Apolyton University

[ducki]

What is "GS Settings" or "GS clone"?
I feel like I'm missing half of a phone call.

[Dominae]

I stopped playing AU-205 because I wasn't having fun anymore, and when I came back a few days later my latest autosaves had been written over by another game...Too bad, I had some pretty interesting things happen to me that game, including a GL in 2950BC who rushed the Pyramids (my first time to do so). But, once I got my FP in place around 600AD, I was dominant but everyone hated me, so it was going to be war war war until the end. I promise to be more enthusiastic next time though!

Having no Expansionist AIs with an Expansionist human player sounds good to me. How about we start it in about a week or so?


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
What is "GS Settings" or "GS clone"?
I feel like I'm missing half of a phone call.

In the Play the World Democracy Game here on 'Poly, most of the AU regulars are part of the same team, 'Gathering Storm'. The suggested civ settings mimic the other teams we face in the actual Demo. Game (we're Egypt).

Although it may seem like a good idea to those in GS, as I said it wouldn't be very novel to those who aren't. Plus, I'm thinking that even with identical civs, the SP experience with the AI won't transfer much to the Demo. Game. So, I vote for the Expansionist idea.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Although it may seem like a good idea to those in GS, as I said it wouldn't be very novel to those who aren't. Plus, I'm thinking that even with identical civs, the SP experience with the AI won't transfer much to the Demo. Game.

Not to mention the fact that we don't know most of the map settings (unless the save file squealed on them), and the relative placement of the civs would probably be completely different, as would the relative strength of the starting positions....

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
Sorry about that. I've been reminded to check my PMs before, so you'd think I'd learn from that, no?

Keep checking in the next days, there's more to come.

Theseus, sorry for the spam, it's for a good purpose, you know .

[Dominae]

We seem to be running out of ideas for upcoming AU scenarios. So, here's a little list of interesting "courses" we could try (some are old ideas that we haven't done yet):

1. Total War; never sign a Peace treaty...ever.

2. Expansionism; select an Expansionist civ, and demonstrate that the trait is useful on most map types.

3. Modern War; win by conquest or domination, but never capture a city until the Modern age.

4. Crappy Civ; pick civ among English, Koreans or Spanish, and show that they're not that bad.

5. Deity Game; beat the game on the highest difficulty.

6. OCC Victory; achieve a Spaceship victory with the help of only one city.

7. PTW Scenario; play one of the official scenarios included in the Play the World expansion.

8. No Wonders; never control a Great Wonder...ever (for the truly masochistic, include Small Wonders).


I'd love to hear any comments or possible additions.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Did people not play AU 205? There hasn't been too much commentary.

I didn't play largely because of limited time. A much smaller reason was that I just didn't want to play a known map.

I'll probably have enough time to play the next AU. I have no strong preference on game type, but both expansionist and "crappy civ" ( ) sound interesting -- I've only had the Korean's in one PTW game and they were eliminated before I even got to meet them.

How'd you GS lunatics recruit Soren?

Catt

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Catt

How'd you GS lunatics recruit Soren?

He's not on the team. He's just interested in following the game, and since he knows some Gathering Storm members from strategy board discussions, he asked for access to our private area so he can follow it better.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Pretty cool about Soren, huh?!

Let's do Expansionism... I know that I'm weak in that arena. Maybe Aeson (if he's listening) could be some kind of coach.

BTW, thanks Dominae for refreshing the idea bank.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
BTW, thanks Dominae for refreshing the idea bank.

No problem. Although a lot of us are caught up with MP pursuits (GS and other games), I personally still really like the idea of AU. Hopefully we can maintain a good level of participation.


Dominae

[BRC]

If you guys haven't decided on a game yet:

What about a game where the human cannot build or capture any wonders?

This game might not be fun for many, but I think that it would reveal to everyone exactly which wonders are most key to them. You would be able to figure out that you need more content faces(Sistine), more money(Smiths), or faster research(Science Wonders, TOE)....

