Apolyton University

[alexman]

Originally posted by Catt

And yet I am growing concerned about his dedication to this game - first no laptop on the honeymoon and now deferring to wedding preparations, rehearsal dinners, and bachelor parties at the expense of game time.

Catt, I don't know how to thank you! I will print out your post and make sure my fiance sees it. It should buy me at least a couple of days of guilt-free civing!

Ray, search this strategy forum and you will find the games. Actually, let me do it for you:

AU 101: Crowding and War
AU 102: All we're sayin' is give peace a chance
AU 103: Island hopping
The Tale of Banana Island
AU 105: The Power of Gold

Some of these threads have spoilers and some don't.

[Theseus]

OK, kids, time to start cooking up AU 107!!

An "always war" game has been suggested, and I think that's a might fine idea.

In light of the recent tweaks to the AU Mod (btw, is the FAQ up to date?), I suggest the following:

Aztecs
Large, continents, 80% water
Temperate, normal, 3B
12 civs
Raging barbs

What I envision is 2-3 continents, chock full of civs (I would suggest pangaea, but the AU Mod's naval improvements are so good I hate the idea of not bypassing them).

The mapmaker should get rid of some of the strategic resources, just to make things interesting, as well as set up whatever evil traps and surprises come to mind.

Difficulty: Not sure. This one should definitely be done as a scenario.

Significant objectives (other than survival): Use every unit? Demonstrate great tactics? Remember, this game will be very much about your own empire's performance, especially in tech.

Thoughts?

[alexman]

One good objective could be to demonstrate the AI silliness by using as many "dirty tricks" as possible.

(yes, the AU mod should be up-to-date with the readme)

[Catt]

I'm in the midst of a game I just began a day or so ago, so I may be late to the AU 107 party -- so, in other words, take my comments with a healty grain of salt.

Even with the fewer than standard number of civs on the AU 106 large map, my comp was really bogging down as I exited the industrial age (without war!). Of course I need a better laptop, that is a given -- but it gets harder and harder to start a large (or huge) map game without a little inward cringe. Standard map would be more welcome from my perspective.

Catt

EDIT: Changed reference from "ancient age" to corrected "industrial age."

[Theseus]

The problem is that I would want 'always war' to be with more than 8 civs.

How about Standard, 80% water, and 10 civs? (we can do that somehow, right?)

[Konquest02]

I like these settings Theseus... I also dropped AU 107 because of the large map. it was almost unplayable in the modern age .

The main goals of this one would be to survive and to play the whole game without razing (or abandonning...) one single enemy city. This would probably trigger a domination victory. Can you win by conquest before triggering a domination victory?

--Kon--

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Konquest02
I like these settings Theseus... I also dropped AU 107 because of the large map. it was almost unplayable in the modern age .

The main goals of this one would be to survive and to play the whole game without razing (or abandonning...) one single enemy city. This would probably trigger a domination victory. Can you win by conquest before triggering a domination victory?

--Kon--

I actually did win one game by conquest before triggering domination without razing or abandoning any cities (not counting auto-razed size one towns, of course). So it's definitely possible on the right map under the right circumstances.

On the other hand, I definitely don't like the idea of making that an official goal. In order to achieve such a victory, it is necessary to limit building of cultural improvements in conquered cities. But doing things that deliberately undercut my own nation takes away a lot of the fun of the "role playing" aspect of the game for me. The game I mentioned above was a special case where (1) I did most of my conquering over a relatively short period of time using cavalry and (2) my palace and forbidden palace were too close together to give me as many productive cities as usual. So for that single game, I could win a conquest victory before domination without razing or abandoning and without going much out of my way to hold back on building cultural improvements.

Nathan

P.S. I'll probably play the CivFanatics GOTM before this one (and might get sidetracked completely if the next AU game is out by then, since "always war" isn't my all-time favorite scenario). And I haven't quite made my victory in the AU 106 game official yet, for that matter.

