Tiranny start or...

shade · April 9, 2003, 07:47

We started the previous 2 games allowing our president to play the first (20 or 30 turns) before we really started because there is little to do in the early beginning of the game...should we do so this time?

Shade

-Jrabbit · April 9, 2003, 08:00

I think some guidance as to the minimum requirements for our capital may be in order...

Dre of Compton · April 9, 2003, 08:10

we should start ASAP, but i agree with the rabbit, we should decide on the basics of our capital first

shade · April 9, 2003, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I think some guidance as to the minimum requirements for our capital may be in order...

yes ofcourse, I just meant as soon as we start the president gives a screen of our starting location, we can do some desicionmaking for the beginning and then of he goes for 20 or 30 turns that when he returns there is something we can work with(unless there is a major problem those first turns that needs special attention.)

-Jrabbit · April 9, 2003, 09:18

Works for me...

atawa · April 9, 2003, 09:54

Just stop the game if anything important comes up.

War4ever · April 9, 2003, 11:29

i agree with shade, the first prez should have some free reign to play more turns in the beginning, to get us started, if anything interesting comes up, i am sure the cabinet can meet for a session

Gramphos · April 9, 2003, 15:25

Fine with me.

Ben Kenobi · April 9, 2003, 15:36

After the capital is settled, then we should go with tyranny.

Just make sure you build some cities in those intervening turns President MWIA.

Otherwise,

CannonFodder · April 9, 2003, 18:14

We need the save to be sent to the President as soon as possible so that he can send it to us ministers. I need to know what techs we start out with so I can start planning our tech progression and post a poll.

Hydey · April 9, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Just stop the game if anything important comes up.

I would agree with this point of view.

if nothing happens for 20 turns there is not point in stopping but if something happens (meet another civ, many barbs, techs from huts,city locations) that the president feels should be discussed he could stop at anytime.

MrWhereItsAt · April 12, 2003, 00:55

OK, so I of course save and post screenshots straight away until we decide where the Capital will go. Then, if I;m going to be Tyrant, what should the main idea be?

What I'm thinking is:

Warriors for exploration (2 maybe?), one for defence, settlers galore and a temple if the city grows too large (but shouldn't due to constant settler building).

Sound good? And what sort of overlap are we content with? I like to overlap a little, just not to the ICS level.

Help, suggestions?

CannonFodder · April 12, 2003, 01:01

Sounds like a good plan to me. Just make sure that they don't overlap too much, so that later they will be able to become good production centers.

shade · April 12, 2003, 07:40

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
What I'm thinking is:

Warriors for exploration (2 maybe?), one for defence, settlers galore and a temple if the city grows too large (but shouldn't due to constant settler building).

sounds good but we might want to wait until we know our startingtechs.
If we get bronzeWorking I think a Phalax as defender might be beter(they stay best defenders until gunpuwder(?) )
On the other hand if we get Horsebackriding We can send out horsemen and cover much more land.

Shade

SCG · April 12, 2003, 08:22

i seem to recall Mr WiA is rather partial to pikemen over phalanx for early defense

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt on 02.19.02 06:13am EST
On behalf of the paranoid isolationists, I favour Pikemen. Best defense ancient coinage can buy!

as for early expansion, i have no problem expanding initially with warriors to keep from getting boxed in as much in the very early years as the 20 shield units do take a bit longer to build (in the event that the AI is very near by.)

cavebear · April 12, 2003, 09:51

Overlapping cities seem easier in the early game, but they always seem to cause a reduction in productivity for the rest of the game. I try to avoid overlap.

And I like Pikemen for defense, too.

atawa · April 12, 2003, 11:17

Overlap is no problem, we cant build happy wonders or caravans so our city's will stay small.

And as we dont need trade lets go straight to feud

CannonFodder · April 12, 2003, 19:02

I think it would be best in the long run to avoid overlap if at all possible, particularly when the squares are major production squares.

atawa · April 12, 2003, 22:37

I disagree, without happy wonders and traderoutes, how do you propose we grow our city's over size 8?

SCG · April 12, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
I disagree, without happy wonders and traderoutes, how do you propose we grow our city's over size 8?

with food and an aquaduct??? or if we want to use representative governments we can celebrate.

there's an old, almost forgotten structure called a granary for those who don't think we will be able to produce extra food, and there are things called Cathedrals, which come with monotheism that can compliment temples and colosseums that can allow for contentment past size 8 at a 0 luxury rate. That and i don't remember anyone saying we were restricting ourselves to 0 luxuries

atawa · April 13, 2003, 08:44

I understand, my point is that with an allout wargame we will probably have so much units outside that rep/demo isnt much of an option.

Also 9 gold in upkeep each turn just to keep a city happy seems a bit much to me.

I would prefer keeping them at the max level with temples and markets, making some money on the side.

SCG · April 13, 2003, 08:53

republic allows for 1 unit abroad with no unhappiness, with a police station means that we will have 0 unhappiness from units abroad - admittedly, communism is a ways off, but if we are republic, we should be able to have luxuries high enough to allow for the larger cities to be happy anyway, which allows the smaller cities to celebrate up. Not to mention, we could try and target certain cities (that build the wonders we want) as objectives of our earlier conquests.

mrboo123 · April 13, 2003, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by SCG
(...)Not to mention, we could try and target certain cities (that build the wonders we want) as objectives of our earlier conquests.

I agree with this, since we can't build it, why can't we steal it?

shade · April 13, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
Overlapping cities seem easier in the early game, but they always seem to cause a reduction in productivity for the rest of the game. I try to avoid overlap.

And I like Pikemen for defense, too.

I have no problem with pikemen, but how often did you get a start where you could build them to defend your cities and how often did you have the possibilities of Phalaxes?
It's just for starters, latteron we'll see.
We should wait for the first info(/save) before starting to plan these things.

Shade

atawa · April 13, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by SCG
Not to mention, we could try and target certain cities (that build the wonders we want) as objectives of our earlier conquests.

This is a giga map right?

not muc chance then we can take or let alone keep those city's.

Btw, wouldnt it much more fun to win the game without ever using a wonder?

MrWhereItsAt · April 13, 2003, 21:06

I will start as soon as I get home in a few hours for those who were wondering. So the idea seems to be at the moment that the few warriors as scouts followed by a defender and settlers is what I will go for. When a tech comes up (we will need to discuss what techs to go for first) there is the possibility of Phalanxes instead of Warriors as defenders and an early Granary to help us expand (do we need this or am I thinking too much Civ3?). Otherwise, exceptional circumstances notwithstanding (like we meet an enemy right a way!), I don't think we have any need for building anything beyond that. Are there other ideas?

shade · April 14, 2003, 06:39

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
This is a giga map right?

If I understood atomant right it wasn't.

cavebear · April 14, 2003, 09:24

President MWIA's proposed action sounds good to me. I think Granaries will be important to us in this game.

-Jrabbit · April 14, 2003, 10:18

At 40 shields plus one GP/granary/turn, this is a big commitment. I'd rather keep the gold and use for incremental rushing of early settlers and defenders.

Granaries can be useful once your cities are > size 3, but by that point we'll need temples.

If we have to support granaries and tiemples early, it'll be eons before we have a decent gold surplus...