Von Münchhausen II

Optional

Deity
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
2,935
Location
It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
Since there was a lot of interest in an SG, here's another thread, this one's gonna be Immortal difficulty level. Not much decided yet about the details.

The first Von Münchhausen was played as Egypt, a builderish civ, I personally would prefer a more offensive civ for this one, something different. Please name only non-DLC civs, the plan is to start the game without DLC (I've got DLC, but they can be temporarily removed from the game folder).
Also if you have ideas about victory conditions or variants, please post them. The first Von Münchhausen was Domination, but that's not the only way to play the game.
Something different from a fractal map would also be fine, if you have any suggestions.

What I prefer to stick with is the way we start; rolling 5 starts, putting them up here and have a vote about which one we like best.
 
Hi Optional. Can I grab a slot in this bad boy?

So here are some settings to throw out there. Small Continents, low sea level. This usually produces some big land masses and lots of islands, some large and usually most of the map is explorable pre Caravels. Small or standard size? We played small before but I guess that means nothing really.

I suggest quick combat as well.

For the leader how about Monty or Darius? They can both be used to play in pretty interesting ways due to their UAs. Monty (culture for each unit killed) is obviously a good choice for an aggressive game were as Darius (longer golden ages with movement and combat boosts) is more economically orientated but his economy is also good for wars.

I don't have any suggestion for victory conditions as I like to see how the map pans out usually and as for variants I'm never any good at suggesting them!
 
Darius might be the strongest civ in the game if you can get through the early turns with some momentum. With the settings grandad suggests England, Denmark (I see no DLC, so they're out), and Songhai would be good. How about Russia on a cold, wet Pangaea?

If we're looking for "more offensive" civs maybe we should focus on ones with just two UUs? I actually believe civs with a unique building are better for conquest - especially a UB with a happiness bonus like Persia or Egypt. Two UU civs that come to mind are France, Germany (I'm still a skeptic of Germany at high levels, maybe we could give them a test), Rome, and Japan. With grandad's suggested settings the Ottomans and England could be interesting.

As for my favorite settings and civs.. I prefer Pangaea maps and most of the civs I favor have useful UBs and/or a useful UA that lasts the entire game such as China, Persia, Egypt, Aztecs, and Russia. The reason I prefer pangaea is because of increased AI weakness in water and because coastal tiles offer so very little and take so long to improve (boats, lighthouse, harbor, seaport). Maybe the expansion will change this and we can look forward to a great continents SG in the near future?

OK, having spammed way too much text, I'll end my input by saying I don't really have strong feelings about any civs or settings. Optional, maybe you could post a couple of suggestions and we can just have a vote?

Another concern... did anyone else want to play at Immortal? I thought there was more than three of us.
 
So to give some idea of what the different maps look like I've rolled some starts in WorldBuilder.

First up is some good examples of Small Continents with low sea levels.
Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :



Next up Pangaea even though I'm sure we all know what this looks like!
Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :



Last is Oval which is another Pangaea type map. I actually find these more interesting than they appear.
Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 
OK after looking at both threads I think this one might want an extra player more so I can volunteer myself. I've just graduated onto emperor level myself so if we can choose a start and with some advice I think I can play at immortal level but it's somewhat unchartered territory so I will have to defer to you guys. If that's OK I can be in.
 
Nah, you didn't spam too much text there, NotSure. Glad to see you here, I had more or less counted on you, since you said you played Immortal. Also welcome to Brichals!

I'm not keen on a map that's all small islands. If we play Small Continents I would like to turn down the continent grain a little, so that there will be fewer continents (I would rather turn down the continent grain than lower the sea level). On island maps the geographical constraints can be such a pain, and there's also a high risk we will start alone on an island, which I think is boring.
With Pangaea I'm always fine, Oval does indeed also look like a nice map type.
But I'll make a suggestion: PangaeaPlus with traditional CS placement and 1/3 of the islands from the traditional PangaeaPlus mapscript. That's from a DLC pack, but you don't need the DLC anymore once the map has been created.

As for a civ, I always find that hard to decide. If I play a solo game I always go with random.
But I was thinking of civs like Rome, Songhai, Siam, China perhaps, Germany indeed. Persia could be good as well, they seem very flexible.
I like Ottomans and England, but let's save them up for after the expansion, they would even be better then.
Mongolia should be mentioned as well, I'm not counting that as a DLC civ as everybody has them. Might actually be very nice for an SG, and I haven't played them much myself.
Yeah, Siam and Mongolia are real contenders for me. If some of us are a bit apprehensive about Immortal then a strong civ looks attractive. What do others think about Siam or Mongolia?
 
Siam or Mongolia sound good. I've never finished a game as Siam so maybe them? Mongolia are indeed fun and its one of the few times you'll build chariot archers (to get those early ranged promos).

Pangaea + is also a nice map type. I'm happy with a Pangaea style map. I prefer the exploration of more water based maps in offline play but your right it might be boring if we're isolated or have poor expansion options in an SG.

Also hi there Brichals! Looking foward to playing with you again.
 
I don't know why I didn't think of Siam when I was making my list. I like either one of those. I saw someone refer to Mongolia and Babalon as "training wheel" civs for moving up :lol:. I think Mongolia is a good choice. Even if people are uncomfortable or inexperienced at Immortal, they'll probably be willing to give it a go with Mongolia. Pangaea plus with regular CS placement is also an excellent idea, especially with Mongolia :mischief:
 
This all sounds very promising. I think I would like to try Siam actually, but I appreciate how Mongolia might be better at higher levels. I think Siam might make a more varied game, yet a little more difficult.
 
Nice to see you also got a team, if CornMaster is interested playing immortal, someone might want to give him a reminder?

