First Thread!!!

im fine with LordParkin for turn player. ive seen one of his posted games...impressive.

Can there only be one turn player? If so Lord Parkin is an obvious choice because he's like the only guy here who has played a multiplayer game before.

Though if there can be multiple ones I'd like to play some turns, at least a few of the later ones with lots of stuff to tinker around with.

In the previous games with PBEM (Play By Email), there could really only be one turn player since only one person can load a savegame at a time. However, with Pitboss, there can certainly be more than one turn player.

The only limitation with Pitboss is that the turn players can't log into the game simultaneously - they have to log in at separate times. For this reason, it's probably best to not have more than 2-3 active turn players at any one time, since otherwise it can obviously get a bit messy.

In the early game, where we only have 1 scout/warrior and perhaps a worker, there really only needs to be one turn player - there's not much point in multiple people logging in with so little to do! But certainly a bit later in the game once there are more things to do, multiple turn players could make sense.

So basically, Joshua - I'd be quite happy to share the job of playing turns with you, if you're keen to do that.

One question are other players able to download save, and look on it offline ?

Toch said:

One question are other players able to download save, and look on it offline ?

Click to expand...

I've tried this before. Everyone can download the save while they're online, but only the team that is first in the turn order will be able to load their save offline. This is because of the order in which the passwords come up when you load the game offline: unless you know the passwords of the teams before you in the turn order (which you shouldn't!), you can't get to your password screen.

So do we have a leader yet?

cIV_khanh93 said:

So do we have a leader yet?

Click to expand...

Not yet, but we have several possibilities that have been discussed.

Our leader choice will depend somewhat on the game settings and map type, which will be announced on Wednesday. So we'll start a final poll to pick our leader after that time.

Feel free to continue to discuss any ideas you have for leaders here, though.

It seems the general consesus that we need financial to ensure a tech lead so... here's a run down of all the financial options:

Darius
Trait: Organized-easier management of large empire
UU: Chariot- useful if we stat close to others, gets a bonus to archery units, but slaughtered by spears...
UB: Grocer- additional 2 health, useful in managing large empires
Strategy: Darius is good at managing large empires, and has an opportunity to get a jumpstart using a chariot rush on a neighbor.

Elizabeth
Trait: Philosophical- get our first GP faster, get a few more GPs than without it.
UU: Rifleman- gets a bonus to gunpowder and mounted (all contemporary) units, may prove useful
UB: Bank- more commerce
Strategy: More GPs, faster universities, and etra commerce leads to a better late game economy, good for an islands or archipelaego map.

Hannibal
Trait: Charismatic- extra happiness! ealy growth possible, even without a religion
UU: Horse archer- +50% vs. melee units, one less strength. Useful for an early war, and can stop swordsman in their tracks.
UB: Harbor-an extra trade route=more commerce, useful
Strategy: I don't really see one here, might've been useful if we didnt know the settings beforehand.

Huayna Capac
Trait: Agressive- good for any war in which melee or gunpowder units are used
UU: Warrior- +100% vs. archery units. If we dont have any reources, I suppose we could try to steal our neighbor's, but with the culutral defense they'd have by the time we realze we're out metals and horses... we'd be spending many more hammers than they.
UB: Granary- +2 culture. Early border expansion here we come!
Strategy: We should be able to take advantage of most situations using Huayna, but he doesnt offer much an extra advantage past the extra strength units.

Mansa Musa
Trait: Spiritual. If it turns into an OCC at the last minute-- we'll be prepared! In all honesty, we won't lose too many turns in anarchy. 10 maybe?
UU: Archer- extra first strike chance and an extra strength... not terribly useful
UB: Forge- +10% gold (not commerce) We'll be building forges in the good cities anyway... not a very significant boost unless we're runing less than 70% research.
Strategy: Seems like a bad pick in this case.

Pacal II
Trait: Expansive- faster growth all round.
UU: Spearman- immune to first strikes and resourceless. If we get a bad start, this would defend us from being easy prey.
UB: Colloseum- 2 more happiness. Really nice boost to growth.
Strategy: Growth. The spearmen provide easy defense for fast expansion. Bad for a close start.
Ragnar
Trait: Agressive- good for warring, especially with his UU.
UU: Maceman. +10% city attack and Amphibious
UB: Lighthouse. Extra movement point for navy buiilt in this city, light houses are almost a certainty in coastal cities anyway.
Strategy: WAR! If our and our target have lots of coastal cities, this will benefit us. Good for island, archipaelago map.