[Konquest02]

Always war need to be clarified. Do you need to be always on war we meet or we can only have one war going on (i.e. as soon as you finish this one, you need to start another one).
I played a small game with the first rules (tiny pangea 60% water) and got anihilated by a coalition of al the other civs. I had no trade going on, was way behind in tech and although I had 7 spices, I could not trade any of them.
Personnally, I'd go for the other rules. We may consider it as an extreme oscillating war strategy, which is good

I'm not too fond of the Aztecs, maybe because of their ultra early UU. They're good, but get obsolete rather fast. They also generate an immediate GA, which is not really appropriate for this kind of game... But you definetly love their traits!

To the map maker, it would be interresting to see how the AI manages chokepoints and how the human can gain advantages of them. A continents map, as Theseus suggested, is the perfect setting for such chokepoints.

--Kon--

[nbarclay]

By the way, I think I remember someone talking about the idea of an "always war" game where you have to always be at war with everyone. Do we have it clearly defined whether "always war" in this game means "always at war with at least one civ" or "always at war with everybody"?

Nathan

Edit: Looks like Konquest02 beat me to the question by a minute or so. My preference would also be "always at war with at least once civ", possibly with the additional provision that wars with small, mostly dead civs don't count unless you're actively in the process of finishing them off.

[Catt]

We may have a consensus to defer "Always War" to AU 108 and instead substitute a "Son of So Very Cold . . ."

I started an all random game, standard map, and got a start not unlike Aeson's. I didn't propose it as an AU game because I think a lot of people don't like such grim starts. I am in the process (literally, on my desktop as I type this on my laptop) of downloading Gramphos' MultiTool to see if I can extract my Son of SVC map to the editor, save it as a scenarion, and allow everyone to pick their own difficulty level -- my game was Emperor, and that may turn some people off, especially given the challenging conditions.

On "Always War," I believe we discussed adopting the rules employed in a CFC succession game which were essentially: on the turn that you meet a new civ, you can engage in diplomacy and trading (but no per turn deals) but must exit diplomacy with a declaration of war. No peace treaty ever. Win however you want, and raze or keep cities as you like. Essentially it means war with every known civ for the entire game, from the very point that you meet the civ.

I like the Aztecs as a choice -- militaristic and religious with an ultra-early GA and a mobile, early attacker. Though I can;t fathom why people dislike the choice of the English (commercial, expansionist, suxky UU) as a great civ. I mean really, get those scouts out and start war very early .

J/K of course about the English. I would vote Aztecs, and I would vote standard map with 10 cramped civs rather than large map.

Catt

[Theseus]

I'm gettin' all excited here...

If you all remember, this type of game (i.e., SVC) was one of the originals proposed.

We can figure out AU 108 over the next several weeks... I stand by the concept of all war, all the time. It will provide some good lessons.

[Dominae]

This question is a little preemptive because we're postponing the "Always War" scenario for another couple of weeks, but here goes. Are you allowed not to speak with foreign emissaries? I'm not certain if I remember how it works, but it seems to me you could put off contacting another civ indefinitely by simply not speaking with their emissary. Thus, you wouldn't necessarily be at war with them (just neutral, I guess).

Catt, get us that "Son of SVC" (aka AU-107) game ASAP; I'm putting off starting any other games!

If no one is up for it (or it hasn't been claimed yet), I could set up the "Always War" scenario; I have a map that is just perfect for that type of game...


Dominae

[Catt]

I'm working on AU 107 this evening (California time) to make sure the starting locations & resources appear correctly.

Should be posted tonight. Will try and download the AU Mod (I read there are download difficulties?) so I can post the map with standard and modded rules.

I'm not sure you're all going to remain so excited when you play the opening 100 turns . . .

Catt

[Arrian]

Theseus, what do you think about that Japanese game of mine that you played for AU 108 always war? Played normally on Monarch it was a nice romp, but this is another beast. It might need a few tweaks, perhaps changing the human civ to whatever people want to play (I'd vote China), but the start spot is strong, and you have lots of neighbors, some of whom are quite dangerous.

Or do you think having 5 neighbors on the home continent (3 with ancient UUs) is too much?

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

I just came up with a thought for another AU game: "Overcrowding" - 16 civs on a standard map, maybe continents with 70% water. Early warfare would tend to play a much bigger role in such a game than it does normally. Opinions, anyone?

Nathan