The Glory of War

[Donegeal]

I know that Uber likes the Celts for the Galic Swordman, but I am looking at civ traits first.

I like three traits the most and can't decide which one I want the most:
Commercial: The extra commerce in the city square is nice, but I really like the lower corruption. With us being a warmonger team, I anticipate us having lots of cities. the 25% lower corruption could be a game saver.

Industrious: Who wouldn't want faster working slaves? Plus one extra shield in the city tile will mean more units faster.

Religious: A warring civ needs to be a happy civ. The lower cost of culture improvements is aalmost nessasary. Plus NO ANARCHY between governments!

One would think that Militaristic would be required in a warmonger team, but I feel that ST:AOW makes this trait unneeded.

Once again, I am not a despot of this team, if a member disagrees with me, post what you feel.

[korn469]

i think that the militaristic trait is very important, for both the cheaper barracks early on, and the greater chance for unit promotions throughout the game

but Industrious, Commercial, and religious traits are all good secondary traits

so civs with those traits are

Aztecs, Celts, Japanese, Romans, and Chinese

out of those i feel that the Celts and the Chinese have the best UUs

overall i feel that the Mounted Warrior, and Ansar Warriors are the best UUs the keskik isn't as good as the Ansar Warrior, but it is still cheap and powerful so i'd include them in here as well

so if i was going to suggest a civ it'd be one of the following

Arabs
Celts
Chinese
Iroquois
Mongols

[UnOrthOdOx]

Looking over traits, yes Industious is nice, and AoW does tend to lessen the effects of Militaristic IF we build/capture it. However, looking at what we are, and everyone knows we will be Militaristic, a good, early UU is also needed to give us an edge in the early going.

The Celtic Swordsmen and the Iriquois Mounted Warrior are both very nice for the early 3 attack and 2 movement (celtic also have 2 def). Both Civ's have Religious, and I would take the Celtic over Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionist.

Also worth mentioning here, though is the Carthaginians. The Numidian Mercanary would be a nice asset from the get go, 3 def, 2 attack, nice upgrade path anyone? This also combines Industrious and Commercial(I think?). I think that Commercial, however, will be muted somewhat with the smaller map we will be using, but the added commerce will still come in handy, as trading techs is going to be allot different without as many AI's, so we will be needing to actually research on our own.

[Donegeal]

korn469, sounds like you made the choice to join for sure. I didn't add you because you only said it would be interesting. Are you in?

[korn469]

UnOrthOdOx

because of the trait's wrt our situation i think that the Celts are a better choice of civs, but the problem with the gallic swordsman is that it cost 50 shields, and i don't think that 3 gallic swordsmen outclass 5 mounted warriors...so does this mean i should scratch the iroquios from the list?

the same thing applies to the Numidian Mercenary, shield for shield it has the same defense power as a normal spear man since it costs 30

[korn469]

donegeal

the only thing is i have an unpredictable schedule so i'm not sure how much i can participate, but when i do i would want it to be with this team, so if you can live with that i'm in

[UnOrthOdOx]

No, dont cross them off as I was just saying I would take the Celts over the Iriquois for Militaristic over Expansionis, especially with the smaller map we will be playing.

Personally, I am all for random, and don't really care one way or the other.

I have also found that the build cost of the Numidian Merc is somewhat offset by it's lack of need for strategic resources, and the Industrious trait ensuring plenty of mines early on. As far as the Gallic Swordsmen, yes, that could create a problem, but not an insurmountable one. (btw, can you upgrade warriors to Gallic swordsmen, and for how much?)

[korn469]

UnOrthOdOx

i think we should pick a civ simply because we have committed ourselves to a certain strategy and certain civs could really handicap us. Our stated strategy might fail, but if it does I would rather it be because of our mistakes rather than starting conditions. I would shudder to think what kind of militaristic civ we'd be if we got stuck with a civ that had poor military traits and a poor UU like England or Spain for example.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Oh, come now, the English kick so much butt!!!

I realize that our position does give us a disadvantage, so we should pick a civ. I am not sure of the Arabs, am not near my laptop at the moment, what are their traits? I would be tempted to put the Chinese over the Celts for Industrial, but think their UU may come a bit late to help in the early going (which is what I see us having the most trouble with)

[Donegeal]

Trip and Togas are on to something I believe. Maybe we should organize a Glory of War chat to get some serious work done on our team. Anyone (on this team) have any objections to this (or ideas as to when we could get together)?

[UnOrthOdOx]

No chat with my lousy schedule for the next few weeks. but, I am really fine with nearly any decision reguarding the civ of choice.

The govt stuff needs some work still, but that can really wait some.

Basically all we REALLY need is our first King/President and our civ of choice.

[Panzer32]

Could I please join this group??? Sounds exciting!!

[korn469]

UnOrthOdOx

the Arabs are rel/exp which kinda sucks (they are decent traits but nothing overwhelming) but the Ansar Warrior is an upgraded knight 4.2.3 60, so it's fast and cheap

I too think that I'd go with the Chinese over the Celts, although their UU is an upgraded knight, i still think we could be in a good position by that point in the game, with a golden age putting us over the top

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Here's what I'm thinking (some of this is from my concepts on how to initialize a $mini-game)

Cities are assigned to new members first (cityless members). The member gets to choose the name for his city (or kingdom) but the name must be approved by at least 50% of the team members and should fit in with the theme of our civ.

The member is responsible for all aspects of his city. Build queues, tiles worked, workers, etc. The High King (president) may demand tasks of this minor kings (such as building a settler, providing a military unit, etc)

There could be two official bodies:

The High Council: each player has 1 vote.

The House of Lords: Each player has the number of votes equal to the pop of his cities. (A player with a size 6 city recieves 6 votes)

That's all I got right now.

We need a system so we can fight each other for land holdings within our civ without actually harming our gameplay. (Hey, we are warmongers after all)

All newly founded cities/territory etc are ROYAL holdings, each High King has personal holdings (they stay that players holdings even when they are not King) and is in full control of Royal holdings while they are High King. Once everyone has a city we should then allow players to bid for new cities or we could have them build settlers to go found their own.

I think it would be easier if we had a set number of team members and assigned cities once we had enough for each player to have one.

Team name ideas:
Warlords, Council of Kings, Celtic Confederation

[Donegeal]

How do we determine who gets a 2 city after everyone has one?