Checking for interest in a Conquest AW - Sherman's War

[handy900]

Originally posted by Greebley
Ok, I decided to do something similar to what space did and
The first civ is the Sumerians (continents 30% land)
Scientific and Agricultural (Bronze Working and Pottery)
UU is Enkidu Warrior 1-2-1 for 10 shields. Replaces warrior AND spearmen.

So is the UU basically a 1/2 priced spearman? That would help alot for an emperor game I think.

The second civ is the Mayans (continents 30% land)
Industrial and Agricultural (Masonry and Pottery) Ind is a 50% increase rather than double in conquests.
UU is the Javelin thrower 2-2-1 for 30 shields with enslave (losing opponent becomes worker 1/3 of the time.

I like the sound of the UU. Sounds like industrial has lost a lot of power

Seafaring and Agricultural( pottery and alphabet).
UU is Swiss Mercenary 1-4-1, 30 shields that replaces pikes (feudalism). The same shield cost with +1 defense. It requires iron.

That's a great AW UU. Musket defense strength comes in early.

The final civ is the Celts (continents, 40% land)

The are now Religious and Agricultural (ceremonial burial and pottery)
UU is the Gallic swordsman 3-2-2, 40 shields which replaces the swordsman (iron working). It requires iron of course. Note that the cost is cheaper now by 10 shields compared to PTW Gallic swordsmen
It also has a later GA, though it is still likely to occur during the despot years.

I love the gallic UU. Always thought they were 4.2.2 what was I smoking???

Losing militaristic will hurt, and make Sun Tzu a major priority.

Greebley, I won with the Celts in PTW twice, but never took advantage of the religous trait. Do you think it would ever make sense to use 1 turn anarchy to switch back & forth from monarchy to despot periodically to rush buildings with blood & bones?? I've never done it, but the agricultural trait would help us grow back more quickly. If were got lucky with an early leader & rushed the pyramids, the strategy may have some merit. What do you think?

I'll get my vote in later today

 

[handy900]

Here are my opinions of the ranking of easiest to hardest starts:
1. Mayan - easiest. 1 front war + early slaves via the UU.
2. Celts - UU is a swordsman that can retreat and a nice position on the mini map for a 1 front war. Unlike most AW games where you play defense early on, celts can go on offense with the UU. Usually get a leaders for GL + ARMY + HE early in the game.
3. Sumerians - 2 front war likely. The UU makes a 2 front war easier than the Dutch.
4. Dutch - 2 front war almost a certainty. This would be a long long game, if we can last until our UU comes in. We will not have a very big empire fighting on 2 fronts. We will need to strictly adhere to 2 tiles between cities on this one. Also if there is that much forest everywhere else, it will be hard to kill AI units since they will get defensive bonus. This would be a very hard & long game I think. Or perhaps a very short game

I vote Mayan, but am happy to play any choice. I love workers & the thought of all those slaves is very appealing. I want to try that feature out. Not having the militaristic trait will make this game plenty challenging.

 

[handy900]

Originally posted by barbslinger
Are we looking for a fight immediately or let them find us?

Also, can we rename all cities to famous cities, generals and battles Sherman was involved in? I'm sure a list could be made.

I always let them find me in AW. Scout around the capital to find hills (so you can "see" iron) & luxuries. It never takes very long for the AI to find you. We will be in the dark with regards to the map for a long time.
You can check out our current SG AWM game here:
AWM as Rome

We are past 1000 AD & still much of the map is dark.

I like the rename idea for cities. Just hope they are easy for me to type.

 

[Greebley]

Out of curiousity why do you think the Mayans are less likely to be a two front war than the Dutch? The situation for the mayans could easily be civs coming from the east and west. For the Dutch, the bigger danger is north and south, but they more clearly at least have 1 direction with no enemies (the East).

PS. The one random conquests map I did play seemed different than the usual fare I tend to get. Conquests may have also fiddled a bit with the random map code. It was an interesting start. Almost all the land was in a ring around a central sea. To the SW was an island that I started on. I could reach both ends of the rest of the ring (all the other civs were on this main part) on both sides.

So one big island that is 3/4 of the way around the ring with me on an island that was in the last 1/4.

 

[handy900]

Just a hunch, the mayans are pretty far south on the mini map. With only 30% land (70% water, right?)I doubt there is a civ to the south of the Mayans. I could be wrong of course.

The Dutch are almost guaranteed to get it from the North and south, and perhaps even eventually from the west since their backs are against the sea. The dutch look to be in the middle of a continent, which also puts them that much closer to each of the AI's. In our Roman game we have not seem many Spanish units, perhaps because they are so far way to the south.

The Celts have the highest probability of only fighting on 1 front as they are in a corner of the mini map pretty far north.

 

[Greebley]

Ok, it sounds like we have 2 mayan votes (greebley & handy), a Celtic vote (Barbslinger), and a Sumerian vote (GBread Man)

Are the mayans ok with everyone?

If you don't like them, I did say you could change your vote. If Barbslinger went with the sumerian or Gingerbread man with the celts, I would probably roll a die or something to resolve the tie (unless we got a fifth player who would end up deciding which one).

