I was thinking about hosting a follow-up for the Graduates of the NC, do you guys mind if I host a Prince series, I need help with a name, so post one if you can think of anything. Also, TMIT, I might need your permission on hosting a new series. Sorry for the whole Charlemagne thing. but with TMIT's permission and a good name, were bound to get of to a good start!

"Prince Or Newb?"

^ :lol: I like it

The Prince's Tale :rolleyes:

How about Il Principe?

Prince's Palace
Prince: Because Monarch is Hard! (or PBMH)
Prince Just Because
Prince's Peripece
Prince Perfect
Prince Cult

"Prince Or Newb?"

"Prince With Newbs" has a better acronym.

(PWN)

"Hamlet's choice - to prince or not to prince!"

"Prince With Newbs" has a better acronym.

No it doesn't (look again).

I was thinking about hosting a follow-up for the Graduates of the NC, do you guys mind if I host a Prince series, I need help with a name, so post one if you can think of anything. Also, TMIT, I might need your permission on hosting a new series. Sorry for the whole Charlemagne thing. but with TMIT's permission and a good name, were bound to get of to a good start!Does TMIT pay your salary every month? Get some cahones and make these calls for yourself! Start a new series if you want to and refer in the initial post to his series and say how you try to be different. TMIT has nothing to say about the subject.

What names did you come up with yourself? I like the Machiavelli reference. :) There probably is a good pun in there somewhere. I will try to come up with one.

As long as Prince Peasley is the mascot I don't care about the name.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/nintendo/en/images/thumb/3/34/PrincePeasly.jpg/180px-PrincePeasly.jpg

No it doesn't (look again).

PON. Meaningless to me, perhaps i'm missing something.

PON. Meaningless to me, perhaps i'm missing something.
He refers to the acronym being pron...

Being a decent Prince level player myself, I would join in and shadow some games.

O(+> (Which is the symbol for the difficulty level formerly known as Prince)

O(+> (Which is the symbol for the difficulty level formerly known as Prince)
Well done! I wish I'd said that. :lol:

Does TMIT pay your salary every month? Get some cahones and make these calls for yourself! Start a new series if you want to and refer in the initial post to his series and say how you try to be different. TMIT has nothing to say about the subject.

What names did you come up with yourself? I like the Machiavelli reference. :) There probably is a good pun in there somewhere. I will try to come up with one.

XD. I have the same thing to say about the subject as always: NC isn't even mine. No forum series AFAIK is "owned", just usually has a regular host...but I've been actively attempting to let someone take over NC (but I think Single Malt actually did).

I've been the first to say that nobody owns the series. It wasn't even my idea (I was the THIRD person to host NC, actually). I just wanted him to do it in WB form and give the series a proper introduction is all ;).

To that end, I actually created a guide for starting forum games and uploaded a YouTube video to go along with it, so it should be easy for anyone to host the NC or other series now. And TBH, I don't want to host multiple map series. The maps themselves are easy enough to make, but as host I always feel somewhat obligated to follow the threads more carefully and so forth, and with NC that can be distracting...the aspects of play typically addressed there are quite different from Immortal U for example.

Nobody should restrain themselves from posting here as long as it's within forum rules.

Well done! I wish I'd said that. :lol:Thanks! Apparently, that was actually the accepted way to represent Prince's symbol during the years he didn't have a name.


As for the idea for this thread, I'll play a few. I kind of like playing Prince because I only lose when something awful happens in the first 50-60 turns, or if I get stuck on some sort of hideous isolated island. I really hate losing, BTW. It doesn't bother me too much when I'm normally attacking longbows with cannons and rifles, because I will still sometimes play a game that requires a space race victory.

(Got one going on right now, actually. After an isolated start with a decent small continent but no stinking Iron. What a gigantic pain in the ass it is to have no iron. Knights? Sorry. Frigates? Nope. Pikemen, Crossbows? Forget about it. Railroads? Hell no. It's really hard to win a damn game early without any iron. If this had been Monarch or Emperor, I'd be dead by now.)

Isolated with no iron -> cultural victory tastic!

He refers to the acronym being pron...

Huh?

Oh. you mean pr0n. I got thrown by the accent :p

"good night, sweet prince"

Prince Posse

regardless of what name you choose, i would love this. i've just made the move to prince myself and i'm definitely having some challenges.

