Who wants...

notyoueither · October 31, 2002, 07:18

an old, tired, war horse who is too tired to thrash Trip's ass on his own?

I guess this might just be a team... Trash Trip's ass...

Members
alva848
asleepathewheel
chamonix
Conqueror
FrustratedPoet
Meshelic
notyoueither
Nuclear Master
OPD
Randolph
Sir Ralph
Velociryx
zeit

Harovan · October 31, 2002, 08:29

Trash Trip's ass? That sounds awesome

, I'm in.

alva · October 31, 2002, 09:21

Just a thouht, but wouldn't it make it

1. easier
2. more interesting,
to do US versus europe?
time zones (to name one) could speed up/slow down things quite alot IMO

OPD · October 31, 2002, 11:12

I'm in too.

I just want to see trips team fail miserably.

Ironquios will be by far the best civ to be IMO.

asleepathewheel · October 31, 2002, 12:52

Can I join this game?

Jon Shafer · October 31, 2002, 13:53

I'm flattered.

Randolph · October 31, 2002, 15:37

This sounds like the type of sarcastic, and generally mean spirited team I'd like to join. Trip does seem like the type of fellow who needs a good ass trashin'.

If you'll take me...

notyoueither · October 31, 2002, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Can I join this game?

You bet.

Quote:

Originally posted by Randolph
If you'll take me...

The more the ~~merrier~~ meaner.

GhengisFarb™ · October 31, 2002, 21:36

Nice avatar OPD.

notyoueither · November 2, 2002, 21:01

Oh come on. There must be more of us weirdos and old farts.

Who else wants to join?

Name suggestions?

notyoueither · November 2, 2002, 21:03

Mine would be...

The Mean Machine A Trash Trip's Ass project

alva · November 3, 2002, 11:52

Still in doubt

your team or Trip's

notyoueither · November 3, 2002, 18:23

You would be a welcome addition alva.

You should pick where you think you'd have the most fun. However, I will point out that we have Sir Ralph. That would give you a very capable person close to you in time zones to work with.

Oh, and you'd be listed first on the member list.

asleepathewheel · November 4, 2002, 03:48

Am I in this game?

If so, what civ?

I'm pretty sure what NYE's suggestion would be, and I wouldn't mind playing the Romans.

I'm partial to the Iriqouis, that MW is a ***** in MP, but we can accomplish our goal, of trashing trips ass, using any civ, I am quite confident.

notyoueither · November 4, 2002, 04:37

You bet. There was some doubt based on your first post, but not much now.

Iriqouis (sp; I'm too tired to check) would be very effective.

I am prepared to listen to what other people want and see if a concensus can be arrived at. Unfortunately, for me, both the Celts and Carths have significant attraction as well. And never forget the Impis and Jags.

I still think nothing tops the legions for all-around power, but there are many choices that would be good. maybe we should look at the civ abilities to guide us?

Industrious, Religious, Expantionist... any others that might be optimal for MP?

Harovan · November 4, 2002, 04:43

It's Iroquois. And Religious+Expansionist is a good mixture for MP, I think, so it's fine with me too. In addition, I have an about 200 names long list of original Iroquois cities, we could use.

What traits/UUs do the Celts and Carthaginians have again?

notyoueither · November 4, 2002, 05:26

Carthage. Industrious, Commercial. Numidian Mercenary, 2/3/1 30 shields. Replaces Spearman.

Celts. Religious, Militaristic. Gallic Swordsman, 3/2/2 50 shields. Requires iron. Replaces Swordsman.

Meshelic · November 4, 2002, 06:16

I'd really like to join this group here, I'm getting PTW either in less than a week or shortly thereafter, and this sounds like a good start here for a team. Civ-speaking, I prefer the Carthaginians to anything else....so I'd definetely like a spot on this team...

notyoueither · November 4, 2002, 06:24

Step right up and be welcome. Even though your civ choice sucks. j/k. Mandatory ROMA VICTOR...

You do know who I am, I trust? Just call me Caesar.

But seriously, I'm not sure if we are setting a maximum yet, so the more the meaner.

I will say that the direction of the conversation seems to be towards the Iroquois due to their mix of UU nastiness and useful MP traits.

notyoueither · November 4, 2002, 06:44

Reading other threads and...

Player cap. Should we have one?

