We probably just need to make a decision on this, so here’s a poll.

It’s way to early to really know this kind of thing – and I don’t think any of us have enough experience to know what we’re doing… but lets try to pick a basic strategy anyway!! :lol:

Once we have a basic idea of how we plan to play, picking a civ will be much easier. Once we have a civ, a name will be much easier. Then all our problems are solved! We just need to wait for the other teams to surrender!
:spear:

What will be our Strategy for Winning?

Aggressive for the whole game
(pick a civ with aggressive traits and an aggressive UU)

Peaceful Early, Warmonger Later
(Pick a civ with a strong later game UU, but more peaceful traits)

Warmonger Early, Peaceful Later
(pick a civ with a great early game UU, and mixed traits)

Peaceful for the Whole Game
(pick a civ with peaceful traits and a defensive or economic UU)

Total Flexibility for Wherever we find Ourselves
(pick a civ with traits that are the same whether we’re at peace or war)
Other
(Please explain!)

Basically we need to be flexible.

If we arent flexible, we'll be killed. I dont just mean death killed, i also mean culturally, research, exploration, gold in treasury, basically everything.

total flexible ... and if Civ3 MTDG is any indicator, then the manner in which we and the other teams conduct Foreign policy will dictate how aggressive a game is played.

EDIT ... very interesting I answered the question and voted before I read your extrapolation to the civilization traits.

While this may be a good indicator on play style ... I suggest the poll is loaded ... as who in their right mind will not be flexible :crazyeye:

Please no offence ment, but is this really the right question to ask for picking traits ?? ... I say this in ignorance to exactly how the traits work in the game ... reading a list of beneficial effects is one thing but you only trully get a feel within the game environment ...

But surely we should be picking our civilization by those that give the better bonuses within the game.

EDIT 2 ... Then again it will probably show peace/flexible ... so choosing a civ that will cater best to this may be as good a way as any ... (similar to my choice for voting Greece in Civ3 MTDG ... good traits and defencive UU)

Any chance of having a summary of the civs printed on the threads somewhere? ... maybe in a separate thread as it could become one of many resources for people to use throughout the game.

Fe, you can find some stuff I posted about the civs (really I just posted a link to the civfanatics info, and an attachment that summarizes it) here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3685776&postcount=1)

As for the choice of a civ, I lean towards peaceful/defensive. If we need to I have no doubt we can put together a good force. Besides, if our defense is good enough, it would cost other nations too much to even try to fight us.

The key would be making sure we expand quickly in the beginning because we would have trouble fighting a war for territory (though once we win some territory we'd have the upper hand becuase of our defensive traits).

I voted Peaceful Early, Warmonger Later, and here is my reasoning:

There will be a mad rush to explore early in the game. We should try and be the team with the best exploration. One of the advantages the team with the most successful exploration will achieve is being a Tech Broker. By aligning at the center of a diplomatic hub, and monitoring interactions among the other teams, we stand to rise a little higher than everyone else as they progress through the game. We'll 'float' up a bit.

To achieve this, we don't want to have an early game UU that will be wasted while we pursue peaceful interactions with the other teams. If anything, we want to maintain an economic advantage over everyone else. Later on in the game, once the others' UU have been passed by the tides of history, we will have a unit that can really help us stay ahead, by physically pushing the others down.

I'm sure things will go wildly astray from what I've laid out here, but at least it's fun to think about :)

I agree totally with Peter.

I suggest the poll is loaded ... as who in their right mind will not be flexible :lol: - see, now I totally thought Flexible was the the WORST choice when I wrote this poll - so if I loaded it that way, it was not intended!!

To me, "flexible" seems like a recipe for being mediocre at everything, and a good way to get wiped out. Generally speaking, I think it's better to be really good in a few areas and focus on that. But what do I know?!?

Anyway – I guess that leaves me leaning towards Tokugawa-Japan (Aggressive, Organized, with a Maceman replacement UU) or Qin Shi Huang-China (Financial, Industrious, with a Crossbow replacement UU).
Since I hate the "Spiritual" trait, and I think the Panzer and Navy Seal UUs will come too late in the game – those are the best options I see for early peace, followed by some war that we probably won't be able to avoid anyway. The risk with Qin Shi Huang is that war will come before we get our Cho-Ku-Nus… like I painfully experienced in my last PBEM game. Question is… how long do we think we can hold off the war? (Japans Samuri comes just as late, but the aggressive trait will help save us if war comes early).

Thoughts?

I would tend to go for Qin Shi Huang, I'm playing a game now as Elizabeth, who is also financial, and with that trait I am bringing in a ton of money (and therefore science).

My question is to ask of how much value is the extra 10% strength (with Tokugawa's agressive bonus)? It only comes with foot units and gunpowder units, so it will additionally not be giving it's bonus to every unit.

As for Tokugawa's Organized trait, unless I'm missing something, doesn't seem to be of as real value compared to Qin Shi Huang's financial trait (extra gold per 2 gold), if we play our cards right we gaining a fairly large number of cottages, which can, it time bring in a lot of money combined with the financial trait. I know that if we are in war traits (ie theocracy) we will be with the more expensive traits, but realize that every cost square that is used brings in 3 gold, every windmill and cottage will ultimaitly bring in 3 or more gold with time, something that can add up.

