Poll: Leader for First Game

[ZargonX]

I would also agree for standard across the board for the rest of the settings for this first course.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Well, Washington is now up over 50% with no one else even above 10% except Saladin at 17... I guess with over 48 hours passed that's conclusive?

What's the next step? Determine the map type, world size, and game speed?

Yes and probably get the game going after the first patch which appears to be imminent

[Bobby Chicken]

Montezuma is the best for the first game. Its early special unit requires no recouses and spiritual allows you to test the new civics system. For players who have not played the civ series, aggressive means it can be the war game they probably expected.

[Cryptor]

It seems that the traits in civ4 are fairly well balanced, with the arguable exception of financial v organised. So, no matter what leader we choose, traits are going to play a role in the game. A lot of people seem not to want traits to play a role in the first course, so I see the only solution is to play a civ with no traits, no unique unit, and probably no starting techs. This would make the game more challenging, but people can play down a level if they wish. And it will give people a good baseline for comparison when they play civs with traits and starting techs in the future.

[monkspider]

I was quite skeptical of organized at first, but lately I have beem coming around to it. I look forward to seeing it in action in the hands of experts.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Give it another day or two, but it looks like the early favorite is Mr.Washington.

I don't mind Saladin, but I'd rather not see a Philosophical civ be the first one we play - it's easy to get trite with the great leaders when you're Philosophical, since you get so darned many of them. They're a very precious resource, and PHI civs get to ignore that to some extent. Also, their Guild-based resourceless UU makes for serious beeline bait, and can be used as a bigtime crutch.

Fun civ, but not good for learning a game on.

Sorry, I went straight for "my guy". I didn't take any of this into account, I really should have.

Maybe that's what needs to come first, an in-depth regarding each leader. This will help us decide who to start with, who to concentrate on, and who to make specific lessons for (i.e. how to really abuse Saladin and his Mys/Phi traits).

It would also make for a great post for those taking the course. Help them decide who they like better and who to try in their next game.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by ZargonX
I would also agree for standard across the board for the rest of the settings for this first course.

Except map size. I think a smaller map (maybe not "Tiny" but one step up from that). Just to keep the time to something manageable and ensure contact with all the other civs.

Although, I don't think we can do all 18 civs on a small map. We'd have to cut that down to 6-8. (although, it'd be fun to try all 18 civs on a tiny pangea. Boy that's a challenge for the books.)

Tom P.

[Caligula 37 AD]

I'm currently playing 8 AIs on a "small" map (one up from tiny), great plains.
Ashouk, Qin Shi Huang, Elisabeth, Peter, Louis XIV, Caesar, that incan warmonger, Bismark, Saladin + me (Isabella).

Lots and lots of diplo action, trade and embargos, religious conflicts, small campaigns, world war etc. But no barbs nor naval. And only three of us making it to the end game (ashouk, saladin and me)

I think such a crowded map is a bit to diversing to be comparable for the first course + only a few AIs will make it through. But then again it is rather fast due to the minimum #of cities in the early ages.

I'd humbly suggest small pangea or continents, 4-5 AIs.
But hey - wait! ... that's another poll!

In this one I go with the crowd and say "vanilla".

- little student eager to meet the teacher -

[Addled Platypus]

China

never played them

does not realy matter to me who it is

AU game on !