The All Leaders Challenge Game Bullpen

Rancid Sushi said:

I agree, you should prioritize unpopular leaders. I've read every single ALC so far and I've learned a lot, but I still can't win before 1900AD (I need to get 1750 before I move to from Noble to Prince). Don't forget about your noob readers. Even though the experts help you win your games, the noobs benefit the most from them. I've improved a lot because of the ALCs. Catherine is a good choice for a couple reasons: both her traits and her UU have been nerfed. It will be good to see how cope with that. You might also have a hard time with unhealthiness in your capital city. Catherine has a way of getting around.

Click to expand...

This is one of the main reasons I've thus far resisted moving up to the next level; the noobs are most vocal about keeping the ALCs at a difficulty level so they're still relevant to those on Noble and Prince and below. I get the feeling that the majority of Civ players are mid-level players. The higher levels seem to take a level of dedication that not many people can bring to the game.

I wouldn´t move up in difficulty... ...rather play out all leaders according to their traits and try to use their special units (what makes the game already harder I think).

Ranging barbs and agressive AI´s are also options I would like to see

Rancid Sushi said:

I agree, you should prioritize unpopular leaders. I've read every single ALC so far and I've learned a lot, but I still can't win before 1900AD (I need to get 1750 before I move to from Noble to Prince).

Click to expand...

I don't think you win particularly faster on lower levels. The world tech pace is faster, so yours will be through trading, so you'll win cultural, space and diplomatic perhaps faster. My first Warlords space win on Monarch was in 1948, then my very next game I had a space win on Emperor in 1898. That is to say, speed of victory should not be a deterrent from going to the next level, if you can handle it.

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.

Softnum said:

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.

Click to expand...

Yeah, go through all of them (including the new expansion) at Emperor, shouldn't take too long.

Softnum said:

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.

Click to expand...

I think if I tried that I'd get lapped by Civilization VI as well as V!

I wouldn't move up a level. Trying options such as Aggressive AI and Raging Barbarians would be the way to go.

Another option might be to limit games going to Emperor for civs in which you intend to flex your military might as soon as you can. From what I can recall from past ALCs, particularly the most recent ones, it's been the military route victories that have been pulled off the quickest. So moving to Emperor for those alone (I believe Napoleon would be the next civ with the Aggressive trait) would be fine, but stick to Monarch for others.

And I do like what somebody suggested about playing against speifics civs. Nothing wrong with picking your opponents, especially if you want to find a way to make things interesting. Imagine, for example, a game in which you have Monty, Izzy, Mehmed and Saladin all as opponents, along with whoever else happens to be a religious nut.

ratrangerm said:

I wouldn't move up a level. Trying options such as Aggressive AI and Raging Barbarians would be the way to go.

Another option might be to limit games going to Emperor for civs in which you intend to flex your military might as soon as you can. From what I can recall from past ALCs, particularly the most recent ones, it's been the military route victories that have been pulled off the quickest. So moving to Emperor for those alone (I believe Napoleon would be the next civ with the Aggressive trait) would be fine, but stick to Monarch for others.

And I do like what somebody suggested about playing against speifics civs. Nothing wrong with picking your opponents, especially if you want to find a way to make things interesting. Imagine, for example, a game in which you have Monty, Izzy, Mehmed and Saladin all as opponents, along with whoever else happens to be a religious nut.

Click to expand...

I like the Emperor for military games idea; that could come up a lot sooner than Napoleon. Ragnar and Shaka are both warming up on the sidelines; I will definitely consider moving those games up to Emperor, especially Rangar, who also has the powerful Financial trait, a UB that gives his naval units extra reach, and a UU that's an upgrade to one of the best units in the game. I think Raggy could handle Emperor, don't you?

I'm not so sure about choosing my opponents. I'll consider it, though I'll need more convincing. Part of the enjoyment of Civ for me is the process of discovery. They game is addictive and replayable because it's different everytime, and part of the fun is discovering how it's different this time. The mysteries of what is out there (the map) and who is out there (the opponents) are part of the thrill. Someone beat me to Music's free GA! Someone is going wonder-crazy! Who could it be?

Now... if someone else was to set up the game in this way and hand it off to me, that might achieve what you're after while still leaving myself and everyone else in suspense. It's also a way of making sure we don't get an isolated start. Sounds like fun, frankly, so long as you guys aren't too nasty to poor ol' Uncle Sisiutil. (Like, say, stuffing me on a rock with Monty, Shaka, and Tokugawa.) It would require some coordination that would be out of my hands, however.

I suggest waiting till Ragnar or Shaka to move up to emporor. Both of them are leaders good for both conquest and economy (Rag is financial, shaka has a half courthouse effect on his barracks). Shaka is my personal favorite, and I think watching you play him on monarch would be a bit dull if I can manage 1600AD dominations with him on prince, even with my noobishness and ineptitude running a stable SE.

Can you do more diplomatic and cultural victories? There is only one of each so far.

ordinaryguy said:

Can you do more diplomatic and cultural victories? There is only one of each so far.

Click to expand...

I'll give it a shot when circumstances allow. The current game may see a cultural victory because it's an isolated start.

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't korea right after Japan? I mean, it comes next alphabetically, Warlords was out, and Hwacha's are cool. What's not to like?

Uncle Istvan said:

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't korea right after Japan? I mean, it comes next alphabetically, Warlords was out, and Hwacha's are cool. What's not to like?

Click to expand...

At the time, aelf had just finished an EMC game with Korea and as a lot of the same people follow both our game threads, I thought it would be repetitive. So Korea got postponed.

