Any takes for one last RFC Succession Game?

[blizzrd]

Hmm, so blizzrd are going to completely ignore me?? I said that I would like join couple posts ago...

Sorry, my bad. I missed your post entirely at the time in between the discussions about Tuscany. How about:

1. Blizzrd
2. Jusos2108
3. Nody
4. AnotherPacifist
5. Rhye

Any thoughts on my suggested goals and map?

 

[scu98rkr]

Yeah I noticed that Jusos2108, he also seems to have done the same thing with Tlönitte is this just sort of the RFC inclub game ?

 

[Jusos2108]

Thanks, Tuscany can get people's minds of the topic.

The goals sound great. I have once completed the British Empire at the largest (1920) with the previous patch and that's a great challenge. Domination victory will be hard to get, since IIRC I had about 30% pop and only 22% land.

My game can be found from the whole empire thread in case you are interested.

 

[Jusos2108]

Yeah I noticed that Jusos2108, he also seems to have done the same thing with Tlönitte is this just sort of the RFC inclub game ?

That was just a honest mistake. These forums don't have inclubs AFAIK. About Tlönitte, I am not sure whether he wants to participate or not...?

 

[Alexius08]

As long as it is Monarch difficulty (or easier), I might join.

On avoiding the UHV and going for domination, I suggest we skip circumnavigation and go for settling cities and lead the tech race.

Domination victory will be hard to get, since IIRC I had about 30% pop and only 22% land.

IRL, the British Empire has 23% pop and 22% land, so we might be able to do better than that.

 

[blizzrd]

On avoiding the UHV and going for domination, I suggest we skip circumnavigation and go for settling cities and lead the tech race.

I was thinking +1 ship movement was worth getting. Avoiding settling on one particular continent until 1700AD ( South America anyone?) shouldn't cause us any real issues I wouldn't have thought.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I would suggest going for the land LATER (Nody, mind you) and go for the triumphal arch with the science and circumnavigation criteria. You need some good civics before you trash your science rate and get embroiled in world wars without infantry (or redcoats at least).
If I can add one criteria: all historical conquests need to be CONQUERED (not colonized). E.g. India and some areas east of the Mississippi (1763 Treaty of Paris after the 7 years war). So we can found St. John but not Quebec or Montreal or even Chicago.

 

[Jusos2108]

I was thinking +1 ship movement was worth getting. Avoiding settling on one particular continent until 1700AD ( South America anyone?) shouldn't cause us any real issues I wouldn't have thought.

I agree, circumnavigation is too easy to get that we could skip it. SA sounds good as there is only one decent city spot for England there anyways (British Guiana). We also do want to get the GA from 2/3 uhvs.

 

[Jusos2108]

I would suggest going for the land LATER (Nody, mind you) and go for the triumphal arch with the science and circumnavigation criteria. You need some good civics before you trash your science rate and get embroiled in world wars without infantry (or redcoats at least).

I wouldn't worry too much about our science, because if we go directly to constitution, democracy and communism while still running slavery, all our cities will be making tons of espionage points in no time. The civics come as a bonus.

I suggest that we take Egypt right after the Ottomans spawn. Great Library, Great Lighthouse and Church of Nativity will be very useful, assuming that we play 600AD start. Not to mention that Arabia usually builds either Spiral Minaret or University of Sankore in Cairo. The timing is very important as when Ottomans spawn Byzant (and her navy) will be gone and Arabia significantly weaker.

 

[blizzrd]

I would suggest going for the land LATER (Nody, mind you) and go for the triumphal arch with the science and circumnavigation criteria. You need some good civics before you trash your science rate and get embroiled in world wars without infantry (or redcoats at least).
If I can add one criteria: all historical conquests need to be CONQUERED (not colonized). E.g. India and some areas east of the Mississippi (1763 Treaty of Paris after the 7 years war). So we can found St. John but not Quebec or Montreal or even Chicago.

Sounds like an interesting twist to the challenge, but I think we will need some sort of an expanded list before we start out. Any volunteers to help out here?

 

[Jusos2108]

Always happy to help, but I assume that native lands do not count as conquered. Also do lands that were given to British in peace treaties count as conquered?