Isolated with no iron -> cultural victory tastic!

That depends. It's not always easy to get enough religions in isolation, and sometimes there's easily-accessible iron on a small island post-astro. That, or you wind up having oil or uranium and can afford to wait that long before war ;).

I'm grateful that uranium unlocks the metal navies too. One of this game's interesting quirks is that you can build submarines and battleships w/o combustion if you have fission/uranium! You would then have to use battleships and GALLEONS to invade though :ack:, but your unit could be marines! At least worth considering for the dutch and their UU.

just imagine living in civilization with fission and no combustion. :crazyeye:

i'd think they'd certainly invent something large, water-based and capable of transporting people and horses, so transports requiring combustion as tech seems of no sense ^(

INdeed. We can have nuclear powered vessels in the form of battleships but not in the form of transports?

Whatever may be of that, there is so much in civ that does not make any sense that we can just toss this on the big heap. In the typical scenario you will have combustion and transports anyway.

probably more expensive and difficult to maintain, the transports that is. Sure it won't guzzle up oil and can be on the seas for quite long theoretically, indefinitely they say, but its still a nuclear reactor that powers it and has to be maintained.

I guess there sort of a safety concern as well. Can't say much about nuclear battleships, are there even any ones left this day? Probably only USS Iowa if that. Feel free to correct me on that...

In any case the nuclear reactors probably aren't a good idea in transports, either landing vehicles or normal transports because they have pretty much no means of defending themselves so you could potentially risk an expensive reactor perhaps to a meltdown which isn't nice. Or it might get captured or something.

Carriers are by comparison more protected in an ideal world, with a big radius of jet aircraft, cruise and anti-ship missiles and so on, so I guess theyre fairly safe there. Same with nuclear subs, theyre just so hard to find.

Transports need to be small too otherwise they are a big target.

Does TMIT pay your salary every month? Get some cahones and make these calls for yourself! Start a new series if you want to and refer in the initial post to his series and say how you try to be different. TMIT has nothing to say about the subject.

What names did you come up with yourself? I like the Machiavelli reference. :) There probably is a good pun in there somewhere. I will try to come up with one.

well last time i sorta "stole" the position of the nc's host, I know nobody owns it it's still kinda rude though so i didn't know if there was already a prince one.

Well maybe I was lashing out more that I was giving you something constructive. Of course you were just trying to be polite.

I was just saying you can host whatever series you like on any game level, even the ones that are already there. Just do not copy any specific format and you will be fine. When in doubt you can always explicitly point out how you aim to be different from the others and refer to the other thread so that people interested in your series also see the other ones. That way you get in nobodies way and you steal no players or something.

Then we can all be continue to be happy and if some people still complain you send them to file a complaint in my private inbox with the subject 'complaint'. I will be sure to delete it as soon as I spot it. ;)

It doesn't really matter what you call it.

AFAIK there hasn't been a prince level open paralel game series.

You ain't treading on anyone's toes.

So just get the series started.

No love for Machiavelli? :(

Transports need to be small too otherwise they are a big target.
The Americans and Russinans were racing for a nuclear powered jet propelled bomber in the 1950s and was primarily cancelled thanks to the creation of ICBMs, size isn't insurmountable in the case of transports :lol:

just imagine living in civilization with fission and no combustion.

i'd think they'd certainly invent something large, water-based and capable of transporting people and horses, so transports requiring combustion as tech seems of no sense ^(
Apart from combusion and nuclear, we have wind power and rockets. I wouldn't recommend using both at once though :lol:

wind-propelled transports are presented in Civ as galleons ;)

and rockets do not seem suitable for a naval vessel, it should have enough fuel to be able to move for months and years long i think. (and not everything it carries should be its fuel)

i'm certainly no expert in military science, but if i had nothing but fission reactor to power a transport ship, and consequently a huge ship to be powered in such way, i'd still build it. it's too large a step up from sail to miss it. it just needs to be escorted heavily, but well, i'm going to have a large fleet to escort it with.
unfortunately, looks light no light maneuverable landing craft for amphibious assaults though.

and on the theme of surface nuclear-powered warships. i'll need to check it, but afair russian navy has some. (don't know if they are classified as battleships, the difference always remained a mystery for me).

