LotR14 -- RAW (and uncut?)

World Size: Small
World Type: Pangea
Rest random (including barbs)
Civ: Aztecs -- DISCUSS PLEASE!
Version: 1.22
Opponents: 31
Variants: Always War

I am also considering the following rules for armies:
- Armies may not pillage (too easy to take advantage of the fact that the AI will not attack them)
- Armies may only be stacked with other armies (again, an army and a stack of artillery = certain death to a city because the army won't be attacked) except inside cities

I *think* this will limit the overwhelming power of armies, while still making them very cool back-breaking units to rally around and fight with/for. Pillaging is still allowed, but not by indestructible armies.

Probable roster (not necessarily in this order):
Arathorn
Kylerean
Reagan
T-hawk
Speaker

Before starting, though, I want some discussion of initial moves. I'm thinking I'll only take 10 to start with, as this game will be all about the early years, I imagine.

Questions:
- Join the worker immediately for more immediate shields? Doing this, we can crank out a few jags ASAP and maybe eliminate a couple foes right off the bat, hopefully even capturing a couple slaves to make up for the lost worker. I'm leaning in favor of doing this.
- Aztecs and jags are the "natural" choice for this, I think. Do we want to go with that option? Or try something different/more challenging?
- Since I'm modding anyway, I'll do the shields killed thing again, as I found that interesting, and, of course, no lethal bombers (not that I think that has even a remote chance of mattering). Any other requests?
- Do the proposed limitations for armies make sense?

Other comments:
- I want a bit of discussion before actually starting this. I also need to make myself doing something besides the SAW game at the computer… I'm thinking/hoping to start about Tuesday of next week.
- What am I forgetting?
- Everybody still in?

Arathorn

Thanks for including me, Arathorn. This looks like it will be a fun and challenging game. Here are my quick thoughts about the game's parameters. They are just that -- quick, off the top of my head ramblings.

- small world size - Wow! Will there be room for any civ to have more than their initial city? If not, then the worker merge makes sense. Rushing a neighboring civ or two will maybe put us in a dominant position within the first fifty turns or so. We'll immediately enter a golden age, so we can afford to go a few turns without a native worker because of the despotism penalty. We should snag enough slaves in the early going to be able to do make up for the loss of our initial worker.

- civ choice - I agree that the Aztecs are one of the top alternatives. Greece would certainly be up there, too. What about the Babs? Bowmen could be a useful multi-purpose unit in this scenario. I'd rate them in that order. The Aztecs' jag warriors will be good for an early rush and for contacting a lot of civs early. Greece would be good if we think we'll be swamped with opposing attackers early. On Regent level, though, that should be less of a problem and defense through offense will likely be better. Let's just hope we're not close to Carthage, Greece, and/or Rome at the beginning.

- armies - I agree that we should limit our use of armies for pillaging. Maybe we should allow them to pillage one tile per turn or only pillage resources/luxuries, though. Limiting their ability to stack with other units is conceptually OK, but I think we should be able to (in good faith, of course), stack units with armies temporarily when it is the most efficient thing to do (e.g., there's only one open tile next to an enemy city, etc.). We're all RB participants and are used to playing within the spirit of such rules.

I'm looking forward to this!

Checking in.

Worker merge - it'll depend on the initial terrain. I'd say to get a cow or wheat irrigated first if we get one, but then merge the worker.

Civ choice - Aztecs are clearly the best, but the Jaguar changes the dynamics so much that it becomes a different game than with any other civ. I think the Zulu would actually make for the best experience. Babylon and Greece have good UUs, but the civ traits are mediocre at best. Any UU that requires a resource will come too late, and the Carthage and Mayan UUs are too expensive.

Armies - I like Arathorn's rules as written.

Checking in.

Pretty much agree with T-Hawk on all points, although I'm not so sure about army restrictions. On a small map I don't see us amassing enough cities to have more than 3-4 for most of the game, so I don't have a problem with unlimited pillaging, however, I don't care enough to make an issue about it. Whatever the team wants is fine by me.

