Time for AU 204?

Catt · February 4, 2003, 22:48

I'm a bit busy for the next couple of days, but expect to have some time available over the weekend and next week -- is it time to launch another AU game?

I have the most fun with Civ when I play with all-random variables. The early game, and early decisions, seem to say a lot about individual approaches to the game when the early game starts in a vacuum. What is my research strategy? What do I focus on? Where to expand to? I think a "blind" AU start might be interesting. Perhaps our strategy and tactics might converge as the game progresses, but wouldn't it be interesting to see how our starts differ? Along the lines of Theseus' and Vel's "Winning Early" thread, putting our best foot forward in the early game would seem to offer very important lessons. Any support for a completely random AU game with the core lesson plan focusing on "taking stock and playing to one's strengths from turn one?" (I could generate a random start and then convert it into a sceanrio playable at any level, but with the same map and civs, or at least an almost "random" start

).

Is it time to start another? Other ideas for an AU 204?

Catt

Theseus · February 4, 2003, 23:07

I'm in... been very busy, but I keep playin'. Working on Dominae's "Dark Side Challenge" but ready for more.

I'll leave it up to you guys to develop 204.

BigDork · February 5, 2003, 01:08

I'm definatly game for the next AU. But as it's my first I'll leave it up to the experts to decide what AU 204 is gonna consist of.

BigD

Jawa Jocky · February 5, 2003, 10:54

I'm ready

alexman · February 5, 2003, 12:02

The early part of the game is my favorite as well.

Perhaps we could generate a random map with fixed opponents, and have everyone select their own civ as "random". This would show how each one of us takes advantage of his different civ traits or play style for the same map.

Our AAR would include a detailed timeline up to 10 A.D. (for example), so we can see the differences in early strategy. The nice thing about having everyone play a diffferent civ is that the AARs don't get as repetitive, so even people who finish after a whole month (such as yours truly) can have something new to add.

Robber Baron · February 5, 2003, 13:45

Here's another suggestion for an AU session -- actually, a rather bizarre one I have been kicking around in my head for a little while.

I've been contemplating structuring a varient game based in some way on the concept of using luxuries to hire mercenaries to do most of my war-making. And at the same time, I've been following the progress of the "Menagerie" succession game over in CivFanatics (where any civ can build any UU).

A link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=39756

A combination of these two concepts might be fun to play.
Specifically, a game could be set up in which:
1) any AI civ could build any UU;
2) the player civ could build one type of each UU for each luxury he managed to draw into his territory (e.g., get control of wines and you can build immortals .....)
3) the player civ would be able to attack or defend in his territory with vanilla units (e.g., spearmen), but would be able to engage in any military activity (including pillaging) only with UUs when in foreign territory;
4) only wonders could trigger a golden age.

In the CivFan version, most of the pre-play discussion revolved around the upgrade chain. My suggestion would be to cut off upgrades altogether.
Instead, the player would have to buy UU mercs with luxes. (Think: the late stages of the Roman Empire, descending into decadence.) The (human) player would only be able to build a new type of UU when /f he had control of a new luxury. That is, one type of UU allowed for each luxury controlled. Once you've built a type of UU, you can't switch the luxury/UU assignment for that lux. And if you lose control of the lux, you can no longer build that UU.

Obviously, this would take some work with the editor. Work that, frankly, would be beyond my (limited) skills.
I figure the player (as well as the AIs, of course) need to be given access to all UUs. (The mercenary rule would have to be observed by the player in his build choices.) And I assume, all UU-triggered golden age activity needs to be switched off.

Is this a loopy idea? Wouldn't it be fun, though, to field an army of immortals and numean mercs and ..... ?
The strategic implications would be tricky, too: when to "spend" a lux on a particular merc assignment.

If anyone is intrigued, and willing to undertake the editor work -

- I'd love to play this out.

Bluefrog · February 5, 2003, 14:34

Robber, while the concept has merit, I don’t think it fits in with the AU philosophy of limiting the changes to the feel of the game.

Fosse · February 5, 2003, 17:10

I'm up for the random game... and now to admit to one of my ignorances... what do you mean by AAR? I've searched all I can but I can't find an explanation of the term.