There's a russian behemoth helicopter that can transport numerous tanks, I believe anything can be achieved in terms of transport. :p

in RaR mod for CIII there were air transports... i miss them so much (well as much other stuff from RaR too)

EDIT:
i believe it's not the most successfull of russian military units.
It's just with that much military research done throughout the country, you are going to have multiple vehicles and devices invented. Some may prove really deadly, and some are something like "behemoth helicopter that can transport numerous tanks" :)

Getting incredibly OT so I spoilered my reply to Nanomage :mischief:
Also rocket planes existed, so why do we need oil :lol:. Might be interesting for civ 5 to explore 'maybes' like these, maybe by having a unit bet better by gaining certain resources i.e. rocket fighters have less range than normal fighters. Oil bombers have less range than nuke bombers but nukes ones can have some kind of fallout risk?

wind-propelled transports are presented in Civ as galleons
Yes but in the absence of combustion, modern wind transports would have been designed to greatly exceed galleons :p.

and rockets do not seem suitable for a naval vessel, it should have enough fuel to be able to move for months and years long i think. (and not everything it carries should be its fuel)
It doesn't neccesarily require the conventional 'rockets' most people think of, the distinction between 'combustion' and rocketry is imo very sketchy, it is more than possible to build pistons or gas turbines that run on chemical rockets (the turbines exist, mostly as hybrid rocket/combustion engines).

As the rocketry tech in civ 4 represents having the knowledge to create cruise missiles then ts higly reasonable that a civ that cannot create our type of internal combustion engine (I can only assume due to intake ignition problems :confused:) could create one based on rocket propellant :lol:. Even if it doesn't compare to our version, it would be worth looking at imo :p

Besides theres nothing to say you can't use a secondary propulsion method to save rockets for when its needed.

i'm certainly no expert in military science, but if i had nothing but fission reactor to power a transport ship, and consequently a huge ship to be powered in such way, i'd still build it. it's too large a step up from sail to miss it.

Iagree they would probably go for it unless there was a truly major obstacle, the nuclear powered bombers is a good exaple of it

unfortunately, looks light no light maneuverable landing craft for amphibious assaults though.
Now rockets would shine here if the light craft are carried by a larger ships :p

and on the theme of surface nuclear-powered warships. i'll need to check it, but afair russian navy has some. (don't know if they are classified as battleships, the difference always remained a mystery for me).
The Russians still have a nuclear powered civilian ship. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput)

Getting incredibly OT so I spoilered my reply to Nanomage :mischief:
Also rocket planes existed, so why do we need oil :lol:. Might be interesting for civ 5 to explore 'maybes' like these, maybe by having a unit bet better by gaining certain resources i.e. rocket fighters have less range than normal fighters. Oil bombers have less range than nuke bombers but nukes ones can have some kind of fallout risk?


Yes but in the absence of combustion, modern wind transports would have been designed to greatly exceed galleons :p.


It doesn't neccesarily require the conventional 'rockets' most people think of, the distinction between 'combustion' and rocketry is imo very sketchy, it is more than possible to build pistons or gas turbines that run on chemical rockets (the turbines exist, mostly as hybrid rocket/combustion engines).

As the rocketry tech in civ 4 represents having the knowledge to create cruise missiles then ts higly reasonable that a civ that cannot create our type of internal combustion engine (I can only assume due to intake ignition problems :confused:) could create one based on rocket propellant :lol:. Even if it doesn't compare to our version, it would be worth looking at imo :p

Besides theres nothing to say you can't use a secondary propulsion method to save rockets for when its needed.


Iagree they would probably go for it unless there was a truly major obstacle, the nuclear powered bombers is a good exaple of it


Now rockets would shine here if the light craft are carried by a larger ships :p


The Russians still have a nuclear powered civilian ship. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput)


Does this have anything at all to do with even the difficulty level of prince?!
No hard feelings but I think i'll just rap it up here. Gentlemen, and the few of you who are women, I give you the Prince Cliche. The PC, it's catchy, but more importantly it gives us a name so we can get started. please just stick with the name, no "I like Prince charming better" not trying to sound sturn here, but alot of the names that you guys posted were quite gay. Let's either close the thread or continue talking about nuclear missles. Sorry for the late post, went on vacation.

Cool git to it as long as Prince Peasley appears in the first post (see my last post for image) ;)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8153291&postcount=11

I like Prince Charming better.


(Someone had to do it...)

i'd be interested in this, as i just finished up my first prince victory (yay!)