Randolph · November 4, 2002, 08:15

Should we wait for the map size poll to be completed before we choose a Civ (not that we'd actually come to a decision before that)? Some traits are very map size depended (commercial and expansionistic are best on larger maps... as I'm sure we all already know).

Secondly, if land mass type is chosen that should be considered (e.g. mounted warriors won’t be very useful if we’re isolated on an island).

As a final point, since ‘trashing trips ass’ is one of our primary priorities, perhaps we should wait for them to choose a team so we can pick a good counter Civ (e.g. if they’re playing the Greeks then an early offence Civ wouldn’t be very effective) .

notyoueither · November 4, 2002, 08:28

Good points. However, they are lost in the never-never land of big numbers and medeival UUs. The dust bin of history awaits them

re the land mass and other settings. I agree, we should adjust our stance acording to the settings of the game. Iroquois might be best for Small Pangaea, but others would be good for large archipelago.

Who would we want in archipelago?

Randolph · November 4, 2002, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Who would we want in archipelago?

Humm,
1. Commercial: a) Start with alphabet (one advance closer to map making). b) Need to have cities spread out (perhaps more than 2 islands, i.e. more than 1 for palace 1 for FP).

Perhaps Vikings? I haven't played a Vikings game yet, but they're com + mil (?), and their UU at least stands a chance at being useful (most UU are very unlikely to be useful in a large archipelago). OTOH The high cost does worry me, particularly against humans.

I could keep ranting, but I’ll refrain.

alva · November 4, 2002, 16:01

ok, guys, count me in

the other thread said you needed members, and this teams goal is to big a waste to let go

alva · November 4, 2002, 16:08

indeed, not only the traits, but even the UU are very map depended.

A human is not gonna let itself be steamrolled quite so easely as an AI, with an early UU rush.

I'm not very experienced in the tiny map department though

, but a good all round (even defensive) unit on these maps can do wonders IMO, especially when their cheap

Arnelos · November 5, 2002, 01:13

Vikings (now called "Scandinavians") are Militaristic+Expansionist... just like the friggin' Zulus... near useless combo for anything other than constant early warfare on a big map with lots of goody huts.

The Viking UU is EXTREMELY POWERFUL and quite near on unstopable, but it's as expensive as a marketplace to build and thus near on impossible to have very many of them w/o spending half the game building your force of them... It's very much a specialized unit, you can't really mass produce them.

Randolph · November 5, 2002, 08:42

Yeah, in that case I say

to the Scandinavians/Vikings.

We should be thinking about (kinda 'on the back burner') what Civ we would want under different map conditions as well as random.
IMHO if the map conditions are random we ought to pick a civ based on traits; picking a civ for its UU would be a gamble. Maybe commercial + industrious (France, Carthage)?

Randolph · November 5, 2002, 08:47

Of course one UU that will always be good is the Hoplite (com+sci isn’t half bad either).
1. The raw defensive power
2. If you were someone choosing (in the ancient period) between attacking “civ X” or the Greeks, you’d likely choose “civ X”. This deterrent would be nice

(just throwing ideas out there, if rambling bothers anyone speak up

)

Also, we need to think about how we're going to run this team. It seems obvious that NYE will be the general leader/pres for the moment. Should we break down positions, or should we have a more unofficial oligarchy? With only 6 people (maybe 1 or 2 more will join) I don’t see any need for a complex system, certainly not to start.

asleepathewheel · November 5, 2002, 11:01

I'm not sure, but religious might be an ok trait for the game, to avoid the ww problem. And to allow us to screw with non religious democracies

I would just be afraid that one of the bastard civs-the warmongers or trip would keep us in a prolonged war to trigger anarchy.

That said, I think we will win using any traits, so whatever.

I think we should pick a civ with a mid game uu-either a knight or a cavalry replacement. I think we can survive on our basic units until then, I mean I doubt the first game will be a rush for victory, but who knows.

Of course, you're right about the hoplite, that would be nice to have. though they would probably attack jsut to trigger our GA...

Randolph · November 5, 2002, 12:29

I don't think that the religious trait directly reduces WW, it:
1) Reduces the cost of religious structures by 50% (temples, cathedrals)
2) Makes your anarchy phase only 1 turn.

Good point about the hoplite triggering a too-early GA, that would certainly be a down side.