Hi,

checking in - after managing 160+ cities, I'm looking forward to this.

Civ choice: Don't have a strong opinion on this, only that I agree that it should be one with a very early UU that doesn't need a resource to be built.
Reagan wrote:

The Aztecs' jag warriors will be good for an early rush and for contacting a lot of civs early.

Click to expand...

Why would want to contact a lot of civs early?

Early worker merge: Wow, very counter-intuitive idea - I'm not sure if I like it or not. We would gain an extra worked tile equalling an extra shield in the beginning compared to the rest of the civs, but still would need a lot of turns to amass our early army to rush the nearest AI and get slaves. During this time, their workers will have mined at least one tile, so we might actually lose the advantage then. But if we keep the worker, more intelligent use of it (like not irrigating grassland, for example) would give us the same advantage anyway but more long-term potential. It might need some time until we will have captured slaves and escorted them back, depending on the number of early contacts we have to defend against, so I'd vote against the merge.

Armies: I like the proposed limitations.

How do we want to set the AI aggression setting? 32 civs on a small map probably means every civ will get only one city, maybe even with overlap in some cases. So I expect several AIs starting ultra-early wars among themselves. This would make the game a lot easier for us - do we want this? I wouldn't mind setting AI aggression to the lowest possible setting to prevernt too many AI-AI wars.

-Kylearan

Why would want to contact a lot of civs early?

So I expect several AIs starting ultra-early wars among themselves. This would make the game a lot easier for us - do we want this? I wouldn't mind setting AI aggression to the lowest possible setting to prevernt too many AI-AI wars.

I'm operating on about four hours of sleep, so I may be missing something here, but I think you answered your own question, my friend. It seems like dragging the AI into a war early forces them to enter almost single-minded military mode. Given that there's going to be a ton of enemy territory between each remote civ and us (they won't have ROPs until Writing), it's going to take them a long time to reach us. On a pangaea map, we should be able to drive a jag to the opposite side of the map from us and start working around the edges of the map contacting and warring with civs that will not be able to reach us for quite awhile.

The idea of merging the worker is directly connected with getting the Golden Age. With that, bonus grasslands produce 2 shields instead of 1, and with the despotism penalty, mines on BG squares would be irrelevant. Then the idea is to get slave workers going by the time the GA ends. Of course, if we have few BG or several food bonuses, the worker labor will be necessary.

It occurs to me that Greece (and Carthage) have the advantage that they can park a hoplite/numidian on top of workers, which the AI probably won't attack. And hoplites can go pillaging as well. Not sure if that'd be a good thing, or again if it'd skew the game to do something like that that only one civ can do...

Sorry I've been so slow responding; I've been dealing with a lot of family health issues. Just very time-consuming and tiring and things like Civ3 get left behind in such cases. Add in a fairly heavy load at work, and my time to think about this game has been much less than I'd hoped.

I want to talk a bit more about an early worker merge. If we put two citizens working forests and the center square, we'd get 5 spt. We could have a regular (endiku) warrior out in 3900 BC. No other civ will be able to stand against that -- we don't need to build up an army -- a single unit is enough. On Regeant, there are no AI starting units, remember? A jag could be made in 3850 BC. Yes, it essentially completely sacrifices growth, but isn't an extra city or two or three WORTH that in the early going? I have to think yes.

Do the immediate merge and build two or three units and THEN pop the worker back out and start growing? We could have 3 or 4 cities before anybody else has more than one, plus, potentially, a slave or two, if we can capture the workers right. I think speed is more valuable than the 2 defense at this point.

Aztecs or Sumerians are the way I'm leaning. Bowmen would be good, too, but they need a tech. I'll admit some fascination with the 3-man chariot, too. I'd love to get a couple guys out EXTREMELY early to go a-conquering before the AI even gets its first unit built.

Reasons for Aztecs:
- FAST unit early.
- Militaristic and religious are both incredibly useful.

