Challenge #4 - The Mini-Me Challenge

Also a mass of rich, lush, fertile, fecund, alluvial riverbeds would groovy.
So we can set our sights on becoming billionaires :gold: :gold: :gold:

:bounce:

If we are going to do a total gold challenge it would be nice not to be scrimping for pennies. :D

I bet you're now wishing you hadn't volunteered, Carl. We can be sooo demanding. ;)



---
 
Raiser said:
I bet you're now wishing you hadn't volunteered, Carl. We can be sooo demanding. ;)

---

and of course i´m going to be the first one to ***** and moan and remind everyone how my initial idea would have been sooooo much better!

just kidding :D

can´t wait till friday, go carl!
 
My, oh my, what have I done... ;)

Ok, so to sum it up a little:

1) Peace or battle?

Peace Only: Raiser, Jet, DaviddesJ*, Welnic, Lynxx for a total of 5 (4?)

Peace and war: me, Dr Elmer Jiggle**, patagonia, pigswill for a total of 4 (3?)

scherbchen is undecided.
PeteJ has(had?) no opinion. (subtle difference)

*seemed in favor, but I don't want to put words into anybody's mouth
**want to play or was it just an opinion?

Can we also vote on:
2) Gandhi for Peace Only, Monty for peace and war? Propose a leader if you don't agree. 500 words at least on why he/she would be suitable for our challenge.
3) Continents? should prove to be more interesting: race to optics, astronomy or mind your own business back home? If so, normal number of AIs on a standard map. If Pangaea normal number of AIs or smaller? If Great Plains means that you'll get better places for cities in my opinion it will be less of a challenge. Build cities anywhere, make gold. Ugh.
4) Prince? Otherwise we'd very likely outtech and outsettle the AIs and there will be less fun to it. State your level if not.
5) time as only victory condition? Also, we end the challenge in 1800AD. Only Jet expressed a different opinion here. Sorry, mate.
6) Great Merchants allowed for anything: ligthbulbing techs (yeah, right), trade missions, settling.

In case of a tie in any of these, we'll bow to scherbchen's choice.

-------

My votes:
1) battle! (d'uh)
2) yay!
3) continents, normal number of AIs
4) Prince.
5) 1800AD. time victory.
6) yay!
 
carl corey said:
Peace and war: me, Dr Elmer Jiggle**, patagonia, pigswill for a total of 4 (3?)

**want to play or was it just an opinion?

Might play, but I'm not sure. Count me as a half vote. Maybe a tiebreaker if it comes down to that.

On all the other stuff, I agree with your votes, especially on the Great Merchant thing. I don't think there's any reason to restrict their use. There's nothing random about them. If you want to make lots of money with Great Merchant missions, then that's part of your strategy. Anyone can duplicate it if they choose. I guess the argument is that they make so much money that almost everything else becomes irrelevant, and I guess maybe that's a valid point.
 
I would probably favor peace-only so we can have a better comparison between players and strategies, but I won't cry if we decide peace and war. Either way it'll be fun and thats all I care about.
 
agh!

i had a 1000 word essay going here on the pros and cons of either choices, then i actually READ your post.

please, i was only joking about the previous challenge and ceding the new one to you and then whining about it. trust me, i am happy that you volunteered!

almost all of you understand and play civ4 better than i do so i am exctatic that atm i do not have to present a challenge. all of my opinions are to be taken with several grains of salt. it´s really up to you, unless you look for somebody to blame... then i´ll gladly oblige :blush:

ps: my only problem is with ghandi/monty... please let´s use some leaders that are among the last ones picked to play hardball, some of the ones where in a regular civ game with random leaders your first thought is *damn*.... i really liked challenge #3 because toku was just a plain odd choice for something like that. everybody can build a big city with peter, thinking outside the box is what i think is funny and challenging about these... uhm... challenges.
 
scherbchen said:
please let´s use some leaders that are among the last ones picked to play hardball

Interesting point. I would say that points toward a leader that isn't Financial, Organized, or Aggressive and that doesn't start with Mysticism. Eliminating those makes all of the obvious approaches to generating wealth equally bad. That means one of:

  • Bismarck (Expansive, Industrious) / (Hunting, Mining)
  • Cyrus (Creative, Expansive) / (Agriculture, Hunting)
  • Frederick (Creative, Philosophical) / (Hunting, Mining)
  • Hatshepsut (Creative, Spiritual) / (Agriculture, The Wheel)
  • Louis XIV (Creative, Industrious) / (Agriculture, The Wheel)
  • Peter (Expansive, Philosophical) / (Hunting, Mining)

Of those, Louis XIV is the one I consider the "worst." His unique unit is awful, and Creative is my least favorite trait. If you really want to pick an offbeat leader, Louis XIV is an obvious choice.

Is that 500 words yet? ;)
 
scherbchen, we still have to give ourselves some way to get those money. As patagonia said:

There are seven main ways I can think of to generate gold off the top of my head:
Shrine income, merchants (both specialists and GM), cottages, techwhoring for cash, begging, extortion and conquest (capturing, razing and pillaging).

If we don't play on Prince we might be able to get all religions. Too easy. Even on Prince it can happen, but it would be harder. That's why a leader with Mysticism would give us a hope to net some of the early ones. But who says we won't end up with other religion pursuers in the game and they won't go for other religions if they don't get the early ones?

It's nice to get GM's partly from GM wonders. Having a better shot at them would be better in my opinion especially in a Peace Only game where we can't take them from someone else. And frankly, going both for the wonders and all religions seems difficult.