Victoria
Trait: Imperialistic. More great generals and faster settlers.
UU: Rifelmen. Bonus to contemporary units, not a reason to go to war, though.
UB: Bank. +15% more gold.
Strategy: Elizabeth would be better.

Wang Kon
Trait: Protective. more defense. YAY!
UU: Catapult. +50% vs. melee units.
UB: University. +10% more research.
Strategy: Harder to kill, as a good opening for war around construction, and a smidge more research late game.

William Van Oranje
Trait: Creative. Cities generate some culture for free. Save us some hassle in the expansion phase(s), but other traits are better.
UU: Galleon. +2 strength, +1 cargo, can enter foreign lands w/o war. We can ship our spies overseas.
UB: Levee. +1 prod. not only from rivers but sea too. I'm not sure if we'll get there unless we do archipaleago.
Strategy: Definitely another seafarer. we can whip up an army of muskets and cats or cannons and ship them overseas without as many boats.

EDIT: PLEASE don't tell me this is going to be unrestricted leaders...

cIV_khanh93 said:

EDIT: PLEASE don't tell me this is going to be unrestricted leaders...

Click to expand...

Nope, it isn't, don't worry.

Thanks for your work in the post above, that's a very handy reference.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Huayna Capac
Trait: Agressive- good for any war in which melee or gunpowder units are used

Click to expand...

Noticed a mistake here. Huayna's other trait is Industrious, not Aggressive.

I'll share a few thoughts of my own on what you've written.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Hannibal
UU: Horse archer- +50% vs. melee units, one less strength. Useful for an early war, and can stop swordsman in their tracks.

Click to expand...

Actually, Axemen are just as good as Numidian Cavalry at stopping Swordsmen. The main benefit of Numidian Cavalry used to be for stopping Axemen, but now that's quite easy with Chariots. They're good skirmish units - although they require a dead-end tech, which makes them less useful.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Huayna Capac
Strategy: We should be able to take advantage of most situations using Huayna, but he doesnt offer much an extra advantage past the extra strength units.

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, Huayna is not Aggressive but Industrious. Thus, his main strength is in wonders - both world ones and national ones. He could be useful if we're intending on grabbing an early wonder like Stonehenge or the Oracle, especially if we don't have Stone or Marble. Cheaper Forges are also very handy. However, Industrious becomes less useful as the game progresses - and besides, democracy games tend to be more inclined towards war than building wonders.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Mansa Musa
Trait: Spiritual. If it turns into an OCC at the last minute-- we'll be prepared! In all honesty, we won't lose too many turns in anarchy. 10 maybe?
UU: Archer- extra first strike chance and an extra strength... not terribly useful
UB: Forge- +10% gold (not commerce) We'll be building forges in the good cities anyway... not a very significant boost unless we're runing less than 70% research.
Strategy: Seems like a bad pick in this case.

Click to expand...

Actually, Mansa Musa isn't too bad. The main advantage of any civ with the Spiritual trait is that you can switch civics more often to optimize your economy and production - thus you usually see more civic switches than in a regular game. (One typical switch is to Vassalage/Theocracy during wartime and Bureaucracy/Organized Religion during peacetime.)

The Skirmisher is okay as an offensive unit for really early wars, and of course it's great on the defense in the early game. Though it likely won't see much action in this kind of game.

Overall, I definitely wouldn't say that Mansa is a bad pick, but perhaps we could do better.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Pacal II
Trait: Expansive- faster growth all round.
UU: Spearman- immune to first strikes and resourceless. If we get a bad start, this would defend us from being easy prey.
UB: Colloseum- 2 more happiness. Really nice boost to growth.
Strategy: Growth. The spearmen provide easy defense for fast expansion. Bad for a close start.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm not a fan of a resourceless Spearman for a UU, as there'd probably only be a very short window in the early game where such a unit would be useful before we hook up a metal (Copper or Iron). The Expansive trait is nice for the faster Workers though, and the UB is certainly decent.

cIV_khanh93 said:

Victoria
Strategy: Elizabeth would be better.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Elizabeth would necessarily be better, just different. Imperialistic is quite a useful trait, as it allows far faster expansion in the early game (due to the faster Settlers).

cIV_khanh93 said:

Wang Kon
Trait: Protective. more defense. YAY!
UU: Catapult. +50% vs. melee units.
UB: University. +10% more research.
Strategy: Harder to kill, as a good opening for war around construction, and a smidge more research late game.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Protective at all, mainly because I think that if you're holed up in your cities on the defense, you're already losing the war. I much prefer to fight offensively, even if being invaded. By picking the enemy off using offensive units once they enter your lands, rather than waiting in your cities for them to attack, you save your improvements from being pillaged - which stops your economy from dying and thus prevents you from being conquered later.

