Roleplay Team

[Crousto]

Originally posted by History Guy
The warmongers have chosen the Celts, and Spain and the land of the Celts would end up, due to their European backround, close together on the world map, correct?

According to the current status of the 'game preferences' poll, culturally linked starting locations is likely to be off, so starting positions will be 100% random.

[Arnelos]

Here's another factor to consider...

Spearman: 20 shields
Numidian Merc: 30 shields
Settler: 30 shields

As such...

Spear/Settler combo: 50 shields
Numidian/Settler combo: 60 shields

Let's say Spain has their capital with 4 production at size 3 - thus obtaining the spear/settler combo in 13 turns.

Let's say Carthage has their capital with 5 production (they're industrious) at size 3 - thus obtaining the Numidian Merc/settler combo in 12 turns.

This isn't necessarily bad, folks. The above doesn't even take into account that the Carthaginian worker they START THE GAME WITH will build mines in the city area of Carthage TWICE AS FAST as that Spanish worker can build mines around Madrid.

In terms of building units later on, the issue is more muddled:

Madrid, size 6, 8 shields (?): 3 turns for a spearman
Carthage: size 6, 9 shields (?): 4 turns for a Numidian Merc

This assumes that the Spanish capital and the Carthaginian capital have the same number of shields, which may not be the case (that Carthaginian worker is twice as fast).

The real advantage to Spain comes with new cities being temporarily defended by warriors (and thus trying to build their first defensive unit and first temple):

Spanish (spear+temple): 50 shields
Carthaginian (Numidian Merc+temple): 90 shields

Once again, however, those industrious workers (if we actually build them early on) and that +1 shield indudstrious advantage (though waste is going to KILL US here) could be intrumental.

There's pros and cons to each...

[Arnelos]

People, we can now move to our private forums...

I've posted this last response in there and I'm TRYING to post a poll for this (getting help from MarkG on that)

[Togas]

Our Private Forum is up. Here is the link:

Roleplay Forum

Please drop in and make yourself at home.

Only authorized team members may view this thread. If you have joined but have not yet been authorized (I have to authorize you), PM me.

--Togas

[mrmitchell]

Finally, a private forum!

Can I change my vote again? Or better yet, just scrap it until 47 hours has passed? I'm sorry, but all the good arguments Arnelos is giving is making me go loopy...

[ruby_maser]

just the facts

Originally posted by Arnelos
Let's say Spain has their capital with 4 production at size 3 - thus obtaining the spear/settler combo in 13 turns.

Let's say Carthage has their capital with 5 production (they're industrious) at size 3 - thus obtaining the Numidian Merc/settler combo in 12 turns.

Just to clarify, the extra shield will not kick in until the town gains "CITY" status (ie: above a 6)... so do not count on the extra shield in the early game.

Anyway, to me, a well organized attack from an enemy is gonna take out 3 spearman or 2 numidian mercs. regardless. Its not that we can build more spearman. That is not the reasoning; its is rather that the rate of growth in the early game is the game. It is the number of cities you have that assure a good allocation of resources, that generate commerce, generate culture, generate deterance to war or the means to make war, and so on and so on.

I cannot see rising above a bad start location with a slow-starter like this.

[Arnelos]

Re: just the facts

Originally posted by ruby_maser


Just to clarify, the extra shield will not kick in until the town gains "CITY" status (ie: above a 6)... so do not count on the extra shield in the early game.

Oh yeah, forgot about that

Well, that makes aqueducts or river cities even more critical...

[GodKing]

I have no strong preference. I have played with both, and find they both have some good and some poor qualities. Either one we choose is OK by me. As a matter of fact, I would not be upset if we choose to let a random civ become ours.... keep the suspence up until we actually start the game.... Helps to keep us on our toes as well.

[ruby_maser]

and on the topic of bad start locations, I had one in my only attempt to play as Carthage... emperor game, standard map, random everything, and I could tell from the first screenshot that it was a death sentence to my civ....

perhaps that is why I'm wary

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GodKing
I have no strong preference. I have played with both, and find they both have some good and some poor qualities. Either one we choose is OK by me. As a matter of fact, I would not be upset if we choose to let a random civ become ours.... keep the suspence up until we actually start the game.... Helps to keep us on our toes as well.

And that's when we'd get the Zulus...

EDIT: (or the Russians, the Vikings and their senselessly overglorified UU, etc, etc, etc)

[Hot Mustard]

It may be too late to change it, but what about The Thespians for the team name?

[Arnelos]

I prefer straight "Role-Play Team" to Thespians, but that's just me.

[History Guy]

Very nice. However, once this thread has vanished into the past threads...how will we access our forum?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by History Guy
Very nice. However, once this thread has vanished into the past threads...how will we access our forum?

MarkG already set up two ways:

1. You can select "RolePlay" that should appear at the top of the page when you enter the Civ3 PTW Democracy Game forum.

2. MarkG provided links to the individual private forums in his first post about the new private forums (it's a topped thread here).

[GeneralTacticus]

I can't seem to access the private forums very well. The only thing that shows up is an anouncement, and when I try to subscribe it won't let me.