ISDG: Team CFC Organising Thread

[Onan]

A PRIVATE FORUM FOR TEAM CFC HAS BEEN CREATED
It is here http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=475
You must request access to the forum to enter

This is a preliminary place for the CFC players who want to take part in Kiffe's community game (or Inter-Site Democracy Game) to start team discussions and otherwise get organised. Kiffe's original organising thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=474681

The first issue on the table is which two civs we should ban from the competition.

Civs already banned:

Babylon
Korea
Spain
Huns
Arabia
Mongols

We also should discuss more the proposed settings and if we are happy with them or want to suggest our own.

 

[Onan]

Here are the suggested settings already agreed to by 2-3 teams and some of our players already:

Map Type: Pangaea/Pangaea+ (vote)
Map Size: Tiny
Difficulty: Emperor (compromise between noble and immo)
Game Pace: standard
Resources: strategic balance
CS: 1 per player
Policy saving: no
Promotion saving: no
Barbarians: normal
Ruins: yes/no (vote)
DLC: all

So the easiest course will be to accept these!

 

[Onan]

CFC Player List

GamerKG
Tabarnak
EEE Boy
Islandia
Jake Almighty
Foffaren
Onan
Donald23
GeoModder
Camikaze
Kuningas

Interested in joining? Post here!

 

[Onan]

Please note, I am not trying to take control. Simply doing what needs to be done to get us organised.

 

[Islandia]

Suggestions for civs that are likely to not be fun, i.e. situational:

Iroquois
China
Aztecs

 

[Onan]

Maya or Persia might be worth banning as well...

 

[EEE_BOY]

Civs are banned then randomised or picked? Sorry I didn't follow well.
How's China situational? Consider ban England if China is banned.

 

[Onan]

I think civs are picked by the teams (in a set order, ie team A then team B etc) after the bans are established.

The Polish team has announced their bans (top post edited). That means as soon as we pick ours, the game could get underway. Lets think carefully, since we have the last two bans. I'm glad they banned Mongols, I was thinking Keshiks were OP too, and Camel Archers for that matter.

 

[EEE_BOY]

I can see they are banning ranged UU. So Maya and Inca is one pair. England and China is the other pair to consider.

 

[Tabarnak]

Inca/China

 

[EEE_BOY]

Inca/China

Agree. Pangea England lost 2/3 of abilities.

 

[EEE_BOY]

What's the rules of democracy game? Maybe define a length of time (say how many hours) and voters who posted opinions during this time are counted and ruled by majority?

By the way, they are waiting for the 2 civs banned by CFC.

 

[Camikaze]

I'd be interested in participating to some extent. I'm unlikely to be highly active, but I'd certainly like to try to play some part.

 

[Onan]

What's the rules of democracy game? Maybe define a length of time (say how many hours) and voters who posted opinions during this time are counted and ruled by majority?

By the way, they are waiting for the 2 civs banned by CFC.

Yes. However I came late to the thread, and I suspect others who were there first might not appreciate so much my organising...but then, I'm a little paranoid too.

Let's give it another day for others to contribute. Current votes indicate we will ban Inca and China.

I'd be interested in participating to some extent. I'm unlikely to be highly active, but I'd certainly like to try to play some part.

Welcome! Play what part you can. Soon enough, I won't be able to play much at all!

 

[Onan]

Let me rephrase: Anyone have another civ they'd really like to see banned, over China and Inca? If so, make your case!

 

[Atlas627]

The plan for picks is to have each team ban 2 civs, then all teams submit a prioritized list of 4 civs. If nobody else picked your #1, your team gets it. If multiple people want it, it is banned and we move to #2. Etc.


Is the objective here to play and to have fun, or to win? If we primarily want to play, it would be nice to ban out civs good at rushing us (so we at least get to play awhile). If we want to win, we should determine what we would like to play in a civ and ban out civs that are good with strategies that counter it.

So if we want the possibility of playing Diplomatically at all, perhaps ban Austria? If we want to run a cultural game, ban strong early warmongers. If we want to rush our opponents, ban early ranged UUs (Inca/Maya).

We could also try to PICK an op strategy instead of banning. Anyone good with a particular type of cheese?


So I think the real question here is what civs do we want to run? What strategies? Certainly the game is most fun and interesting when there is even competition, so perhaps running a semi-tall science empire would be nice, with always having the threat of war. Play the early game defensively. Personally I would love to play as the Inca for such a strategy. Egypt?

Thats just what I think would be the most fun.

 

[Onan]

I'm guessing most of us here want to have fun trying to win.

I have set up a social group and invited those on the list here who I'm clear are on the CFC team. Check it out. Not sure if there's any instant email notification, I only saw daily notification as an option when subscribing to the group under group tools. I've started a discussion there so we can follow up on Gamer's good points privately.

Edit: it looks like individual discussions can be subscribed to with instant email notification.

 

[Kuningas]

I'll join. though I don't have Civ5,

 

[Onan]

Okay, some organisational confusion it seems. We have the social group set up for some private discussions, with eight people joined. Discussion can continue there until everyone has also joined the private sub forum ainwood created for us; this thread I'm typing in now has been moved to the public side of the ISDG forum.

How to get into the group

From anywhere on the civfanatics forums, on the top menu bar, next to 'home', click on 'my account'. Then you will have a menu on the left side. Click on 'Group Memberships'. This will take you to a list of groups. Find on that list 'Civ5 ISDG - Team Civfanatics', and request to join. Then I will be able to approve you joining the next time I'm online.

I hope this helps!

They're still waiting on our picks for bans...if no more discussion here today, I will post our bans as Inca and China.

 

[Atlas627]

Somehow my other post didn't get copied over. The one about bans that might counter our general strategy. Here goes trying to summarize it.


We all seem to agree that adaptability is key. This narrows down our selection to well-rounded civs, those that have both economic and military uniques. Religion is also inherently flexible. Good civilizations that fit these requirements (in my opinion) are Inca, Egypt, Carthage, Byzantium, and Ethiopia. The first three have strong, flexible economic benefits for both tall and wide strategies, while having early UUs that will ensure we can get the ball rolling. The last 2 are strong religious civs, and with a smaller number of opponents we are more likely to get both a religion and a good religion.

I think our 'counter' here is a military rush, of a unit type our armies will have difficulty taking down. So I think it would be a good idea to ban Swordsmen or Pikemen UUs of military civs that are likely to go all-in on a rush. This would be Germany, Rome, perhaps Iroquois/Persia/Greece, depending on how our opponents play.

Any thoughts?