SG Lurkers, ready?

Hello!

Brief history: I've played Civ since the beginning (Civ1)
I've always been a Wondermonger.
I've lurked the SG forums here for years; however, I've also been disappointed when the majority of SG games I've read resort towards warmongering.

My Perfect game: Aesthetically pleasing, perfect city placement.
In the many many hours of Civ games I've played, I've yet to achieve this.

CivIV: I've played stictly Noble so far; either I lose early to Barbarians, or I'm the point leader, but as yet I cannot achieve cultural/diplomatic victories.

Goal for this SG:
1) Spark interest w/ other lurkers
2) Hone decision making
3) Play an interesting builder game without resorting to warmongering to win
4) Challenge skill level.
5) Build Wonders!

If anyone is interested:
Prince level for warlord/noble players.
Cultural, diplomatic, domination win, or TBD (to be determined.)

Essentially, we want to compete with the AI for techs/Wonders without resorting to military rushes.

If there's any interest. let's discuss Civ/leader traits.

EDIT:
Joiners so far as I can tell. There's a lot, but that's good.

Luv Muffin
Scowler
Percinho
Sir Toma
Greggo
Liquidated

We'll adhere to Lk's rules if that's okay.

Level: Prince
Map: Large (My PC can handle huge too). If large is not okay, let me know. I've yet to play anything smaller than large.
Map type: Open for discussion. Personally, I love Terra maps.
Leader candidates:
Since we want to build Wonders, but want it to be challenging (eep) let's eliminate Industrous. To that end, though, I think we should consider a Philosophical leader (for the Great People trait)

Saladin -- Arabs
Elizabeth -- English
Frederick -- Germans
Alexander -- Greeks
Peter -- Russians

Alternatively, even though he does have Industrous, Napoleon. But, he does have the Aggressive straight (along with Alexander.)
Here's why: Thinking of doing Raging Barbarians. This will help with the military aspect of the game.

Game setup: No Space victory, no city razing, permanent alliance, culture flip possible after conquest.
Varient: Cannot declare war (but we can press the war if declared on)
Automatic loss: Failure to build Three Gorges Dam.

Still interested?
P.S.: Need to be patched.

***
Ok, standard 48 hours got it, 24 hours played.
See below for starting candidates.

Map type:
Large
Balanced or Terra
Sea level: Low

Turn order:
Blackluck
Liquidated
Luv_Muffin
Scowler
Percinho
Sir Toma
Greggo

Turn order: We each start with 20, then 10 each.

Civ candidates:
Incas -- Financial, Aggressive
Greeks -- Philosophical, Aggressive
Napolean--Industrous, Aggressive
State your preference!

From my private games, Philosophical seems stronger to me than Financial.
The Great People rate can overcome pretty much any other trait IMO.
We'll start Sunday. Patched, and with the Civ choice.

Game leader name will be (what else?) Lurker.
Civ: Greece
Map: Large, balanced, medium sea level, and tropical.

I'll post the initial map either tonight or early tomorrow, then will post the first turn log tomorrow late afternoon early evening.

not really a lurker but I too was stung by original civ. keep in mind, my sleep pattern was stung, not me


My play style specializes on infrastructure and culture building. If given my own choice in games I don't ever attack other civs.

I have been forcing myself to play games were I must fight just so I can get my mind around how attack/ defense goes. So far so um ugly in that respect but I'm learning.

I can solidly beat noble level peacefully (it's the warlike situations were I suck) so would be up for the next step up in terms of difficulty.. hmm prince?

As for civs I really love cathy for her combination of creative and financial. Those two traits really work well together and cossasks are nice UU's. If wonder building is a must, then an industrious leader would be nice. Ghandi and um qin shi come to mind. Really love the financial trait as commerce can be tailored as the civ requires.

If you are looking for a newer person that loves a peaceful game, can count me in. No need for strict no-war but I have to goad myself to attacks other civs.

I have yet to even come close to a cultural victory on noble, standard maps, normal speed. Not sure if I just do not have the concept of spliting culture to three cities or it's innaitely difficult at that level/map combination of play.

Anyway, I'd love an infrastructure based SG.

Cheers!
-Liq

A bit too sleepy to pick leader traits atm, but industrious sounds like a must for wonder building. I'm also a fairly good builder on noble, but tend to hope everyone else is as peaceful as me.

This usually results in my poor civ being way ahead in tech and way behind in defense and getting attacked by the mongols who're sharing my island (they have the smaller half) and rapidly losing 3 border towns in about 10 turns rite around 1000AD.

Not that I'm bitter.

I'd like to join,

Greggo

i'd be willing to join.

It'd be my first SG so i hope thats not a problem. I now don't have to reveal the map thanx to the new patch

For civ i would say either Qin (chinese) or Mansa Musa (Mali). Both have financial. Qin because of the industrious trait, Mansa because of the spiritual trait and the fact he has an early and good unique unit (skirmisher).

