AU 102 Discussion

[clinton]

Warlords AU Time?

[Blake]

How about actually starting this one?

Along the lines of Standard Terra / Epic speed, for leader Alexander, make sure the start isn't too good as to encourage conquest for territory (but not too bad, either). Manually pick aggressive (and competent) AI opponents like Napoleon, Genghis Khan and Catherine, an AI or two like Mansa Musa would be good too - tech like mad with a decent UU to make them not too rushable. Always war is bad. I'm not sure about aggressive AI's, they'd probably fight each other more and that slows them down a lot.

[DrSpike]

Which game version?

[ZargonX]

Yes, sorry, been tied up with a certain Lord of War, if you know what I mean I will aim to have this up by the beginning of next week.

How do people feel about making this a Warlord's scenario? Do most people playing have it by now?

[DrSpike]

Don't mind either way.

[Krill]

I would suggest that making the game speed changeable (if possible) would be a good idea...not everyone wants to play Epic or Marathon

[ZargonX]

I think we'll probably stick with normal speed for this one, then have an epic/marathon as a later course.

[Blake]

I'd much prefer CIVanilla over Warlords.

Warlords doesn't really change the game mechanics that much, war is a bit more profitable thanks to the Great General but I suspect they might actually make things too easy for the player because the AI wont generate nearly as many nor use them nearly as well.

Vassal States are a force of chaos, they are signed almost at random. There is some scope for the human to exploit the way the AI signs vassal states but on the whole I don't think they are at all good for comparison games.

I'm going to put it like this - a good warmonger in CIVanilla should be able to jump right into Warlords and warmonger their war to victory, with even greater ease thanks to GG's and the way the AI's like fighting each other more (depleting their armies fighting each other). I don't really think much is gained by playing Warlords - it's more entertaining in some ways, but not more strategic.

edit: There will probably be a warlords patch at some point too.

[nbarclay]

Does anyone know whether there is a practical way to set up a scenario that can be played in either vanilla or Warlords, whichever the player prefers? If there is, that would give those of us with Warlords (I just got my copy today) the chance to use it but keep the game playable to people who don't have it.

[Blake]

I believe if it's saved as a CIV scenario you should be able to just rename it with the warlords extension and it'll load

from .Civ4WorldBuilderSave to .CivWarlordsWBSave

Again though I must reccomend that we stick with CIVanilla. I don't object per-se to a Warlords AU game, but if we do have one it should be with an imperialistic leader.

[DrSpike]

Well any game that could be played in both would have to not have any Warlords stuff in it (like imperialistic). I don't really mind as I said, but the likelihood of a patch early on may mean that one more vanilla game would be sensible before switching to Warlords.

[ZargonX]

I think we should stick with vanilla a little longer. The next clear set of courses would involve the new Warlord's mechanics, so we should give it some more time for more people to get it.