Next AU course

[Theseus]

Yeah, I thought of some other things too:

* Give Babylon (sorry, forgot them at first) and Egypt some kind of early edge (two Settlers?) but ding them somehow to represent the relatively early decline of their eras.

* Change Byzantines (sorry, forgot them too) to Crete/Minoa

* Give Carthage War Elephants at 3.2.1, a little earlier than Chivalry... Construction? Or maybe change Ancient Cavs to WEs, and give Carthage the only ivory?

* Really isolate the Celts, Germans, and Mongols, but give them the opportunity to build empires that can be significant players at the right times.

As to SP versus MP, I would suggest doing a fully loaded SP version with as many civs as make sense historically, and than create a subset version for MP.

And yes, there should be specific theme(s)... that's what I was referring to by adding diplo aspects, but we could focus on other things as well. Heck, we could even have a specific theme or objective per civ!!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by conmcb25
How about customizing TAM (The Ancient Mediteranean Mod)? If you want European Civs, if it doesn't matter the Fertile Crescent .biq might work as long as you wisely chosse the 8 CIV's. If I remember correctly its for 14 Civ's on a 100x 100 map.

I'll check it out.

[Harovan]

I was thinking about a good idea from Rome: Total War for the MP part. Prebuild all cities (May be even using the map layout of R:TW), add enough culture so none of them get razed on take. Now give all cities to a "rebel" civ, except for 2 cities as "start locations" per player. Forbid further settling (simply remove settlers). The players would start with some military and would have to conquer the rest from the "rebels".

Upside: We get a really historical map, with all cities (= regions) in the right place.

Downside: We'd have to sacrifice one more civ and it would be only 7 possible players remaining.

[Theseus]

I just looked at TAM... very impressive, but a bit too far afield for AU, methinks.

I just had a thought: Is there a way to extract the map from the Rise/Fall of Rome Scenarios? That looks like a good place to start.

[Harovan]

Sure, you can import the map into another scenario. Just use the "Import..." feature from the leftmost menu.

[Theseus]

I don't have Import as a choice...

[Theseus]

Ooops, sorry, wrong editor.

[conmcb25]

Ah its to bad on TAM

I just enjoy the heck out of that mod.

Ah well

Good luck on your own creation

[Theseus]

I'm going to start a new thread about the AUAC Mod.

Whether or not the idea of an ancient civs game becomes the next SP/MP course, or is ever used for a course at all, it is something I've wanted to develop anyway.

[And I figure if I can get Sir Ralph, AKA the ol' curmudgeon, interested... well, then I must be onto something!! ]

[nbarclay]

Looking ahead to the next course after the one we're currently waiting on, how about "Going Viking"? The Vikings' Beserks give them a unique capability not shared by any other civ, so a course focused specifically on tactics for playing them would seem useful.

[Modo44]

And solve some discussions by means of war. Good idea.

[jshelr]

Originally posted by Dominae

"Nathan's idea sounds fun, but like Sir Ralph I think it would break down in practice, that is, in the PBEM environment which is essentially competitive. What Nathan really wants is a certain level of security both during the initial buildup stage and against backstabbing; the goal is still to win. "

I think Nathan's post represents the future of PBEM and that Dom doesn't get it yet. (Which doesn't mean that he can't kick my butt whenever he wants.)

The players in a "Nathan" PBEM will feel they have won if they feel they have "won." They may not have built the spaceship or dominated militarily. Still, they may have made the best of their situation and played well. Then the game is over. Sounds like life. Why not? Think about it some more, IMO.

[Dominae]

I do understand that you can have fun in PBEMs without being competitive; that you can win without "winning". I have enjoyed every single PBEM I have ever played in, although I have never outright won any. If the "future of PBEM" is that everyone plays for fun, I do believe it is already here. Competition (pitting yourself against others) is the common ground that allows players to have fun.

I do not believe the fun and "realistic" PBEM Nathan was describing would have worked out as intended. What really cramps one person's "fun" is when another person knocks on their door with 60 Cavalry. Then in a blink of an eye all the work you put into your empire and the diplomatic relations you have tried to maintain become sort of meaningless unless you can defend yourself, and thus we enter the realm of competition.

Of course, you could certainly still enjoy the game via the whole stories or roleplaying angle. Many players do so. But AU is about Civ3 strategy, and I do not believe a purely roleplaying-motivated fits in here. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm stifling the fun of AU, but I do believe this forum should retain some focus. Interested roleplaying players can always start their own game without the AU label.

I am very open to the idea that I still do not "get it", so please explain it to me further if this is the case.

[Modo44]

You missed one point, I think. The whole idea is, nobody has to knock at your door. If you don't play to win by victory conditions, the roleplaying itself can be fun. There is no "need" to attack the strongest civ, because nobody considers it a threat to his win. Of course, if someone wants a war, he can have it anyway. But things like long lasting alliances breaking down with a clash, completely unprovoked, and useless attacks, aimed only at damaging the opponent - are not likely to happen in this kind of game. Basically, you are not forced to become enemies with someone, just because of game mechanics (i.e. victory conditions).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Modo44
You missed one point, I think. The whole idea is, nobody has to knock at your door. If you don't play to win by victory conditions, the roleplaying itself can be fun.

Originally posted by Dominae
Of course, you could certainly still enjoy the game via the whole stories or roleplaying angle. Many players do so. But AU is about Civ3 strategy, and I do not believe a purely roleplaying-motivated fits in here. I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm stifling the fun of AU, but I do believe this forum should retain some focus. Interested roleplaying players can always start their own game without the AU label.

There is something distinctly unstrategic about not playing to win; how can you "strategically" play for fun? It is for this reason we have Strategy, Apolyton University, Stories and PBEM forums. Why mix them up?