Game Plan

[cavebear]

I recall seeing discussion about aiming for AC rather than military conquest, and something about not using the Ironclad Strategy this time. Was a consensus ever reached? Some other *general* guidelines could be established as well. I'll keep a list updated here at the top.

1. AC or Military Conquest? AC 13, Military 2

2. Use SuperIronclad Strategy? No 10, Yes 2

3. Democratic government or Communism? Demo 9, Any 4, Com 0

4. Attacking or defending military strategy? Att 1, Def 6, Both 3

5. Caravans mainly for Trade or for Wonders? Both 10

6. Wonders or individual city structures (e.g., Great Wall or City Walls)? Won 10, No Won 1

7. Establish a specific "science" city? Yes 2, OK 5, No 3

8. Use of Dips/Spies: Stealing, Bribing, and/or Destruction? Theft 1, Bribe 1, Dest 2


I realize that some are not entirely either/or questions; they are just general goals. It's just that I know we will will do certain things if we don't "encourage" ourselves not to.

Updated Sep 10...

[H Tower]

i think that with our slow start, we need to go conquer a little bit before we turn our eyes to the stars, we need more land!
I don't have any qualms using the ironclad strategy if its called for, it seems silly to hinder ourselves like that, ok maybe if we had jumped out to a huge lead we could, but i just don't see that now.

Let's still try for AC, its not too late!

[cavebear]

But didn't we decide not to use the same strategy for this second game? No doubt, we can win the same way even with a slower start, but is that what we want to challenge ourselves with?

[atawa]

My thoughts on giving ourselves a challenge:

* Build no wonders.

* Go Rep/Demo ASAP

* AC victory only

[Hydey]

1. AC
2. if we need to, it supposed to be a continental world.
3.what ever government is best at the time.
4.Deffend against all comers and attack when required.
5.Caravans for trade and wonders.
6.If we can build wonders I say we do it.
7.if a location and we can get the wonders allows.

[civman2000]

1. AC
2. No
3. Republic/Democracy; as soon as we get them we MUST change (ok maybe not immediately but asap)
4. Mostly defending, periodic aggressive wars for slow military expansion.
5. Either, no restrictions
6. We should be able to build some, but we should choose 14 now that we will not be allowed to.
7. If it is practical, yes, but no restricitons

[Darkness' Edge]

1. Military conquest...we decided against AC last time for good reason
2. If we have to, preferably not.
3. Democratic government ASAP
4. We shouldn't be setting this beforehand, make up our mind at the time.
5. Both
6. see civman's suggestion
7. No need.

[cavebear]

Good varied suggestions so far. Keep it up...

[shade]

Originally posted by cavebear
1. AC or Military Conquest?

AC, but use military strategy to get there first.(If some-one get's to strong --> just kill of some of the cities so they can't pose a tread)

2. Use SuperIronclad Strategy?

Only for the above reason=small scale

3. Democratic government or Communism?

The best we can get(and support!!)

4. Attacking or defending military strategy?

Defending military strategy, except when our goals might get endangered--> then we can call it a defencive attack (talking about a contradictio interminis)

5. Caravans mainly for Trade or for Wonders?

All purpose use.

6. Wonders or individual city structures (e.g., Great Wall or City Walls)?

Keep the ppl happy,build Wonders to show our greatness

7. Establish a specific "science" city?

probably won't work anymore.

--> New Question:
8. Can we use spies and diplomats for military purposes?
8a. steal everything(techwise) we can get our hands on.
8b. bribe everything(unit/city) we can get our hands on.
8c. Spy=terrorist--> bombing,poisoning and suitcasenukes will be standard-issue

Shade

[-Jrabbit]

The intra-game discussion we had when setting up for this one concluded only a few things, and ieven these are not writ in stone. IIRC, they were...

1. Win by AC only
2. Representative governments only (after Monarchy)
3. No SuperIronclad strat (been there, done that)

Everything else is open to the will of the ppl.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Agreement with -Jrabbit. War is fun, so we want to cull our opponents a bit, but not be too belligerent so we don't run out of opponents before we reach AC level tech.

Perhaps we can exercise restraint in wars - only eliminating threats and swiping a couple of choice cities if we are pushed by that civ. Then we can try to push for peace wherever we can.

Maybe the Great Wall and UN would be good ideas in this case...

[atomant]

Agree with most of the 8 points above... including the use of spies for stealing tech and so forth.

In terms of I propose that our President should be forced to accept a cease fire (note i did not say peace) if it is offered. Furthermore, perhaps we, as a civilisation should restrict ourselves and not act pre-emptively in starting hostilities. Ie: we must mantain a spotless reputation. I define preemptive as actively attacking cities/units. The use of spies or diplomacy to get another Civ to declare war does not count.

