AU 503: One Civ, or Let Players Choose?

[nbarclay]

When I originally proposed the pillaging theme for AU 503, my idea was to let players choose which civ to play from among those with good pillaging capability. Alexman prefers that we pick one of the five (Sumeria/Enkidu, Greece/Hoplite, Aztec/Jag, Inca/Chasqui, and Zulu/Impi) and all play the same civ. Each approach has its advantages.

If we play different civs, we can get at least second-hand experience with capabilities, limitations, and tactics associated with all five of the relevant UUs (assuming at least one person picks each). Further, players could replay at least the early part of the game using different UUs to see how they compare if they so desire, and if they do, we can learn from the experiences and insights they gain in doing so.

On the other hand, playing the same civ would let us compare our games more directly with each other. That would lead to comparison of a wider range of strategies and tactics for whatever UU is chosen.

Since Alexman and I disagree about which approach is better (at least at the moment), I'm starting this poll to see what other people think. I would suggest that people who are not absolutely sure regarding their preference may want to wait a couple days to see how the discussion goes before voting.

[Dominae]

If all players play the same civ, there's added coherency to the DARs, not to mention added interest because it's easier to compare your game with others'. IMO, other than the OCC course, the ones where you could choose your civ were not as successful/popular as the ones where everyone was in the same boat.

[ducki]

I picked "single civ".
My vote might change if there were only two options, but the more choices we have, the more players we "need" to play each one, IMO.

2 civs for 20 players seems alright.
5 civs for 20 players leaves too much opportunity to have only 1 person playing a couple of the civs.


Then again, I think whoever is actually building the course should have some leeway, especially a non-publicly designed course(like 501 and 502) as opposed to the community-design method(like 503 and others in the past).

Anyway, that's what I think. 5 is too many. 1 is optimal, 2 is good. IMO.

[nbarclay]

Now that I think about it, another option would be to limit the choice to one of Jag/Chasqui, one of Hoplite/Enkidu, and maybe or maybe not the Impi. The Jag and Chasqui have similar styles, and the Hoplite and Enkidu have similar styles, while the Impi combines elements of both. (Its ability to retreat increases its cost-effectiveness when attacked, analogous to the Enkidu and Hoplite, while it is also a fast-mover like the Jag and Chasqui.)

That would lead to less variation, but it would also keep us from seeing what difference the Hoplite's higher cost but better defensive ability makes compared with the Enkidu and what difference the fact that the Aztecs are militaristic while the Incas are expansionistic (with a UU that's able to maintain its speed on hills and mountains) makes. (Both the Militaristic and Expansionist traits are relevant to early pillaging. Militaristic makes it easier to get veteran pillagers, whle Expansionist helps in finding targets quickly.) So there are both advantages and disadvantages to limiting the range of choices to two or three instead of all five. If we get enough interest, I can re-do the poll with more choices.

[alexman]

I posted the following in the "next AU course" thread before I saw this one.

With varying difficulty levels and civilizations, I think the combinations are too numerous (Regent to Deity and 5 civs = 25 combos) to draw any meaningful conclusion from comparing one player's game to another's. On the other hand, [...] comparing attempts by the same player with different civilizations can provide valuable insight.

How about if we pick one civilization for the initial try for everyone, just like AU 501 and 502, but supply the scenario (biq) file for those who want to experiment with other civilizations in subsequent attempts?

[Aqualung71]

Directly comparing my game with others using the same civ is one of the biggest benefits I get from AU, since it allows me to compare the strategies I've used with others and quickly identify my mistakes and their significance. Using different civs would make this more difficult, since not only do I have to look at the effect of the different UU and civ traits, but also judge the relative effectiveness of various strategies used by players and the relative skill level compared to my own. too many variables = less measurable results.

One civ for all please.

[conmcb25]

I voted for multiple Civ's. Because I play these for fun, but I agree that comparing to what others have done is very usefull.

What I would like since it looks like we are heading towards one CIV is for the.bic to be posted so we can change who we play after the initial game.

That would satisfy both view points and I believ eit was brought up in the other thread.

[Jawa Jocky]

I voted for one civ, but I think two would be the best option. A little diversity adds flavour without jeoparizing your ability to compare with others. IMHO with difference between difficulty levels has a bigger effect than the civ you choose.

Why not vote too see what people will be using. If nobody is going to use civ X or civ Y, then we can discus the merits of 1 choice vs. 3 and prehaps reach a conclusion a little quicker.