Reasons for Sumerians:
- 10-shield spear? Hello, defense!
- Agricultural, so some growth possible even if working two forests.

I think we'll go with the army rule as written. Slight bendings as forced by terrain might be OK, but let's not go with "spirit of the rule" stuff, as that just gets messy. Armies are essentially independents for us -- they work on their own schedule and location.

The other option is to take a completely random civilization and pop out a couple regular warriors and see what happens. I'd be fine with that, too.

BTW, I got 1.22 downloaded and set up, but I haven't made the mod yet. No time! Hopefully, tonight, so get your final civ votes in.

Arathorn

If your roster isn't already filled, I'd be willing to play.

Hmm. I see Arathorn is thinking in the shorter term than any of the rest of us. An AI capital that doesn't have a 2-food 2-shield square (forest-game or plains-cattle) can't have a warrior until turn 5 at the earliest. If such an AI capital is within 4 squares of ours, a jaguar that comes out on turn 3 could conquer an AI capital on turn 4 without the AI being able to do a thing about it.

I think that seems kinda unfair to the AI, although it'd certainly be a great position for us. More to the point, though, I think that's actually fairly unlikely. Even a small map can fit at least 60 cities worldwide... that's enough space that it's unlikely there'd be any AI capitals within four squares of ours. More than four squares and the AI will get a warrior up for defense by the time we'd get a jaguar there. (An AI capital with no bonus grassland or other 2-food 1-shield tiles at all would need 10 turns for a warrior, but we can't count on that either.)

Combat will be necessary to conquer a city, and we don't want to risk our one and only jaguar in a 1-on-1 fight for such a combat. The best window might be when we have 2 jaguars, before the enemy can get a second warrior on defense. This would happen between turns 7-9. (The first jag can venture out and look for an undefended target to hit solo, but he's unlikely to find one.)

Or, the better approach might be to play defense early as in a standard AW game, going on the offensive once we have a stack capable of hitting a city. With the Sumerians, we'd keep the worker working and the city growing, defending both with Enkidus, then attack with 3-4 archers or swords. I'd prefer this approach over an Aztec ultra-rush.

BTW, would the 31 civs parameter also mean the map would have a quantity of resources (both strategic and luxury) for 31 civs?

Yom, I think the roster is indeed full.

Assuming a careful approach vector, it should be possible to capture a worker (slave) with an attacking Enkidu, and then pillage any already developed tiles in the vicinity. This will render that particular Civ useless since they will have no tile improvements, and will not build a worker in their single city for a long time, while at war.

I vote for the Aztecs, however, only because I have used the Sumerians in several solo games I've played since C3C came out and I'd rather play a more offensive game with the Jag than defensive with the Enkidu.

I tried to get this started tonight, but I must've done something wrong when I was editing the rules and I got some seriously funky techs for the Aztecs, as well as a bunch of incorrect build possibilities (including regular warriors).

I'll try again tomorrow night.

In the meantime, I think T-hawk's assessment is accurate but flawed. I don't expect the AI to build a warrior. What's the first thing an AI capital builds -- pretty much every time? A settler. And it's extremely unlikely to change that build -- especially if we can manage to attack from outside its borders.

I'm going to go Aztecs and probably a worker merge, depending on the terrain. Bold and different....

But I gotta figure out the problems with the modifications I made first.

Arathorn

as well as a bunch of incorrect build possibilities (including regular warriors).

Click to expand...

Play a normal game as the Aztecs. Warriors are a valid build now, and Jags cost more.

Play a normal game as the Aztecs. Warriors are a valid build now, and Jags cost more.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah. I had figured that out. And that Aztecs are now Agricultural instead of Religious. But it doesn't explain how/why the Aztecs ended up starting with Bronze Working and The Wheel in my first attempt.

I think I got it all figured out with my second mod attempt, so I will be hopefully posting a start tonight.