If the population of Apolyton agrees to it, perhaps enforcing this on ourselves until the development of tactics (or tictacs if you prefer),would be a way making the game more challenging. We are afterall supposed to be playing a democratic game, and democracies are legendary (in terms of stupidty) for handicapping themselves is such a fashion.

After tactics, as long as we maintain representative government, all bets are off... Bring on the BOmbers, armour, howies etal..... let the real battle begin!!!!!!!¬

Thoughts and comments welcome.

Cheers from deepest darkest Africa

AA

[-Jrabbit]

I think some of these proposed limitations are, well, pretty limiting, especially with our poor start.

This is definitely supposed to be an AC game, and via democracy.

As for the rest, I suggest we sort it out as we go.

[H Tower]

i'm with the rabbit on this one, those policies are too limiting, and it will lead to constant warfare with the AI, especially if we invade his continent, take one city, signa peace treaty, and then have the AI attack us 4 turns later such a campaign would be wasteful

[Galvatron]

Well I'm going with the military option. Ok my playingstyle is always a bit conqueror like but think it this way: a strong angry opponent is always a threat but a disarmed is not regardless of how angry he might be. I'm in for limit the competition or just hamper their development a with conquering some of their cities than we let them exist as an extra source of income. Our president should not be forced to accept any suggestions the AI make. Furthermore we should at first cripple them and afterwards make a harsh peace treaty for them so we can get out the most.

[cavebear]

Mine are:

1. AC. Sure, limit our enemies, but go for the stars this time.

2. No SuperIronclad Strategy. It was too easy last game.

3. Democracy

4. Defend

5. Both. Trade and Wonders are both good.

6. Yes. But not a Wonder-only strategy this time

7. Yes. We can establish a dedicated Science city. Maybe not a true "SuperScienceCity", but one to really emphasize it.

[Gramphos]

I suppurt the AC plan, tho the other things I still have to decide...

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Representative gov't!

AC!

No super ironclads!

As for the rest, do as we see fit, depending on game circumstances.

[Zedd]

1. AC or Military Conquest?

AC with minimal warfare

2. Use SuperIronclad Strategy?

I see using ironclads as a deterent only, wipe out some city defenses (with out invadeing )and destroy lots of enemy units but if we are not going to invade a country then super clads are fairly useless

3. Democratic government or Communism?

Demo or republic

4. Attacking or defending military strategy?

defensive strategy, minor attacks.

5. Caravans mainly for Trade or for Wonders?

both

6. Wonders or individual city structures

Wonders, though seting aside a few as "off limits" IS a good idea

7. Establish a specific "science" city?

Sure why not, it happens naturally any way.

8. Use of Dips/Spies: Stealing, Bribing, and/or Destruction?

No tech theft but bribing and some stratiegic sabotage

[Gelvan]

1. AC or Military Conquest?

AC, but we should at least fight against one other civ, it would be boring just to build Great Wall/UN and keep peace. Humans naturally are better in the space race, so a war would hinder us a bit and put some flavor to the game.

2. Use SuperIronclad Strategy?

What the hell's that?

3. Democratic government or Communism?

see point one: democratic is far to easy to succed - but if we ain't got peace it's more difficult to stay democratic.

4. Attacking or defending military strategy?

defending and punishing. So if someone steals our technologies they have to pay...

5. Caravans mainly for Trade or for Wonders?

Trade=Science=more Wonders available
see point 8

6. Wonders or individual city structures (e.g., Great Wall or City Walls)?

Pyramids: MUST! Michelangelo yes! ...but Great Wall just doesn't last long enough. And if we need a city wall, then it's better to have them already built, instead of a rush buy.

7. Establish a specific "science" city?

depending on terrain

8. Use of Dips/Spies: Stealing, Bribing, and/or Destruction? No votes

destruction against wonders -> that's more interesting, than just build twenty caravans to rush our own.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Gelvan
2. Use SuperIronclad Strategy?

What the hell's that?

The SuperIronclad Strategy is to build a bunch of Ironclads, get them vet status by knocking off Triremes or coastal units, and then avoid learning Electricity (which, with Leo's Workshop) would "upgrade" them to non-vet Destroyers.

In the last game, on an island world, we just obliterated all the other civs. It became too easy. We would eliminate a coastal city's defenders and and walk in with a Crusader to take it over. Even the AI couldn't keep up with the destruction of defenders.

[JCP]

I saw opinions in this thread.
OK for AC aim, via democracy, and defending strategy, withour excluding attack to reduce aggressive opponents...