Hey everyone.

So I've had a look at this BUG Mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=268), and it looks pretty cool. It apparently doesn't alter gameplay, it just changes several display options. I'm going to give it a go off-line before the next ALC, but I'm wondering what people think about using it in the ALCs.

I normally don't like to go too far from the official, standard game, but this looks very promising--kind of like Civ4Alerts on steroids (I noticed that Civ4Alerts is included in it). My understanding is that those not using the mod could still load the saved game files.

What do the rest of you think?
You might want to have a look at this (http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2612) and especially this (http://www.freewebs.com/ruff_hi/BtS%20Unaltered%20Gameplay%20Mod%20Approval%20Proc ess.pdf) for the content of BUG - they compiled it for Realms Beyond, but hey - its a very concise overview of what BUG does. I'd probably be all for it but it definitely alters a bit more than Civ4lerts ;)

^^You're right, ori ( as usual ;) ), but IMHO the RB were too harsh with the mod.... some of the BUG features really give intel that even the most MM maniac player in the world would find extremely boring to assemble, but I really don't think that is alll that much of a diference in game play.... ( at least IMHO... from a certain point I simply ignore the advices :lol: )

but IMHO the RB were too harsh with the mod....
oh I agree - just with an audience as large as the ALC it won't hurt to read what that mod does :)
I am currently cold turkey since I usually play all my games with the HOF-Mod (which includes quite a lot of the stuff in BUG as well) but there currently is no HOF-Mod for 3.13 - so I might actually give BUG a try myself :rolleyes:

Well, I played part of an off-line game with BUG, and while I appreciate all the work put into it, I don't think I'll be using it for the ALCs.

A lot of what the mod does is make information that can be obtained elsewhere more readily available. This can be a good thing, but I already play the ALCs very carefully--I usually check each city on every turn, as well as checking available tech and resource trades. I'm actually a little worried about becoming too reliant on some of the BUG information and maybe missing something vital that it doesn't tell me.

I think some players will use BUG and many won't, but I think the graphic alterations are substantial enough that the players who don't use it would find it distracting in the ALC screenshots. This is much the same reason that I decided not to use the Blue Marble graphics mod (that and the fact that I prefer the default game graphics). So I'll stick with the standard interface.

This is not a rejection of the mod or a review of it, just my reasons for deciding not to use it in the ALCs.

tech question: are you updated to Bhruic's latest unofficial patch?

but I think the graphic alterations are substantial enough that the players who don't use it would find it distracting in the ALC screenshots. This is much the same reason that I decided not to use the Blue Marble graphics mod (that and the fact that I prefer the default game graphics). So I'll stick with the standard interface.

thanks for remembering your fan club, boss. :salute: ps i'm with you on blue marble, i can't tell jungles from other stuff, and cannot abide those too-dark resource flags. maybe i'd get used to it if i used it myself, but i can't for HoF so forget it.

i think my earliest conquest wins have been with cyrus on pangaea (but really, he doesn't even count) and ragnar on archi. izzy made me a double holy city right next door (for me early isn't all that early, remember?) and things went perfectly. he's wicked fun to play and clobber folks with, even a permawuss like me! me being the player and not the clobbering victim, of course.

i think ragnar will be fun to watch no matter what map you pick. it seems to me a bunch of the map types in BtS have lots of coastal sites, if you don't want to "stack the deck" using archi. but seeing the differences and challenges you have to face on archi (limited production comes to mind) might be educational as well. so i don't have a preference really, pick what'll be most fun for you. added bonus: when you play as ragnar, we don't have to see screenshots of his ugly face. not my type!

Ragnar's ALC, I think, needs to be played with Aggressive AI and Choose Religions for a bit of flavour, and on an Archipelago for some good ol' fashioned naval warfare.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, but it could make the game much too easy, especially if Sis ends up with a load of landlubbers for opponents.

Unless, perhaps, the game in question was Sisiutil's first on a new difficulty...


One of the reasons for having the All Leaders Challenge is to have the game be a challenge, but my own personal favorite part is the "All Leaders".

I really like seeing what each leader can do and I think that having the seafaring leaders on a sea-heavy map like Archepelago is the way to go for showing off their strengths. I think that Pangea, Fractal and even Continents really hides a big part of the game, too. Naval invasions and the support of far-flung pieces of your empire are each a lot to manage and I've always had a lot harder time with the Archepelago maps than with the "standard" maps. I think that being able to see an ALC game in Archepelago would be a nice treat for a lot of people (myself obviously included).

I also would like to see what Sisiutil does on Emperor with a game that is so very different from the maps we've seen. Food is much harder to find since there is so little fresh water for irrigation... except for Seafood which is often clumped together to make one city that can have enormous population. Also, the Colossus can make an enormous difference as well as the Great Lighthouse and Circumnavigation. I'd like to see what Sisiutil makes of an Archepelago game with Low Sea Level (making a majority of the map accessible by Work Boat) since that makes a kind of giant Archepelago-Pangea and I'd like to see what Sisiutil does with an Archepelago map with High Water since that turns the game into a fierce struggle for land.

One thing that I would not like to see is Snaky Continents. That map is amazingly inconsistant with some really big continents going to 2 civilizations (which rapidly turn into 1 exceptionally big civ) and some red-headed stepchild also-ran civs who languish out in the hinterlands.

Just my $0.02

Yes, I'm leaning towards an archipelago map and aggressive AI for Ragnar.

I don't know about archipelago... because the AI will be out of their comfort zone, then again this is Emperor level. I was think 3 or more continents all connected by a chain of islands so you can meet everyone by workboat.

Or 7 Continents, each AI with their own Continent and all Continents connected by chains of islands, it'll be a test to see how much the AI has improved at naval invasions.

Although it'll require somebody to actually build or modify a map.

And lots of amphibious assaults right?! :D :D

How about Medium and Small? That's somewhat like Archipelago, but less predictable and fresher.

You could even make it Cold or Rocky if you want it more Nordic.

Aggressive AI :goodjob:. The naval AI is supposed to be better now.

For a real naval challenge maybe you could handpick a few naval civs. Especiall Willem would be interesting, because you would have to beat him up before he can plaster his cities with dikes.

Love them dikes.

This is great. :) I vote aggressive AI and archipelago. Like others, I'd like to see how the BTS AI handles naval invasions a bit more.
Specifically since I'm currently playing aggai/emperor on a fractal map that essentially has turned out to be a freaky archipelago-ish map, but as Elizabeth instead of Ragnar.

Well, I played part of an off-line game with BUG, and while I appreciate all the work put into it, I don't think I'll be using it for the ALCs.

A lot of what the mod does is make information that can be obtained elsewhere more readily available. This can be a good thing, but I already play the ALCs very carefully--I usually check each city on every turn, as well as checking available tech and resource trades. I'm actually a little worried about becoming too reliant on some of the BUG information and maybe missing something vital that it doesn't tell me.

I think some players will use BUG and many won't, but I think the graphic alterations are substantial enough that the players who don't use it would find it distracting in the ALC screenshots. This is much the same reason that I decided not to use the Blue Marble graphics mod (that and the fact that I prefer the default game graphics). So I'll stick with the standard interface.

This is not a rejection of the mod or a review of it, just my reasons for deciding not to use it in the ALCs.

I play a lot of Agg/Ai games. and to be honest, it is like going up in difficulty level. You need to maintain a very very large standing army at all times. The maintanance costs really add up. If you play archipelego that may not be as true since they can't just roll over your borders but rather have to build loads of galleys in the early game. But the same is true for you in attacking them. With galleys holding 2 units, you must build 50% more units to wage a war. If you want to invade with 30 troops, you need 15 galleys. That is -15 gpt added to your war cost. And Agg/Ai loves it's navies...last game i sunk 73 destroyers. And that is just the ones i sunk, it doesn't count the others that i didn't. I would suggest backing down one level to monarch.
I can get a win on regular Monarch about 50% of the time, but with Agg/Ai, I struggle on Prince. One thing I would like to see is tech brokering off. It does even out the tech trading with the Ai. The Ai practically gives it's techs away to each other. One tech whore like mansa trades a tech and they pass it around to each other like it is candy. Stratedgy for this sort of game is to tech things the AI isn't researching. Then you can trade it to lots of Ai without them passing it about. Or trade an important tech to Mansa. He will probably have something of value and then he can't research it himself and give it to the stupid yet violent civs.

I think on a continents map you're right about aggai being like moving the difficulty up one level, at least if you're not used to it. I think playing on an archipelago map is like moving the difficulty down a level however, so the two should cancel each other out nicely.

For a real naval challenge maybe you could handpick a few naval civs. Especiall Willem would be interesting, because you would have to beat him up before he can plaster his cities with dikes.

I agree. Part of the reason the recent game got so interesting was that a strong contender arose in Shaka, and having one or several opposing civs particularly suited to the map type could help make this one more interesting too. And well, picking a map type suited to the player's leader just becomes an all-out advantage otherwise, which is something different than simply highlighting his/her aspects.

Depending on how the map actually looks like, I'd be much more interested in seeing Joao than Willem though, since he has the potential to build the by far largest empire thanks to his UU. I don't have much experience with archipelago maps though.

On archiepelago you should not need those carracks to build up a large empire - you can just island-hop with your galleys.... The carrack would be kind of wasted... To be honest - i played two games with the portugese, and i kind of feel the carrack is wasted anyway. By the time you get it, astronomy and the bigger Galleon is not far away :(

One thing I would like to see is tech brokering off. It does even out the tech trading with the Ai. The Ai practically gives it's techs away to each other. One tech whore like mansa trades a tech and they pass it around to each other like it is candy. Stratedgy for this sort of game is to tech things the AI isn't researching. Then you can trade it to lots of Ai without them passing it about. Or trade an important tech to Mansa. He will probably have something of value and then he can't research it himself and give it to the stupid yet violent civs.


