Who wants...

[Harovan]

It's Iroquois. And Religious+Expansionist is a good mixture for MP, I think, so it's fine with me too. In addition, I have an about 200 names long list of original Iroquois cities, we could use.

What traits/UUs do the Celts and Carthaginians have again?

[notyoueither]

Carthage. Industrious, Commercial. Numidian Mercenary, 2/3/1 30 shields. Replaces Spearman.

Celts. Religious, Militaristic. Gallic Swordsman, 3/2/2 50 shields. Requires iron. Replaces Swordsman.

[Meshelic]

I'd really like to join this group here, I'm getting PTW either in less than a week or shortly thereafter, and this sounds like a good start here for a team. Civ-speaking, I prefer the Carthaginians to anything else....so I'd definetely like a spot on this team...

[notyoueither]

Step right up and be welcome. Even though your civ choice sucks. j/k. Mandatory ROMA VICTOR...

You do know who I am, I trust? Just call me Caesar.

But seriously, I'm not sure if we are setting a maximum yet, so the more the meaner.

I will say that the direction of the conversation seems to be towards the Iroquois due to their mix of UU nastiness and useful MP traits.

[notyoueither]

Reading other threads and...

Player cap. Should we have one?

[Randolph]

Should we wait for the map size poll to be completed before we choose a Civ (not that we'd actually come to a decision before that)? Some traits are very map size depended (commercial and expansionistic are best on larger maps... as I'm sure we all already know).

Secondly, if land mass type is chosen that should be considered (e.g. mounted warriors won’t be very useful if we’re isolated on an island).

As a final point, since ‘trashing trips ass’ is one of our primary priorities, perhaps we should wait for them to choose a team so we can pick a good counter Civ (e.g. if they’re playing the Greeks then an early offence Civ wouldn’t be very effective) .

[notyoueither]

Good points. However, they are lost in the never-never land of big numbers and medeival UUs. The dust bin of history awaits them

re the land mass and other settings. I agree, we should adjust our stance acording to the settings of the game. Iroquois might be best for Small Pangaea, but others would be good for large archipelago.

Who would we want in archipelago?

[Randolph]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Who would we want in archipelago?

Humm,
1. Commercial: a) Start with alphabet (one advance closer to map making). b) Need to have cities spread out (perhaps more than 2 islands, i.e. more than 1 for palace 1 for FP).

Perhaps Vikings? I haven't played a Vikings game yet, but they're com + mil (?), and their UU at least stands a chance at being useful (most UU are very unlikely to be useful in a large archipelago). OTOH The high cost does worry me, particularly against humans.

I could keep ranting, but I’ll refrain.

[alva]

ok, guys, count me in

the other thread said you needed members, and this teams goal is to big a waste to let go

[alva]

indeed, not only the traits, but even the UU are very map depended.

A human is not gonna let itself be steamrolled quite so easely as an AI, with an early UU rush.

I'm not very experienced in the tiny map department though , but a good all round (even defensive) unit on these maps can do wonders IMO, especially when their cheap

[Arnelos]

Vikings (now called "Scandinavians") are Militaristic+Expansionist... just like the friggin' Zulus... near useless combo for anything other than constant early warfare on a big map with lots of goody huts.

The Viking UU is EXTREMELY POWERFUL and quite near on unstopable, but it's as expensive as a marketplace to build and thus near on impossible to have very many of them w/o spending half the game building your force of them... It's very much a specialized unit, you can't really mass produce them.

[Randolph]

Yeah, in that case I say to the Scandinavians/Vikings.

We should be thinking about (kinda 'on the back burner') what Civ we would want under different map conditions as well as random.
IMHO if the map conditions are random we ought to pick a civ based on traits; picking a civ for its UU would be a gamble. Maybe commercial + industrious (France, Carthage)?

[Randolph]

Of course one UU that will always be good is the Hoplite (com+sci isn’t half bad either).
1. The raw defensive power
2. If you were someone choosing (in the ancient period) between attacking “civ X” or the Greeks, you’d likely choose “civ X”. This deterrent would be nice

(just throwing ideas out there, if rambling bothers anyone speak up )

Also, we need to think about how we're going to run this team. It seems obvious that NYE will be the general leader/pres for the moment. Should we break down positions, or should we have a more unofficial oligarchy? With only 6 people (maybe 1 or 2 more will join) I don’t see any need for a complex system, certainly not to start.

[asleepathewheel]

I'm not sure, but religious might be an ok trait for the game, to avoid the ww problem. And to allow us to screw with non religious democracies I would just be afraid that one of the bastard civs-the warmongers or trip would keep us in a prolonged war to trigger anarchy.

That said, I think we will win using any traits, so whatever.

I think we should pick a civ with a mid game uu-either a knight or a cavalry replacement. I think we can survive on our basic units until then, I mean I doubt the first game will be a rush for victory, but who knows.

Of course, you're right about the hoplite, that would be nice to have. though they would probably attack jsut to trigger our GA...

[Randolph]

I don't think that the religious trait directly reduces WW, it:
1) Reduces the cost of religious structures by 50% (temples, cathedrals)
2) Makes your anarchy phase only 1 turn.

Good point about the hoplite triggering a too-early GA, that would certainly be a down side.