Poll: Leader for First Game

[Fried-Psitalon]

Pardon me for claim jumping, but even if we're waiting for the patch, we may as well hash this out.

If no one gets 50%, we'll take the top two and go at it again.

[Fried-Psitalon]

I would favor Washington. Here's why:


NON-spiritual. We have to decide about an early religion, rather than having an easy out.

LATE Unique Unit. No crutch in the early game.

Non-Industrial. No crutch going for wonders.

Organized trait - seriously frowned on trait - let's give it a good look.

[ZargonX]

Washington

[UnOrthOdOx]

I would argue those are precisely reasons NOT to choose Washington.

This is the first game, should serve more as an easing into Civ IV than anything else.

Yes, I want a good, hard look at Organized myself. Does that mean it should be the first course?

I'll have to get out my list. Don't have the who is what traits memorized, will respond later.

[Fried-Psitalon]

If you want to give the game a fair shake, you don't make it easy on yourself. Then when you play a later game, you feel like you were slapped in the face. Better to take it head on to start with, and properly appreciate advantages later, than to take the easy road right away and suffer through feeling the loss of those advantages later.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Organized operates mostly 'under the hood', though.

Here we have people new to Civ IV, and new to AU both. Do we really want to be throwing them something of a curveball with a somewhat clandestine trait? Or, would it be better to give them more tangible, easily seen traits first?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see allot of people really dissect it apart. My first few games on Monarch have me thinking it really comes into it's own on difficulties above Noble.

[donZappo]

It seems like it might be a good idea to use a trait that does operate "under the hood" so that we could see how the game itself has changed, rather than seeing how it has changed in the context of a civ trait. I like the list that Fried-Psitalon created since it points out precisely why Washington would be good for seeing the overall game. I'd hate for the first AU game to really turn into a course in how to leverage a civ's certain trait or UU to the utmost advantage.

[QuestGAV]

I think that's a reasonable idea. Washington plays out in fairly "vanilla" fashion. The focus can be on generalized strategies and high-level ideas rather than on the minutiae that make upper level victories possible. For the people looking to improve their game they get a better window into strategic thinking of others rather than on tactical plays.

[donZappo]

Hmm, does this mean that the whole AU panel has been done away with and the AU is no going to operate as a true democracy?

[Fried-Psitalon]

::shrug:: I operate on a principal of "If you want things to get underway, get them underway."

Unless someone throws this poll out as invalid, it's still worthy of consideration even if there is some kind of advisory panel - it shows where the interest lies.

[vovan]

I voted Frederick. He is Philosophical, so you can see the new way Great People work in action. He is also Creative, so you get some extra culture. Overall, it seems he would be a good builder, Frederick, and so I think he would do nicely for a first course, because playing as him would require rethinking aggressive strategies that were more efficient in Civ3.

[SupremeShogun]

Who I would want to see analyzed is Victoria and Peter.
Also Washington to some extent to compare with Vickie.


Peter for reasons of using philosophical to the max.

[ZargonX]

Hmm, does this mean that the whole AU panel has been done away with and the AU is no going to operate as a true democracy?

The AU Panel is (was?) for just deciding what would warrent inclusion into the AU Mod. We were not in control of all course content.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by QuestGAV
I think that's a reasonable idea. Washington plays out in fairly "vanilla" fashion. The focus can be on generalized strategies and high-level ideas rather than on the minutiae that make upper level victories possible. For the people looking to improve their game they get a better window into strategic thinking of others rather than on tactical plays.

Good point. If this is an intro to Civ 4 course, focusing more on grand strategy is a good thing. So I vote Washington.

[Arrian]

Roma Victor!

-Arrianus