Suggestion for next AU course (after AU505)

[Dominae]

Hi all.

Well, unless Theseus is planning on writing his DAR this weekend, I think we can safely say that AU505 is a done deal, meaning that it's time to start thinking about the next course.

With the discussions we've had recently in this and the other forums, something dawned on me: players are not doing as much early warfare as they used to. I think the main culprits are the Agricultural trait, which encourages players to focus on their economy until at least the Medieval era, and the past few AU courses which were more Builder than Warmonger oriented (Power of Fascism, Glory of Culture; Pillage and Plunder had a rather difficult starting location that did not allow for much conquest early on).

So my proposal for the next game is: The Power of Early Warfare.

Seems horribly basic, but the last course that focused on this aspect of the game was Crowding and War, and that was over two years ago. The way the course would work is that players would be encouraged to be bloodthirsty warmongers right out of the gates; while there would be no requirement of whom to fight, when to declare war, etc., "participation marks" would be awarded to those who embarrass the AI as early as possible, instead of doing the standard "focus on my economy until I'm good and ready to attack" strategy (admittedly, probably the strongest overarching strat in Civ3). The differences between this idea and Total Eternal Forever War are that: players would want to find the AIs as quickly as possible, instead of hiding out for the first 40 turns; players would be under no official restrictions.

Basically what I'm looking for is unbridled enthusiasm and little-to-no restraint in attacking the AI. Personally I feel the Zulu are the best choice for this, both for strategic and thematic reasons. We've never used the Zulu in an AU course!! Aztecs also come to mind, but they're just a bit too good at both REXing and fighting, and what we want here is pure fighting.

Does this sound like fun to anyone else but me?

[joncnunn]

[Krill]

Standard size map? if so, could we please choose our civs? Or at least given a limited (say, 3 civ) choice? i.e. Eygpt, Persia, and Greece?

[Modo44]

I've been thinking about a no-Libraries game lately, and this one looks just like it. I'm in.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
Standard size map? if so, could we please choose our civs? Or at least given a limited (say, 3 civ) choice? i.e. Eygpt, Persia, and Greece?

Standard or Small would be equally good.

Past experience has shown that, for the sake of comparison in DARs, it's best to lock the civ into the scenario. As you can imagine, an Aztec game would look a lot different from a Zulu game!

As for exact civs, well, the point of the course would be to bash things (and bash them good!), and I think the Zulu fit that role really well. It would be nice if the course were somewhat original instead of blending in to what players usually do in their own games. Also note that we've played each of Egypt, Persia and Greece in AU courses before.

Of course, some will say that this is just me "ruining" everybody's fun by not allowing a more powerful civ choice. So we would probably post a poll on the issue of civ choice (...and everyone will vote for the Aztecs - boring!).

[Dominae]

Just in case it's not clear: the above is just my opinion, and is not an expression of any form of "tyrannical thinking" (or whatever).

[Cryptor]

I think 32 civs on a standard map would be fun. It would certainly facilitate early warfare.

[Theseus]

:cackle cackle cackle:



Other than the crack about my AU505 AAR, do I really need to respond to this proposal??!!

[Theseus]

SCANDY!! SCANDY!! SCANDY!!

(j/k... I'm open to anything)

[JimiD]

Eary warfare is not something I do much at all, so count me in. I will enjoy a game with the main focus early again, 'cause my time on the machine is fairly intermitant.

My AU505 still continues, but I maybe some time....

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Cryptor
I think 32 civs on a standard map would be fun. It would certainly facilitate early warfare.

On this map size, that's like 2 cities per civ. I think that would be too much fun. And pretty short.

[nbarclay]

In my view, lessons from a game using standard civilization densities would be easier to carry over into other games than lessons from a game with a lot more civs than standard for the map size. On the other hand, especially if we'd go with 80% water, it would be possible to crowd players enough to make early warfare relatively attractive while still keeping the game within the bounds of what we might reasonably come up against every now and then in random games. (The ideal approach to scenario design would probably be to generate random maps and look for a starting position that is crowded by some combination of neighbors and hostile terrain.)

I'm inclined to agree with Dominae about the choice of Zulus for this course. I don't think we've ever played the Aztecs in an AU game either, which would make either civ a new experience from an official AU perspetive. But the fact that the Zulus get less food (unless the Aztecs would be stuck without fresh water) would encourage players to focus less on REXing and more on warfare than if we use the Aztecs. (The more food a player has, the harder it is to build a military without seriously sacrificing growth.) And the Zulus are Militaristic for cheap barracks; their scouts give them a chance to identify a target or targets early; and their Impis offer a choice between conventional and heavily pillaging-oriented tactics.

[pvzh]

Early warfare as militaristic civ is a "no-brainer", what about Early warfare as non-militaristic / non-agricultural civ with an early defensive UU that you cannot avoid to use (early Despotic GA ).

Let us do GREEKS!

They have 2 traits that are not "top choice"

I would prefer standard map with normal number of opponents, maybe 80% water, but I generally dislike such maps: they come out with several very hurt starting locations in some way or another.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by pvzh
Early warfare as militaristic civ is a "no-brainer", what about Early warfare as non-militaristic / non-agricultural civ with an early defensive UU that you cannot avoid to use (early Despotic GA).

Let us do GREEKS!

They have 2 traits that are not "top choice"

Well:

1. We've done the Greeks before (more than once, IIRC).

2. Their traits encourage a Builder strategy. It would be kind of artificial playing the Greeks not to beeline for Philosophy and build Libraries.

3. Hoplites are best suited for pillaging and plundering, and we've done that course before.

4. The point of this game is to explore the power of early warfare, and what better civ to choose but the one that has no "game" other than early warfare (i.e. the Zulu)?

5. While personally like non-synergy in order to make scenarios harder, too much non-synergy in this case could easily frustrate many players and undermine the purpose of the course. It would be like playing the Power of Seafaring on a Pangea map.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by pvzh
Let us do GREEKS!

They have 2 traits that are not "top choice"

So do the Zulu, IMO.

I want to be nearly forced to do war, and to use a Despotic GA. The Greeks don't have this - they can easily REX, switch to Republic, and then fire up the GA. No, thanks - been there, done that. I'll stick to the Zulu, thank you very much.

As to the starting location... Smack in the middle of a pangea, please. And 60% water.