Our Civ and Leader

[Swiss Pauli]

Might as well get this one rolling as there's (understandably) not much interest in the interminable settings votes.

Seeing as the map is Terra, I think we'll be wanting an early game power-Leader. Seeing as I have zero MP experience my suggestions may be but here are some initial thoughts:

Pacal - FIN/EXP. Resourceless Holkan available with Hunting and BW.

Darius - FIN/ORG. Immortals available with Horses connected (AH & Wheel).

Brennus - SPI/CHM. Gallics available with IW and connected copper.

Alex - AGG/PHI. Phalanx available with connected copper.

Gilgamesh - CRE/PRO. Vultures available with connected copper.

Shaka - AGG/EXP. Impi available with connected copper.

Rome for Praets (connected Iron); Egypt for War Chariots (AH 6 connected horses).

Pacal gets my vote. (I'll also enquire about how leaders will be assigned as the result of many teams selecting them - which is highly likely.)

[Zeviz]

Since this is a custom map, we will probably have access to most resources from the start, so resourceless UU might not be as important. I generally like Financial trait, but am not familiar enough with BtS leaders to have a firm opinion.

[ruff_hi]

Traits ... just to remind people ...

• Aggressive, "Melee and gunpowder units start with combat I; Double Production Speed of barracks and drydock"
• Charismatic, "+1 happiness per city; -25% XP needed for unit promotions; +1 happiness from Monument, Broadcast Tower"
• Creative, "+2 culture per turn per city; Double Production Speed of library, theater, colosseum"
• Expansive, "+2 health per city; +25% Production of Worker; Double Production Speed of granary, harbor"
• Financial, "+1 commerce on tiles generating 2 or more commerce"
• Imperialistic, "+100% Great General emergence; +50% production of settler"
• Industrious, "+50% wonder production; Double Production Speed of forge"
• Organized, "-50% civic upkeep cost; Double Production Speed of lighthouse, factory, courthouse"
• Philosophical, "+100% great people birth rate; Double Production Speed of university"
• Protective, "Archery and gunpowder units receive Drill I and City Garrison I; Double Production Speed of walls and castle"
• Spiritual, "No anarchy; Double Production Speed of temple"

This is MP so I think stronger military units are a must. This leans towards aggressive and Charismatic with Imperialistic being a sad 3rd. These leaders are ...

Boudica (Agg, Chr)
Genghis Khan (Agg, Imp)
Cyrus (Chr, Imp)

... all of which have early UUs.

Another leader I would suggest we look at is Hannibal (Chr, Fin) because of his UU (Numidian Cavalry (5/2/50)", "Replaces Horse Archer (6/2/50); +50% vs. melee units; starts with the Flanking I promotion")

[sooooo]

Their terra does not necessarily mean pangaea. The number of old world continents could mean it's more like a standard continents map.

Hmm, who here has MP experience? I've only played a handful of games. From what I remember, the good players seemed to like Mansa and Gandhi, though that was in Warlords.

[ruff_hi]

We should contact Atlas and ask him that question ... I will email him.

[mostly-harmless]

Originally posted by sooooo
Their terra does not necessarily mean pangaea. The number of old world continents could mean it's more like a standard continents map.

Swiss will vote 1 old world landmass today, though.

mh

[sunrise089]

Good MP traits are Expansive, Creative, and Imperialistic in the early game. The best early UUs for actually taking out an enemy are probably War Chariots, Impis, and Immortals. We're also really liking Ballista Elephants right now. Generally people don't get excited (or actually hate) Dog Soldiers, Vultures, Holkans, Bowmen, and Queches. Phalynxs are OK.

The problem however if we're not just playing a short game. Taking Zulu for a quick kill is a great MP strategy in a 100 turn ancient game, but not a great strategy for a 320 game Quick ironman. And anything past quick really isn't even MP anymore.

For what it's worth, William is generally favored in MP Ironman games, for the huge creative bonus early and then the long-term power of Financial. I wouldn't consider that a bad choice.

[Swiss Pauli]

Good inputs here, guys :thumbsup:

I looked into the Warlords game, and multiple instances of the same leader were allowed (4 Hannibals!), so we'll need to bear this in mind when selecting our leader, as well as the settings, which should be decided today.

[Kylearan]

I doubt this can really be compared to a normal MP game. Not playing alone but within a team tends to make decisions less risky, at least that is what happened in the CFC demogame. I think we should choose traits for a longer game if we plan not to rush a neighbour ourselves. (Do we? I'd be against it. )

In the CFC vanilla demogame, we chose fin/ind Qin, managed a CS slingshot and are winning at the moment. In the end, it all depends on the kind of game we want to play.

* Do we plan to do a rush? ->agg, strong early UU

* Do we want to be aggressive later on, from a position of superiority? ->fin, later UU

* Do we want to go wonder-happy? ->ind

* Are we planning to do a SE or CE? ->phi or fin

* Do we want to found an early religion? ->start with mysti

...and so on.