Bluefrog · February 5, 2003, 17:32

AAR = After Action Report, as far as I can tell. May stand for something different, but hey, the gist is there. It's basically your report of how your game progressed, different strategies, AI behaviors, et al.

Chemical Ollie · February 5, 2003, 17:33

I'm ready for an AU game. GO! But please include AU for 1.29.

AAR = After Action Report

Catt · February 6, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Perhaps we could generate a random map with fixed opponents, and have everyone select their own civ as "random". This would show how each one of us takes advantage of his different civ traits or play style for the same map.

Our AAR would include a detailed timeline up to 10 A.D. (for example), so we can see the differences in early strategy. The nice thing about having everyone play a diffferent civ is that the AARs don't get as repetitive, so even people who finish after a whole month (such as yours truly) can have something new to add.

This sounds pretty interesting to me. How to exploit the inherent advantages of any given civ from a fixed location; or how to play to the strenghts (even if not necessarily the optimal play strategy).

Do others find this interesting / worthwhile? It would be nice to get one going no later than the weekend.

Catt

Bluefrog · February 6, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

This sounds pretty interesting to me. How to exploit the inherent advantages of any given civ from a fixed location; or how to play to the strenghts (even if not necessarily the optimal play strategy).

Do others find this interesting / worthwhile? It would be nice to get one going no later than the weekend.

Catt

Sounds fun! Just hope I don't get, say, England.

Jawa Jocky · February 6, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

This sounds pretty interesting to me. How to exploit the inherent advantages of any given civ from a fixed location; or how to play to the strenghts (even if not necessarily the optimal play strategy).

Do others find this interesting / worthwhile? It would be nice to get one going no later than the weekend.

Catt

I like this idea too. Plus if you get a bad start you can play again as a different civ and not suffer from de-sha-vu (I can't spell in English so don't expect much from my French)

badman · February 6, 2003, 17:49

i like alexman's idea as well and i would love to participate

Dominae · February 6, 2003, 18:05

Yep, time for another AU.

I like alexman's idea, but there is problem that some of us might get "stuck" with a pretty common civ (Americans for me, Romans for nye, Chinese for Arrian, and Egyptians for everyone else!).

To address this and force most people to really change their usual play habits, maybe we could disable all Industrious civs. For those of us who play MP, I'm sure this will be a breath of fresh air.

Dominae

Dominae · February 6, 2003, 18:07

By the way, I still think 'Total War' is a great idea for an AU course. If we all face our fears (and accept that we may lose this one), a game without peace would definitely teach us a thing or two.

Dominae

Konquest02 · February 6, 2003, 18:23

Maybe not total war, but always war...?

I can see the lesson I will get from always war coming: Do not fight multi front wars, or you shall get crushed... Always war woudl thake oscillating war to the extreme.

I would rather like a random game, though. We could restrict our civ choice to civs that are considered usually pretty "crappy" (i.e. India, England, Korea, Russia, Spain, Vikings?. They are the one I think can satisfy...) The civ choice would force us to break some gaming habits as they would be less/not effective.

--Kon--

nbarclay · February 6, 2003, 22:15

Here's an idea: how about if we would make a list of civs people don't play much and have people use a die roll/card draw/whatever to pick a civ at random from the list (choosing only from among civs not already taken)? That would avoid repeats, at least until all the civs on our list are assigned, while at the same time helping with the goal of exploring various ways of trying to make good use of relatively rarely played civs.

Nathan

Dominae · February 6, 2003, 23:15

Going along with Nathan's idea, here's a list of the least favored civs:

Russians
Spanish
English
Mongols
India
Koreans
Zulus
Vikings

And maybe Greeks and Babylonians could be added to the list, although they would definitely be the favorites.

To avoid any hassle, I suggest we set up the scenario to pick the civ randomly from this list, for any particular game. To clarify, although Random will be the only civ choice available, the only possible civs will be those mentioned above. The disadvantage is that there could be duplicates among all players, but the size of the list plays against this happening frequently.

