Builder's Team (temporary name)

[ZargonX]

Yeah, I definately think that we should have a contact coordinator to keep things running smoothly.

So, do we feel that we should try and add a few more members, or do we want to keep a relatively small team? I think that if we wanted to have a congress, we should probably have a few more members, otherwise we can just decide amongst ourselves in comittee (or something.)

As for planning, we should probably keep that quiet until we have a more private forum...

[ZargonX]

Oh, and just to be somewhat official, I put in my vote for naming us "The Enlightened," and I think Spiffor's logo is great.

I would also be interested in either being the City Planner or the Diplomatic minister.

[Spiffor]

Actually, for the name, I've seen this : "light and might". Not very builder, but pretty catchy don't you think ?
I'd probably be interested in being the general... After all, we still need one (warmongers : don't laugh )

[Jack_www]

i like the name "The Enlightened" too.
I have been reading up on the Cartheginians and I think that they would be great for us. THey have ok attack and great defense, but they do cost more so that is something we must keep in mind. But then with their UU early in the game we can have one unit be able to do two functions, attack and defend.

[Jack_www]

I think we should also let the President handle all foreign policy with other civs. I would also like to be the first President of our team if you guys approve of it.

[Spiffor]

Jack_www : I approve you being the first prez. You're the founder, and without you the team would have never existed.
However, I think we should have as many posts as members (at least as long as we're few ; otherwise, we'd have one or two frustrated members). Plus, Foreign + trade is quite some work, and it could rapidly prove overwhelming for the prez -the few chats I've experienced where the FAM missed made the other's jobs pretty difficult.

But, to represent our Civ on the forums, I think the prez is the most fit to do so

[Arnelos]

Man... it looks like 3 seperate teams may end up fighting over Carthage... I don't know if they're quite as powerful as all of us seem to think, though... the Greeks are essentialy an equivalent civ (Scientific can be culturally powerful and the Hoplite is significantly cheaper than the Numidian merc)... I figure 2 teams will end up competing for Carthage and the loser could very well end up with Greece... (though Greece may actually be better for a builder strat).

We'll see...

[Spiffor]

Arnelos : sure, but Greece isn't industrious, which is a must in a builder strat.

[ZargonX]

I put in my vote for Jack as first Pres. Like Spiffor said, this team wouldn't be here without him!

I did notice that several of the teams are after Carthage. So, I think it is in our best interest to have at least two solid, agreeable backups. Though the defensive edge is good for the Greeks, the lack of industrious trait is a severe detriment. How about as a team, we each propose 2 additional favored civs. Then, we can compare lists and see where we agree (And, I'm guessing that the lists won't differ too much anyway...)

[Spiffor]

Persia as a 3rd choice would be good :
- Industrious / scientific rules
- Immortals can instill fear to potential ennemies, and can be helpful to enlarge our territory with fewer losses than normal.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Arnelos : sure, but Greece isn't industrious, which is a must in a builder strat.

Well, then I guess the list of builder-friendly civs would be (all industrious):

Carthage (good)
France (good)
Persia (good)
Ottomons (good)
Egypt (good)
America (fair)
China (mediocre)

I'd suggest that Industrious/Scientific and Industrious/Religious can actually be BETTER than Industrious/Commercial because the commercial trait is really only useful if you build yourself a large and far-flung empire (the reduction in corruption really only surpasses the cost breaks from scientific and religious when you have a number of far-flung metropolises). Since, as a builder civ, you're unlikely to be taking over a significant portion of the map and concentrating on internal development more, commercial is a bit less useful (unless you plan to send settlers off to far-flung places you think you can defend).

Personally, I think commercial is a must-have if you're playing just about any strategy in SINGLE-PLAYER because most of us end up as the dominant power in single-player... but in a multiplayer game, that's hardly assured... in fact, strict probability (there being 4-5 human-controlled civs) is against any specific civ being dominant or even rather large. As such, the cultural boost from scientific and/or religious could be a lot more powerful than the corruption reduction of commercial.

[Spiffor]

Well, I don't like France because of it's late, almost useless UU, and above all because of its pinkness
The very interest of Carthage is to have the industrious trait + a good defensive early UU. I agree commercial is likely to be less useful than scientific / religious for our kind of development, but the UU weights heavily... Carthage is still my 1st choice, and Persia is now my 2nd.

[Arnelos]

Yeah, that early UU is a nice factor. Weighing in the timing and value of the UUs, I'd say:

Persia (excellent)
Egypt (excellent)
Carthage (good)
Ottomons (good)
China (decent - VERY powerful UU)
France (fair)
America (mediocre)

[ManicStarSeed]

Wicked Defense... I assume?

We aint gonna 'gnore eny thing like that.... are we? We must make them pay if "they" try anything stupid. Else, I be scared.

Mss

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Arnelos

Persia (excellent)
Egypt (excellent)
Carthage (good)
Ottomons (good)
China (decent - VERY powerful UU)
France (fair)
America (mediocre)

Yep

Mss