Calling all CE enthusiasts

[futurehermit]

Most people on these forums will know me as a SE enthusiast.

However, I love the game more than I love any one economy and I've recently been into going for space race wins with CE and financial leaders.

I can definitely see the long-term power of the CE.

However, I struggle with production problems and expanding my empire to a sufficient size in a timely manner.

So, I thought: "Why not play a game together on the forums and get some different perspectives?"

What I was thinking was that I would post a start with a financial leader -- who it will be can be debated -- and then we would each play and post updates at various checkpoints (e.g., 2000BC, 1000BC, 1AD, 500AD, 1000AD, etc.) to compare and discuss.

I think this would be more beneficial than trying to put multiple opinions into one game since I am interested in how different people's ideas play out.

Basically, I'm interested in 1) expanding empire in timely manner and 2) maximizing beaker production.

I often see those two things as being in conflict with one another and so it will be interesting to see how different people approach it.

If there is sufficient interest then I will post a start and we can go from there.

 

[frob2900]

Sounds fun, I'm in!

What are the constraints? No Specialists except in the farm? When I play CE I usually do run some specialist augmented research in the pre-Liberalism years (very much so if I conquer/build the pyramids).

Given enough land, I tend to have one or two cities dedicated to specialists (often a preliminary GP farm to get that first GS and then the main GP farm in a conquered AI capital). I sometimes also mass run specialists in a city if it is getting close to popping a great person in order to influence the percentages and get it quicker when necessary.

In the very early years I really only run cottages on floodplains if I have them and a sprinkling of cottages in bonus food heavy cities.

It's the only way I know of getting that early expansion/war going. Mass cottages appear when I feel large and confident enough (usually ca 0-500 AD).

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I'm interested. I've just come back to a warmonging CE after playing a few SE games and its corrupted my cottage play. I'm playing Victoria on Emperor and feel like I am not playing as well as I was doing with my other Emperor games.

I don't think you should have artificial rules that limit your play - since the main point is to optimize cottage play in a way thats useful, not to run some of the arbitrary scenarios some people cook up. For example if you are rushing the liberalism race because thats the right thing to do right now, there is no reason a CE shouldn't run caste system and pacifism and try and pop out a few great scientists quickly. Nor should you forgo drafting or whipping if you are preparing for war.

You'll know its a cottage economy because the bulk of your cash and research comes from cottages and you have a lot of them.

What level were you thinking of playing?

 

[cabert]

could be interesting.
I'm not particularly good at CE nor at SE, I'm usually running an hybrid and could certainly enjoy a good "learning to cottage" game.
I'm not sure I'll follow in timely manner, but I'll try.

I've never played Hannibal, so I suggest this one.
Level could be emperor, it's FH's usual level and you seem comfortable with it too invisiblestalke.
I'm more at ease with monarch, but it may be too easy to be really educational.

 

[frob2900]

Hannibal is perhaps too good (immediately higher cap + financial).

I would suggest someone who isn't financial, but since it is to be a financial leader then Ragnar. The aggressive trait would be an obvious spur
to more warring (if I understood correctly this is to be a test of CE under warlike conditions).

I'd tend to agree with emperor. My normal level is Monarch but it's being getting old lately.

[EDIT] Also, if its alright with everyone, I'd suggest a mapsize of "standard" or possibly "small". My computer doesn't do "large" maps very
well at all.

 

[cabert]

About checkpoints, I don't think it's reasonnable to talk about CE at 2000BC .

 

[frob2900]

About checkpoints, I don't think it's reasonnable to talk about CE at 2000BC .

Beeline pottery?

Seriously, though, I think 1000 BC is the most early reasonable point at which cottages can start to have a noticeable influence on the game.

Having said that; early choices such as city placement etc. do however have direct bearing in how a CE (or, of course, any game for that matter) develops and as such 2000 BC is a relevant checkpoint.

 

[Dirk1302]

Interesting, i'll give it a try, which level do you propose?

 

[kniteowl]

I'd like to try too but I have exams... :S... maybe after the 23rd of June... My general Level is Prince but I Can play Monarch if I micro-manage like crazy, I can play Emp too with a bit of luck. Now days I only play with Better AI mod on because the AI is so useless at war all they have is basically only archers defending their cities and end up falling like Dominoes, when I play Better AI they have at least a Axe and Spear per city.

 

[frob2900]

My general Level is Prince but I Can play Monarch if I micro-manage like crazy, I can play Emp too with a bit of luck. Now days I only play with Better AI mod on..

If you play prince with better AI on you are roughly/effectively playing Monarch with standard AI. That betterAI really is better

Shame no one has merged the HoF mod and betterAI. I would but I'm too lazy.

 

[svv]

Specialists should be allowed in up to 3 cities. 1. The farm, 2. A religion/money city, 3. A military/production city.

