Is course 101 being thought out?

[DeepO]

I can live with 100-B now, and 141 around Christmas... I'm still finishing 100-A...

One thing though: I strongly advice a religious leader for the next 'normal' one (so 141). That's really a showcase trait: it let's you swap civics every couple of turns, meaning all kind of short-lived combinations will appear in DARs. Very informative reading, with so many different playstyles passing the revue.

DeepO

[Dubhghlas]

While I agree that the religious aspects should be addressed, and fairly quickly, let's face it, the game is at its most basic level still a wargame, and the methodology for attacking and winning has changed. Towns don't just roll over and die any more; it seems to take some true co-ordination to achieve a military victory unless you have significant military technological superiority. So I would still vote for a military scenario first.

[ZargonX]

I think a 100-B is a pretty good idea, but mostly because I lost at 100-A and need to regain my confidence

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
While I agree that the religious aspects should be addressed, and fairly quickly, let's face it, the game is at its most basic level still a wargame, and the methodology for attacking and winning has changed. Towns don't just roll over and die any more; it seems to take some true co-ordination to achieve a military victory unless you have significant military technological superiority. So I would still vote for a military scenario first.

Even if I don't agree with your wargame characterization, I don't oppose a military scenario. However, especially in war, showcasing several strategies through civics is needed right now.

REL doesn't exclude war: pick a map, pick any kind of REL leader, and hupsakidei... everybody's happy

DeepO

[Arrian]

Spi/Ind - Ghandi
Spi/Phi - Saladin
Spi/Exp - Isabella
Spi/Fin - Mansa Musa
Spi/Agg - Monty
Spi/Org - ?

I say we avoid Mansa, since we've used FIN in 100-A. I say either Ghandi or Monty.

-Arrian

-Arrian

[Snotty]

Ghandi vs the warmongers sounds like a good theme.

I think there is an option to make the AI even more aggressive.

Originally posted by Dubhghlas


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!

Its quite possible to play MP as a pacifist and only defend yourself from attack, but your ability and foresight in how to defend youself will be stretched in a way that the AI doesnt seem to stretch you. To run a AU course on attack or defense I think we need to simulate this aggression and these huge unexpected stacks as best we can

[Blake]

How about Asoka (Spi/Org, the Forgotten Indian) for a more balanced approach?

Ghandi seems to be a bit too much of a "Wonder fest", you pretty much grab a whole heap of wonders to properly leverage Industrial. I think that Asoka would involve more interesting strategy, Wonders are a bigger gamble and the investment needs more rigorous justifaction.

Isabella would also be an interesting leader.

[Arrian]

Ah, yes, the leader I couldn't remember. I'm ok with Asoka, although we did just play an ORG civ...

-Arrian

[Konquest02]

If you want a religious theme, let's go with Isabella, she can be a monster if she starts on a lake...

Or I'd go with Monty as many people do not go warmongering enough... That might get them out of their comfort zone a little bit...

[Dubhghlas]

I think the University course aspect should bifurcate the religion track and the military track. We shouldn't work on combinations of techniques learned until the basics have been explored.

Probably a military game could be played at a fast tempo, rather than Epic, because it's more about tactics than it is about careful development of resources, etc.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
I think the University course aspect should bifurcate the religion track and the military track. We shouldn't work on combinations of techniques learned until the basics have been explored.

Probably a military game could be played at a fast tempo, rather than Epic, because it's more about tactics than it is about careful development of resources, etc.

Woaw! I twice disagree

It's not because your SPI (sorry, still use the Civ3 term for the trait ) that you have a relgious game. On the contrary, I'd say, warring games are extremely helped by switching your civics every few turns. relgious games are builder games, which are more fixed...

Further, it's exactly comparison games that give most insight. Everyone is up to the level they can fight a war with an agressive civ. Not everyone is using civics efficiently in all situations, including war.

And war being only tactical, and not strategic in CIV? Huh? It's your larger strategy that decides things. Battles themselves might be more tactical than strategic (CIV is not a true wargame after all), but all the stuff that happens in between battles is a lot more important.

Last thing: Epic is not so much slower as you might think: you will build the same amount of units in your games, only tend to use them longer (and more carefully, you can't afford to lose them at the same rate as on Quick). It's in the thinking part that Epic slows down, not in the playing part. Epic warfare: a must for an AU course, but only once we handled normal warfare.

Quick, OTOH... I'm not sure we sould focus on that one asap. Certainly not as the first true course.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I imagine that on Epic you fight more battles w/your units (before they need upgrading) and thus have a better chance to actually get them up to level 5 or higher. True in your experience, DeepO?

Playing normal speed games, I rarely get a unit that experienced. I've built West Point once (in AU100-A). Another time I got a unit up to 18/17 XP - was to be promoted the very next turn... but the AI counterattacked and killed it (Cavalry hit by 2 pikemen. The first got it over the XP threshold... the second killed it).

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I imagine that on Epic you fight more battles w/your units (before they need upgrading) and thus have a better chance to actually get them up to level 5 or higher. True in your experience, DeepO?

Well, like I said, you tend to safeguard your units very well, this includes the promoted once. For instance, you can more or less rely on barbs to get all your units promoted to 10 XP, but you've got to be careful: by letting the barbs lose, you can also unleash something you're not prepared to deal with. Barb cities can be terrible.

On of the main difference between speed is that Quick will greatly emphasize logistics and efficiency (you need to get that unit to the front before it is obsoleted), while Epic will let you focus much harder on strategic and tactical choices (you need to protect every unit with a suitable defender, or you are risking too much. Losing one unit can hurt your entire game in some instance (Grog's alive!) )

XP is part of that, yes. Level 6 and above is reachable, and many of your units are at 17XP or higher. I got a level 7 one once, too (that might have been an always-war variant, though)

But also on normal games, it's fairly common to get Level 5 units long before you can build Westpoint. Especially macemen and elephants seem to get there... although I had a level 5 cat once

DeepO

[Arrian]

I'll have to give Epic a try at some point...

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'll have to give Epic a try at some point...

-Arrian

I love it. I've not played a decent huge epic game yet, but I'm looking forward to it...

DeepO