Arathorn

The AIs always build a settler first on Emperor and higher because they've got the free units to protect the capital and settler. On Regent, they start by building military first. The AI doesn't send out settlers unescorted.

Go with the Aztecs if you must, but I stand by my assessment that we won't capture any enemy capital uncontested (unless we find one with no 2-food 1-shield tiles that would take 10 turns to build its the first warrior.) Two attacking jaguars against one warrior on defense is the more likely scenario; that may well happen.

The AI doesn't send out settlers unescorted.

Click to expand...

This is not true - I've seen just that occasionally. Not often, but it happens, at least in mid-game. But I agree that they probably won't do this in the beginning.

I'm also still sceptical about the ultra-early rush; too much dependant on the dice for my taste. Although I have to admit it would be interesting to see if it really works...

Interesting thought regarding the number of resources. Nearly every capital starting with nearly all resources would be funny.

-Kylearan

OK. I'm attaching a bunch of pictures, but they'll all be at the end. I included a picture of our starting location.

I do join the worker and work two forests for 5 spt. I start BW @ max.

By 3900, I can see borders to the NE and to the SE. The first jag completes interturn and I order another, due in 3 turns.

In 3850, I move two south and get no contact.

3800 - I'm faced with a decision. Eliminate England or try to get a slave and risk them building a unit. See picture. I go for the slave. Half the initial worker has been reclaimed. Oh, and, well, I didn't contact Lizzie to try to trade. Excitement of the opening and all that. We'll probably meet lots of people, but I do feel bad about wasting the opportunity multiple times.

3750 - My earliest date for a destruction, but England is GONE. See picture. A second jag completes in the interturn and I order up a third at 5 spt and then we can think about growth.

I was hoping a bit of culture would get us a city to keep. London would've been very convenient, but it autorazes. Bummer.

In 3700, I capture an Ottoman worker (two slaves. Back to a full worker value!) past England, but Istanbul is defended by a warrior. 3 hp attack at 1 vs. 3 hp defense at 1.35 is not my idea of a good plan. I'll continue to explore.

In 3650, I find that our Northern neighbor is Greece. !$!@$(@& and I capture a third slave. Athens is defended by a warrior. Attacking there is a bit more enticing, as it wouldn't be auto-razed after a cultural expansion and I hate the prospect of facing hoplites, but I want to wait for a second jag to arrive.

By 3550, I see a scout -- a Russian scout in odd colors east of Greece. Cathy gives us BW and 20 gold for Warrior Code (hey, I remembered to trade!) and we declare on her as well. OH, and borders are every-frickin-where. We have room for a city or two, but it is CROWDED.

In 3500, I move a couple jags next to Athens, but it's now defended by a hoplite. They must've whipped it out. Mega-bummer.

Only 10 turns, which is short for a start, but things are already hopping. We have 3 slaves, but we're a bit behind in general improvements. We have an unmet neighbor to the NW and the borders east of Greece are definitely a different color from Russia, so LOTS more neighbors to meet and greet.

Oh, and luxuries do abound. No idea on strategic resources, though, yet.

Roster (I'm shaking up the order some):
Reagan -- UP NOW
T-hawk -- ON DECK
Speaker
Kylerean
Arathorn

just to give us a bit different perspectives from some of the other games (I think).

Arathorn

Looks like a nice start Arathorn. 1 foe down, 30 to go. Go get 'em Reagan.

Arathorn said:

England is GONE.

Click to expand...

OK, color me wrong. I would've thought we'd get to keep the city, but I guess 1 culture isn't sufficient to prevent an autoraze; it needs 10 or more...?

By the time we get jaguars anywhere else, the AIs will have at least two warriors or a spear on defense; it'll take at least 4-5 jaguars to hit any more cities.

Reagan, if you could get it back soon or swap with me so I could play Thursday, it'd be appreciated, as I'll be away from my Civ3 computer for the holiday weekend Friday - Monday.

Let's go ahead and swap, T-hawk. I may have some time to play on Friday and definitely can on Sunday.