Hello

[flash9286]

hi to all vox controli team memebers.

[Beta]

Hi Flash. Is this our private forum?

Can we finally start discussing strategy instead of all the window dressing stuff?

[Eli]

Wheehee! A private forum!

[flash9286]

yep this is it beta

[Jon Miller]

woohoo

Jon Miller

[Beta]

OK. Now we can get down to some serious discussions.

The civ - we gotta decide.

Any thoughts on game play folks - or do we just see what comes our way. We have presented an aggressive persona. Is that how we want to play?

Also - any views on what would be the best starting civ on a standard size map with 7-8 civs? Other than the Aztecs. Although I do like them for a fast start.

I think getting a good start is going to be key with human players. OR Maybe a fast start will amke you a target for the others. Maybe it is best to lay quietly in a corner - be peaceful and expand slowly. ie don't show up on anybody's radar screen for awhile.

Another thing I've been thinking about with human players - I always wish I could convince the AI to do this - with one or more allies we could reach agreement on researching techs. ie team A researches one tech, team B another - the agreement being to swap when done. Presto - you have doubled your tech research. With three civs in agreement, you could triple it. I expect with human opponents the old vassal strategy - of getting mega amounts of cash and tech from your opponents won't cut it. We should consider cultivating an early alliance and agreement with another team to this.

I also think hammering a civ, and then getting them to pay up, as per vassal strategy, may not work in many cases for other reasons. With humans running things I suspect the desire for revenge will overcome the desire for survival, and a civ would rather go down honourably to its demise.

I think early alliances are going to be the key. For example - with 3 civs on a continent, you better be part of that first alliance or you are toast.

Now, the civ. What do you think Jon. You've seen the chit chat on the other forum. I see Persia, the Celts, and yes, the Japanese in the running. Help me here guys - as I've said, I've never played them, but they always seem to be hanging in there and a pain in the butt in the games I've played.

Egypt is taken - and I don't think it is fair to come in late and ask for it. I can say that here, amongst friends. If you disagree, let me know.

And there is always the Vikings - expansionist to find them - and Berserkers to kill them. And it does start with a V.

I really believe militaristic will be a big plus in a match against humans. Why - better chance of leaders for construction of wonders. I expect all wonders will be built that way. Which would support an early agressive style with a militaristic civ and a better chance at leaders.

There - some early musings. What think thee, old noble team?

[Jon Miller]

I have never been very good at getting leaders, so I don't know how useful they are

JOn MIler

[flash9286]

if we get a leader use it to build fp

[Jon Miller]

fp?

and why not build in army first so it can get at least one victory and we can build armies?

Jon Miller

[flash9286]

forbidden place more important, use it to build infasturcure and get ahead in tech. Armys are useless in my opinon

[Jon Miller]

hmm, not having very many leaders I guess I could agree with you

I usually build the forbidden palace later in the game, when I have serious trouble with corruption

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I would think that a leader would be better used to win a wonder race (for a major wonder)

Jon Miller

[Beta]

Yup - Jon's right. Leaders are the short cut to wonders. As I said earlier, I think with 7 (or is it 6) human opponents, there will be quite the race for the early wonders, in particular, the pyramids, and the great library, which, imo, are the ones you want.

Later - use a leader to build an army - and allow you to build the heroic epic. But the early wonder is way more valuable.

Any thoughts on the other points I have raised? C'mon. You guys have played the game.....?

Also - what about a civ????

I know - that Egyptian combo of industrious and religious is hard to beat. I still say militaristic in the human vs human forum is the way to go. Let's get some discussion going. We only have a day or two to 'publicly' declare a civ.

Jon - you had earlier drafted up a set of team governance rules/mechanics which looked good. Wondering if we should re-post your original note and agree to it and/or modify it as a working set of team rules.

[Beta]

OK - WE NEED TO DECIDE ON A CIV.

Given that we are quasi-democratic, I suggest we vote. Unless you have already declared for the team Jon, in which case I will go to my corner and be quiet.

So - three votes - but this time weighted. First choice gets 3 points, second 2, third 1. I'll go first. Just add in your votes and feel free to do the math and give a running score. But we have to do it today - I would think.

Another consideration - whether we want an Asian, European, or American civ. Presumably - like the real game - we will be neighbours with geographic partners. Remember - the Glory of War has chosen the Chinese - and I don't think we need the problems of having them as an early neighbour. It could be a pain.

My votes -

1. Celts 3 points

2. Vikings 2

3. Greeks 1

[Beta]

Sorry - my third choice should be Aztecs - one of the triple threat civs - religious, militaristic, and expansionsist - yes - because Jag Warriors have a movement of two and are available early on. Almost the same as scout - but can fight.

Celts - 3 points
Vikings - 2
Aztecs - 1