I'll admit the UU is decent, but it does have a limited window of opportunity. Once Longbows arrive, Hwachas are pretty much no better than ordinary Catapults. The UB will not see much use in a democracy game, so it's not a great deal of use.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I just thought I'd provide some alternative viewpoints to the ones you gave for some balance.

I think I'd prefer picking a leader who isn't financial. Not because I think its weak or overrated, but because I think its powerful and boring. I think more interesting trait combos would be nice, like Asoka (ORG/SPI) or De Gaulle (IND/CHA) or Pericles. (CRE/PHI) Or a previously mentioned personal favorite Mehmed. (EXP/ORG) You know, leaders with traits that we could leverage more than "slightly stronger cottages and coast".

Of course then all the other teams would pick financial leaders and we'd be screwed.

Lord Parkin, whats ur suggested combo? if we can get some singled out suggestions (maybe 1 or 2) from everybody lets vote on that too.

johnle43 said:

Lord Parkin, whats ur suggested combo? if we can get some singled out suggestions (maybe 1 or 2) from everybody lets vote on that too.

Click to expand...

My top 2 favourites would have to be Darius (FIN/ORG) and Ragnar (FIN/AGG). Which one would depend on the layout of the map (more water obviously favours Ragnar).

What happens if two teams want same leader ? will they get him ? or the one whit less money on paypal have to choose someone else ?

There is a long discussion thread concerning this in the lobby (Civ4 - BTS Multi-Team Demogame). Lord Parkin has made suggestion there that includes possibility to have two teams with same leader.

I also agree that Lord Parkin should be our turn player.

Toch said:

What happens if two teams want same leader ? will they get him ? or the one whit less money on paypal have to choose someone else ?

Click to expand...

Assuming that the suggestion I've made in the general forums is accepted (and it seems to be popular with everyone at the moment): if the majority of us decide that we want to keep our leader choice regardless of whether another team chooses the same leader, then we'll get to keep our leader choice. Nice and easy.

Lord Parkin said:

I'll share a few thoughts of my own on what you've written.


Actually, Axemen are just as good as Numidian Cavalry at stopping Swordsmen. The main benefit of Numidian Cavalry used to be for stopping Axemen, but now that's quite easy with Chariots. They're good skirmish units - although they require a dead-end tech, which makes them less useful.

Click to expand...

Yes, they're equal in combat, but numidian cavalry can move quicker, which is what I meant.

Lord Parkin said:

As mentioned above, Huayna is not Aggressive but Industrious. Thus, his main strength is in wonders - both world ones and national ones. He could be useful if we're intending on grabbing an early wonder like Stonehenge or the Oracle, especially if we don't have Stone or Marble. Cheaper Forges are also very handy. However, Industrious becomes less useful as the game progresses - and besides, democracy games tend to be more inclined towards war than building wonders.

Click to expand...

My bad. Getting an early wonder like the Oracle or Stonehenge could be a big plus. (Oracle sling to macemen anybody?)

Lord Parkin said:

Actually, Mansa Musa isn't too bad. The main advantage of any civ with the Spiritual trait is that you can switch civics more often to optimize your economy and production - thus you usually see more civic switches than in a regular game. (One typical switch is to Vassalage/Theocracy during wartime and Bureaucracy/Organized Religion during peacetime.)

The Skirmisher is okay as an offensive unit for really early wars, and of course it's great on the defense in the early game. Though it likely won't see much action in this kind of game.

Overall, I definitely wouldn't say that Mansa is a bad pick, but perhaps we could do better.

Click to expand...

I meant that there are picks clearly better than Mansa.

Lord Parkin said:

Personally I'm not a fan of a resourceless Spearman for a UU, as there'd probably only be a very short window in the early game where such a unit would be useful before we hook up a metal (Copper or Iron). The Expansive trait is nice for the faster Workers though, and the UB is certainly decent.

