Civ Choice

[Arrian]

Starting Techs:

Mysticism would be nice, but IMO it's not that big a deal. We could make a run on CoL, for instance.

I like starting with mining b/c we're then just one tech from BW.

I like starting with Agriculture or Hunting b/c then we're just one tech from Animal Husbandry.

Fishing has to be viewed as a negative, despite its usefulness in certain starts.

...

UU's:

It seems we want a UU that is solid, but not uber. Uber screams "don't let them get that thing, kill them now!!" We also don't really want a late UU (this discounts the Redcoat somewhat). UU's that require resources are also obviously a bit of a worry. Mansa Musa (skirmisher), Qin (Cho-whatever) and Saladin (Camel Archer) all shine there... all are solid, IMO, and none require resources.

...

Having a scout to start is a nice bonus, IMO. It's something to ponder when thinking about some of the alternatives we have (Bismark, for instance).

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Elizabeth or Catherine would be my choice. I like FIN. It's maybe even a bit overpowered. Both are not SPI, though, which might lead to Mansa Musa, who also would be a good candidate.

[DeepO]

It might be worth to pinpoint choke-techs too... for instance writing is extremely important, whatever we'll do, we want an academy in our capital asap. Some starting techs help us towards it, some don't.

Naval techs, archery, religion techs (but mysticism has been talked about), and iron can be the same. Our strategy will of course be adjusted to specific terrain, but I much prefer techs that are en route to one of our choke techs, so these fall naturally.

The worker techs we obviously need too, but these will be more decided by our starting position, and not so important to decide beforehand.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Critical techs...

Bronze
Iron
Animal Hus.
Writing
Alphabet

Polytheism? Founds Hindu, leads to Monotheism (judaism). Required for alphabet or literature, IIRC...

Archery... well, maybe. Especially if we're Mansa Musa.

...

Thoughts on early religion: it really depends on what leaders the other teams pick and what our start looks like. Say several other teams pick civs that start with Mysticism. Say our start has a plains hill on fresh water and we burn a turn to found there. No way we're getting an early religion in that situation. But, alternatively, if the other teams pick civs that lack Mysticism, it's another ballgame.

Basically, I'd like not to make it a keystone of our strategy. It's an opportunistic thing.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

the thing with the resource techs is that we (hopefully) don't need all of them at the very beginning. Iron is a goal in itself, though, especially with others close by. MC similarly.

DeepO

[NicodaMax]

That was a lot of reading...

FIN is very important in the late game for a stable economy, and while CRE might piss people off its a great benefit (specially for luring those resources into your cities with early expansions). So for me the choice is Catherine. Also, she starts with mining and hunting (good combo) and a scout (for some important goodie hut popping early on).

[Hot Mustard]

Lots of input already here.

I have purposefully avoided playing with Mansa in SP - why? Because I would MM the switching game to death and end up not having as much fun.

Now, someone mentioned earlier that we should be playing to our strengths, and from several comments in this thread, and from evidence I'm seen in prior games, the top GS strength is extremely organized, almost demon-possessed micro-management. If I've got that right, then I don't see how Spiritual can't be our number one Trait priority.

So that's one trait aligned with our strengths, and no one amongst the other teams would be surprised by it. Do we want the other picked along the same lines, or do we want to pick something that might surprise people a bit?

If the former, I would think Financial and Philosophical would be best (Mansa Musa and Saladin).

If the latter, I would suggest Expansive or Creative (Isabella and Hatshepsut). Either of these proclaims to the other teams, "GS will not be isolationists this time around." I trust the members here play an organized, balanced game from the outset, so what's wrong with putting ourselves 'out there' from the very beginning? I think it would definitely surprise folks and maybe put them on their heels a bit.

I'm just spit-balling here...what do you think?

[Dominae]

Shall we start posting our short-lists? Say, three civs each?

[notyoueither]

Could do, if people want to. Feel free to change them if game rules change suddenly (all of a sudden we are on a pangaea).

Last time we ranked 1-2-3 with 1 getting 3 points, 2 getting 2 points, and 3 getting 1 point.

[Arrian]

So I have to actually start making choices! Oh dear. Here goes:

1. Mansa Musa
2. Qin
3. Elizabeth

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by NicodaMax
That was a lot of reading...

you haven't seen nothing yet

No, seriously, at certain points in time we generate this much text that only a few of us can read everything. If rl takes you for a week, it's hard to catch up without spending whole days reading (or nights in case you don't browse from work). That's why it's important to structure our threads: so that all can follow, including those that are casual GSers.

Once the game gets going, you will see turnthreads popping up. These are our operational threads, and normally will also contain some basic info (like the status of our military, and a screenshot). To get up to speed after an absence, read the last turn thread.

Further, there will be threads on specific subjects, and normally also some collection threads. I want to try to get some hub threads going as well, with pure links to important posts. Sometimes, threads go off topic, and as there is no search feature (at least not last time I checked), it can be hard to find something back.

All this organisation takes effort, but it does pay off. The more structure, the more people can participate. We're not going to turn GS into a bureaucracy, though.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Last time we ranked 1-2-3 with 1 getting 3 points, 2 getting 2 points, and 3 getting 1 point.

1. a SPI leader
2. another SPI leader
3. an ORG leader.

Basically, I don't mind which trait gets added, and which UU/starting tech is present. All of them can work well... ORG is still the most powerful trait, especially on higher levels, but I consider SPI the most fun one for this game. And whether it's the best or not doesn't matter, it's the fun that counts.

DeepO

[Arrian]

Based upon your own words, it would appear that you favor Asoka (SPI/ORG).

Other candidates matching your criteria would include Mansa Musa, Saladin, Ghandi, Washington, Caesar (problematic for other reasons, though)...

We've got to narrow things down a bit, wouldn't you say?

-Arrian

[DeepO]

not really, a SPI/ORG combination is less powerful then either of the two. ORG is only good if you don't switch every 5 turns as you can run the highest civics anyway. 3-move workers are good, though, early chopping, and late surprises (they can road hills and forests in 1 turn)

I don't want to make the selection more difficult at all. But could we tally my votes last, so that whatever SPI leader is near the top gets some more votes?

DeepO

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
ORG is only good if you don't switch every 5 turns as you can run the highest civics anyway.

Are you saying that Organized is good because it lets you run the most expensive Civics, which must necessarily also be the best Civics? Most of the "best" Civics (effect-wise only) are low Upkeep. I think the Spiritual no-Anarchy "tricks" are all still valid regardless of what your Upkeepk is (the "free GA" effect).

I don't want to make the selection more difficult at all. But could we tally my votes last, so that whatever SPI leader is near the top gets some more votes?

That's not really fair, is it? Maybe we should change the process, and vote for our favorite traits first instead?