We therefore have "Random Crappy Civ" as a theme, which I think is nice and AU-like.

I also suggest we play with random world settings, apart from map size, to keep with the flavor of alexman's idea.

Unless anyone else steps forward, I'll gladly set up this game. If I do not hear any objections to this, I'll have the game ready by tomorrow afternoon.

Dominae

Bluefrog · February 6, 2003, 23:33

Go for it, Dom.

Though I've been playing the Vikes a lot lately, and they are a lot of fun, heh. Especially on 80% water pangea maps, heh. :smile:

alexman · February 7, 2003, 00:47

Sounds good!

Dominae, wait for AU 1.16 before releasing the game, OK? I'll have it posted tomorrow morning.

Dominae · February 7, 2003, 00:52

Sure thing, alexman. ETA on the scenario is 5pm (my time) tomorrow, just in time for the weekend.

Dominae

BigDork · February 7, 2003, 01:30

Guys

Everything sounds good

I can't wait to get a go at this.

BigD

Stuie · February 7, 2003, 11:28

Odd; my most successful games have been when playing (in order)...

1. Zulu
2. India
3. Mongols

Anyway, this is really good timing (for once) as I just finished the India game mentioned above, so I think I'll finally play an AU game; the only thing that will bother me is the vanilla ship speeds. I've modded mine such that they get progressively faster, with the modern ships able to really MOVE. Guess I'll adapt.

Bluefrog · February 7, 2003, 11:31

I've had some pretty successful games as the Vikings, myself. Berzerks are almost unfair in SP. On the plus side, it is the only civ where you really benefit from controlling the seas, heh.

Oh, darn. Sorry for being slightly offtopic.

Konquest02 · February 7, 2003, 11:36

I agree with Dom's choce of civs, except with the Zulus, as they will probably trigger some bloodthirsty warmongers, with is the playstyle of many...

--Kon--

Konquest02 · February 7, 2003, 11:38

After further reflection, I think thye zulus are OK. They should be left there as a builder like me may get them and be in big trouble and then forced to think...

--Kon--

BRC · February 7, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Konquest02
After further reflection, I think thye zulus are OK. They should be left there as a builder like me may get them and be in big trouble and then forced to think...

--Kon--

Don't think. Don't ever think. Kill. That's the way they were meant to be played.

Arrian · February 7, 2003, 13:06

I've got multiple games going now.

1) SP Japanese game that's going REALLY well.

2) SP Japanese "minitourney" between a friend an I that is going "ok" at best (I made some mistakes and it's costing me). A leader relatively soon will change all of that, though.

3) Civfanatics tournament game (Regent, China) that I've put aside for the time being due to extreme frustration. I should be KILLING that game. Yet I'm not, and the icing on the cake was a particularly awful RN roll that cost me 14hp worth of swordsmen to 1 regular spearman. I had to take a break, or toss my girlfriend's computer out the window.

4) PBEM game w/aforementioned friend and girlfriend. China. Going well (mmm... settler from first hut popped).

5) Minitourney PBEM with strat forum fellas. Going pretty well, considering I chose BABYLON for no reason at all - total whim. My score looks awful, though (if IIRC, I'm DFL).

And that doesn't even include the SP Roman game I haven't gotten around to finishing.

So, no time for AU right now. "Always war" could be intriguing, though. But who to be? Best to be militaristic, or with the sheer number of battles is that overkill? Hardcore ancient UU, or hold off for better, later results? Industrious a must? Definitely not expansionist... you don't WANT to meet people right away. Can you develop an empire while under fire (serious fire, that is. Barbs, especially for somebody like me who plays on "roaming", do not count)? Is religious a waste? Always war screams "get Monarchy, switch, and never switch again."

-Arrian, rambling (not for the first, or last, time).

Dominae · February 7, 2003, 13:10

On average, I'm assuming at least half the civs on my list are atypical for each person. Other than Catt, I know of very few players who truly enjoy random games. If you get a civ you play all the time, you can just start over (but try not to start over just because you think the Koreans suck!).

I'll also let everyone choose their own difficulty, as that kind of randomness is not fun (yay, Chieftain!).

Dominae