Click to expand...

I meant that if we get a bad start, it can save us from getting overwhelmed by swords (or even archers...). I dont think it provides too much of an advantage otherwise.

Lord Parkin said:

I wouldn't say Elizabeth would necessarily be better, just different. Imperialistic is quite a useful trait, as it allows far faster expansion in the early game (due to the faster Settlers).

Click to expand...

You're right. I dont know why I overlooked the settlers.

Lord Parkin said:

I'm not a fan of Protective at all, mainly because I think that if you're holed up in your cities on the defense, you're already losing the war. I much prefer to fight offensively, even if being invaded. By picking the enemy off using offensive units once they enter your lands, rather than waiting in your cities for them to attack, you save your improvements from being pillaged - which stops your economy from dying and thus prevents you from being conquered later.

Click to expand...

You get a drill 1 and a city garrison. I never siad we should stay in the city if we have a little better odds there.

Lord Parkin said:

I'll admit the UU is decent, but it does have a limited window of opportunity. Once Longbows arrive, Hwachas are pretty much no better than ordinary Catapults. The UB will not see much use in a democracy game, so it's not a great deal of use.

Click to expand...

Well, if we go with Korea, we'll have another strategy to consider:emphasize construction and build an army of axes and swords to accompany the UU. We can fit our strategy to match the situation.

Lord Parkin said:

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I just thought I'd provide some alternative viewpoints to the ones you gave for some balance.

Click to expand...

I appreciate it.

LordParkin, since it seems you have the most experience i'd like to ask what you think of joaoII in Multi?

cIV_khanh93 said:

My bad. Getting an early wonder like the Oracle or Stonehenge could be a big plus. (Oracle sling to macemen anybody?)

Click to expand...

An Oracle sling to Macemen would be tricky or even impossible in a game like this. Generally in multiplayer games, the Oracle is built not much later than 1500 BC, and you'd be hard pressed to have Mathematics and Code of Laws (prerequisites to Civil Service) before then. And then you'd still need to get Metal Casting and Machinery, not exactly cheap techs.

johnle43 said:

LordParkin, since it seems you have the most experience i'd like to ask what you think of joaoII in Multi?

Click to expand...

Joao II... Expansive/Imperialistic, with the +1 sea commerce Customs House UB, and the 2 cargo space Caravel. Having both cheaper Workers and Settlers is certainly nice, and being able to expand (and invade) overseas with Optics would appear to be quite powerful. However, to be honest, he doesn't seem to be a popular choice in multiplayer games (at least ones I've played in).

I think the main reason he's not too popular in multiplayer games (at least ones I've played in) is that he lacks the traits to really benefit from all that early land he'll claim. Basically, once he's spammed out Settlers and Workers everywhere, he's left out in the cold. He's sort of similar to Boudica, I suppose: although she outwardly appears to be a powerful warmonger, she lacks the traits to take advantage of the land she gains from warmongering.

Don't get me wrong: he can be a good leader to play with, and many players can certainly play good games with him. It's just that there are generally better possibilities out there. For instance, contrast Joao II (Imp/Exp) with Julius Caesar (Imp/Org) - both share the Imperialistic trait, except Julius trades away the slightly faster Workers (Exp) for a better economy (Org). Thus, Julius has the monetary burden of all those extra cities reduced, where Joao does not. (Plus, Julius has a freaking awesome UU to top it off.)

Another good example is to compare Joao II (Exp/Imp) with Mehmed II (Exp/Org). In this case, both share the Expansionist trait, but Mehmed trades away the faster Settlers for a better economy. In addition, Mehmed gets an early and incredibly awesome UB (the +2 happiness and +2 health Aqueduct), which allows his entire empire to grow larger and be more profitable.

I guess my point is that a leader is generally best in multiplayer when their traits are somewhat balanced. Having two warmongering traits doesn't usually work too well (Boudica and Tokugawa for example), and similarly having two expansive traits doesn't work too well (Joao II).

Basically, the general rule I've found is that having two traits with the same kind of effects is often less powerful than combining two very different traits. (Perhaps the only exception is having two economic traits: Fin/Org has always been a strong combination. )

Anyway, I think I've gone on a bit too long, so I'll stop here. I hope this has been informative.