In my limited experience, Financial is a more obvious benefit, but Organized is just as strong… but more subtle.
One of the biggest drawback of being financial is that it is terrain dependant. You won't appreciate how devastating that can be until someone attacks you with horsemen and just dodges your defenses and pillages all of your towns, cottages and farms. They steal a ton of money, set you back 100 years in improvements, and you financial bonus is worth nothing.
Organized on the other hand saves you money with every city you build (through reduced upkeep costs) and saves money every time you choose a civic with higher upkeep. There's no way to pillage that benefit.

In a straight-up comparison, Financial is probably better… but organized is safer (and gets even better as your empire gets bigger)!

Also – don' underestimate the value of the "aggressive" trait. 10% isn't overwhelming – but you should never stop there! The biggest bonus about starting with "Combat 1" is that you don't have to use up Experience Points to get it. Since the cost to get each promotion doubles with each promotion, this is a tremendous head-start in customizing your units to great effect. Combined with a barracks (1/2 cost for aggressive leaders) your units essentially start with 2 promotions. Add in a Theocracy, and you get even more promotion points before you even see your first battle. In the early game, when it's warrior v warrior or axeman vs axeman, that experience head start is enough to give you significantly more victories than your enemy.

Not that I'm necessarily arguing for Japan. Qin-Shi will totally be stronger as long as we're at peace. Before I got double-teamed by the Mongols and the Aztecs, I was around 6 techs ahead of my neighbors and had plenty of money. Life was good till the jerks started pillaging all my terrain and starving my cities. If we're more careful to maintain a counter-attack force with Qin-Shi than I was… this may not be as big of a problem.

Just something to keep in mind.

I think we need to discuss what our colleagues will be choosing.

So far, I've seen arguments for
Incas
Chinese
America
Japanese


There is no reason to think that the other teams will be having drastically variant discussions. This fact impels me to wonder Which traits are Strong against the traits of those four civs?

I'm still of the mind that Philosophical would be a great all-around trait: Early, middle, or late; in war or in peace; for production or military or commerce. Besides, no one had yet posted here a reason not to go Philosophical. :)

THe Japanese Samurai is a very powerful UU. 2 free strike is a big advantage.

Very early war (before crossbows/longbows) can be highly effective. But it works best with a dictator running the economy, not very interesting in a demogame.

I think we should plan to survive to the modern age with an average sized empire, but watch for opportunities to take advantage of weaknesses in other teams.

One thing that argues against an early war strategy:

Depending on the map size and terrain type, we may not have an opportunity to meet someone close enough (in time and space) for early war to be effective.

That's why I'd urge a civ with a non-ancient-age unique unit. Just too risky that it won't be utilized.

Well I really didn't want to open a new thread and I guess this thread is where my comment is the most relevant:

I didn't want to mention this on the UN stage incase no other team has though of this...but I imagine that being pretty tough with past games.

In any case for diplomacy, would it be possible to do the follwing with other teams?
speed up turn time
i.e. I know the general rule is 24 hours but that is the thing most teams count on that. meaning that from turn 1 to turn 2 you roughly have 5 days

Image now in the background you get a couploe of teams with a treaty in which your turn is pretty much made up ahead of time, so that you play yor turn fast, like 30min to an hour fast

if two or three or even four teams did this at a strategic point in the game you would really pressure the other team.

Imagien submitting your save figuring you now have ~5 days to vote, poll, decide on your next move
and then boom 5 hours later you get the save back.
Putting the pressure on would cause other teams to make mistakes.

The reason I mention this is we have a 48 hour mininum on our polls, could we become a victom of this?

But then again I am probably getting ahead of myself? :crazyeye:

It seems to me that all it would do is iritate people, and if they were going to have such a short turn around, the max would have to be set at that, so that they would still have the 2 days to do what they wanted to do (and they might just ask for an extension anyway), and generally I think that that would be enough time to do what would be necesary, especially since mostly all that they would be doing would be reacting to our violation of peace.

And having such a rule would only increase the backstabbing, and I think that we have enough already.

Good to know, I am very unaware of how diplomacy will work in this type of setting. :confused: :)

Speeding Up ... 24 hours is the maximum time to take without asking for a further 24 hour extension.

So any team can 'slow' the game down ... usually it is RL issues, but I'm damned sure that some have used the extension as a psychological tactic :mischief: ... I'd imagine allied teams co-operating to slow the game down to gain this type of advantage

Another legitimate reason is to wait for correspondence from another team before taking your move, their answer or data may well determine a certain direction of action.

So regarding 48 hour polls ... we could always ask for an extension until the majority has voted.

@ Every Noobie ... to see diplomacy in action, I would like to extend an invitation to 'visit' MIA ... so can see various aspects of diplomacy ... PM and e-mail, 1:1 Chat, Group Chat ... also treaties and formal agreements ... use the links in my signature ... by joining it doesn't matter if it is one off or lurking or actually becoming active :D