I think that this is more of an argument for why no tech brokering should remain unchecked as an option. Most strategy already revolves around researching things that the AI is not. With the new espionage system, it is even easier to see what exactly that is.
The human player has the advantage of being able to manipulate this system to maximize the beakers they get in return for a tech, as well as handicapping the AI by not allowing the AI to do the same.

Concering agg AI, I think that if you want to do it, which I am unsure about, seeing as you nearly lost the last one due to overstreching yourself due to warmongering excessively, the next ten leaders are the ones to do that with, with a few exceptions. Let's go through them, shall we?
Game 20: Viking/Ragnar
Your next game, and this should be a warmongering game, as you have a militaristic and economical trait, so you should have fun conquering your enemies witth a stable economy.
Game 21: Zulu/Shaka
This should be your next Conquest victory, where yo should get to tanks, shut off research, and conquer the world. 'Nuff said. Shaka is an absolute monster with 70 % less maitinence, and cheap UB's, along with powerful gunpowder units.
Game 22: America/Lincoln
Come again? Honest Abe, a warmongerer? Yup. Charismatic is perhaps the best warmongering trait, and Philo lets you run a killer specialist economy. Plan to play around with corporations here a lot, as the effects of America's UU and UB kick in late in the game, and shoot for late domination.
Game 23: Arab/Saladin
Not sure how you'll play this one :crazyeye:
Game 24: Babylon/Hammurabi
Not as good of an early expander as Gilga, but still respectable. Bowmen are useful for protection, Agg/Org is excellent for large aquisitions, and the Garden helps in the late game with health.
Game 25: Celts/Boudicca
I will be very sad if you don't win by conquest here.
Game 26: Dutch/Willem van Oranje
Not the best UU( stiil a useful early transport), but killer traits ad UB make up for that. Use the dike's raw production power and US to power a troop surge in the late game.
Game 27: England/Churchill
The reason Redcoats had to be nerfed, now the GP units promote down the drill line, Churchill's redcoats are amazing. Rush to Rifling over Grens and use a transitional economy to leverage the stock exchange, the only odd card in Churchill's hand.
Game 28: Ethiopia/Zara Yaqob
Cre/Org were Augustus' traits in Warlords and they're just as powerful now as they were with him. Oromos promoted along the line rip through units and take little collateral, so your army will be like a well-honed meachine later into the game. Late dom here.
Game 29: France/De Gaulle
The best person to build Stonehenge with, use the three traits, Char especially, to crush the opposition, preferably by early Industrial. his UU and UB are not that impressive, however.
Game 30: Germany/Bismarck
Well, not as good as freddy, but still really good, Exp will deal with the unhealthiness from the Assembly plant while you prep the Blitz coming off a strong SE early on.

On the Subject of a map for the Vikings game... Perhaps Big&Small with islands merged in. This will give you a map where roughly the half of it is a archipelago, while the other half will be a more or less massive continent.

This would give plenty of space for naval warfare and amphibious invasions, while on the other hand, there is at least a chance that tsome of the landlubber civ's will be not totally lost.

I really hope you get the Dutch as an opponent. I am finding his ability to tech on a small land base amazing.

I think that this is more of an argument for why no tech brokering should remain unchecked as an option. Most strategy already revolves around researching things that the AI is not. With the new espionage system, it is even easier to see what exactly that is.
The human player has the advantage of being able to manipulate this system to maximize the beakers they get in return for a tech, as well as handicapping the AI by not allowing the AI to do the same.

No tech brokering is broken, in its own way. If you can see what the AI is researching, and they are researching a tech you have a (near) monopoly on, you can trade it to them when they have one or two turns left, and they are no longer able to trade it away, despite having done 90% of the research the hard way. I've never seen them refuse such an offer. You can then do it for the next civ, and the next, and the next. While you might not get as many techs traded to you this way, you can pile up quite a bit of gold, as most civs only have the gold equivalent of a turn or two of research available for trade anyway.

If they refused the trade once they got a tech 80% researched or something, it would be fine, but they don't.

No tech brokering is broken, in its own way. If you can see what the AI is researching, and they are researching a tech you have a (near) monopoly on, you can trade it to them when they have one or two turns left, and they are no longer able to trade it away, despite having done 90% of the research the hard way. I've never seen them refuse such an offer. You can then do it for the next civ, and the next, and the next. While you might not get as many techs traded to you this way, you can pile up quite a bit of gold, as most civs only have the gold equivalent of a turn or two of research available for trade anyway.

If they refused the trade once they got a tech 80% researched or something, it would be fine, but they don't.

I don't know if it's Bhuric's patch or what but they always refuse to accept techs that they have about 60 or 70% researched in my games.

I don't know if it's Bhuric's patch or what but they always refuse to accept techs that they have about 60 or 70% researched in my games.


Yes, this is my experience also. When they have been close to completing the tech the option to trade it was redded out. But I have not tried this option for quite a while, so it might have been changed since patches.

My concern is that the human can exploit this more than the AI in other ways. The human already tries to grab techs no one else has and usually through deep beelines, and then maximize the beaker return through trades. Usually this means they then backfill techs they passed over. So they backfill with there monopoly tech. Most times the other AIs already have the backfilled techs, so the "no broker" penalty is bypassed for the human, but not the AI.

But again, I have not tried this option in quite a while, so in practice this may work differently and open up some new forms of strategy that might be interesting to see.

How about Medium and Small? That's somewhat like Archipelago, but less predictable and fresher.


I agree with this over the option of just a straight Archipelago map.

The problem with Medium and Small is that you can sail around the world with a fishing boat.

Whats the problem with that? It's often possible on Archipelago too.

On Big&Small you usually can sail across the world before optics. But on the other hand - we are talking about Vikings here. On medium and small you not necessarilly can - it generates two separate areas each having one continent and some islands - might depend on the settings however.

I whod love to see you ad Hannibal, Jão and Willheim. They all have seafaring or harbor (UB/UU) traits. It whod be wery nice to see how they use those. Those together with Ragnar could be an intresting game.

I agree - lots of seafaring AI's v. Ragnar on a big and small map with AGG AI would be a feast and quite a change from the last ALC. Summon the privateers!

On big/medium and small it's the "island regions mixed in" vs "island regions separate" option that usually determines if the world is connected by island chains. If you want big, open oceans use the "island regions mixed in" option.

My vote would be archeopolego map with agressive AI on. Ragnar can handle himself against anyone and I would be interested to see good use of some amphibious Berseker assaults.

As far as preselecting the AIs (are you going to do this), you gotta have William and Joao. I also suggest Victoria (Imper and Fin), Pericles (Phil/Cre), Hannibal (Fin/Char), and Gandhi (phil/Sp). They are all techers and are more of a challenge on the island maps as the "War" leaders do poorly on these. You would have an advantage in knowing who your adversaries are.

IMO Huayna Capac should be thrown in too - reasonably aggressive and a good techer, and will make it more of a challenge getting wonders. Gandhi seems too much of a pushover to include since he doesn't build a credible army until late-game. Otherwise, Agg AI+Archipelago (normal islands) sounds good.

As far as preselecting the AIs (are you going to do this), you gotta have William and Joao. I also suggest Victoria (Imper and Fin), Pericles (Phil/Cre), Hannibal (Fin/Char), and Gandhi (phil/Sp). They are all techers and are more of a challenge on the island maps as the "War" leaders do poorly on these. You would have an advantage in knowing who your adversaries are.

I'm voting against this. One of the great things about the ALC for me, is finding out who you're up against and the strategy you pick on the spur of the moment. :D

Using Aggressive AI and then throwing a bunch of peacenik AIs in the game seems pretty pointless imo. Basically you are putting mostly techers in, and then making sure they don't tech as fast as normal.

I vote for playing Medium & Small, and leaving the leaders random.

Bh

I'd go Archipelago, and Random Agg AI. Perhaps pick Willem + the Portugeezer, but have some unknowns.

To clear up the air, I agree on all random leaders. I did read some suggestions about using specific seafaring AIs for the acheopolego board so I tossed in some suggestions. SO my vote would be random leaders, but if the deck is going to be rigged then those are some good sea-related leaders.

Also, agressive AI with peaceful techers is not all that easy IMO. They still resort to fighting at first chance, plus they are very good techers. What is harder, having rifles/cavalry against an AI with rifles/cavalry and a 70% chance of attacking or having rifles/cavalry against AI impi/Jaguars/Keshiks that have a 100% chance of attacking.

My official vote is agressive random AIs using an archeoplego board, and high water level!!

I say hand pick Dutch and Portuguese. Maybe Carthage too. I think an actual archipelago map will slow the crude AI code down to much but I haven't tried it on emperor+.

I would not handpick opponents. Meeting new people is part of the fun, and it's just half as funny, if you already know who you are going to meet.

The deck is going to be rigged in Sisiutil's favor by choosing a map type that favors his civ, having two or three preselected opponents who suit the map type too just helps diminishing the advantage he gets from it. It doesn't take away the opportunity to highlight Ragnar's abilities at all, it just keeps the game from becoming too easy from the start. It's not about creating perfect walkover matches after all. Showcasing the leader's abilities in an interesting game is the best way, and the best way to make it interesting is to make sure there'll be some proper challengers. So I'd say pick two or three for that (Joao, Willem, Hannibal) and leave the rest random so the discovery factor doesn't suffer too much.

Given that it's potentially going to be the first Agg AI ALC, and at Emperor level, maybe Sisiutil might be advised to stick with random? Plus, discovering the civs you're up against is a major part of the fun.

