Roleplay Team - Page 8

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 17:31

Well, I HAVE been playing Spain lately, including a multi-player game with my friend (he's playing the Ottomons). I have found Spain VERY VERY USEFUL for warmongering (which I was forced into by the English, then the Arabs, then the Celts, then the Arabs again ALL declaring war on me). My Ottmon friend couldn't really help me because he was fighting Babylon and Germany on the other side (we sorta fought hordes of AI player while standing back-to-back).

Spain was VERY EFFECTIVE at building temples quick for preventing flips to the AI civs and was VERY EFFECTIVE at overcoming corruption with the large empire I have been amassing by conquering first England, then parts of Arabia, then the Celts, then the rest of Arabia.

That's my one MULTI-PLAYER GAME with the Spanish.

As for single-player...

My first game I did an excellent job of expanding very far pretty quickly (I was lucky to start very far away from my rivals on a large continent). I fought my first wars in the early mid Middle Ages and used conquistadores and medieval infantry to stomp all over first the Germans and then the French.

My other single-player game as the Spanish I beat the snot out of the Vikings with swordsmen (long before they ever got to building those beserks).

By far the best quality of playing the Spanish is the commerical trait because it makes a large and quickly expanding empire PROFITABLE. Having the religious trait to consolidate borders quickly helps a good deal with this. They have no real advantages for either a specific builder strategy (no industrialist trait) and none for warmongering, either (lousy UU and no militarist trait).

They're basically a midway civ between Builder and Warmonger strats that's most effective if you manage to survive and build a sizable empire. They ARE, however, more vulnerable in the early stages without industrious, militaristic, or expansionist (the best early-stage traits) or an early UU. If we survive to the Middle Ages, they can seriously rock with cheap Cathedrals, getting golden age with building either Michelangelo's or JS Bach's, and a late-medieval UU as insurance for that.

Oh, and EVERY SINGLE GAME I've played Spain, I started in a desert, though lucky enough to start on a river in the desert. Unfortunately, I only got 2-3 hills tiles in each of those games to put mines on... so Madrid's production has been lousy in all three of those games. That's entirely chance, of course

----------------

CONCLUSION:

Carthage would be more survivable in the very early stages of the game, but DOES expand more slowly due to the price of the Numidian Mercenary. You can also end up with a very early GA if anyone attacks you that early. Their industrious and commercial traits, however, are VERY VALUABLE throughout the game, especially if they grow a sizable empire (commercial is more and more valuable the larger you get and industrious helps a fewer number of workers do the same work on a sizable empire).

Spain is somewhat vulnerable very early on due to the lack of militaristic, industrious, or even expansionist traits and the lack of an early UU. However, the religious trait can help early-on with border expansion and keeping populations content. Spain does have the ability (if their starting location is decent...) to expand quickly and take advantage of expanded outposts quickly (cheap temples and 25% reduction in corruption). Spain shines a bit later on with cheap cathedrals and marketplaces along with reduced corruption.

History Guy · November 12, 2002, 17:44

Thanks Arnelos. I agree that either civilization would be fine for us.

Togas · November 12, 2002, 17:47

My people.

I have received the results from the RPS challange. We have won. We are awarded Carthage.

However, given the recent discussion, I am in favor of taking this matter to a tribal vote. Should we keep Carthage or curry favor with the builders and allow them to play it?

Instead of starting a public poll, I ask that all members of the tribe POST their choice in this thread. I will give this matter 48 hours for discussion and votes.

If you are in favor of giving Carthage to the Builders, please also post if you feel we should stay with Spain or take another Civ.

--Togas

ruby_maser · November 12, 2002, 18:00

I am in favor of giving Carthage to the builders... er, Legoland

. I believe that a small favor now might become a bridge for future cooperation in the game itself.

However, I will reserve my vote on whether or not I prefer to play with Spain. I would like the opportunity to play a SP game with them and allow debate to continue in the forums before I take sides on that issue.