Sisiutil said:

At the time, aelf had just finished an EMC game with Korea and as a lot of the same people follow both our game threads, I thought it would be repetitive. So Korea got postponed.

Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

IMHO you're not going to play all the leaders before civ VII.
So I'd like to suggest putting some more leaders down the list, giving a higher priority to some you really want to play.

here is a short list of those we never (or very rarely) see in SGs, GotMs or articles.

Game 31: Russia/Stalin. Who played him already?
Game 23: Celts/Brennus : can't win playing with him, and not having him as opponent would be a nice change for me.
Game 22: Arab/Saladin : the vanilla version was rather popular. Now he is not so hot anymore...

the second tier list
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka. He was a recent WotM leader, but other than this, I didn't read a lot about him. + impies are powerful, but tricky to use well.
Game 18: Spain/Isabella. There is the famous "spain on a lake" SG. Other than this, she's just my favourite leader for cultural. Who else plays her out there? + it's the only spanish leader for now
Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one .

the rest can be left out IMHO = low on the list. I'd like you to show a good praetorian push, but at least half the people on this board know how to do it.


One more thing : don't move up. Emperor is for roman leaders
One more more thing : fractal is too random, continents gave more standard games, true, but at least you didn't have the isolated starts too often.
One final more thing : don't burn yourself out.

cabert said:

Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one .

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Canadians enjoy playing with the American leaders Too much history and cross border rivalry.

It would be a bit like me playing with a French leader

Which so far I have managed to avoid ... although that is more to do with their traits than anything as biased as I am alluding to

UncleJJ said:

I'm not sure if Canadians enjoy playing with the American leaders Too much history and cross border rivalry.

It would be a bit like me playing with a French leader

Which so far I have managed to avoid ... although that is more to do with their traits than anything as biased as I am alluding to

Click to expand...

I played elizabeth once (GotM 2!), and that's it for english leaders .
But I'm not biased .
To be honest, I never played the french either except in a SG (louis in P666 03 : fix the euro trash)...
I'm sure Sisiutil's mature enough to not completely trash the game when playing an american leader .

cabert said:

IMHO you're not going to play all the leaders before civ VII.

Click to expand...

That's three iterations of the game--about 10 years if past history is any indication! Am I really going that slow?!?

cabert said:

So I'd like to suggest putting some more leaders down the list, giving a higher priority to some you really want to play.

here is a short list of those we never (or very rarely) see in SGs, GotMs or articles.

Game 31: Russia/Stalin. Who played him already?
Game 23: Celts/Brennus : can't win playing with him, and not having him as opponent would be a nice change for me.
Game 22: Arab/Saladin : the vanilla version was rather popular. Now he is not so hot anymore...

the second tier list
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka. He was a recent WotM leader, but other than this, I didn't read a lot about him. + impies are powerful, but tricky to use well.
Game 18: Spain/Isabella. There is the famous "spain on a lake" SG. Other than this, she's just my favourite leader for cultural. Who else plays her out there? + it's the only spanish leader for now
Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one .

Click to expand...

Intriguing ideas. I'll consider them. I have to confess that I'm very interested to try out Cyrus/Persia and Isabella/Spain. Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

As for America, I have the greatest respect and affection for our cousins south of the border. (I love calling them that, since it makes them do a mental double-take. ) However, I preferred Washington's trait combination before Warlords and played several vanilla games with him. Like Catherine, Genghis Khan, and Caesar, I think he got nerfed and that's unfortunate, especially since his UU and UB come so late.

I understand toning down certain game features that are borderline exploits (like the CS Slingshot, chopping, and so on). I can even live with nerfing some of the best UUs like Redcoats and Cossacks. However, I don't understand why they felt compelled to make some of the fans' favourite leaders less formidable. If a player wants a challenge, he/she can always try moving up a level or playing as a different leader; heck, I've practically made an on-line career out of the latter. The AI, on the other hand, usually needs all the help it can get. I've been tempted to change some of the traits back to their old settings for my off-line games.

(Though you can go overboard there; just for fun I made a mod that changed Julius Caesar to Aggressive and Organized, as well as replacing Fishing with The Wheel as a starting tech. Cheap barracks, easy hook-up of early resources, and especially automatic Combat I Praetorians made him ridiculously overpowered.)

Sisiutil said:

Intriguing ideas. I'll consider them. I have to confess that I'm very interested to try out Cyrus/Persia and Isabella/Spain.

Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

Click to expand...

the answer to this one is easy, war AND build. tried him, the combo may seems odd, but works nicely. Not my best game, but the map was awfull, and i somehow doubt i would have won this one with most leaders.

Build in the early game, a big romp, build again.

Sisiutil said:

Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

Click to expand...

My current theory on leaders like that is that their strength lies in their versatility. With a leader like Caesar (either one), if you don't find iron nearby, you're kind of screwed. With a leader like Ragnar, if you find yourself mostly landlocked, you're kind of screwed, at least insofar as taking advantage of his leader- and civilization-specific traits.

Somebody like Stalin can very easily react to what the map presents. If he has early access to stone and/or marble, then he can take a very wonder heavy path. If he has access to lots of horses and metal and weak and/or annoying neighbors, he can take a military route. As the game progresses, he doesn't need to plan as far ahead in order to beat others to wonders or for war. He can switch gears more agilely than most other leaders.

The same is true for most other leaders that have "bad synergies." Synergistic traits tend to narrow down your strategic options. You're stronger in one or two particular areas, but that usually makes you proportionally weaker in others.

So the trick to playing a leader like Stalin is making sure you're reacting as much as possible to what the game presents, rather than trying to force the game to go in the direction of your predetermined strategy like you might with other leaders.