Given that it's potentially going to be the first Agg AI ALC, and at Emperor level, maybe Sisiutil might be advised to stick with random? Plus, discovering the civs you're up against is a major part of the fun.

It's fun to see how seafaring civs do in the game aswhell. And I disagree upon choosing outhers than Jão Hannibal and Willheim. A huge map with ten or more civs make will do the job with random civs.

I wouldn't make the poor guy go after a huge map domination win

I'm not sure I'm all that swift to the aggressive AI option for this format.

If what I'm reading is correct, it seems to me that running against an aggressive AI option warrents it's own separate thread. I'm thinking while many general and specific strategies are demonstrated in the ALC, it may be such that an aggressive AI game may require a whole different set of skills and tactics that aren't necessarily, let's just say, "within the spirit" of a general gameplay thread that the ALC embodies. While many experienced players participate in these threads with very good suggestions, I'm thinking the newer players lurking in the background benefit the most from even the most simple tactics, without getting too fancy. Sisiutil is already challenged with properly showcasing the leader's strongpoints through the UUs, UBs, and traits: for simplicity's sake, let's just leave it like that.

Also... go random leaders. If he wants a watery map, that's fine I suppose. (Honestly, I think running "fractal" with high sea levels is fair enough without getting too fancy. The AI adapts better on water maps than in Warlords or vanilla, but I think the human player still plays better.) But stacking the deck either for or against Ragnar by choosing specific leaders isn't doing anyone any good. If anything, the ALC has taught us all how to be adaptive, and choosing specific leaders would ruin this aspect.

-----

You know, on a lighter note, I just realized something about Ragnar.

You can talk like a pirate (http://www.talklikeapirate.com/) while playing him.

Arg!

I would like to see a ALC game with the No Tech Trading option on. At this point, from both reading the ALCs and from my own play experience, Tech trading at any level (I usually play No Tech Brokering) is starting to feel way too cheesey.

To be honest, as soon as Sisutil started massively tech brokering in the Gilgamesh game, I lost most of my interest.

My latest game (on Deity) with No Tech Brokering, I had Liberalism by 500AD and Asoka finished it by 550AD. I'd like to see a game with much slower tech progression without the same exploitiveness of Epic or Marathon speed. The next Civ is Ragnar? So No Tech Trading will go well with his Financial trait.

Cheers,

Dai

I see tech brokering as an integral part of the CIV experience and would be against the "No Tech Trading" option. Most players don't manage to trade their way out of trouble the way Sis did last game. His examples have shown me how this can be accomplished.

Taking this aspect of the game away will only educate the few who chose not to play on this default style. Furthermore, the Epic setting is played by a large number of forum attendees. Personally, and perhaps this applies to others, for the enjoyment the longer game play gives, more involved wars, longer times in certain eras etc.

Just out of curiousity i'd like to know why people say marathon speed is an exploit. How is it that you tech faster than normal?

Yesod, marathon speed is easier for the human as it requires more warfare which the human has an inherent advantage in.

It doesn't require more warfare, it allows more warfare. Unit movement speed isn't scaled for game speed. And unit production speed is only 2x slower on Marathon, while most other areas are 3x slower. So you're going to have proportionally more units, and they are going to be more effective, since they can move farther in the same relative time.

Bh

Larger map size offsets the movement speed, but unit production scaling still pushes for more units and thus more warring.

I'm not sure I'm all that swift to the aggressive AI option for this format.

If what I'm reading is correct, it seems to me that running against an aggressive AI option warrents it's own separate thread. I'm thinking while many general and specific strategies are demonstrated in the ALC, it may be such that an aggressive AI game may require a whole different set of skills and tactics that aren't necessarily, let's just say, "within the spirit" of a general gameplay thread that the ALC embodies. While many experienced players participate in these threads with very good suggestions, I'm thinking the newer players lurking in the background benefit the most from even the most simple tactics, without getting too fancy. Sisiutil is already challenged with properly showcasing the leader's strongpoints through the UUs, UBs, and traits: for simplicity's sake, let's just leave it like that.

Also... go random leaders. If he wants a watery map, that's fine I suppose. (Honestly, I think running "fractal" with high sea levels is fair enough without getting too fancy. The AI adapts better on water maps than in Warlords or vanilla, but I think the human player still plays better.) But stacking the deck either for or against Ragnar by choosing specific leaders isn't doing anyone any good. If anything, the ALC has taught us all how to be adaptive, and choosing specific leaders would ruin this aspect.
Well, part of the reason I'm starting to play with the custom options is to introduce something of a challenge without moving up another level. I'm not saying I'm ready for the next difficulty level, but I've won my first two ALC games on Emperor already. I also don't see why the ALC games can't be an opportunity to explore some of the other game settings and thereby discuss their strategic implications.

To me, Aggressive AI levels the playing field. I'm playing as an aggressive leader and plan to live up to that trait. In the interests of game balance, I'm "tipping the AI off", if you will, to how I'm planning on playing the game this time. So it should be better prepared for me as a result, and therefore more challenging.

I agree with you on the random leaders, however. It's the same reason I don't peek at the map in worldbuilder. Finding out "who's out there" is a big part of the game's appeal for me.
I would like to see a ALC game with the No Tech Trading option on. At this point, from both reading the ALCs and from my own play experience, Tech trading at any level (I usually play No Tech Brokering) is starting to feel way too cheesey.

To be honest, as soon as Sisutil started massively tech brokering in the Gilgamesh game, I lost most of my interest.

My latest game (on Deity) with No Tech Brokering, I had Liberalism by 500AD and Asoka finished it by 550AD. I'd like to see a game with much slower tech progression without the same exploitiveness of Epic or Marathon speed. The next Civ is Ragnar? So No Tech Trading will go well with his Financial trait.

Cheers,

Dai
I will probably play a game where I try out the "no tech brokering" setting. Not the next two, however, where I'll be playing as aggressive leaders and therefore giving the Aggressive AI setting a whirl.

Looking at the upcoming matches, it might be interesting to try that trait with Lincoln, who comes up after Ragnar and Shaka; that would balance out his Philosophical trait and the specialist economy that best takes advantage of it. Remember a big part of the SE is lightbulbing techs and then trading them; no tech brokering would nerf that to some extent, I should think.
I see tech brokering as an integral part of the CIV experience and would be against the "No Tech Trading" option. Most players don't manage to trade their way out of trouble the way Sis did last game. His examples have shown me how this can be accomplished.

Taking this aspect of the game away will only educate the few who chose not to play on this default style. Furthermore, the Epic setting is played by a large number of forum attendees. Personally, and perhaps this applies to others, for the enjoyment the longer game play gives, more involved wars, longer times in certain eras etc.
Well, I think that tech trading is an essential part of the game and I have no desire to play without it, ever, so you probably won't see an ALC game with that setting on. I get the feeling that the vast majority of players share my inclination in this regard. No tech brokering, however, would be interesting to try out. Several people in the threads like it, and I suspect others are curious, so it would be interesting and informative to give it a try.
Just out of curiousity i'd like to know why people say marathon speed is an exploit. How is it that you tech faster than normal?
As others have said, it's the unit movement that gives you an advantage. Your units avoid obsolescence for a much longer time. I've tried marathon a couple of times, though, and I just can't get past the initial 100 turns or so. Everything just takes so friggin' long! Epic, I find, gives you a good balance of unit utilization and progression. Maybe it's just me, but I found the jump from normal speed to epic to be a minor adjustment, whereas between epic and marathon there seems to be a yawning chasm.

As others have said, it's the unit movement that gives you an advantage. Your units avoid obsolescence for a much longer time. I've tried marathon a couple of times, though, and I just can't get past the initial 100 turns or so. Everything just takes so friggin' long! Epic, I find, gives you a good balance of unit utilization and progression. Maybe it's just me, but I found the jump from normal speed to epic to be a minor adjustment, whereas between epic and marathon there seems to be a yawning chasm.

I find the same thing. For some reason, I am under the impression that that is actually the case in reality. Off the top of my head, isn't epic 1.5x as long as normal while marathon is something like 3? Or am I just totally :smoke:?

Nope your right. I was a peacefull player at first, so marathon was more entertaining for me, more micromanaging and all that good stuff ;). Now I'm addicted to the lightning fast normal speed, at least to me, where units come out in 1-3 turns and a game takes a few hours. Marathon was harder to me, because the AI had all day to arrive at your doorstep and gunpowder was just soooo far away. Guess it depends who you talk too.

I just never could play a full game in marathon. I'm usually much more of a builder than a warmonger, so even when I try to play agressive, there tend to be long building phases with not much to do besides waiting for buildings/stuff to come out of my cities. Those really tend to get waaaaaaay too long in a marathon game. Or at least that's how I felt.

I have always been a big fan of marathon speed. But it takes a powerful computer to play. Because I believe marathon speed is meant to be played on large or huge maps. standard speed on huge maps is just not fun. You build an army, and march your stack of mighty macemen slowly across the map until you reach the enemy city. At which point you wave hello to the nice riflemen and go home feeling silly. Yes, most human players have the advantage at waging war. But that is true at any speed. If you fall behind tech-wise on marathon and you get attacked...you're screwed. Especially with the Agg/Ai setting selected. They come marching over with big ole stacks and keep churning them out while you scramble around trying to decide which cities to keep and watching the research bar inch it's way across the screen. Nothing says dilema louder than watching axemen slowly gather in the AI's border city when you don't have copper. What to do, what to do? Research AH because it's quicker, or go for IW so you can do more than fight a defensive war. Better pick the right one because if the resource isn't nearby, then you won't have time to go the other route. None of this normal speed nonsense where if there isn't iron, it's a quick 8-10 turns for AH. Oh no boys and girls, it 25-30 turns of pilliaging and watching your cities fall. If you're lucky, you whipped/built enough archers to survive with a little help from the RNG. Now you have a pilliaged wasteland of an empire and are wayyyy behind in tech. Marathon has different challenges. Yes, if you beeline a military tech you can run around with an Uber-army for a while. And that is exploiting the game speed. If you like to play a nice balanced civ that grows in a realistic fashion then marathon is a lot of fun. Unless your starting warrior or scout ends up animal food. Then it is a bunch of clicking next turn.
Though for something like the ALC, I hope Sisiutil stays with epic speed. otherwise we get an update once every 2 weeks.