Also, is anyone aware of when the secure forums will come online?

mrmitchell · November 12, 2002, 18:02

I'm cool with Carthage and Spain.

Great Ruler Togas, I present to you, as your and Carthage's humble servant, a "Join Plan" suggestion.

1. Before the game begins (i.e. before Dec. 1) anyone can join either by joining the CivGroup, posting a "I'm in" post, OR both. (CivGroup is probably most preffered.)

2. After the game has begun, a new member must be able to prove he has never been in the PTWDG before. (The Admin will hopefully handle double-logins.) If he quit a team previous, he must sign a contract stating that he will not join the same or another team again for (at least 30) turns.

3. After a member has been proven beyond a doubt just a dude out to wreck everything, a 66% majority poll will be held in the main PtW forum to kick the member permanently or temporarily from the Democracy Game.

4. Related to rule number 3, if a team specifically sent that person to sabatoge the game or collect important information, a 50% majority poll will be held to reprimand (no turn for x turns/trade embargo/something else) the team sending that person. Or, if this happens enough, a 50% majority poll can be held on whether to start a poll to kick that team out of the game. If this poll passes, a 66% majority poll will be held to kick the team out.

5. 10 spy incidents will immediately start a 50% majority poll on team kick-out.

Remember, this is just a plan: yet I think it's a good one. Please reply with your (de)constructive critisism.

mrmitchell · November 12, 2002, 18:37

DO NOT count my Join Plan post as my vote.

My vote: Give Legoland-oops. Builders, give Builders, Carthage, and make sure noone wants Spain or we'll RPS it from them

So I WANT SPAIN!

(Plus once we get literacy I can write The Weekly Spam as an email paper

)

History Guy · November 12, 2002, 18:40

OK. I've been thinking hard on this one.

Spain has a good amount of things going for it. It has great traits, and it has good abilities to expand quickly. However, if we choose Spain, we might never get out of the ancient age without a good UU. With the Builders as Carthage and the Warmongers as the Celts, you know it's going to be tough on someone, and personally, I don't like the idea of ending up next door to Brennus, as we surely will, as both of us are European civs. Also, the UU is, well, unassuming. It adds little to the arsenal other than an explorer who can fight. However, a Medieval Golden Age might be a good thing, especially with Cathedrals around, and Magellan's Voyage, and etc.

The Carthaginians are superb builders, with a great, al beit expensive UU. They would definitely make it through the ancient period, but we'd get an early Golden Age when attacked, and empire-building and research would be slow going.

I am really stuck here. I'd like to see a few more votes before I decide on this one.

Crousto · November 12, 2002, 18:43

I've just started a game with Carthage (I don't have PtW yet but I made a basic mod so I can test their traits and UU within classic Civ3, if anyone from the team wants this mod just PM me), and I fully agree with the previous comments, it looks like a great builder civ although it's slowed down by the price of the numidian merc. This flaw may become very annoying though if the barbarian level is high (and it will be set to random IIRC) because it's hard to defend cities and settlers early in the game.
I think we should stick with Carthage as our primary civ choice, not sure about Spain as I haven't tested it.

mrmitchell · November 12, 2002, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
However, if we choose Spain, we might never get out of the ancient age without a good UU.

If we can simply survive the Ancient Age, we'll be able to pound into the hearts of enemy empires in the Mideival Age. Remember, the Conquistador can drive deep into enemy territory in only one turn...a perfect way to take undefended cities...

if everyone doesnt figure out that's our strategy...

Note: I must now say, again, dont count me as two votes, give Carthage to LEGOLAND. I did not even know they renamed to Legoland, I thought ruby was poking fun at them.

Once again...
I WANT SPAIN! Can't you imagine "The Weekly Spam"?

History Guy · November 12, 2002, 18:58

Scrapped!!

History Guy · November 12, 2002, 19:00

Also, Togas, if you don't want to use Vizier, what about...