Also you should be allowed free specialists from great library/mercantilsm/statue of liberty

 

[futurehermit]

How about this:

Leader: Ragnar

Settings: Continents, Standard, Normal

Difficulty: Monarch I don't care so much about it being really difficult. I just care that we do a good job. Lower difficulty will mean more people can join in in a meaningful way.

Checkpoints: 2000 BC, 1000 BC, 1AD, 500AD, 1000AD, 1500AD, Victory/Loss

Yes, 2000BC doesn't involve a whack-load of cottages, but I'm interested in how people develop their empire right from the get-go.

If everyone is cool with this, I will post a start. I will check to make sure we're not isolated, but that's about it.

I don't think we should place arbitrary constraints on the game, but I think we should *try* to limit cottages to 1 gpfarm that is NOT I repeat NOT the capital. Of course if a city is better suited to running some specialists, that is ok, but the point is to really try and get down as many cottages in commerce cities as possible.

 

[r_rolo1]

If it is Monarch I can give it a go

Ragnar may be a somehow twisted choice if the game has too much/ too little water, but I like the guy.

 

[futurehermit]

Yes, but his UU looks so freakin' cool Dual-axe-wielders? That's my all-time favourite! The majority of my roleplaying characters are dual-axe-wielders and if a game doesn't have it, I whine and complain

 

[frob2900]

Leader: Ragnar
Settings: Continents, Standard, Normal
Difficulty: Monarch
Checkpoints: 2000 BC, 1000 BC, 1AD, 500AD, 1000AD, 1500AD, Victory/Loss

This sounds really good for the most part. I concur. Shame I've spent all morning practicing emperor level Ragnar

I must warn that from experience on Monarch continent, its quite easy to kill your continental neighbors before astronomy (by going extensively warlike in the ancient ages). You then spend ages up until the invention of transports just cottaging over everything and cycling through cities correcting the semi-******** governor in order to grow cottages.

You then end up with a mammoth economy (especially when financial), that can pump out ca 2000 gold per turn. You then alt-click all cities every three turns or so and mass-purchase transports and a fine blend of modern armor/artillery/mech inf. The AI subsequently die, one after the other, since the other continent is almost always split rather evenly between two or three enemies.

Much less dynamic than a pangea-like map.

we should *try* to limit cottages to 1 gpfarm that is NOT I repeat NOT the capital. Of course if a city is better suited to running some specialists, that is ok, but the point is to really try and get down as many cottages in commerce cities as possible.

Limit specialists you mean? Why can't the capital be the gpfarm if circumstances dictate it?

 

[Dirk1302]

I don't think to many restrictions are needed once we've a financial leader.Cottages is the way to go in this case. Monarch is fine with me.

 

[Sjaramei]

Yeah i didn't understand that GP farm thingie either. My capital is my GP farm almost always...
(3-4 Great Scientists, then it's cottages all the way)

 

[futurehermit]

Because the capital should be working max tiles to benefit from bureaucracy. An AI capital always makes a better farm that can work max specialists. Otherwise you get (imho) a subpar bureaucracy capital mixed with a subpar gpfarm.

Is pangaea more dynamic? In my mind I've always thought pangaea made things too easy because you always have trading partners (that you can pick) and generally you always have someone nearby you can attack early. The difficulty with pangaea is if you get a couple aggressors close by early, but otherwise my sense it is an easier map. On continents you can have a peacefully-teching financial leader on the other continent that can run away with the game.

 

[frob2900]

Is pangaea more dynamic? In my mind I've always thought pangaea made things too easy because you always have trading partners (that you can pick) and generally you always have someone nearby you can attack early. The difficulty with pangaea is if you get a couple aggressors close by early, but otherwise my sense it is an easier map. On continents you can have a peacefully-teching financial leader on the other continent that can run away with the game.

I did not mean more difficult, I meant more dynamic, i.e. always the possibility of Napoleon knocking on your door in the timeframe you were planning on growing your cottages. More trading, more stuff happening.

I do agree that pangea can end up being very easy if the map is small or the civ placement is dodgy, and yes, all that trading does make it easier to tech in the beginning.

That doesn't matter in the long run if you have a massive continent to yourself filled with cottages, though. Due to lack of trade you might be lowest in tech when the AI gets optics, but I can almost guarantee you will be first to biology/assembly line/computers.

 

[svv]

Because the capital should be working max tiles to benefit from bureaucracy. An AI capital always makes a better farm that can work max specialists. Otherwise you get (imho) a subpar bureaucracy capital mixed with a subpar gpfarm.

I disagree. You can have a great GP farm based on both wonders and a few specialists (targeted for the type of GP you want, especially engineers), that also churns out great science.

Typically when I'm about ready to go from Bureaucracy to free speech (and about when scientific method has killed off the great library) I'm ready to have my capital continue to be my GP farm, and shift the science focus to a pure commerce/cottage city, where I'll build Oxford. I'll often build a new palace in this new commerce city (usually not for the bureaucracy bonus, as I've left it behind, but to have the palace commerce bonus applied in my Oxford city).