LK Planning Thread

[Aoxomoxoa]

I'd like to give it a go!

Aoxo

 

[LKendter]

LK131 start up -

Monarchy, map=balance, civ = random, speed=epic, map size = tiny, goal = just win baby.

I want to try a tiny map at least once. Now it may ONLY be once, but we shall see.

Requirements to sign up:
1) Experience at monarchy and a preferably a win at monarchy.

Signed up:
LKendter
Frankcor
Aoxomoxoa
Open slot
Open slot

 

[LKendter]

Going once...

 

[LKendter]

I am also looking to start LK132. The current LK131 idea seems to be going nowhere as 3 days should be enough time to start a game.
LK131 is going twice and will be cancelled if another player doesn't appear within 24 hours of this post.

I am going to open up this thread to player suggestions for what they would like to see, and if one sounds reasonable I will offer it. In other words, don't ask for a deity game since I haven't even tried emperor yet.

 

[Swiss Pauli]

Hi Lee - just a quick note from me to say that I've had to cut back on CIV per se, owing to other commitments (which show no sign of abating), so I don't think I'll be signing up for one of your - highly enjoyable - SGs til July.

 

[sunrise089]

Hey LK (sorry, not a sign-up) is the procedure to simply retire a number if the game doesn't get off the group? I sort of figured you would simply change the game settings around. Does this mean my assumption that there have been 130 LK games is actually over-optimistic?

 

[LKendter]

Hey LK (sorry, not a sign-up) is the procedure to simply retire a number if the game doesn't get off the group? I sort of figured you would simply change the game settings around. Does this mean my assumption that there have been 130 LK games is actually over-optimistic?

There has been no gap that I am aware of. If LK131 fails to start with plan A, I simply start the game with plan B.

 

[lukep]

the tiny map is a bit unnatractive without a special goal.

I would play most things on monarch, normal or epic speed, perhaps with a non standard map.

Other settings can be attractive with a goal, but finding a non-arbitrary one not already done start to be tough.

 

[pigswill]

Have you thought about going up to emperor?

 

[LKendter]

Have you thought about going up to emperor?

Some, but I really don't like the comments I have been hearing that you need to do an early axe rush to win at emperor and above. I hated fight early and often from Civ3, and really don't want to be forced into the same with Civ4.

 

[sooooo]

Some, but I really don't like the comments I have been hearing that you need to do an early axe rush to win at emperor and above.

This is 100% not true. Plenty of strategies at that level. You're easily good enough to take on emperor, and I've noticed you've won your last gazillion games at monarch. Take the plunge!

/not a sign up, but will hopefully have time for a LK game later in the summer.

 

[sunrise089]

Sooooo,

While it may not be 100% true, I've found that at my level it's VERY difficult to keep up with the AIs above Monarch on Warlords without some sort of early war. If I play well I can keep up at Monarch level, but about that it seems really advantageous to take over an AI early.

 

[berserks01]

Same here, at my level if I don't do an early war I would never keep up with the AI on Monarch.

I guess I'd need to see/be a part of a game where you don't need to do that and still win in order to learn.

 

[sooooo]

Well it depends on your level of play. Every time you go up a level, it seems that the "only way to win" is early rushes. Used to be the same for many players I'm sure for prince, then monarch, then emporer, then immortal etc. Then you get used to it, get a bit better at tech trading, diplomacy, build a few less wonders than before. Soon enough you can win on the level above by waiting for construction before starting your first war. Eventually you'll be getting diplomatic victories with a few rennaissance wars only. If you step up a level, sure, you'll lose some games. But getting out of your "comfort level" will make you a better player much quicker than winning every monarch game you play.

 

[Tatran]

You're easily good enough to take on emperor, and I've noticed you've won your last gazillion games at monarch.

All these games were at standard map size and without raging barbarians.
You won't be hindered in the beginning by the barbs and the AI empires
are relative small. Would you go to war if 1) an AI has 37 cities (large continents map - Augustus Caesar) or
2) it's 325 BC and one of your neighbors has already 6 cities + his UU (Mao Zedong - huge continents) ?

 

[LKendter]

Well I am glad to see there is still interest in some sort of SGs. Now I need to figure out what to offer...

 

[Kodii]

As usual, I show interest in joining. I just thought that after four SGs together, you'd might feel a bit sick of having me there.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Here's a plagarized idea from Civ3. You may own as many cities as you have great wonders + 1. You don't have to build the wonders, just own them. Vassals' wonders would either not count or count as half a wonder.

 

[sunrise089]

LK - one thought: why make the LK series 100% Warlords? Surely you have both disks. Since you run so many SGs, wouldn't it be nice to have access to the players that don't prefer or have Warlords?

 

[LKendter]

LK - one thought: why make the LK series 100% Warlords? Surely you have both disks. Since you run so many SGs, wouldn't it be nice to have access to the players that don't prefer or have Warlords?

I really hope it doesn't come down to that. I think the interface in Warlords for things such as large army stacks if far better. I really hated dealing with a 20+ unit stack in vanilla.