Castellan
Chamberlain
Chancellor
or even...
Prime Minister

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 19:14

I vote to keep Carthage

(in part just because everyone else is voting to give them up

)

That said, I can understand why people want to give it up. The Numidian Merc IS expensive, but it will act as a powerful deterrant to would-be invaders in the Ancient Age. Carthage also has the very powerful industrious/commercial combo that allow for faster construction, faster workers, and reduced corruption all in one civ.

They are, indeed, best suited to a builder style in the Ancient Age, but are suited to building a larger empire (by whatever means necessary) beyond the Ancient Age.

That said, I'm totally happy with Spain. I've grown to like them quite a bit by playing them in single-player and with my friend in multi-player. The lack of a truly usable UU (do you really think people won't defend their cities when they know we're Spain???) is a problem, but the enormous utility of Religious+Commercial for the early Middle Age is very tempting (along with the long-term utility of that 1-turn government type change).

Both are commercial, so I'm happy (that being the civ trait I wanted no matter what

)

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Also, Togas, if you don't want to use Vizier, what about...

Chancellor
Prime Minister

As a European civilization (such as Spain), one of these would work ONCE WE REACH MONARCHY. I'm unsure if they're what we're looking for under despotism.

Anyone have any knowledge on this issue? Titles for advisors to the tyrants under despotism? Greek history would be particularly useful in this regard (as the Carthaginians borrowed a lot of government idea from the Greeks during their early periods and the Spanish started as a Phoenician colony and then a Roman colony).

History Guy · November 12, 2002, 19:42

OK, sorry for procrastination...

Please ignore that other post. I reconsidered things.

Carthage is a survivor and a good builder, something that we know will definitely last the Ancient Age to grow an empire later on. The Numidian Mercenaries out do Spearmen and Pikemen, and are just as good as archers. Carthage has it downsides, of course, but all civilizations do. It's to be expected. Carthage is a survivor that can build a real empire.

Spain, on the other hand, might well never survive the Ancient Age. I say this knowing what we have as far as competition. The warmongers have chosen the Celts, and Spain and the land of the Celts would end up, due to their European backround, close together on the world map, correct? If so, the Spanish would undoubtedly be taking a heavy attack sometime from the Gallic Swordsmen of Brennus, and these guys are tough. No spearman is going to hold up long. As Spain, we'd be a sitting duck in the Ancient Age. Also, the UU isn't good at all. Sure, we are fast on all terrain, can strike workers fast, and etc., but at what cost? The Conquistador costs 70 shields, the regular explorer, 20. The Spearman costs 20 shields. The Numidian Mercenary, 30. Add it up. There's a lot more to go for where Carthage is concerned.

Hold onto Carthage, we don't want to get conquered in the Ancient Age, before we've even had a chance to thrive.

Hot Mustard · November 12, 2002, 19:47

For arguments given here and much earlier - Carthage.

Crousto · November 12, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
The warmongers have chosen the Celts, and Spain and the land of the Celts would end up, due to their European backround, close together on the world map, correct?

According to the current status of the 'game preferences' poll, culturally linked starting locations is likely to be off, so starting positions will be 100% random.

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 20:27

Here's another factor to consider...

Spearman: 20 shields
Numidian Merc: 30 shields
Settler: 30 shields

As such...

Spear/Settler combo: 50 shields
Numidian/Settler combo: 60 shields

Let's say Spain has their capital with 4 production at size 3 - thus obtaining the spear/settler combo in 13 turns.

Let's say Carthage has their capital with 5 production (they're industrious) at size 3 - thus obtaining the Numidian Merc/settler combo in 12 turns.

This isn't necessarily bad, folks. The above doesn't even take into account that the Carthaginian worker they START THE GAME WITH will build mines in the city area of Carthage TWICE AS FAST as that Spanish worker can build mines around Madrid.

In terms of building units later on, the issue is more muddled:

Madrid, size 6, 8 shields (?): 3 turns for a spearman
Carthage: size 6, 9 shields (?): 4 turns for a Numidian Merc

This assumes that the Spanish capital and the Carthaginian capital have the same number of shields, which may not be the case (that Carthaginian worker is twice as fast).