Personally, I'm no fan of early rushes. Diplomacy plays a major role in a demogame, and eliminating one or two opponents early definitely weakens your diplomatic position all game long. Besides the CS slingshot and some great MM, having a fantastic diplomat on our team was the main reason for the winning position of my team in the CFC demogame.

My votes would be Elizabeth (fin/phi) for some powerful early research plus a mid-game war with redcoats, but I'd be content with any leader, as adapting to the situation at hand is what I like most about the game.

-Kylearan

[sunrise089]

In general I agree with Kylearan. I supported a smaller map size and a quicker speed, and would have preferred a more MP feel. That has not happened however, so we may as well adapt to our circumstances. As long as we're not looking for really fast early expansion or an early kill (which from a score perspective may still be strong plays, and I expect at least one other team to go this route) then Fin/Phi, Fin/Ind, Fin/Cre , or Fin/Spi all seem like good plays. IIRC those leaders are Elizabeth, Huyana, William, and Mansa.

If we expect the game to be generally peaceful, I lean towards the first two...who have UUs that don't factor much in the early game. As a bonus, the Incas start with Mysticism IIRC.

On the other hand, if we expect a competitive early game then the latter two might be nice. Mansa for the obvious huge edge skirms offer (my biggest fear with Lizzy would be starting next to Shaka and getting slammed by 20 Impis early), and William for the very powerful early creative bonus to let us secure land more safely and take an early tech lead.

Playing against humans, overall I really like Mansa or William. Mansa will let me sleep soundly with skirms, keeps financial, and allows the still useful spiritual trait. William also keeps financial, has a great UB, and has creative, which I think is at least as useful economically as Ind or Phi...probably much more so in the early game. Not having to chop a monument or build a missionary in early cities, plus fast libraries is indeed a really nice boost.

[ruff_hi]

I PM'd Atlas and got this reply ...

Ruff,

Until i got your pm i was unsure what this game was that you are playing. But i read the thread back to front and it seems that the game is some weird mix between SG and MP. In a pure MP it is all aggression and from turn 1. So I like Shaka (Agg./Exp) and Genghis (Agg./Imp) because they allow for ultra aggression and still expand easily. However it sounds like the other teams would be ultra pissed if you poached one of their workers, put a choke on them, or on turn 50 showed up with 20 swords. If that seems appropriate take one of those leaders (if unrestricted leaders is being played I really like the Persians, India, Egypt, and Zulu for early aggression-all have great UUs).

For more of a builder game I think the best 3 leaders are Suryvariam (Exp./Cre.), Willem Van Oranje (Cre./Fin.) or Pacal II (Exp./Fin.). If unrestricted leaders I would take Elizabeth (Phi./Fin.) of India. MP civ (like all civ really) is about getting that early advantage, whether it is cheaper workers/settlers or cheaper libraries or a tech lead as a result of better/earlier cottages and never letting that advantage fade. I imagine that at some point you probably will go to war, but if you are not planning for an early war then one of these guys is fine until the Medieval era otherwise take and aggressive leader. If unrestricted take India- fast workers are better than being Exp. (imho) so it is like getting a third trait.

Tell me what you (and others?) think of this so far and get back to me on a general plan and maybe I can provide more input.

BTW- here is a thread I wrote about Ancient MP for Warlords 2.08- it is geared for always war, but may be helpful

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203782

[sooooo]

I also would not be in favour of going for an early rush. Creative is sounding like a nice trait to have, and should be great for a cramped pangaea. So I'm liking Willem, Surya or even Louis.

[Swiss Pauli]

Some more Leaders to consider:

Hatty - CRE/SPI

Pericles - CRE/PHI

Kublai - AGG/CRE

Cathy - CRE/IMP

Judging by Krill's comments in the Map Type thread, and by the fact that half the other teams now left voted for Terra, I think there's a good chance we'll have to defend against a rush, if we choose not to try one oursleves.

[sunrise089]

Hatty, Kathy, and Kublai all lack a long-term economic trait, and IMHO that's giving up too much in the long game.

Also, Expansive is simply better than Imperialistic in MP, so I don't think Cathy should be really considered.

Pericles is nice (decent UU, good traits), but I think a CE is easier for a team to manage than a SE. Other than that, I'm ok with him. If we take an ancient UU leader though, I'd like to consider some sort of rush.

PS - Krill is (or was before BtS made lots of people stop playing) a dynamite MP player. I would definitely expect a rush from their squad.

EDIT: After talking things over with some of the top MP players, there is lots of support for Ethiopia's Creative/Organized. They point at that that will aid in New World colonization and that there is great synergy between the early Creative and later Organized trait, irrespective of land. Plus they point out the Terra maps are crowded in the early game, and Creative provides a nice boost there, and then Organized allows a higher tech rate for 6+ cities than financial with less-than-perfect land.

[Swiss Pauli]

Good spot on Zara, sunrise. I was sure I'd missed one of the good CRE leaders, but couldn't think which one!