My team is full, with 5 players and one pending, so we're ready to give the votes on what map we're gonna play.

Best of luck, guys! :)
 
Nice to see you also got a team, if CornMaster is interested playing immortal, someone might want to give him a reminder?

My team is full, with 5 players and one pending, so we're ready to give the votes on what map we're gonna play.

Best of luck, guys! :)

I'll PM CornMaster. Good to see your SG looking so lively Gozpel. I'm really looking forward to watching that, you rolled a lot of good starts.
 
Siam is fun to play. The free Wat thing, the elephants (like rifles in the medieval area), better gifts from city states... all very nice.
 
The starts, could be a tough choice again:







The ones with nice resources have rubish terrain and the ones with nice terrain have rubbish resources. But I've just rolled 5 starts in a row, so it's RMG. I'm interested to hear what you'll think of these!
 
Oh boy they look tough.

In 1 I think we maybe couldnt use all those sugars as we would need farms on the floodplains, or maybe start with a farm and then turn to plantation if we get maritime city states.

2 not much there but we get ivory and must be some of the strategic resources, it's just too bare otherwise. If we pop some horses could be nice.

3. maybe my favourite. A good stoneworks city. Would be nice with Temple of Helicarnassus (the new one that gives gold for marble/stone) But I'm not sure we will use DLC or whether its a good idea to beeline wonders on immortal.

4. Like 2 but without ivory, I think I prefer 2.

5. nah, don't like personally

I'd say 2 or 3, 2 could be good if a couple of horses pop up in range.

1 could be good if we get food from maritimes.

I think we might have to gamble here, they don't look like obviously good starts but they should be evenly balanced in theory shouldn't they, give or take some RNG.
 
Yikes... I say we go with 5 and eat frozen rocks! :lol: 2-4 seem ok. I'll go with 2.

About 3: Is the settler on a hill? I'd be tempted to move him to the gems but that puts the marble too far away.

Ya, I'm gonna stick with 2. Move the warrior to take a peek west or south (I suspect that's coast south, so maybe move him west to see if there's other luxuries or bonus food there). Move the settler 1 NE or N. NE puts us on a river hill with equal distance to the gold and ivory. N gives us the river hill, immediate access to the Ivory, and wheat soon after. No masonry resource, so we can stay on an Education or Chivalry beeline with fewer diversions.
 
Blimey.

What a bevy of plain Janes.

1: Lots of sugar is nice for selling but all its desert and food poor due to the sugar on the flood plains. As Brichals says, with a maritime or 2 this isn't to bad. Nail in the coffin for me is that its also hammer poor from what I can see.

2: Food poor. Resource poor as well. I guess there will be horses or Iron in there somewhere. If you settled on the hill the warrior is on or the plains next to it then you can get the water wheel for more food. Ivory guarantees a Circus.

3: For me this is the best of the bunch. Good stoneworks city plenty of production if still a little food light. Other downside is that the Masonry route means a longer trip to writing etc.

4: Why does your RNG hate food Optional?! Also food poor. Being plains we can't build a stone works for extra :) and :c5production: Also is that tundra on the southern edge of the fog?

5: Lots of resources but ultimately its still a tundra start.

For warrior movement I'd say (if we're moving them before we make our choice).

1: 2NE. Looking to move the settler that way as well.
2:1SW1W
3:Move onto the diamonds.
4: Don't care really, umm, 1E1NE?
5:1NW

As things stand I would go 3 as my first choice. 1 could be ok as well. Plenty of gold for CSs. 2 maybe as well.....
 
They all have their annoying bits.

No 1; worst of the bunch, I think, nice resources and I don't mind the lack of food, but there's no way to make this productive. There could be a whole lot more desert south of us here as well.
No 2; I would jump on the coastal hill for settling with this one, but there's a sort of minimum of resources here.
No 3; no abundance of stuff, but very productive with a stone works, that probably makes some 8 hammers per turn difference with the other starts. The settler is on a forest, no hill. It looks like coast south of the mountain, so I would move the warrior the other way. Between the settler and the gems is a marsh tile.
No 4; 2 rivers is nice, but again a minimum of resources visible, and we wouldn't be able to build a stone works. Yeah, south of it is tundra.
No 5; the best resources, but it would have been a lot better with more forest. Very unproductive at the start, you would want to jump on top of the hill-river to have a slightly more productive start, but then 2 furs are falling outside the city radius.

I believe no 3 is best.

CornMaster, more people were apprehensive about Immortal, so I understand. I don't think my starts have swung many people as well. :crazyeye:
The other thread on Emperor is kinda full. Perhaps some swap can still be made. There were people there who said they played Immortal as well, but quite a few were new to SG, so it's understandable they try to play 'safe'. Keep lurking!
 
I changed my last post 'cause apparently I'm dyslexic. If the warrior moves west (not east) on 2 there might be another luxury or bonus food along the river. That would clearly make it a better start. As it stands now, 2 still looks a little better mainly because of the production potential. We get 5 food with a granary & watermill and 5 hills plus the hill we settle on. Our first 4 farms are riverside plains. I also like this map because I think I see coast, which reduces the odds of having to fighting AI in every possible direction. Then, of course, the benefit of not having to research masonry or Bronze Working for a while.

I mentioned Bronze Working because I'm wondering if that's jungle on those gems (start #3). If that's jungle, and there isn't another luxury just south or west of it, then I don't like it. If the tile the settler is on is next to a river, then 3 might be every bit as good as 2 - maybe better. We could even risk it if that's jungle covering the gems. We could move the warrior first. If he doesn't reveal anything spectacular, then settle in place, bite the bullet and research Masonry (and possibly Bronze Working). If he reveals another Mining or Trapping luxury, then we're golden.
 
Top Bottom