The real advantage to Spain comes with new cities being temporarily defended by warriors (and thus trying to build their first defensive unit and first temple):

Spanish (spear+temple): 50 shields
Carthaginian (Numidian Merc+temple): 90 shields

Once again, however, those industrious workers (if we actually build them early on) and that +1 shield indudstrious advantage (though waste is going to KILL US here) could be intrumental.

There's pros and cons to each...

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 20:50

People, we can now move to our private forums...

I've posted this last response in there and I'm TRYING to post a poll for this (getting help from MarkG on that)

Togas · November 12, 2002, 21:22

Our Private Forum is up. Here is the link:

Roleplay Forum

Please drop in and make yourself at home.

Only authorized team members may view this thread. If you have joined but have not yet been authorized (I have to authorize you), PM me.

--Togas

mrmitchell · November 12, 2002, 22:08

Finally, a private forum!

Can I change my vote again? Or better yet, just scrap it until 47 hours has passed? I'm sorry, but all the good arguments Arnelos is giving is making me go loopy...

ruby_maser · November 12, 2002, 22:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
Let's say Spain has their capital with 4 production at size 3 - thus obtaining the spear/settler combo in 13 turns.

Let's say Carthage has their capital with 5 production (they're industrious) at size 3 - thus obtaining the Numidian Merc/settler combo in 12 turns.

Just to clarify, the extra shield will not kick in until the town gains "CITY" status (ie: above a 6)... so do not count on the extra shield in the early game.

Anyway, to me, a well organized attack from an enemy is gonna take out 3 spearman or 2 numidian mercs. regardless. Its not that we can build more spearman. That is not the reasoning; its is rather that the rate of growth in the early game is the game. It is the number of cities you have that assure a good allocation of resources, that generate commerce, generate culture, generate deterance to war or the means to make war, and so on and so on.

I cannot see rising above a bad start location with a slow-starter like this.

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by ruby_maser

Just to clarify, the extra shield will not kick in until the town gains "CITY" status (ie: above a 6)... so do not count on the extra shield in the early game.

Oh yeah, forgot about that

Well, that makes aqueducts or river cities even more critical...

GodKing · November 12, 2002, 22:42

I have no strong preference. I have played with both, and find they both have some good and some poor qualities. Either one we choose is OK by me. As a matter of fact, I would not be upset if we choose to let a random civ become ours.... keep the suspence up until we actually start the game.... Helps to keep us on our toes as well.

ruby_maser · November 12, 2002, 22:43

and on the topic of bad start locations, I had one in my only attempt to play as Carthage... emperor game, standard map, random everything, and I could tell from the first screenshot that it was a death sentence to my civ....

perhaps that is why I'm wary

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
I have no strong preference. I have played with both, and find they both have some good and some poor qualities. Either one we choose is OK by me. As a matter of fact, I would not be upset if we choose to let a random civ become ours.... keep the suspence up until we actually start the game.... Helps to keep us on our toes as well.

And that's when we'd get the Zulus...

EDIT: (or the Russians, the Vikings and their senselessly overglorified UU, etc, etc, etc)

Hot Mustard · November 12, 2002, 23:39

It may be too late to change it, but what about The Thespians for the team name?

Arnelos · November 12, 2002, 23:53

I prefer straight "Role-Play Team" to Thespians, but that's just me.

History Guy · November 13, 2002, 00:15

Very nice. However, once this thread has vanished into the past threads...how will we access our forum?

Arnelos · November 13, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
Very nice. However, once this thread has vanished into the past threads...how will we access our forum?

MarkG already set up two ways:

1. You can select "RolePlay" that should appear at the top of the page when you enter the Civ3 PTW Democracy Game forum.

2. MarkG provided links to the individual private forums in his first post about the new private forums (it's a topped thread here).

GeneralTacticus · November 13, 2002, 03:37

I can't seem to access the private forums very well. The only thing that shows up is an anouncement, and when I try to subscribe it won't let me.