Just thought it could be a good learning experience. If it makes the game depressing, just reply with "Maybe next game."

[Konquest02]

Maybe next game!

Seriously, I like the expantionnist game as most player often overlook this part of the game...

--Kon--

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by BRC
If you guys haven't decided on a game yet:

What about a game where the human cannot build or capture any wonders?

This game might not be fun for many, but I think that it would reveal to everyone exactly which wonders are most key to them. You would be able to figure out that you need more content faces(Sistine), more money(Smiths), or faster research(Science Wonders, TOE)....

Just thought it could be a good learning experience. If it makes the game depressing, just reply with "Maybe next game."

Maybe next game

Seriously, I can't speak for others, but I've missed out on most of the wonders individually in various games enough to have a pretty good feel for their impact. And the fact that I hate razing would make a game where I'm not allowed to capture wonders especially annoying for me.

[BRC]

Maybe next game!

Maybe next game

Way to let me down easy guys!

I understand. I haven't played as much as you guys, and so I still don't understand the value of all the wonders.

I'm in for the expansion game. Let's do it.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae,
in AU Mod thread
This is just in time for the next AU scenario. How about a focus on Communism? Here's what I was thinking about (along with ducki):

1. Only victory types allowed are Domination and Conquest.

2. Offensive wars are not allowed outside of Communism (yep, this means no fighting until Communism!).

3. To make number 2 more fun, no Religious civs allowed.

The one downside that I see to this idea is that it will make for a long game. I'm fine with this personally because I'm tired of things being wrapped up before the Industrial age. Sound good/bad?

I love the idea! Very much in the spirit of AU. Perhaps we can play on a small map to speed up the game a little.

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Dominae
1. Total War; never sign a Peace treaty...ever.

Total War isn't that bad, you miss out on extorting techs but the enemy civ is easily managed once you sack their capitol.

I've been playing some Always War games (declare war the turn you get contact) and those are insane. I would say it's at least 2 difficulty levels higher than normal - I haven't survived to 10 AD on an Emperor Pangea map yet.

[ducki]

Doesn't War Weariness start to eat you up, or do you never use representative governments for these total aggression games?

[DaveMcW]

For Total War, you can solve WW by wiping out your enemy. Always War leaves everybody with WW so war governments are the only way to go.

[Dominae]

Oops! Guess I've been posting my ideas on the next AU course in the wrong thread...Check out the AU PTW MOD thread for my latest thoughts. I'll post here in the future.

alexman, I think a Standard-size map is good because 1) the game should not take too long if there is almost no warfare before Communism, and 2) I'm up for some epic Industrial-Modern age battles. But, if most players do not have the time, a Small map is fine too.

DaveMcW, I guess we should decide now between 'Total War' and 'Communism'. I'm inclined to go with Communism, just to try out the changes in the newest version of the AU mod.

Another thought about the 'Communism' scenario: perhaps we should "encourage" players to beeline for Communism once in the Industrial age? It would kind of defeat the purpose to build up a huge Panzer army in a Republic, then switch over to Communism to roll over all opposition, no?

Oh, and I think the Germans are the civ of choice here.




Dominae

[ducki]

Originally posted by Dominae
Oh, and I think the Germans are the civ of choice here.
Dominae

Odd. I'd go with a builder civ.
If you're toast by the time you get to Panzers, don't you have bigger problems?

And Mil/Sci seems kinda weak if we can't wage "real" war until Communism.

I think I might go for Egypt or Babylon(that'd be a first for me) with that much time devoted to not waging war, but since I've never really played Germany (*) I could be wrong.


* - I've started my Black Hole Side game as Germany. It's 1350 and my offensive forces are already larger than my China game (Help at Monarch - FP + Victim Selection).

[Dominae]

Germany is my pick:

1. Scientific allows decent Culture and tech parity.

2. Mlitaristic ensures that promotions (and consequently, Leaders) are a common occurence when the real fighting begins.

3. Bronze Working sets up a nice defensive early-game with Spearmen. Warrior Code (i.e. Archers) makes Settler-bopping even easier (this is allowed, since enemy Settlers can be ambushed outside their borders early on).

