Christmas.