Next AU course

[JimiD]

count me in for the next AU course, RL permitting.

will have to try to install again, but at least Ill have a reason to try..

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Risa
5CC and no tech trading? Nearly impossible I say.

And you only get to play on Sid

Sorry for the confusion. I was just ranking 3 seperate ideas, not combining them.

[conmcb25]

Pilliage, Pilliage, Pilliage !

[ducki]

Hmmm...
How about Pillage, Pillage, Pillage.
As the Inca.
In a mountainous, deserty, coastal region(somewhat similar to the Inca in AU502).

Maybe with a single Lake near(but not immediately next to) the start spot.


Too historical?
Too "massaged"?
Too few folks want to endure as the Inca?

[Aqualung71]

Inca will be ok - good to brush up on our expansionist skills. Just as long as it isn't archipelago!

[nbarclay]

My thought was to give players a choice among the four civs I listed so we could see what players do with the different civs and UUs under identical conditions.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by nbarclay
My thought was to give players a choice among the four civs I listed so we could see what players do with the different civs and UUs under identical conditions.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Here's another possible thought for the next AU game: "Pillage and plunder." The idea is to destroy the growth of neighboring AIs early through pillaging. Players would have a choice of playing the Aztecs, Incas, Sumerians, or Greeks. (The Aztecs and Incas have fast-moving UUs that they can pillage with, while the Sumerians and Greeks have UUs with a major cost/power advantage over anything they can be counterattacked with.) The map would be Continents, designed to provide very little fresh water to support the use of the Agricultural trait in REXing (and no fresh water at all near the human capital).

The goals of the game would be for us to learn more about early-game pillaging tactics (something I've used exactly once in my entire Civ 3 career) and, in the process, hopefully to find out more about how the Enkidu compares with other good pillaging UUs.

[alexman]

Add a spaceship target to the above proposal (for those who want to have a goal beyond the early-game pillaging) and it's perfect.

[Risa]

If without additional restrictions, targeting to spaceship will prove little about resources. There's no such thing as 'resources scarcity' to warmongers, or at least some pure builders might proclaim that.

[alexman]

Still, it could provide some insight. Not everyone will play AU 503 as a warmongerer. I'm sure plenty of players will stop fighting when they own their continent.

[nbarclay]

At most, I would not want to do more than say, "Players are encouraged to aim for a space race victory." There is nothing about the early pillaging concept that makes it particularly important for players to choose the space race victory condition, and there is a very real risk that specifying a particular victory condition could interfere with some players' fun. Encouraging but not requiring players to aim for a particular victory condition could provide an additional goal for those who want it without undermining others' enjoyment.

Regarding resources, I would argue that the lengths to which players have to go to secure resources would provide some indication about the effects of resource scarcity. If warmongers only have resources because they captured them, does that not say something?

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
Still, it could provide some insight. Not everyone will play AU 503 as a warmongerer. I'm sure plenty of players will stop fighting when they own their continent.

And a player who fights to control his entire continent isn't a warmonger?

[ducki]

Originally posted by Risa
If without additional restrictions, targeting to spaceship will prove little about resources. There's no such thing as 'resources scarcity' to warmongers, or at least some pure builders might proclaim that.

That's what DARs are for.
The warmongers will tell us when they go to war for a resource/luxury.
The builders will tell us when they are forced to do so or when they manipulate relations to be able to trade for one.


In my vision, the courses are not supposed to determine your path. The courses are to teach/learn something about the game and the comparison afforded by the DARs is where we see major differences in execution and effectiveness and whether or not peaceful players were forced to alter their playstyle in order to pursue their selected victory goal.


If this were a competition, I might agree that certain further restrictions would help level the playing field, but this is purely about learning. If we prescribe too much about playstyle, we won't have as much to compare, since everyone will be playing very similarly.

That's just my opinion, but I feel the fewer restrictions/variant rules we impose, the more we can learn.

[alexman]

Originally posted by nbarclay


And a player who fights to control his entire continent isn't a warmonger?

Heh, not unless that's enough to win by domination!

No, seriously, my two comments were supposed to be unrelated: 1) I'm sure plenty of players will stop before getting control of the continent (which is often not enough to secure all the resources needed for the spaceship, depending on the size of the continent) and 2) Some players might not fight at all, except for the pillage and plunder theme. Those are the non-warmongerers by most standards.