Anyway i'd love to play

EDIT: i have yet to beat the game on Noble but only because i quit after it gets boring (with a revealed map its far too easy) so Prince would be okay for me. (I wooped warlord with Gandhi)

I'd definitely be interested in this sort of game. Long time player, first time for an SG, but this looks like the right game for me. I'm a culture vulture when it comes to civ, so if there's room then sign me up.

Cheers.

I came relatively late to the TBS genre so my first experiences were from playing SMAC, and I found myself gravitating naturally towards the builder factions. The warmongering AI in Civ3 could be unnerving at times, so I never felt quite as comfortable playing it.

I'm currently playing a builder-style game as Peter on Monarch. I'm behind on points, but am now catching up with the AI. I was able to grab an early religion and convert my nearest neighbour (Cyrus), who has been my best buddy throughout the game, protecting me from any immediate threat of invasion and allowing me to build to my heart's content. I now have defensive pacts with him and Mansa Musa and we are just starting the space race.

Monarch is tough for a builder, because the AI races ahead in tech and is able to grab most of the wonders. Peter was given to me as a random leader, but his expansive trait has been useful: + 2 health allowed me to grow my cities effectively and boost production, without unhealthiness becoming an issue.

Making at least one ally (preferably via religious conversion) and counteracting the AI's initial tech sprint are probably the most pressing concerns for a builder at this level. The finance boost from founding a religion allows you to keep the science funding as high as possible, and good relations with others keeps tech trading a viable option (as well as preventing war!). Barbarians can be troublesome, but they can also be helpful if you are careful, promoting your units at regular intervals - good city placement that makes the most of defensive bonuses helps.

Sounds interesting.

I haven't played a SG, so this would be my first.
I have been playing Civ4 on nobel since I've opened the box, so Prince Level for me according to your rules. (*Eeek!*)

I specialize in the "moral victory", a less known about victory condition for .
I am amazing (or terrible) with all nations/leaders, so I have no preference.
Not afraid of a good fight, but don't go looking for wars either.

Go Lurkers!

It's cool to play a variant game with no wars, but most games don't have that variant. The problem for you is that in almost every game the best route to success is to wage at least one war. Whether you're going for a space race victory, a diplomatic victory, a cultural victory, or whatever, waging at least one war will improve your game. So if there's no variant rule in place to limit wars then going to war at least once is an obvious choice.

Oops, forum ate my initial reply.

See the edit on top.

The varient here Shillen will be cannot declare war, but can wage war if declared.

Sounds pretty straightforward.

Will try a few games with a large map, give old Bonaparte a spin too, just in case we decide to go that way, and give my pc a workout.

Any of the philosophical rulers sound good as well, just looking at the specs of each of them.
* Fredrick... Hmmm, likes universal sufferage, bit of a culture boost (early game bonus), enjoys long walks with his panzers...
* Saladin... Theocratic, camel archers, spiritual, cool looking beard.
* Elizabeth... Financial (cha-ching), free religion, red coat, drives on the wrong side of the road.
* Alexander...Agressive, Heriditary rule, phalanx. Does not play well with others.
* Peter... Expansive, Police State, Cossacks (they just sound cool, don't they?)

Should be fine, I exceed specs... but you know how things went pre-patch.

Whatever map size, style is groovy with me. I'll just adapt.
Raging Barbarians, huh?
Anything else, like our attacks have to be made with settlers or something?
Just kidding, I'm down with it.

I second raging barbs... those are fun.

I'll stand by my financial preferance as it by far my favorite so far. The secondary traits all work well with financial such that anything from agressive to spiritual is fine. Not a big fan of organized for low difficulty games as civic costs don't really get crippling until monarch +. I do not hate on organized, I just feel the other traits are more useful at prince or lower.

As for maps, I normally play standard sized but large is fine (can run huge as well np but well they are huge!). Not a big fan of the terra maps but sometimes bog standard continents really place one or two civs in a really bad position.

Like the varient restrictions. I've been getting into the habit of turning off space race victories as it was an 'unfun' way to finish a game. Might be different post 1.09 patch but holidays limiting civ time.

Running patched and solid.. haven't crashed since 1.09 and could even load an old save that I would stall on loading, 1.00 release. That was my old '1.00 patch litmus test' save, hope I don;t need a new one for 1.09

Cheers!
-Liq

I like the finacial trait, too.
I had a game with Catherine where I managed to found Judaism. I've never seen this, but it spread like wildfire: Every turn, "Judaism spreads to..."

Half the world had it as their state religion in the early A.D.'s. That, with coastal cities and cottages, Catherine had 3500 gp in her war chest , and was earning nearly 200 gpt at 100% science before the advent of marketplaces. It was wild. Course, I had a really good map. Too bad I didn't get Pyramids heh. Cha'ching!