 

[barbslinger]

Just finished ready the AW with Romans and the industrious trait seems to be vital. Great read as they have turned the corner and the continent looks to be secured in 20 turns. There are undoubtably nicer settler factory lands nearby and we should be able to get it up and running pronto. The 2-2-1 Jav thrower seems like a lot of fun too. He'll make a great early army.

Let's get 'em. No interest from a 5th player yet. Who doesn't like to pillage!

 

[T_McC]

Since Greebley has gone into other threads to stalk me ...

Can I play too?

Never played AW (but read plenty of them, and my playstyle is defense first) so Monarch is fine. My vote is for the Mayan start. We'd get a useless GA, but the UU is pretty neat. The first Conquests game I played was with these guys, and farming the barbs took on whole new meaning. One thing to note: The UU enslaves at the same fraction on defense, so should work really well in an AW game. Enslavement also makes the unit useful well into the Industrial Age if paired with enough artillery. (Attack any redlined unit with a 1/3 chance of popping a free worker )

I also agree with Handy that we should be able to expand S and W without running into someone, so we might get lucky and have 3-4 cities before we have to start the GA. One way to confirm we are in a corner is just to click on one of the water tiles in the north. If it's salty, we're on the end of the continent.

It's just a shame that the Dutch start seems to be in the middle, I think they have the best UU of the new civs. I'd put that unit right there with the Immortal and the Sipahi.

It'd be best for me if we started after Thanksgiving, as I'll be away all weekend.

 

[Greebley]

Yay! Welcome TMcC.

So we are going to play the Mayans then and will start after thanksgiving. I may play sunday. I will start a new thread for the game

Since I will go first, I would like to see what ppl think about our initial strategy.

I was thinking of researching warrior code at 100% to get our UU.

I am not quite sure what build order is best.

I was thinking warrior, warrior, granary would be nice if we could get away with it. If I met someone early switch to barracks instead?

Or is something like warior, barracks, warrior a better start for AW?

I think we will be growing fast (size 3 by 3550, and almost to size 6 by 3000 without a granary) so an extra worker should be easy enough. (I was noticing that in a sense Agricultural is "similar" to industrial in that the extra food means you can make more workers).

I am inclined to try the granary first. What do people think?

 

[T_McC]

I'd also be inclined to build the granary before the barracks. If we confine our explorations to a short circle N and E of the Capital, and concentrate our scouting S and W, we should be able to avoid early contact. The disadvantage of not being militaristic makes it less painful to switch from the granary to a 40-shield barracks if necessary.

I think our advantage in this game is going to be to get workers out early, and try to use the Ag trait to run big cities. We'll need a lot of tile improvements to get bigger, and to support a fairly-heavy cost UU.

It might be best to try to found the first couple of cities in front of the capital, to get a defensive line started early. Then when enemy units start to show up, we can expand to the safer backlands. All depends on the situation on the ground.

Who knows, maybe we can get 5-6 cities down before we have to start a GA?

 

[handy900]

As my AW mentor Betazed taught me "In AW, make sure you won't lose before you try to win"

I vote the build order be warrior, warrior, walls (subject to change as the map is revealed). Walls just in case we do get attacked from 2 directions.

 

[Greebley]

Hmm... walls could be nice couldn't they. It would be pretty embarrassing to have to tell the team I lost in the first 20 turns

I will start up the 'play thread' soon and play this weekend (or even friday) Handy, you will be up next (so you can correct my AW mistakes ), but will have through tuesday to play rather than the normal 48 since I did promise a post thanksgiving start and you will be busy. Order will probably be order joined:
Greebley, Handy900, Gingerbread Man, Barbslinger, TMcC.

 

[handy900]

Look like the gang is leaving Saturday to beat the traffic, so I can play Saturday or Sunday.

Do you want each player to play 10 after your first 20?

Don't sell yourself short, your ideas & play in Rome are very very good. The "AW mindset" takes a little getting used to. The build order & priorities are all changed around. It is so different from a regular game. I sometimes go a whole regular game never even building walls or cats. In AW I build a lot of each.

 

[Greebley]

Ya, I was thinking of having you play 10. That way everyone gets an earlier feel for AW before the AI send in the vast herds.

I will probably start this up tomorrow and play it, so it should be ready when you are.

One thing to help you take the right number of turns. When you stop, the turn number will always be divisible by 50 up until 1750 AD. (to make this work out, 4000 BC is turn 0).

So 3000, 2550, 2150, 1750, 1500 1250, 1000, 750, 550, 350, 150 for the BC years,

50, 250, 350, 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, 950, 1050, 1150, 1250, 1300, 1350, 1400, 1450, 1500, 1550, 1600, 1650, 1700, 1750 for the AD years.

So if your turn 9 is 750 BC, then you probably missed a year when counting the turns

 

[handy900]

Originally posted by Greebley
Ya, I was thinking of having you play 10. That way everyone gets an earlier feel for AW before the AI send in the vast herds....
So if your turn 9 is 750 BC, then you probably missed a year when counting the turns

Good idea on 10 turns.

Thanks for the tip on end of turns

 

[Greebley]

I almost forgot to provide a link to the game. I have created the thread and played the first turn.

GR2- Sherman's War