Completly off-topic, but are there other rankings besides Augustus Caeser and dan Quale? Either a barbarian uprising wipes me out in 2800 B.C. or I end up with a score in the mid 20 range and an Auggy rating

One question: Has anyone tried if you can still steal techs when tech trading is turned off?

I haven't tried it but that would make a Spy economy a real beast with tech trading turned off. :eek:

I play on Marathon speed because I like my games long and epical in proportion. My setting is usually huge maps with 15 AI's, trying to win conquest or domination does take some planning. Also diplomacy changes with those settings, someone will always love you and trade tech but at the same time someone will always hate you and be ready to declare war. I've found that if I ever let up on army production I am in deep trouble, there's always one AI that will backstab you.

I also like the fact that units don't go obsolete in 10 turns, you can actually use them for quite some time if you have the upper hand. If you don't though, the AI get the same opportunity. Not to mention that I like raging barbarians. The floods that can spawn on a huge marathon map can be staggering! Every turn you get attacked by 3-4 of them, just getting out there and start fogbusting can be a mighty task in itself.

One question: Has anyone tried if you can still steal techs when tech trading is turned off?

I tried, you can. It was pre 3.13 (i think 3.02 BTS) but the changelog said nothing about it, so i think it was not changed. Technically it's not trading :D Still - felt a bit like a exploit.

I really like how persevering you are Sisutil - this bunch of games is a very good inspiration for me!

As for requests: I would like to see Zara Yaqob in action, so if it is still relevant to discuss "Which leader should be next?" I would like to move him up the list :)

I understand that you might want to play Ragnar-Shaka-Lincoln first for their various styles, and I do look forward to that.

But then I would wish you to insert Ethiopia, if for no other reason that so far you have succeeded with every leader except those who get Musketman replacement unique units...! :)

Then of course I would also like to see you attempt an early domination victory as Julius Caesar. Of course the only difficulty setting worthy of his notice would be Deity, so don't do that until you feel ready!

In general, I like how you change settings (except small-impact ones such as map script etc) only conservatively. If you were to go with Aggressive setting, or No Tech Brokering, then I would hope that you play that setting for more than just one or two games and with both warmongering and peaceful leaders, so we can make meaningful comparisons.

Finally, I must say that for myself, Marathon is the only way to play the game. Coupled with the fact my computer only allows me to finish such games on small or standard sized maps you get the very nice feature that all but the most prolonged pre-modern wars will be started and ended using the same tools.

If you have a successful game, you will still burn through the technologies at a rate of less than ten turns per discovery once you hit modern times. Adding trades to that I have found that you can still enact a WWII-style war where the local tech race is still meaningful (meaning that discovery of a key tech can save your bacon), while ancient or medieval wars are nicely unhurried in that regard (meaning that such dreams should almost never come true in those days - according to my tastes at least).

I can't imagine how it would feel like playing at faster speeds - the techs must really fly by (once you have the universities and labs set up). It must really make the modern end of the tech tree feel really weird...? Not to speak of how short and unfulfilling (unless you play with a mod painstakingly differentiating between gear from each decade of the last century) I'm imagining it would be...?

Yes, it's slow in the beginning. But rather that than comical-speed later on... :)

And one final request: a game with goody huts turned off (though with your incredible good luck I guess you wouldn't dare to play without them ;) )

kazapp

PS. i'm only half serious regarding Julius, of course. For one thing, I can't imagine how it would be possible to pull it off unless you run your Praets at Marathon speed (with a map that isn't too big). Obviously you'd be excused for restarting any position where conquering the entire starting continent wouldn't come close to winning...

Completly off-topic, but are there other rankings besides Augustus Caeser and dan Quale? Either a barbarian uprising wipes me out in 2800 B.C. or I end up with a score in the mid 20 range and an Auggy rating

yes there are! i can lose on deity and be ranked as Ethelred the Unready, which is i think third from the bottom. which means the system considers me fairly good at losing, which is cool. when i lose on warlord i get Dan Quayle tho. losing on Deity isn't an automatic Ethel tho, only sometimes, so you do have to put some effort into it. *giggle*

One question: Has anyone tried if you can still steal techs when tech trading is turned off?

related to that, in 3.13 without using Bhruic's unofficial patch, you can trade stolen techs with No Tech Brokering turned on. i think Bhruic's latest patch does not let you.

I tried, you can. It was pre 3.13 (i think 3.02 BTS) but the changelog said nothing about it, so i think it was not changed. Technically it's not trading :D Still - felt a bit like a exploit.
Agreed.

It sounds as if tech stealing becomes utterly mandatory in such a game - and I share your suspicions the AI isn't programmed with that conclusion in mind.

Not that I have any problem whatsoever with the easiest solution: Sisutil's "won't happen" stance to the option. :)

Does anyone remember the English in the original CivIII (vanilla)?

They were the perennial under-dogs, and they always ended up being the "doormat", with Commercial (a less powerful financial) and "Expansionist" (cheap granaries; not a big deal, really) and a poor unique unit (Man o' War, anyone?), they were always considered the worst civ.

Is there a worst civ in CIV BtS? I haven't found any yet, but I could be wrong?

--ilovesimgolf

Perhaps the Darius game could be no Tech Trading? Fin/Org- do you need to trade? :D

Maybe slot it in after Lincoln (Saladin doesn't interest me much- bad UU, Protective, I guess the UB would help for an SE :/). It would be cool to see intense cottage spam- perhaps an isolated start?

why isnt this thread in the top 10 threads ? and why dont we have ALC up and running ? Sisiutil do you not understand people depend on ur ALC`s to read whilst eating their samichs ?

why isnt this thread in the top 10 threads ? and why dont we have ALC up and running ? Sisiutil do you not understand people depend on ur ALC`s to read whilst eating their samichs ?

It's Thanksgiving holiday in the US.

Actually, Thanksgiving was yesterday. That does explain why the new thread wasn't started yesterday though.

Sisiutil is a fellow Canadian anyway, our Thanksgiving was in October.

Bh

I've yet to see anyone use the advanced start function... I'd be very pleased to see you have a go at it, Sisiutil.

Sisiutil, man shall not live by turkey and casserole alone! We also need ALC's!

I've yet to see anyone use the advanced start function... I'd be very pleased to see you have a go at it, Sisiutil.
That'd be really interesting, since I only tried it once and then gave up because it annoyed me. Maybe in a non ALC game would be better, though, because it'd be kind of hard to compare :) ANOTHER thing for Sis to do....

Maybe in a non ALC game would be better, though, because it'd be kind of hard to compare :) ANOTHER thing for Sis to do....

Hard to compare what?

Hard to compare what?

Well, one original purpose of the ALCs was to compare the various leaders. The best way to do that is to play games with extremely similar settings, though I've largely abandoned that. I mean, I've moved up two difficulty levels and implemented two expansion packs and now I'm mucking around with map types and custom settings. All to try to keep the "challenge" in "All Leaders Challenge".

I haven't tried the advanced starts at all. I rather like starting from nearly nothing; it's the Civ I old-timer in me. :old: But I'll give it a go off-line; it might be a good way to try out marathon speed, since I've never managed to get past the first 100 slow, boring turns with it.

But I'll give it a go off-line; it might be a good way to try out marathon speed, since I've never managed to get past the first 100 slow, boring turns with it.

Want to try the LAST 100 slow boring turns instead?

Can';t wait to see the next ALC for a very specific reason:

THIS VANILLA HATER JUST GOT BTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D :D :D :D :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :D :D :D :D

Okay, I'm happy. My first game was an Impi rush executed on Khmer. Went off without a hitch...YAY!

I agree with CivCorps: the first hundred turns of Marathon aren't that bad. After all, you'll be hitting Enter for a lot of them (especially if your Scout gets killed). What really bites is when you're micromanaging your hideously large empire to a space race or domination victory, at an even slower speed than usual.

Hard to compare what?
Hard to compare advanced start games with non advance start games. I think the point of the ALC is to be able to compare different games with different leaders, and to see what strategies worked and what didn't.


And I agree with the people who find Marathon too tedious. I play Epic - it has a nice balance to it. I tried playing Marathon, but I always ended up overexpanded and dirt poor, building units and then deleting them because I couldn't afford to do anything, and I had built all the units I could in my cities, and I hadn't gotten the necessary techs to build research or gold. :crazyeye: It just wasn't fun, and what's the point of Civ if it's not fun?

Hard to compare advanced start games with non advance start games. I think the point of the ALC is to be able to compare different games with different leaders, and to see what strategies worked and what didn't.


And I agree with the people who find Marathon too tedious. I play Epic - it has a nice balance to it. I tried playing Marathon, but I always ended up overexpanded and dirt poor, building units and then deleting them because I couldn't afford to do anything, and I had built all the units I could in my cities, and I hadn't gotten the necessary techs to build research or gold. :crazyeye: It just wasn't fun, and what's the point of Civ if it's not fun?