Financial cottages would make everything too easy. We'd win every tech race, get ahead of everyone early, make this feel like a noble game.

The last two are unavailable.

With a random leader in Peace Only we'd be reduced to either chasing religions or chasing GM wonders. First one's Lust for Gold, and I'm not sure the second one would be a match for the first one. Monty seems good for peace and war because you can go either way: religion or war. It's harder to do both. If you manage to do it, even better for you! :)
 
Dr Elmer Jiggle said:
...
  • Bismarck (Expansive, Industrious) / (Hunting, Mining)
  • Cyrus (Creative, Expansive) / (Agriculture, Hunting)
  • Frederick (Creative, Philosophical) / (Hunting, Mining)
  • Hatshepsut (Creative, Spiritual) / (Agriculture, The Wheel)
  • Louis XIV (Creative, Industrious) / (Agriculture, The Wheel)
  • Peter (Expansive, Philosophical) / (Hunting, Mining)

...

Out of this list I would also pick Louis XIV, because if I play him I don't have to look at, and that is a big plus for me.
 
I vote WAR is an option for this game.

And Barbs OFF
 
My votes. Re:carl corey's summing up post:
1) i say 'peace only' and 'no barbies' options (d'uh)*
2) Ghandi**
3) Continents, normal number of AIs
4) Prince - if 'peace only', Noble - if 'war & make your own peace'.
5) 1800AD finish. Time victory only.
6) Yay! to Great Merchants allowed
(You don't need any rules that need policing. Trust me.)

* Of course I am still going to play the challenge if it's 'war & make your own peace' and I'll enjoy it just as much.

** The leader is probably the least important of the 6 categories to me. We'll all have the same leader, and we're talented guys who can bend any leader to our will.


Your not going to get consensus; cos it's a forum, and forums aren't the place for consensus.

:ar15:..................:rotfl:

Slap something together and post it Friday.
Good luck. :lol:



---
 
you are right raiser, we´ll all have the same leaders. so i gues my complaint is kinda moot.

apart from this tingly feeling that i got that 70% of the challenges are going to involve the same leaders (on the other hand, we had genghis and toku, so i really shouldn´t complain). but in the end even that does not really matter, it´s about the challenge and doing crazy stuff with the civ 4 mechanics, not the leaders.

i take back everything i said about leader-selection (though i have to say that "getting the money" is not really an argument as this pertains to the "we all have the same leader"... whatsa word... oh you´ll understand what i´m saying :king: )

any leader will be fine, sorry for nitpicking

game on!
 
Not sure i can play this one, but here is my opinion:

1) WAR! What good is a game with so many different units without war?
2) Louis ! It's good to go pillaging with musketeers ;)
3) i don't care about the map, normal number of AIs please
4) Prince! Under prince, it's boring. Mini-me was fun for a change, but we don't want to grow bad habits playing low level, do we?
5) we need a deadline before 1900. So 1800 AD is good. With time victory only, i can go on conquest without fearing the domination treshhold :)
6) less rules = better. Do what you want with your GP.

So carl, it looks like we have agreement on almost every points.
It's a total wealth challenge! no more discussions there!
It's going up to 1800AD! everyone seems OK on this.
Most people said continents, so that's OK too.
Everyone seems to agree on allowing GM missions, so that's fine too.

That leaves the war or not, the leader, and the level (looks like prince so far, but with a "noble if war" exception). Should be another interesting challenge.
 
Peace Only: Raiser, Jet, Welnic, Lynxx, PeteJ (5)

Peace and war: me, Dr Elmer Jiggle (1/2 vote), patagonia, pigswill, ruff_hi, cabert (5 1/2)

scherbchen, your vote might indeed be needed... :)

I'm also taking in consideration Louis as a leader right now.

Of course, as Raiser said, I'll also play either variant. I'm just saying which one I think I'd prefer.

One more day people, one more day. The save is likely to be posted right after midnight CET (GMT+2). That's 6PM EST and 3PM Pacific time. No time to post in the morning as I'll be at work. I'll start a new thread and link to it in here.
 
This what-game-shall-we-play?-game is almost as fun as the real game.

Little Louis does sound interesting. So I'll trade you - changing my vote to Louis as leader, plus voting 'War & make your own peace' instead of 'peace only', (Ohh, controversial). If you change your vote to Noble diff and 'no barbies'?

That way everybody will be tempted to go for the millions with a sack & pillage-style strat, and I'll walk away with the prize using a devious peacenik strat. :smug:

That there is fighting talk! The Peaceniks :old: vs The Warmongers :aargh:

GO PEACENIKS!!!
static.gif
static.gif
static.gif




---
 
carl corey said:
I'm also taking in consideration Louis as a leader right now.

As the one who introduced Louis as an option, I should make sure it's clear that I don't actually prefer him as an option. My point was that if you go with scherbchen's suggestion that it should be an offbeat leader that doesn't favor any particular strategy, then Louis is a logical conclusion, but I'd actually rather play Montezuma.
 
The thing is, if we pick Louis we'll most likely have to go down one level to Noble as Raiser said. Otherwise we won't be able to get enough religions to make it work that way, unless we choose our opponents - not something I intend to do. Or unless we capture shrines, a thing that peaceniks aren't really into. Monty on the other hand plays well as either religious or aggressive. He would also be strong enough to help peaceful people defend from barbs with a small army even on Prince. On continents I find that I never run into barb trouble with only a few extra units - beside those that protect the cities. So it's not like it's a strain to build them.

Still processing... :scan:
 
Back
Top Bottom