4. PANZERS!


Of course, anyone can pick whatever civ they choose (barring Religious ones, if we agree upon barring that trait).


Dominae

[ducki]

I agree on barring Religious if we're not limiting government to Communism once it's available.

[Mazarin]

If understood this idea right, the ottomans might prove great...ind./sci. is a great combination and the sipahi could allow early industrial wars

[Nor Me]

Originally posted by ducki
I agree on barring Religious if we're not limiting government to Communism once it's available.

A compromise would be to limit goverment to Communism once available only for Religious civs.
I had the Spanish down as the obvious choice.

[Dominae]

I see two options:

1. Religious civs allowed. Players must beeline for Communism in the Industrial age and stay there until the game ends.

2. Religious civs not allowed. Players must beeline for Communism, but can switch in and out anytime.

Note that in both cases, offensive warfare can only be conducted under Communism.


Dominae

[ducki]

Just to put it in perspective...

Aztec, Japan, Babylon, Celts, Egypt, Iroquois, Arabs and India would all be disallowed.

I wouldn't miss the 1-turn Anarchy near as much as I'd miss cheap culture buildings and happiness from Temples and Cathedrals as well as the quick border-linking.

Not saying I don't want to do it, just trying to paint a clear picture of exactly what civs and "abilities" we'd be disallowing.

[alexman]

I kinda miss the idea of everyone playing the same civ. That way the AARs are more relevant to everyone's experience, and we can compare strategies as opposed to civ strengths.

I'm not sure I like the idea of restricting our research path to beeline to Communism. How about making the human player start in Communism, and not allowing him to switch at all? It might be a very different experience...

[ducki]

Y'know, I think we should play the same one too.
When did that change, with PtW and all the new civs?

As far as restricting research, I think requiring Communism for Conquest would basically take care of that. If someone wants to play outside the parameters of the game, that's their choice, but it won't help us test Communism.

How much of a "bonus" would having the human start in a "real" government convey vs. the Despot AIs?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
I kinda miss the idea of everyone playing the same civ. That way the AARs are more relevant to everyone's experience, and we can compare strategies as opposed to civ strengths.

I was thinking the same thing (and hinting at it by saying my preference of the Germans), but was afraid that it was an unpopular option. I'm 100% behind this idea. Here are my top 3 candidates:

1. Germans (Panzers)
2. Spanish (Conquistador, 2 peaceful builder traits)
3. Americans (F-15, strong non-military early-game)

Unfortunately, the Americans were already selected for a previous AU game. I would recommend against going with the Ottomans, as we're trying to concentrate on Communism and (relatively) modern war, not Cavalry rushes.

Originally posted by alexman
I'm not sure I like the idea of restricting our research path to beeline to Communism. How about making the human player start in Communism, and not allowing him to switch at all? It might be a very different experience...

Well, starting in Communism would create a different experience, to be sure, but it would not be Civ3. I like to play AU to learn about the game, and not to test out contrived scenarios. By forcing the human player to select Communism in war, we can determine just how good (or bad) that option really is (and test out the changes to Communism at the same time).

Perhaps a beeline to Communism is too restrictive. Upon reflection, it doesn't really matter if the human player spends time in the Industrial age before going Communist, because this gives the AI more time to build up (i.e. construct Factories, lay down Railroads, and reach Replaceable Parts). How about: if Communism is available, the human player must start a revolution if the current government is not Communism.


Dominae

[BRC]

I would recommend against going with the Ottomans, as we're trying to concentrate on Communism and (relatively) modern war, not Cavalry rushes.

I think that the Ottomans would be just as effective as the Germans, due to Industrious vs. Militaristic. We won't have much use for the Mil. trait, and without offensive wars and capturing workers, I think that Industrious would be even more useful. That being said, let's all play the same civ, and I'll play anyone.