It's all relative, it would take a while to acclimate to marathon speed, but if you play a few games with it, you'll learn a lot about micromanaging. Specifically how to do without going insane.

I think Advanced start would be interesting if the AI were actually competent at it. But as shown in the third post in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=242320), the AI is left at a huge disadvantage by Advanced Starts.

Hard to compare advanced start games with non advance start games. I think the point of the ALC is to be able to compare different games with different leaders, and to see what strategies worked and what didn't.


And I agree with the people who find Marathon too tedious. I play Epic - it has a nice balance to it. I tried playing Marathon, but I always ended up overexpanded and dirt poor, building units and then deleting them because I couldn't afford to do anything, and I had built all the units I could in my cities, and I hadn't gotten the necessary techs to build research or gold. :crazyeye: It just wasn't fun, and what's the point of Civ if it's not fun?

Yw o ways to address the early years when your economy is struggling and you have nothing to build but troops. Well first off when you get to the point where building troops costs so much gold that you can't research the techs to gain gold. Take all those expensive troops and start a war. That's what they are for, go kill your neighbors troops. That way you are not just deleting them as you build them. and pilliage the bejeezus out of the enemy lands....you get gold. It it not unheard of for a unit to pilliage more value in gold than it cost to build him in hammers. So basically it can be better than building wealth. Razing cities means raising gold. You can't afford to keep them so burn baby burn. The Ai usually builds them in places you dont want them. As your troops die off, build more troops. You were going to build them anyway but this way A. you probably have a GG or 2 so they are shinier. And B. The ones that don't die are heavily promoted for your next war when your economy is flush. You don't need to worry about crashing your economy from going to war, because your economy sucks already.
Or the more peaceful approach, make a point of researching alphabet early, it is quicker and with fewer expensive prerequisites than currency

The ALC Game 20 pre-game thread is now underway HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6185153).

There's been much debate on the present ALC thread over the remarkable volume of posts before the first city has even been settled, and I wanted to add a couple of comments, but...

Firstly, I just want to point out that comments/suggestions on how the ALC is organised would be better posted here.

Secondly, I'd like to congratulate Sisiutil for creating so popular a series - the massive number of posts is a testament to the genius of his concept, and to the consistent brilliance of his reports. :hatsoff:

Now, to the point... I'm wondering whether the turns preceding the settling of the first city should be incorporated into the pre-game thread (or a separate thread altogether). I'm not at all sure about this, but given some of the comments posted in the ALC thread, I thought it might be worth making the suggestion to see what others think (esp. Sisiutil himself).

I suspect the reason why the first turns generate so many comments is that choosing the site for your first city is a simple (which is not to say easy) decision, but one of great importance, that each of us has to make in every game we play. Whether a deity-level civmaster or a struggling noble player, everyone has a perspective on it, and can easily set out their reasons for suggesting one spot or another (or just post "settle in place").

To bypass these discussions altogether (ie. Sisiutil only posts after settling) would be a real shame, since they can be very informative - I, for one, have learnt a lot about the considerations that go into making wise first choices - and are also very inclusive.

But, at the same time, it's clear that many people don't wish to wade through page after page of pre-settlement discussion to get to the more complex (or more entertaining) stuff that follows.

If the starting discussion took place in a pre-game thread*, then the ALC thread itself could begin at a point where more information was available (which, perhaps counterintuitively, results in less discussion).

*along with the speculative discussions about what to do if x does/doesn't happen, and about the possible strategies which might be taken from that starting position.

Sisiutil could post the first moves as a single report in the ALC thread, explaining what motivated him to settle where he did, and opening up the debate over how that start should then be used (drawing on the speculative discussions from the pre-game thread).

That way, those who want to discuss the first settler at length could do so without creating 10+ pages of "settle in place", "1W" or "there's too much discussion of the first moves" comments in the main game thread.

Again, I'm not saying this should be the way things work, but I figure there's no harm in throwing the idea out there. :)

The problem is not that there would be too much discussion about where to settle and where to move the scout etc etc. The problem is that there is too many off-topic posts. Without them, the thread would be 6 pages long instead of 12.

I know it would be extra hassle Sis, but I reckon it would be a lot easier if there was an ALC game thread, and an ALC discussion
thread. :confused:

And another completely off-topic question @ Sisiutil : what's your avatar about? I've been wondering for a while :lol:

For my 2 cents, the starting location for ALC-20 is rather intriguing and offers alot of opportunity. Rarely do you have a start that can cause so much discussion, and a start that can be so pivotal (there are numerous good and bad reasons for moving the settler). Let everyone discuss away, if you feel it get's too much don't read or post until the game actually starts!!!

The one caveat, is Sis says enough is enough, then we all should back off (I think he sort of did that this morning, telling us nicely to stop posting unitl he starts the game).

The one caveat, is Sis says enough is enough, then we all should back off (I think he sort of did that this morning, telling us nicely to stop posting unitl he starts the game).

Nicely put madscientist. I bet he didn't expect to log on and see 11 pages of discussion :lol:

The problem is not that there would be too much discussion about where to settle and where to move the scout etc etc. The problem is that there is too many off-topic posts. Without them, the thread would be 6 pages long instead of 12.


Hmm, not sure about those numbers, but I take your point - any delay in Sisiutil posting a report always seems to result in a load of "play the damned turns" type comments.

However, the discussions over the first moves have often been very lengthy, and, with the ALCs picking up more and more readers as time goes on, they're likely to keep getting longer until a majority of civ fans get bored of BtS (which I don't see happening any time soon).

Personally, I love the settler discussions, but it's clear from the comments in ALC20 that some people think they've got out of hand.


For my 2 cents, the starting location for ALC-20 is rather intriguing and offers alot of opportunity. Rarely do you have a start that can cause so much discussion, and a start that can be so pivotal (there are numerous good and bad reasons for moving the settler).


Aye, it isn't all that often you get a start which could be used in so many different ways. Actually, in my case it's almost never - how does he get those monster starts?!


The one caveat, is Sis says enough is enough, then we all should back off


I agree wholeheartedly. It would also be nice if people didn't post unless they had something substantive to add. But unless they actually break the forum rules, what can you do? Appealing to people's better nature doesn't get you very far on internet forums...

I agree wholeheartedly. It would also be nice if people didn't post unless they had something substantive to add. But unless they actually break the forum rules, what can you do? Appealing to people's better nature doesn't get you very far on internet forums...

I admit it, i'm guilty. :blush:

But I don't add much, and I do try and make sense of myself when I contribute. :D

One other thing that I'd suggest is to have Sis move the scout or warrior first and then post a screen shot (perhaps with the :food: :hammer: :commerce: turned on, perhaps not) but NOT post the game save until after the city is founded. It's too tempting to take a peek in worldbuilder to see what's available nearby and I would like to hear what people think about where to settle without wondering whether their suggestions have been polluted by future knowledge.

Just my $0.02 (US).

I know it would be extra hassle Sis, but I reckon it would be a lot easier if there was an ALC game thread, and an ALC discussion
thread. :confused:

And another completely off-topic question @ Sisiutil : what's your avatar about? I've been wondering for a while :lol:
Well, I think that the opening position is part of the game and therefore belongs in the game thread. I also think the discussion around settling the capital is valuable, provided it stays on topic (hint, hint). And the main reason I started putting the links to each round in the first post is so that everyone (including me!) could easily find the latest round post.

Remember that my primary purpose in starting the ALCs was for the discussion, not to show off my L33T game skillz or my erudite prose (though compliments regarding either are always welcome ;)). I started the series because I wanted to improve my game and thereby have more fun with it, and I believe that everyone following and posting the games does so for the same reason. Therefore, I like keeping the rounds and the discussion together.

However, I like the suggestion regarding moving the scout/warrior and including that in the opening post. It would certainly save time, and I think I'm now capable of making that relatively minor decision on my own. I'll probably do that from now on.

I also have to police myself. I knew I wouldn't be able to play the first round for several days, but I started the game thread anyway. I should really wait until I have several foreseeable days' worth of free time before starting a game thread, regardless of all the pleading to do so ASAP.

As for my av, that is a native carving, a wall plaque, of an actual Sisiutl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisiutl).

I also think the discussion around settling the capital is valuable, provided it stays on topic (hint, hint).

Apologies Sis, I got a little excited with the increasing number of pages. Still trying to settle down.

Well, I think that the opening position is part of the game and therefore belongs in the game thread. I also think the discussion around settling the capital is valuable, provided it stays on topic (hint, hint). And the main reason I started putting the links to each round in the first post is so that everyone (including me!) could easily find the latest round post.

Remember that my primary purpose in starting the ALCs was for the discussion, not to show off my L33T game skillz or my erudite prose (though compliments regarding either are always welcome ;)). I started the series because I wanted to improve my game and thereby have more fun with it, and I believe that everyone following and posting the games does so for the same reason. Therefore, I like keeping the rounds and the discussion together.

However, I like the suggestion regarding moving the scout/warrior and including that in the opening post. It would certainly save time, and I think I'm now capable of making that relatively minor decision on my own. I'll probably do that from now on.

I also have to police myself. I knew I wouldn't be able to play the first round for several days, but I started the game thread anyway. I should really wait until I have several foreseeable days' worth of free time before starting a game thread, regardless of all the pleading to do so ASAP.

As for my av, that is a native carving, a wall plaque, of an actual Sisiutl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisiutl).

You're right, the discussion is always nice. There's quite a bit for ALC 20 I must say :lol:

Which leader should be next?
Is this question still open for discussion?

Is this question still open for discussion?

AFAIK no it's not, because Sis is doing the ALC's in some kind of alphabetical order or something =P

AFAIK no it's not, because Sis is doing the ALC's in some kind of alphabetical order or something =P

The order of the leaders for the ALC's is listed on the second post of the first page of this thread-subject to revision by Sisiutil.