At any rate, I'm thinking the dowdy Elizabeth might be a good choice here as finacial/philo have a pretty good synergy. Or maybe the Incas with their early UU, aggresive trait and mysticism starting tech which might allow us to go for Stonehenge/Parthenon (forgoing my choice of philosophical.)

I've never played raging barbs, but on some maps I've been over run with barbs on normal. Having strong early military units seems as if might come in handy (I've lost plenty of warriors to lions and bears!)

Luv_Muffin: There's a varient: Settlers must be sent out alone!
Kidding!

Liquidated said:

not really a lurker but I too was stung by original civ. keep in mind, my sleep pattern was stung, not me


My play style specializes on infrastructure and culture building. If given my own choice in games I don't ever attack other civs.

I have been forcing myself to play games were I must fight just so I can get my mind around how attack/ defense goes. So far so um ugly in that respect but I'm learning.

I can solidly beat noble level peacefully (it's the warlike situations were I suck) so would be up for the next step up in terms of difficulty.. hmm prince?

As for civs I really love cathy for her combination of creative and financial. Those two traits really work well together and cossasks are nice UU's. If wonder building is a must, then an industrious leader would be nice. Ghandi and um qin shi come to mind. Really love the financial trait as commerce can be tailored as the civ requires.

If you are looking for a newer person that loves a peaceful game, can count me in. No need for strict no-war but I have to goad myself to attacks other civs.

I have yet to even come close to a cultural victory on noble, standard maps, normal speed. Not sure if I just do not have the concept of spliting culture to three cities or it's innaitely difficult at that level/map combination of play.

Anyway, I'd love an infrastructure based SG.
Cheers!
-Liq

Click to expand...

Sorry about the giant quote but it was the only way i could reply to the thread. My internet is seriously screwed up at the moment but should be okay in a few days. If you start the game and my turn comes around and my internet is still screwed then just skip me.

I would disagree about a Philo/Fin leader because they don't work well together. for a financial leader you want to build cottages for food while for a philosophical leader you would want farms for food so you can support specailists. still its your choice

I've not had a chance to patch the game yet, but I'll be doing so this weekend. I'll give the PC a run out on a large map to make sure it can handle things. Have had no problems so far, but I'll reserve final judgement until I've tested the patch for myself.

As regards the traits, if we're looking at raging barbarians then I'd throw in my hat for an agressive leader. I've been guilty recently of underdefending and then lost half my civ to a sneak attack! Looking at luv_muffin's analysis, I'd say Alexander sounds good. Defensive UU looks good. However, I think you'll find that it's everybody else that drives on the wrong side of the road!

Haven't played above noble yet, but I think I'm ready to step up a level now. Never played a Terra either, but it sounds....challenging. I'm a big fan of archipelagos personally, but whichever map type is good with me.

Are we waiting for the "un-patched" to get set-up?
Once Blackluck is ready to start, we should be good to go, right?
Whoever thinks Blackluck should start tonight, say aye!
*Aye* Heh heh. (*Teasing*)
Order of play is like it is written at the top of the thread? And have we decided who many turns/per player we will be using?

I've been pearl harbored myself, Percinho. I'll try to keep an eye on the info screen, and keep our military ranking at a reasonable level. Hate it when the AI crashes my wonder-building parties. You and I can remind each other about our traumatic experiences from un-invited armies messing with us.

Ok, hello again.

I guess this means we should get started, eh?

Having had my read end handed to me on numerous games between barbs and militristic civs, and, seeing as we are doing raging, here are the three candidates:

Incas - Finacial, Aggressive
Greeks -- Philosophical, Aggressive
Napolean-- Industrous, Aggressive

Let me set the turn order above.

Thanks again for the interest!
I'm thinking we'll start Sunday.
See the original post!

Extra post here, see top!

I vote:

1. Napolean-- Industrous, Aggressive
2. Greeks -- Philosophical, Aggressive
3. Incas - Finacial, Aggressive

Unless of course we decide not to use industrious, in which case greece first.

I'm patched and looking forward to start.

Greggo

Sir Toma

I would disagree about a Philo/Fin leader because they don't work well together. for a financial leader you want to build cottages for food while for a philosophical leader you would want farms for food so you can support specailists. still its your choice

Click to expand...

I agree... where did I bring up financial and phil though?

My favorite leader is cathrine who is creative and financial.... I never once mentioned phil in that post.... did I? As for phil itself, I have yet to fully understand the art of poping out great people so I kinda leave out the phil trait for now. Your post confuses me though.

I'm easy about leaders, other than skipping organized for prince level as I stated before. that leaves out rome.

I HATE starting games next to the incas so I'm biased there.

If we are skipping industrous then greece sounds good.

My choices:
1. Inca
2. Napolean
3. Greek (Rats! That phalanx looks so much better than the others UU's)

Whatever, I'm not going to stress about this. I'll be happy playing whatever is decided. I'll be thinking more about what the terrain is going to look like once we start the game. If we start on a tundra tile...