Roleplay Team

[Crousto]

I'd like to join, this roleplaying Civ concept sounds great
I'm an experienced Civ player (since CivI on the Amiga) but totally new to MP (don't have PtW yet) and Democracy games.

The Arabs sounds nice to me, because they are religious and as someone else said earlier anarchy will be a huge pain if we are roleplaying (or maybe we could play a Quake game first then let the winner play the next Civ turn ). Expansionnist is nice too (knowledge of the map will be crucial in MP, and getting goody huts sciences or gold is always nice to get an advantage early in the game). Their UU looks like odd however unless I'm missing something about it (just a 4/2/3 knight instead of 4/3/2?) - great time for a golden age too.

[realpolitic]

Are you saying that you will join only if we choose one of these two civs?

Not only that, I'll hold my breath til I turn blue.

[jdjdjd]

Are you now saying that the Civ we choose must be blue for you to join the team?

Originally posted by realpolitic



Not only that, I'll hold my breath til I turn blue.

[mrmitchell]

Spam is the obvious roleplay choice if we can get the Mideast civs to settle in our south at the late ancient, that way we can kick them out and then send all those elites to conquer North, South America. (It's what Spam did in RL, I believe)

Spam has 3 major advantages:
-It's gonna be a real great party to roleplay it
-Virtually everyone who has ever been in a US or WORLD HISTORY class for one day knows at least part of their history
-I've already created my funny misspelling of it (Stuff Posing As Meat, haha)

And I know I haven't noticed it till now but nice sig GodKing.

[GodKing]

thanks

[Arnelos]

I'm still heavily in favor of Carthage... and I fail to see how playing the Carthaginians would leave us without anything to roleplay

C'mon... we'll probably re-name whatever civ we get to our likes and role-play it however we want to anyhow...

[Ninot]

Well, i think we need to make ANOTHER decision....


are we choosing our civ purely for their strategical value, and creating our own history, myths, whatever?

or are we choosing a civ for a roleplaying significance, borrowing from THAT civ's history, mythology, and ideas?

[Arnelos]

In the event we'll creat our OWN history (which I greatly prefer):

Carthage

In the event that we want to use that civ's history:

Rome

So, in other words, I seem to want to fight the Punic Wars against myself Seriously, though, I really think Carthage would be fine... I fail to see how being "industrious and commercial" means we have less to roleplay than if we were relgious Being a commercial civ or an industrious civ still gives us PLENTY to roleplay... and a form of roleplay that could be quite fun... it would be DIFFERENT than Apolytonia's RP in the single-player Civ3DG, but why would we want to just repeat being the bananas of Apolytonia in the multi-player one???

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Arnelos
why would we want to just repeat being the bananas of Apolytonia in the multi-player one???

On that note.....

may this team NEVER hold the banana in any higher regard than that of a fruit, with the use of comedic relief should it be improperly disguarded.


i beg of thee, may we not choose this piece of produce as a diety.

[notyoueither]

Pagans!

[Togas]

I was hoping we'd roleplay the civ we pick to some extent. I'd rather not see us rename it and make up our own deities and history, etc. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter what civ we picked, we'd pick solely for UUs and traits.

Bottom line, pick a civ that's both fun to RP *and* gives us a decent chance of success in this multiplayer game.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
I was hoping we'd roleplay the civ we pick to some extent. I'd rather not see us rename it and make up our own deities and history, etc. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter what civ we picked, we'd pick solely for UUs and traits.

Bottom line, pick a civ that's both fun to RP *and* gives us a decent chance of success in this multiplayer game.

--Togas

Ok, based on that... here's my thoughts:

CARTHAGE:
RP: Good (personally I think it would be a blast to roleplay "commercial" and "industrious", not to mention the entire Phoenician/Carthaginian/Numidian classical mediteranean-spanning commercial empire Only catch is there's that whole bit about Carthage historically being defeated by Rome and having the fields covered in salt...)
UU: Good
Traits: Great

OTTOMONS:
RP: Decent/Mediocre (I agree with Togas that I'd rather not RP as the Ottomons if we're RPing real history)
UU: Good
Traits: Great

SPAIN:
RP: Good
UU: Horrible (so we can pillage stuff easily... this isn't exactly what I'd hope for in terms of significantly adding to the survivability of our civ and competitive other human civs...)
Traits: Mediocre

CELTS:
RP: Decent (similar issue to Carthage in terms of their eventual defeat and subjugation... once they were beaten down at the end of the "ancient" age and early "middle" age... they've done little remarkable since other than being oppressed and exporting most of their population to other nations - most notably the United States, a much more successful "nation" in the "industrial" and "modern" ages )
UU: Fair (this thing isn't all its cracked up to be... most of you thinking the Gallic Warrior is the bomb HAVEN'T PLAYED AS THE CELTS YET IN PTW... trust me, the cost is prohibitive, especially for a non-industrious civ... they're significantly more expensive than the normal swordsmen It takes quite a while to build up an effective group of these guys, but I will agree that they kick enormous amounts of a** if you survive long enough to build up that attack group... so it's a toss up).
Traits: Decent (religious is really a wonderful trait, militaristic has very limited uses... though a furiously competitive multi-player game might be one of them )

In all, I'd rank the above four as follows:

1. Carthage
2. Ottomons
3. Celts
4. Spain

Carthage and the Ottomons, in my opinion, stand head and heels over the Celts and Spain in terms of actually playing as them... in terms of roleplay, that depends more on your tastes. I wouldn't want to be the Ottomons (they'll probably be picked by Trip's Team anyway - meaning we'd have to compete for them).

[GeneralTacticus]

Personally, I'd go for the Ottomons, for the traits and UU, and I don't see any reason why we have to focus on the negative aspects of the RP - just RP the successful bits of their history and keep doing so through the less successful bits.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arnelos
In the event we'll creat our OWN history (which I greatly prefer):

Carthage

In the event that we want to use that civ's history:

Rome

Am I wrong or you Republicains dislike elephants?

[Togas]

Everyone, please vote in this poll. It should help us decide what Civ to play.

Once we have that down, we can properly name our team, get a logo done, and decide other roleplay issues.

Spain is the Civ I know the most about, but of the choiced I posed, it probably has the worst UU.

The Celts is a Civ I know the least about. If their UU is as expensive as told, they may not be the best choice for us as their traits are only average.

Ottomans and Carthage are right there in the middle. I think the Ottomans have the best UU, but Carthage has a very good trait set. RP-wise, they seem average to me, as I'm not exceptionally familiar with either of their histories.

Anyone want to do a late rally for the Arabs, Vikings, or Monguls? Better post away in the Civ Choice Poll.


Next issue on my mind: Who amongst us is interested in leadership? Who's good at what? My strong points are diplomacy and government. I'm decent in most other areas. I'm hoping that there are some cunning strategists and economists amongst us. We may well want to support our best general as dictator in the beginning. Let me do more of the diplomatic work.

--Togas