Next up is Shaka IIRC.

I just wanted to briefly post here and mention that at Emperor+, Aggressive AI is indeed harder than the default AI. Why? Because of the bonuses, the AIs can afford all those extra units.

I am NOT saying that Aggressive AI is better or more fun, simply that it adds an extra challenge at these higher levels. (I know this has been discussed at length, I don't want to start anything here).

So my vote for Emperor/Aggr with Shaka and then maybe Immortal/Normal after that? I immensly enjoy the more challenging ALCs, even if there is a loss.

The order of the leaders for the ALC's is listed on the second post of the first page of this thread-subject to revision by Sisiutil.
Yes, and my question is if that list has been set in stone, or if the quote from the first post of the first page of this thread I quoted above is still in effect? :)

I just wanted to briefly post here and mention that at Emperor+, Aggressive AI is indeed harder than the default AI. Why? Because of the bonuses, the AIs can afford all those extra units.

I am NOT saying that Aggressive AI is better or more fun, simply that it adds an extra challenge at these higher levels. (I know this has been discussed at length, I don't want to start anything here).

So my vote for Emperor/Aggr with Shaka and then maybe Immortal/Normal after that? I immensly enjoy the more challenging ALCs, even if there is a loss.

I have never played with agg ai on so I don't know what I'm talking about. But IMHO there's nothing that would make agg ai harder to play against. It looks like you assume AI's waste their advantage when playing with agg ai off. The bonuses aren't SO big that they could run 100% science and still own you militarily. The bonuses are same with or without agg ai, the AI just uses them in different things. What I'm trying to say is with agg ai off, the challenge is to keep up in tech. With agg ai on, the challenge is to keep up militarily. It depends on your normal playing style is agg ai easier or harder or the same.

The bonuses aren't SO big that they could run 100% science and still own you militarily. The bonuses are same with or without agg ai, the AI just uses them in different things. What I'm trying to say is with agg ai off, the challenge is to keep up in tech. With agg ai on, the challenge is to keep up militarily. It depends on your normal playing style is agg ai easier or harder or the same.

the bonuses are huge. A human player with those bonuses could run science at 100% forever and still have piles of gold in the treasury.... But as it's just ai...

But as it's just ai...

Exactly. And the point is that AI has the same bonuses whether agg ai is on or not.

Yes, and my question is if that list has been set in stone, or if the quote from the first post of the first page of this thread I quoted above is still in effect? :)

I'm pretty much going through the leaders in the order established in the 2nd post. Unless I'm feeling puckish. ;)

What about replaying leaders with changed traits? Capac is Fin/Ind now, which is awful different from Fin/Agg (Which you're playing right now!). It would also be good to see a real Quecha rush. I won't miss the Chinese leaders though.

What about replaying leaders with changed traits? Capac is Fin/Ind now, which is awful different from Fin/Agg (Which you're playing right now!). It would also be good to see a real Quecha rush. I won't miss the Chinese leaders though.

I think it's going to be enough of a challenge getting through all the leaders just once before Civ V comes out, but we'll see.

I'm another one who would like to see an Aggessive AI game.

Make it happen.

Please :p

I'm another one who would like to see an Aggessive AI game.

Make it happen.

Please :p

Shaka and the Zulus (sounds like a heckuva name for a rock band, don't it?). Comin' up right after Ragnar.

I think it's going to be enough of a challenge getting through all the leaders just once before Civ V comes out, but we'll see.

Yeah, but, you could push him past some of the boring leaders. Does anyone REALLY want to see a Saladin game? Protective and horrible UU. UB is decent, but unless you're running a priest econ, it would be pointless- but, oh wait, a priest econ? You probably have more religions than you could humanly build temples for. I guess there's the 2 extra culture. :/

And my opinion of Saladin is almost the opposite. Very interesting leader to play..

Yeah, but, you could push him past some of the boring leaders. Does anyone REALLY want to see a Saladin game? Protective and horrible UU. UB is decent, but unless you're running a priest econ, it would be pointless- but, oh wait, a priest econ? You probably have more religions than you could humanly build temples for. I guess there's the 2 extra culture. :/

Exactly. A great chance for Sisiutil the Great (you said compliments were welcomed ;)) to show people how to utilise his hidden strengths.

Yeah, but, you could push him past some of the boring leaders. Does anyone REALLY want to see a Saladin game? Protective and horrible UU. UB is decent, but unless you're running a priest econ, it would be pointless- but, oh wait, a priest econ? You probably have more religions than you could humanly build temples for. I guess there's the 2 extra culture. :/

That's the reason I want to see him playing as Saladin. Because Saladin sucks. If Sis would start to play with just the good leaders, I would no longer follow these threads, it would get boring. It's ALL LEADERS CHALLENGE.

Yeah, but, you could push him past some of the boring leaders. Does anyone REALLY want to see a Saladin game? Protective and horrible UU. UB is decent, but unless you're running a priest econ, it would be pointless- but, oh wait, a priest econ? You probably have more religions than you could humanly build temples for. I guess there's the 2 extra culture. :/

IIRC S. deliberately put the some of the more popular leaders towards the end of the list specifically because the other leaders were not played as often.

saladin is one of the easiest leader for a cultural win ... in vanilla
Now in BtS, it's a whole new pack. Protective instead of philo :(.

Have you had a look at the top 20 most viewed threads (since beginning) in this S&T forum...? :eek:

Behind the untouchable (and stickied) "Condensed tips for beginners?" we find no less than 12 Sisiutil threads... talk about a one man subforum... :hatsoff:

#2: ALC 19
#3: ALC 16
#4: ALC 17:2
#6: ALC 18:2
#7: ALC 10
#8: ALC 14
#11: ALC 15
#13: Bullpen (this thread)
#14: ALC 20 (the current ALC)
#15: ALC 17:1
#16: ALC 12
#20: ALC 18:1

hehe, the best thing about that list is that the #1 thread was the OP's second and last post at CFC. :lol:

Looking at it did make me wish aelf was still around though. Clearly, the demand for this kind of thread is massive. But very few have the patience, skill and wit to carry it off with any consistency.

Have you had a look at the top 20 most viewed threads (since beginning) in this S&T forum...? :eek:

Behind the untouchable (and stickied) "Condensed tips for beginners?" we find no less than 12 Sisiutil threads... talk about a one man subforum... :hatsoff:


My blushes, Watson! :blush:

I recently won my first Monarchy game (yay! :) ), which I hope to post about separately, much thanks to the inspiration I've got from these ALC games, but in this post I'm concentrating on the fact that it was on a Medium and Small map.

Now, in the pre-Ragnar thread, there was the following quote. As I percieve that thread to be "dead" as after all the Ragnar game is well under way, I thought I could ask my question here instead, where people still go to read. Apologies if I should have posted elsewhere.

I have to say that after generating and looking at several maps, I didn't much like the look of archipelago and I liked medium-and-small even less.

What is it you don't like about MaS maps, Sisiutil? (And what do the rest of you think?)

In short, I've found the following characteristics of this map script:
* the world tends to be earth-like in that there are (often) more than one significant continent and these are separated by significant oceans. Other scripts often generate the continents much closer together. But on MaS you probably need a fleet, as the continents might be separated by three or four full moves (which makes it more realistic IMHO). I'm imagining there's less land for its map size on a MaS map...
* you surprisingly often end up uncomfortably close to one or more neighbours. On a small sized map, you could have two enemy capitals within ten squares of your own! Already your second city site can become contested! And if you don't happen to have copper or horses nearby in such a situation this can make winning exceedingly difficult. I know, as I had to give up twice before even getting out of the starting blocks... (This is a circumstance I've not seen yet in a ALC game, being hemmed in with no easy expansion and nothing but Archers to attack cities pre-Construction with. It would be very interesting to see Sis pull that off)

Do any of the above have anything to do with your sentiment, Sisiutil? Or is it something else you don't like about MaS? :)

Regards

Speaking of maps, I have a new favorite. Hemispheres, Islands, and Varied continents (2 total). So far I have had some very interesting results. I strongly suggest checking it out if you are looking for some different maps.

So far what I have seen is it sometimes produces a "terra" type map. But instead of the new world empty and everyone else on one land mass the civs are spread out. Others have had varying degrees of islands with island chains. Sometimes isolated, or semi isolated. It really offers some great variety.

Do any of the above have anything to do with your sentiment, Sisiutil? Or is it something else you don't like about MaS? :)

Regards

For whatever reason when I generated several maps of that type I consistently got these long, skinny vertical continents; they looked like a set of bars on a prison cage. EVERY time.

I'm getting the vertical continents too. I think it's because the map is divided horizontally into two areas which are then filled. The larger the map you generate, the better the shapes though - the mapscript has more area to work with then. I'm still not going to play huge maps myself unless I go broke for a bleeding edge gaming rig that can handle it at speed I can accept.

I posted my Monarch game here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=255298) - is this what you mean by "vertical bars"?

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/kazapp/20_1235AD.jpg

(I didn't wrap the link in IMG tags to keep my post size down)

Yes, the world is divided into two clusters of continents that you need Astronomy to link. And yes, each cluster tends to run pretty much from the North to the South pole. But there still is considerable vertical expanse, at least five cities wide...

This is Medium-and-Small running a Small map, mind you.

Thanks for your answer nevertheless! :)

I posted my Monarch game here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=255298) - is this what you mean by "vertical bars"?

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/kazapp/20_1235AD.jpg


No, that looks more reasonable. When I tried that map type, all the continents were about 1-4 tiles wide and 10-30 tiles long (!).

