I think of GotM as very like a book discussion group, except we never physically meet, and our topic is just Civ2 games rather than books. Each month we "read" a game, saying how we got on with it, and we come together to discuss it.
In a book group the person who suggested the particular book initiates the discussion, and so I will start the spoiler for GotM 169. If some of my pre-game comments turn out to be "wide of the mark" as we say here, I am sure we will all enjoy the discussion correcting me!
It is nearly two years on from the previous Barbarian Wrath game (GotM 148) so it was time for another go. The last time I had used a small map, hoping that a smaller shorter game would be appealing (it wasn't). Ali complained he saw no hordes, and Peaster played a terrific EC game making good use of movement and hut popping.
So I made changes in these areas. I used a larger map, I cleared huts, and I fixed the start more - although not quite as much as intended due to posting the wrong version of the save file, sorry. I also picked up on an idea Ali referenced in the future games thread, of having more barbs around generally. (And there is another game in the offing, based on the idea of having a continent full of barbarians between you and the AI players.)
Although the noted feature, echoed in the title, is the barbarian wrath setting, I expect the game is not about that at all. Rather, it is about starting in the middle of a continent with terrain not so well suited to ICS, on a medium large map, at deity level, with no huts.
It's not a situation we have seen so often recently, but looking back through the archives it is a topic GotM has visited several times in the past. It was before my joining, but I see several games from 5-10 years ago that have many similarities. Amongst others there is #106 (grigor, Ali, Magic were there), with a north pole start, and #70 as the Aborigines on a world map, with an impressive five pages of spoiler (Ali, Peaster, Magic present.) It seems these games can be frustrating at times, and can take a lot of real time, but a lot of the comments say how much they were enjoyed. Often players seem very pleased and even - unusual for such veterans, surprised - with the outcomes they were able to achieve.
In this game, with the known map, players can do quite a bit of analysis and decide how best to cope with the start position. There is not much grass, but the river, the specials and the Chicago site are big assets.
Now for the pre-game comments:
1. Players will consider not founding Chicago/Wounded Knee where the settler starts, but will then do so. The third city will be at (60,20).
2. Most (all?) will become a Monarchy in -2450.
3. Sending exploring units in the direction of the three other cities in North America will pay off.
4. A key variation will be how a player manages growth in number of cities in the early game.
5. Luck will play a part, even with no huts. There will be significant variation in chance events, but the AI will chase wonders in similar ways at similar times in the early game.
6. Everyone will build HG. Anyone considering space rather than conquest will also choose Colossus. I suspect both will be available if wanted, after going straight to Monarchy. But it might have been interesting if the right file had been posted, which would have made Monarchy two techs later, and players might then have had to choose between HG and Colossus!
7. EL will be easier than EC, but we will not find out.
I am playing and will do a log in a few days. My game will not be competitive because I have played the early game a lot in testing. True there is a little information not initially revealed which also bars me, but I expect all such to come early to players who watch the Top-5 and nearest city information.
Incidentally: I tried to work out how to increase the likelihood of players experiencing at least one horde reasonably early, but found no way to do it. So far all I know is it just seems to happen sometimes. You may have got an early horde, as I sometimes did in testing, but you probably didn't. Surely it is optimal to pay no regard to the possibility. If you did get a big horde reasonably early on, and it proved somewhat awkward, then bad luck for the aspect of a comparison game. I hope you enjoy the unusual situation!
In a book group the person who suggested the particular book initiates the discussion, and so I will start the spoiler for GotM 169. If some of my pre-game comments turn out to be "wide of the mark" as we say here, I am sure we will all enjoy the discussion correcting me!
It is nearly two years on from the previous Barbarian Wrath game (GotM 148) so it was time for another go. The last time I had used a small map, hoping that a smaller shorter game would be appealing (it wasn't). Ali complained he saw no hordes, and Peaster played a terrific EC game making good use of movement and hut popping.
So I made changes in these areas. I used a larger map, I cleared huts, and I fixed the start more - although not quite as much as intended due to posting the wrong version of the save file, sorry. I also picked up on an idea Ali referenced in the future games thread, of having more barbs around generally. (And there is another game in the offing, based on the idea of having a continent full of barbarians between you and the AI players.)
Although the noted feature, echoed in the title, is the barbarian wrath setting, I expect the game is not about that at all. Rather, it is about starting in the middle of a continent with terrain not so well suited to ICS, on a medium large map, at deity level, with no huts.
It's not a situation we have seen so often recently, but looking back through the archives it is a topic GotM has visited several times in the past. It was before my joining, but I see several games from 5-10 years ago that have many similarities. Amongst others there is #106 (grigor, Ali, Magic were there), with a north pole start, and #70 as the Aborigines on a world map, with an impressive five pages of spoiler (Ali, Peaster, Magic present.) It seems these games can be frustrating at times, and can take a lot of real time, but a lot of the comments say how much they were enjoyed. Often players seem very pleased and even - unusual for such veterans, surprised - with the outcomes they were able to achieve.
In this game, with the known map, players can do quite a bit of analysis and decide how best to cope with the start position. There is not much grass, but the river, the specials and the Chicago site are big assets.
Now for the pre-game comments:
1. Players will consider not founding Chicago/Wounded Knee where the settler starts, but will then do so. The third city will be at (60,20).
2. Most (all?) will become a Monarchy in -2450.
3. Sending exploring units in the direction of the three other cities in North America will pay off.
4. A key variation will be how a player manages growth in number of cities in the early game.
5. Luck will play a part, even with no huts. There will be significant variation in chance events, but the AI will chase wonders in similar ways at similar times in the early game.
6. Everyone will build HG. Anyone considering space rather than conquest will also choose Colossus. I suspect both will be available if wanted, after going straight to Monarchy. But it might have been interesting if the right file had been posted, which would have made Monarchy two techs later, and players might then have had to choose between HG and Colossus!
7. EL will be easier than EC, but we will not find out.
I am playing and will do a log in a few days. My game will not be competitive because I have played the early game a lot in testing. True there is a little information not initially revealed which also bars me, but I expect all such to come early to players who watch the Top-5 and nearest city information.
Incidentally: I tried to work out how to increase the likelihood of players experiencing at least one horde reasonably early, but found no way to do it. So far all I know is it just seems to happen sometimes. You may have got an early horde, as I sometimes did in testing, but you probably didn't. Surely it is optimal to pay no regard to the possibility. If you did get a big horde reasonably early on, and it proved somewhat awkward, then bad luck for the aspect of a comparison game. I hope you enjoy the unusual situation!