 

[Alexius08]

I agree, circumnavigation is too easy to get that we could skip it. SA sounds good as there is only one decent city spot for England there anyways (British Guiana). We also do want to get the GA from 2/3 uhvs.

Agree on that. If we are to found 3 cities on every continent, where could we settle in SA (apart from British Guiana and Falklands)?

 

[Alexius08]

Sounds like an interesting twist to the challenge, but I think we will need some sort of an expanded list before we start out. Any volunteers to help out here?

Let me start:

1. Hong Kong (Opium Wars)
2. Manila, Calcutta, Madras, Quebec, Montreal, Dakar, Havana, Pondicherry (Seven Years War)
3. Gibraltar, York Factory, St. John's, Halifax (War of the Spanish Succession)
4. Negapatnam (American War of Independence)

Try browsing this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Cities gained from world conferences should be ok too (there was strictly no battle that was fought in Hong Kong but it was ceded as part of the treaty of Nanjing), although I would think unless we have plenty of good vassals who're invited to the conferences, everybody will vote no.

I really disagree on having more than 10 cities before 1800, much less 1700. It's not historical, nor is it good for stability and science

Another stipulation: we can never adopt State Property or Police State. (That'll put some dampers on you early expansionists).

 

[Jusos2108]

Cities gained from world conferences should be ok too (there was strictly no battle that was fought in Hong Kong but it was ceded as part of the treaty of Nanjing), although I would think unless we have plenty of good vassals who're invited to the conferences, everybody will vote no.

I really disagree on having more than 10 cities before 1800, much less 1700. It's not historical, nor is it good for stability and science.

We can't take many vassals anyways, because after we have vassalised someone, we can never conquer land that the vassal takes ever again. Because of the magnitute of the British Empire the list of potential vassals is quite thin.

Actually founding cities with resettlement is very good for stability (in my Land of the Rus story game my last cities founded on the tip of Kamchatka gave me +4 stability). Conquering lots of undeveloped cities even with occupation is much worse. We would end up collapsing.

Also if we want to be historical we must found lots of colonies. The timeline is irrelevant, except that after 1800 there are only few places to found cities left.

Founding cities later gives them too little time to develope, with slavery we can build every building we want. This is the only way to keep our stability afloat, as I really don't see us giving cities away to our vassals to build up our lost stability; how unhistorical would that be?

 

[nody]

Maybe I could join, but I'm certainly not good enough for your standards. I would be remembered as "Rhye the puny", "Rhye Quayle" or something like that

I quess creating the mod and playing the mod are two very different skills... but I would really like to see your playing-style, Rhye. As you haven't given away much about that until now.


About the map:

- Suriname is lost in 1920? They sold it to the Dutch much earlier IIRC. Not to mention the areas within current United States borders.

- I would exclude light pink areas for colonization, but allow those areas to be conquered later in the game (with occupation). Those are bad for stability anyway and I would not like to see a Cambridge in Iceland, for example.

Agree on that. If we are to found 3 cities on every continent, where could we settle in SA (apart from British Guiana and Falklands)?

Maybe not for stability-sake, but I remember that Rhye has put some English city names on the map in Argentina and Uruguay. But you'll have to be there fast, before the Spanish. Montevideo and Buenos Aires IIRC.

 

[Rhye]

I quess creating the mod and playing the mod are two very different skills... but I would really like to see your playing-style, Rhye. As you haven't given away much about that until now.

Well, I don't know if I even have a playing style... maybe I used to have in civ2 times.
However, I have just completed a civ4 game for the first time. A RFCRAND game on Governor difficulty level. My other experiences on civ4 are related to RFCMP tests with Whitefire (I played just a hundred of turns and managed to collapse after collapse after collapse)

 

[Rhye]

I really don't see us giving cities away to our vassals to build up our lost stability; how unhistorical would that be?

That would be decolonization.

 

[Jusos2108]

That would be decolonization.

Hmm, I didn't think about that. Although, to whom could we give cities within the 'historical bounds'?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

If we ever play to 1997, we can give Hong Kong back to China.
Singapore, Australia, Canada, and practically the whole of Africa should be decolonized.