Like Sisiutil I also play at Emperor level at Epic speed. This level and speed represent a pretty good challenge for me and over the past 4 games or so I have been experimenting with some of the other settings that Sisiutil has recently been giving some consideration to. Namely, No Tech Brokering and Aggressive AI.

No Tech Brokering
I have probably played an equal amount of games with this setting on and with it off. Overall, I would say that playing with this setting on makes the game slightly more challenging and at the same time also slows the pace of the post-Alphabet game. It takes away the ease at which a human can exploit diplomatic relations and the reason this is a bigger deal in BTS is because the AI is much more prone to declaring war on other AIs - anyone remember the cosy nature of the AIs in previous iterations of Civ4? Anyway, because of this the AI civs will often have poor relations with other AI civs. It simply doesn't know how to nuture a partnership and reap the benefits when No Tech Brokering isn't selected.

The second part is another good reason to use this option. No Tech Brokering slows the tech pace of the post-Alphabet game. Even at Epic speed I find the rate new tech is acquired after Alphabet is learned far too quick for my liking (and I'm loathe to try Marathon). When the ability to trade techs that you yourself have traded for is removed, the game runs at a much better pace.

Aggressive AI
There's much discussion as to whether this option makes the game harder and if indeed it's actually a better option to use. For all previous incarnations of Civ4 I would have definitely said no, since diplomacy was completely skewed against the human. In all the games I've played using AggAI in BTS, I would say that without doubt the games have been more challenging to win. For instance, I don't ever recall seeing an AI on the normal AI declare war on me and having 6 completely full aircraft carriers with support ships! It's quite a terrifying sight. It's also the only time I've really had to sue for peace (Augustus Caesar, grrrrr).

All I can say is maybe people's opinons are influenced by the difficulty level they play on? I will frequently find myself behind in tech at Emperor level regardless of whether it's normal or AggAI. Maybe if I was playing at level where I find myself the tech leader 9 times out of 10, I'd consider AggAI to detrimentally effect the AI tech rate. Who knows... But essentially, if you're finding yourself up against riflemen when you've got tanks, first and foremost it's the difficulty level that's got to increase. The bonuses the AI does receive in BTS at the higher levels - such as to unit upkeep, inflation, maintenance, etc - all help with the things that the AggAI option will to the AI, like making it build more units. They have cheaper unit upgrade costs (50%) which benefits the AI indirectly because of the increased number of units the human is then forced to produce and maintain when using AggAI. Usually the way out of a glaring tech disparity is to instigate a war or drop a few nukes. AggAI will make you think twice or force you to prepare for twice as long.

I must admit I was disappointed when the Ragnar ALC game didn't use AggAI, however, Sisuitil does at least seem inclined to try it out, which is a plus. Potentially in the next game using Shaka we hear? It's just a shame Shaka won't be in that game as an AI. Anyway, given the success of the previous ALC games at Emperor level, I'd suggest that Sisiutil is almost ready for Immortal level. But, before he does, I'd love to see him try Emperor using AggAI and No Tech Brokering.

Potentially in the next game using Shaka we hear? It's just a shame Shaka won't be in that game as an AI.
Perhaps an Aggressive AI game with only Shakas around? An all-Shaka shakedown?! :lol:

That looks to be a interesting chalenge, but not for here ;)

I like the idea of showcasing Tech brokering or ( not and ... just for showcasing ) Agg AI. Tech brokering gives really diferent games, and in emperor Agg AI looks to be a good scenario for a shaka ALC ( just imagining a ex-impi rifle army rushing a Agg AI civ with dozens of LB in cities ... :devil: )

Hi, pretty new to the forum and I've just discovered the ACL. Very nice! i can see that my Civ strategy reading time for the next month or so has now filled up.

I'm posting this for two things, one, to bump this back to the first page, and two, to ask that this or something like it, an index to game replays used as tutorials be stickied. Its very nice that you have put the links to all the ACL's in one place. This, plus links to other top replays, should be stickied.

I would volunteer to make such a list but being new I'm sure I would miss too many of them.

to ask that this or something like it, an index to game replays used as tutorials be stickied. Its very nice that you have put the links to all the ACL's in one place. This, plus links to other top replays, should be stickied.

I would volunteer to make such a list but being new I'm sure I would miss too many of them.

Now there's an idea... you can always post in site feedback and request for the bullpen to be stickied, which I agree with you should be.

I've undertooken that ambitious project HERE. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=258697)

Hope I'm not threadjacking.

I don't intend to overly stress you Sis, but when is the pre-game Shaka thread going to go up?

I don't intend to overly stress you Sis, but when is the pre-game Shaka thread going to go up?

Sometime this week.

And more Monty Python references, as I stated in a Shaka topic. Please. Because I laughed like a maniac when I read the start of the Victoria game.
Some "Silly Walks" if you perform a misclick or a really weedy move, or changing the name of Great Artist to Johann Gambolputty. :lol:

Or "Salad Days" in an Always War game... oh, ok, I'm shutting my yap now. :D

And more Monty Python references, as I stated in a Shaka topic. Please. Because I laughed like a maniac when I read the start of the Victoria game.
Some "Silly Walks" if you perform a misclick or a really weedy move, or changing the name of Great Artist to Johann Gambolputty. :lol:

Or "Salad Days" in an Always War game... oh, ok, I'm shutting my yap now. :D
Your comments and compliments are appreciated, but I don't want to overdo or force that. As I've seen pointed out regarding the whole "Epic Movie"-type film genre, "a reference is not a joke". ;)

Since the current Shaka pre-game discussion is all about options anyway, I thought I'd bring up the suggestion to play with No Tribal Villages (i.e. the so-called goody huts). It's a pretty random aspect, that can have huge influence on a game, a lot bigger than that of random events, but there's nothing to be learned there for the observer. In some of the ALC games there was a huge boost early thanks to techs popped from huts, which not only can help to decide games early and make them boring, but it's also not a "strategy" or playstyle one can emulate (unless you for some reason play with huts but avoid them).

On the other hand, getting a working economy up in the very early stage that does not rely on deficit research fueled by gold from goody huts, is a worthwhile challenge, and one that different leaders/civs deal with in different ways (Financial trait, SE, etc.). Seeing this done successfully and learning to do it oneself is something that can be helpful in every game, with or without huts. Goody huts offer nothing beyond "pop them and hope for the best". I agree they might offer some excitement, but getting Iron Working, Metal Casting or Astronomy from a hut it like getting The Oracle or even Liberalism for free, and not because one did something right, had the best strategy, but just because one got lucky.

Since the current Shaka pre-game discussion is all about options anyway, I thought I'd bring up the suggestion to play with No Tribal Villages (i.e. the so-called goody huts). It's a pretty random aspect, that can have huge influence on a game, a lot bigger than that of random events, but there's nothing to be learned there for the observer. In some of the ALC games there was a huge boost early thanks to techs popped from huts, which not only can help to decide games early and make them boring, but it's also not a "strategy" or playstyle one can emulate (unless you for some reason play with huts but avoid them).

On the other hand, getting a working economy up in the very early stage that does not rely on deficit research fueled by gold from goody huts, is a worthwhile challenge, and one that different leaders/civs deal with in different ways (Financial trait, SE, etc.). Seeing this done successfully and learning to do it oneself is something that can be helpful in every game, with or without huts. Goody huts offer nothing beyond "pop them and hope for the best". I agree they might offer some excitement, but getting Iron Working, Metal Casting or Astronomy from a hut it like getting The Oracle or even Liberalism for free, and not because one did something right, had the best strategy, but just because one got lucky.

Good point here regarding gold from huts fueling deficit research - I've never played without huts (I just think they're fun). Thus I've always had at a minimum, 30-50 gold to work with to reach further into the tree at 100% - ok, anyway: I think it would make for a great learning experience, playing without the huts and thus without the ability to run deficit research in the early ancient era. :goodjob:

Good point here regarding gold from huts fueling deficit research - I've never played without huts (I just think they're fun). Thus I've always had at a minimum, 30-50 gold to work with to reach further into the tree at 100% - ok, anyway: I think it would make for a great learning experience, playing without the huts and thus without the ability to run deficit research in the early ancient era. :goodjob:
I don't usually run deficit research on goody hut gold anymore; since BtS and random events, I prefer to leave some money in the bank to ensure I have all my options open when something bad or good occurs.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of instruction, it's probably a good idea to turn the things off.

I don't usually run deficit research on goody hut gold anymore; since BtS and random events, I prefer to leave some money in the bank to ensure I have all my options open when something bad or good occurs.


Of course if you don't have the gold from huts you'll need to turn your science off for several turns to build up the gold reserve you'll need for random events. So not having the huts will slow down your early research a bit.

Of course if you don't have the gold from huts you'll need to turn your science off for several turns to build up the gold reserve you'll need for random events. So not having the huts will slow down your early research a bit.

True, though I never turn science off, even in games where I'm not lucky enough to get any gold from huts. I just ensure I'm getting a slight surplus so I have a little money for a rainy day.

True, though I never turn science off, even in games where I'm not lucky enough to get any gold from huts. I just ensure I'm getting a slight surplus so I have a little money for a rainy day.

Well, whether you turn science off for several turns or just turn it down for 20 or so turns in the end you're having the same effect on your overall science progress.

There is a bit of a strategic element in this though, since you have to decide how long to go with zero in the treasury before you slow your science to build up your gold reserve (regardless of how you do it).

I don't see much difference, because either both you and the AI get goody hut gold, or both you and the AI don't. Either way, your tech pace relative to each other will stay the same. Only the pace relative to the year will change (and only very slightly).

I would argue for keeping goody huts in the ACLs to show how to adapt your strategy based the results of goody huts. It just seems to me like it would take some of the flavor and chance out of the early game.

