MB3 - Old Testament Bunfight

Roster:

Space
Karasu
Northern Pike
Ted Jackson
Earp (UP)
mad-bax


Game Parameters:
Difficulty Deity
Landform Standard - Pangea - Cool - Wet - Young - Min Water
Barbs Roaming
Opponents 10 civs with Ancient age UUs'
Victory Domination
Software PTW 1.27




<<The Save>>

Hi guys,

Although the game won't start 'till September 1st I've opened the thread so you can discuss what you want to do.

Originally the game was to be set up as follows:-

Difficulty - Deity
Landform - Standard, cool, wet, continents, min water.
10 opponents with AA UU's.
Victory condition - Conquest.
Playable Civ TBD.

OTOH what do I know? So if you think the game would be too crowded and would prefer to play a large map or with fewer civs then please say.

Playing as one of the AA civs would be a possibility.

If you would prefer to play to a different victory condition Please say.

Also let me know if you would like me to post 3 starts to choose from, or just give you no choice.

Should be a laugh.

It's on it's way...

My prefs:

I definitely want re-spawning to be OFF. Nothing ticks me off more than having to kill a civ twice...

Continents or Pangaea is OK, preferably no island-hopping.

I would like to play a expansionist Civ, second trait could be either militaristic (Zulu, Scandinavia) or religious (Arabs, Mongolia, Iroquois). If we want things to be even harder then maybe Russia is a good choice for their later UU. (Or even Korea, England or America with no usable UU at all )

Minimum water should alleviate the crowding, even if we stick with ten opponents. I'd definitely prefer to keep to a standard map.

I've played a lot of deity games on standard maps with the expansionist trait love: those Mounted Warriors), and my experience is that the payoff for being expansionist under these conditions is minimal. That's not necessarily an argument against our playing an expansionist civ, but we should be aware that we'd be increasing the challenge with this choice.

If we don't play one of the ancient-UU civs ourselves, we're likely to be building/turtling for some time, which I suppose is an argument for choosing an industrious civ.

There've been some interesting discussions of the starting position in other SG's when a choice was offered, so this strikes me as a good idea.

Since the theme of this party is to be early warfare I thought it would be a good thing (TM) to have a lot of info early on, hence the expansionist trait. But I don't have a lot of Deity experience, so I'm easy to convince otherwise.

I don't have much of a preference for civs. Any of the civs mentioned above are fine with me.

I am going to be out of town until Friday with very limited internet access. Therefore, a 9/1 start sounds good to me.

<-- felt like my post needs a smilie.

I have no preference with civs (at least, right now ).
The reference to "old testament" made me think that all civs would belong to the Ancient Age?

I'd rather try domination than conquest, but I'll be happy either way -or with any other victory condition, for that matter.

Hi all,

How about the good old Chinese (Mil/Ind) with a handy, dandy UU at just about the right time?

I'd be happy with either Pangaea or Continents and a Conquest or Domination victory as our target .

If we have to pick one of the three given starts then I'll plump for the Ottomans.

Right. That it then?


regards

Ted

Your RNG has a one-track mind, mad-bax. Those are all essentially the same start. But like TJ, I prefer the Ottoman position.

I thought about the Chinese, but 4 of us are in a Chinese SG already, and i assumed you would want to avoid it.

I can always change the starting Civ. It's not a problem.

I agree on the Ottoman start is looking the most promising (rich in food and money). Pangaea also will make the AI that much more dangerous. (I hope those buns will not be so old that it's going to feel like a stoning instead. )

It took ages to get 3 starts that didn't have an obvious winner. Also Im sick of the 2 cow, 3 wheat, lux and river starts. I just wanted an average start.

Personally I wouldn't discard the plains starts out of hand. They're quicker to irrigate and you have a much lower chance of finding yourself in the middle of a jungle or desert.

OK, I see what you were doing. Thanks for taking the time to provide a balanced range of choices.

Arabia is the next GOTM, I'd go with Ottos.

Unless we want to consider other civs, of course. I'm an open fellow...

Ottomans.
Industrious and scientific with a great UU. If we are alive at Mil. Trad. We'll have a good game. The start is right in the middle of a pangea map on grasslands. The rivers are good, but the grassland tiles need to be mined. I imagine we will be surrounded on all sides by strong civs. The early game will be difficult. No opportunity to use suicide galleys to get and protect contacts for a research and trading advantage.

Rome.
Militaristic for cheap rax and commercial for extra cash.
Fewer opponents. Roman UU is good defensively as long as we get iron. Plains start means that we can get 2 food and 1 shield relatively quick. Also unlikely to have a jungle/desert bound empire. Can use suicide galleys to get contacts.

Arabia:
Expansionist and religious. Might get a tech leg up early or even a settler and will gain contacts sooner. Can use suicide galleys for contacts overseas. Plains start as per Romans.
Have to deal with an extra civ and the UU is later. Religious trait could be handy for rushing temples and switching governments in long bouts of war.

All the starts are wet, but no evidence of bonuses. I would imagine bonuses/luxes are more likely on the plains starts, but who can tell?

I am competely neutral as to which start we use. ATM it looks like the Ottomans. My view is that this is likely to be the most difficult early game of the three. The roman start is the most in-keeping with the theme of the game. I chose the romans because they ended up taking over the known world at the end of "Old Testament " times. Although I admit my entire historical knowledge would fit comfortably on the back of a postcard alonside my autobiography.

I hope you are not too cheesed that there are no cattle and wheat on show for a deity game. But I would like to see how good we really are.

Originally posted by mad-bax
...But I would like to see how good we really are.

Click to expand...

Err... ehm... <quietly sneaks out of the forum>

The first post has been edited to firm up the game, and the batting order has been set (alphabetically).

I've decided to go with the fast domination condition because it's a skill I really want to improve as do others in the group.

I would like to play on PTW 1.27. If this is a problem to anyone could you let me know before the 1st and we'll drop it back to 1.21.

Space will take the first 20 turns, and it will be ten turns a pop after that until people start complaining that it takes too long, then we'll drop to 5.

Now we just have to sit and twiddle our thumbs for a few days.

I'm really looking forward to this.

Originally posted by mad-bax
...and the batting order has been set (alphabetically)...

Click to expand...

Very convenient MMMMad, you just couldn't call me SSSSpace in the list, could you now? Nah, had to be full names! .

Originally posted by a space oddity


Very convenient MMMMad, you just couldn't call me SSSSpace in the list, could you now? Nah, had to be full names! .

Click to expand...

It's British courteousness to call a lady by her full name, and also to place myself last on the list.

I'd like to help, but unfortunately my upbringing won't allow it.

Glad to see we're all set up. 1.27 is fine with me.

Is "fast domination" something different from ordinary domination, or was that just a literary flourish?