Apolyton University

[DaveMcW]

Re: New Courses

Originally posted by Dominae
1. Total War; never sign a Peace treaty...ever.

Total War isn't that bad, you miss out on extorting techs but the enemy civ is easily managed once you sack their capitol.

I've been playing some Always War games (declare war the turn you get contact) and those are insane. I would say it's at least 2 difficulty levels higher than normal - I haven't survived to 10 AD on an Emperor Pangea map yet.

[ducki]

Doesn't War Weariness start to eat you up, or do you never use representative governments for these total aggression games?

[DaveMcW]

For Total War, you can solve WW by wiping out your enemy. Always War leaves everybody with WW so war governments are the only way to go.

[Dominae]

Oops! Guess I've been posting my ideas on the next AU course in the wrong thread...Check out the AU PTW MOD thread for my latest thoughts. I'll post here in the future.

alexman, I think a Standard-size map is good because 1) the game should not take too long if there is almost no warfare before Communism, and 2) I'm up for some epic Industrial-Modern age battles. But, if most players do not have the time, a Small map is fine too.

DaveMcW, I guess we should decide now between 'Total War' and 'Communism'. I'm inclined to go with Communism, just to try out the changes in the newest version of the AU mod.

Another thought about the 'Communism' scenario: perhaps we should "encourage" players to beeline for Communism once in the Industrial age? It would kind of defeat the purpose to build up a huge Panzer army in a Republic, then switch over to Communism to roll over all opposition, no?

Oh, and I think the Germans are the civ of choice here.




Dominae

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
Oh, and I think the Germans are the civ of choice here.
Dominae

Odd. I'd go with a builder civ.
If you're toast by the time you get to Panzers, don't you have bigger problems?

And Mil/Sci seems kinda weak if we can't wage "real" war until Communism.

I think I might go for Egypt or Babylon(that'd be a first for me) with that much time devoted to not waging war, but since I've never really played Germany (*) I could be wrong.


* - I've started my Black Hole Side game as Germany. It's 1350 and my offensive forces are already larger than my China game (Help at Monarch - FP + Victim Selection).

[Dominae]

Germany is my pick:

1. Scientific allows decent Culture and tech parity.

2. Mlitaristic ensures that promotions (and consequently, Leaders) are a common occurence when the real fighting begins.

3. Bronze Working sets up a nice defensive early-game with Spearmen. Warrior Code (i.e. Archers) makes Settler-bopping even easier (this is allowed, since enemy Settlers can be ambushed outside their borders early on).

4. PANZERS!


Of course, anyone can pick whatever civ they choose (barring Religious ones, if we agree upon barring that trait).


Dominae

[ducki]

I agree on barring Religious if we're not limiting government to Communism once it's available.

[Mazarin]

If understood this idea right, the ottomans might prove great...ind./sci. is a great combination and the sipahi could allow early industrial wars

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by ducki
I agree on barring Religious if we're not limiting government to Communism once it's available.

A compromise would be to limit goverment to Communism once available only for Religious civs.
I had the Spanish down as the obvious choice.

[Dominae]

I see two options:

1. Religious civs allowed. Players must beeline for Communism in the Industrial age and stay there until the game ends.

2. Religious civs not allowed. Players must beeline for Communism, but can switch in and out anytime.

Note that in both cases, offensive warfare can only be conducted under Communism.


Dominae

[ducki]

Just to put it in perspective...

Aztec, Japan, Babylon, Celts, Egypt, Iroquois, Arabs and India would all be disallowed.

I wouldn't miss the 1-turn Anarchy near as much as I'd miss cheap culture buildings and happiness from Temples and Cathedrals as well as the quick border-linking.

Not saying I don't want to do it, just trying to paint a clear picture of exactly what civs and "abilities" we'd be disallowing.

[alexman]

I kinda miss the idea of everyone playing the same civ. That way the AARs are more relevant to everyone's experience, and we can compare strategies as opposed to civ strengths.

I'm not sure I like the idea of restricting our research path to beeline to Communism. How about making the human player start in Communism, and not allowing him to switch at all? It might be a very different experience...

[ducki]

Y'know, I think we should play the same one too.
When did that change, with PtW and all the new civs?

As far as restricting research, I think requiring Communism for Conquest would basically take care of that. If someone wants to play outside the parameters of the game, that's their choice, but it won't help us test Communism.

How much of a "bonus" would having the human start in a "real" government convey vs. the Despot AIs?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
I kinda miss the idea of everyone playing the same civ. That way the AARs are more relevant to everyone's experience, and we can compare strategies as opposed to civ strengths.

I was thinking the same thing (and hinting at it by saying my preference of the Germans), but was afraid that it was an unpopular option. I'm 100% behind this idea. Here are my top 3 candidates:

1. Germans (Panzers)
2. Spanish (Conquistador, 2 peaceful builder traits)
3. Americans (F-15, strong non-military early-game)

Unfortunately, the Americans were already selected for a previous AU game. I would recommend against going with the Ottomans, as we're trying to concentrate on Communism and (relatively) modern war, not Cavalry rushes.

Originally posted by alexman
I'm not sure I like the idea of restricting our research path to beeline to Communism. How about making the human player start in Communism, and not allowing him to switch at all? It might be a very different experience...

Well, starting in Communism would create a different experience, to be sure, but it would not be Civ3. I like to play AU to learn about the game, and not to test out contrived scenarios. By forcing the human player to select Communism in war, we can determine just how good (or bad) that option really is (and test out the changes to Communism at the same time).

Perhaps a beeline to Communism is too restrictive. Upon reflection, it doesn't really matter if the human player spends time in the Industrial age before going Communist, because this gives the AI more time to build up (i.e. construct Factories, lay down Railroads, and reach Replaceable Parts). How about: if Communism is available, the human player must start a revolution if the current government is not Communism.


Dominae

[BRC]

I would recommend against going with the Ottomans, as we're trying to concentrate on Communism and (relatively) modern war, not Cavalry rushes.

I think that the Ottomans would be just as effective as the Germans, due to Industrious vs. Militaristic. We won't have much use for the Mil. trait, and without offensive wars and capturing workers, I think that Industrious would be even more useful. That being said, let's all play the same civ, and I'll play anyone.