I don't see much difference, because either both you and the AI get goody hut gold, or both you and the AI don't. Either way, your tech pace relative to each other will stay the same. Only the pace relative to the year will change (and only very slightly).

I would argue for keeping goody huts in the ACLs to show how to adapt your strategy based the results of goody huts. It just seems to me like it would take some of the flavor and chance out of the early game.

If all goody huts gave you was a little gold, they wouldn't be so potentially unbalancing. It's the free techs, really, that have the potential to throw things off. In an off-line game that's fun, but for the demonstrative purposes of the ALCs it's starting to make more sense to keep things balanced.

I've undertooken that ambitious project HERE. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=258697)

Hope I'm not threadjacking.

Thanks for the work!!

:thanx:

If all goody huts gave you was a little gold, they wouldn't be so potentially unbalancing. It's the free techs, really, that have the potential to throw things off. In an off-line game that's fun, but for the demonstrative purposes of the ALCs it's starting to make more sense to keep things balanced.

What I am saying is that it is balanced because the AIs have the same chance to get free techs also. In fact, I believe they should have better chances, seeing as we are playing above Noble. So really, there is no real advantage to the human, except for how we go about adjusting our strategy based on the huts. I like the ALCs because they showcase how to make and adjust a long term strategy, and having goody huts just adds another adjustment into that.

What I am saying is that it is balanced because the AIs have the same chance to get free techs also. In fact, I believe they should have better chances, seeing as we are playing above Noble. So really, there is no real advantage to the human, except for how we go about adjusting our strategy based on the huts. I like the ALCs because they showcase how to make and adjust a long term strategy, and having goody huts just adds another adjustment into that.

Good point, there's no question the AI may be getting gold and techs from the huts. I think the bigger issue people have is that the ALCs are, ostensibly, played and posted for the purpose of instruction (as well as entertainment, of course). Popping techs from a hut in those games makes it hard to compare the game to any of those played off-line, as the tech-popping is almost impossible to duplicate yet it can have a huge impact on the progress of the game. So the reason I'm turning that feature off is to better ensure that the strategy and tactics we map out and follow can be duplicated off-line.

Good point, there's no question the AI may be getting gold and techs from the huts. I think the bigger issue people have is that the ALCs are, ostensibly, played and posted for the purpose of instruction (as well as entertainment, of course). Popping techs from a hut in those games makes it hard to compare the game to any of those played off-line, as the tech-popping is almost impossible to duplicate yet it can have a huge impact on the progress of the game. So the reason I'm turning that feature off is to better ensure that the strategy and tactics we map out and follow can be duplicated off-line.

But is there not educational value in showing how to best take advantage of the results you receive from huts?

But is there not educational value in showing how to best take advantage of the results you receive from huts?

Perhaps, but the point is that unlike the admittedly more staid approach of researching those techs based upon a plan, popping techs is well-nigh unreproducible. The Kublai ALC game, as fun as it was, is the biggest example of this. "Here's how you win with Kublai: pop Horseback Riding from a hut!" Uh, what? :confused: How instructional is that?

Frankly, once the Mongols have HBR, "how to best take advantage of the result" is relatively obvious. The real question is how to obtain HBR in the first place, and in the timeliest fashion possible. Popping it from a hut is not the answer, because it's a highly unreliable prospect. That game would have more instructional value if I'd researched HBR on my own, thereby demonstrating the order of techs researched, the methods of accelerating research of such an expensive tech so early in the game, and what I busied myself with in the meantime.

"How to best leverage an advantage you gained thanks to luck" is much less instructional than "How to play when things are equal or you're even at a disadvantage". ;) And sure, the AIs have the chance to get good results from huts too, but for any given game, there's no guarantee the results Sisiutil gets even out with those the AIs get.

IMHO huts really benefit AIs more especially on higher levels: because they have more units on the start, which means popping more huts. And their changes for getting good results are much better!

IMHO huts really benefit AIs more especially on higher levels: because they have more units on the start, which means popping more huts. And their changes for getting good results are much better!
I find this is hit and miss. My exploration pattern tends to be more thorough than the AI's, and if I start with a Scout and/or if I pop one from a hut, I can often reach what seems to me to be a disproportionate number of huts. On the other hand, yes, I've had games where I don't pop a single hut at all.

hi Sisiutil,
first of all i really enjoy reading your ALC series, not only because they help me improve my game but also because of your writing skills. Anyways, enough of praise :)

On a total different topic then enabled or not enabled huts. Would you consider running a game with random personallities? I think it will add some extra unpredicteble spice into the game, but it will make the game pretty hard though.

Greetings,
lsgag

hi Sisiutil,
first of all i really enjoy reading your ALC series, not only because they help me improve my game but also because of your writing skills. Anyways, enough of praise :)

On a total different topic then enabled or not enabled huts. Would you consider running a game with random personallities? I think it will add some extra unpredicteble spice into the game, but it will make the game pretty hard though.

Greetings,
lsgag
That might be fun. I'm beginning to think it would be fun to try games with each of the custom settings to explore how to play a game with them.

That might be fun. I'm beginning to think it would be fun to try games with each of the custom settings to explore how to play a game with them.

I like the idea to use and showcase the custom settings.
But be aware that random personnality isn't really harder than normal personnalities.
In fact, I find it easier, since the AIs are not programmed to handle them well (traits and personnalities don't match anymore, ...)

I like the idea to use and showcase the custom settings.
But be aware that random personnality isn't really harder than normal personnalities.
In fact, I find it easier, since the AIs are not programmed to handle them well (traits and personnalities don't match anymore, ...)

Yes, I'm actually finding several of the custom settings make things easier, not harder, probably because, as you say, the AI is not programmed to deal with them well.

Aggressive AI makes the AI tech slower, since more of its economy is devoted to producing units.

No Tech Brokering means the AI is unwilling--unlike a human--to make an advantageous trade for a tech it has partially researched.

But be aware that random personnality isn't really harder than normal personnalities.
In fact, I find it easier, since the AIs are not programmed to handle them well (traits and personnalities don't match anymore, ...)

Well, it depends on which personality gets combined with which leader/civ. It's not like the default combinations are always perfect (as in utilizing the leader and civ abilities as good as possible), and some AI personalities are just plain inferior to others no matter which traits and UU/UB they are given (I'm looking at you, Monty, Toku, ...). But I wouldn't say that for example the Romans suffer when they get a dose of Napoleon's mindset. Well, but since there's no control over who gets which personality, it's a gamble indeed, and can result in weaker opponents easily.

Although even then there's still the factor that diplomacy becomes more challenging in that the human player doesn't know who he's really dealing with, and can't exploit and manipulate them diplomatically as easily. You can't just suck up to Isabella through religion, turn Alex into your attack dog and trust Gandhi to not backstab you because they're channeling others.

thank you for this series...it's been incredibly helpful

Hey everyone,

Looks like ol' uncle Sisiutil messed up. I just discovered that I'm missing the 4000 BC start saved game files from the first 6 ALC games. :blush:

Do any of you ALC old-timers happen to have them around? If so, please PM me. :please:

I think it may be the HAXor that has stoled your saves. I hate Hackers.

Are we going to move up to Immortal? If so, we're going to have some competition with aelf. ;)

I suggest next game you gear towards a diplomatic victory, as per Lincoln. Use espionage to engineer some wars and use that to capitulate civs early on.

Conquest_No capitulation: Lincoln has very late UU and UB. A conquest only victory sounds interesting, but keep culture, diplomatic and space victory open for the AIs. use the good old continent map (must have sea for the UU) and tick the no vessal option (or only restrict capitulation to human player) as it would too be easy to win like he did in Zulu's ALC .

No cottage: Lincoln's traits are the most favourate two among higher level players (i think). maybe we should try it without any cottage, just farm over wherever we can. that way we will fully use the culture slider to combat WW later when we push for conquest.

Using settings that make the game more difficult like aggressive AI is one thing, but we shouldn't arbitrarily remove an important part of the game like cottages.

Using settings that make the game more difficult like aggressive AI is one thing, but we shouldn't arbitrarily remove an important part of the game like cottages.
I tend to agree. The ALCs are all about finding out how to best leverage the leader's unique characteristics. There are other posted game threads that get into role-playing and other more specific challenges, but I tend to avoid that. So I will be using slavery while playing as Lincoln. I'll feel dirty afterwards, but I'll use it anyway. :lol:

Its debatable that different settings make a game more difficult, they certainly make the game different and maybe different settings will suit particular leaders and civs more than others.

If you're looking at settings and map types that optimise a particular leader's strengths then maybe you should be considering immortal as you're stacking the deck in your favour to start with.

"Abraham Lincoln once said, 'If you are a racist, I will attack you with the North.'" Michael Scott on The Office

I don't think AggAI should be used for the Lincoln game ... I know Charismatic lends itself to warmongering, but he's a leader who's suited to many approaches and victory conditions, and we should just see how the game turns out. AggAI can severely harm the AI after all, since it slows down their teching.

For the record, Lincoln did not outlaw slavery until late in his presidency/civil war with teh Emcaipation Proclaimation. And even then, the Proclaimation only abolished slvery in the Confederacy, not the 4 border states of maryland/Missouri/Kentucky where it was in effect I believe until slavery was abolished by a constitutional ammendment after Lincoln was killed. So technically Lincoln did allow slavery in the North during the war.

Lincoln fought the Civil War to keep the Union intact, not to eliminate slavery. SO feel free to whip as Abe!

As far as the agressive AI, drop it. They are more challenging when you have to deal with the tech-whores. Shaka/Ghengis/Monty will war enough anyway.