Noble's Club

[Groogaroo]

I've never played an SG but have followed some on the SG board. It's a good idea and could be fun. I don't think it would be possible to host it on the strat & tips board tho, it kinda more belongs on the SG board I think. But I'm game.

I did check out the Ramesses take II game save, allthough I didn't play it all the way through, kind of getting board of him now!

 

[Roxlimn]

I think it would be most instructive to play with the Ottoman Empire. The Hammam is a great UB to learn to leverage and it helps to point out to Noble and Prince level players just how important happiness and health caps really are. It's the kind of UB that helps new people get better. Expansive + cheaper whipped Granaries in every city is also a worthwhile lesson to emphasize at this level.

 

[Geoffroy]

I'm all in for a warfare game in the next round!

I've been winning quite easily with space or cultural, and to a lesser extent diplo, but I actually never won a domination/conquest since warlord (the level)...

I'm trying one now with Ragnar on Archipelago, the hardest thing seems to stay organised,my troops are everywhere around the map, it's such a mess...

 

[grandad1982]

I'd like to play an SG but I don't know if I've got enough time to commit! If you guys play I may lurk it a bit. You should post a link here somewhere if you do play.

 

[schwartz]

I'd be in if we play an SG, never done that before and it might be fun. If anyone who's up for it would let me know I'll roll a start for us.

 

[Krick19]

We should use the 24/48 rule, and any rule set we can bum off of someone else. How about Noble/Epic, and how about Genghis Khan? We can set this up in the SG forum.

 

[Groogaroo]

Well I'm in, aslong as nobody minds me screwing up the game from time to time

Those settings seem fine by me Krick, like you said just borrow the rules from another SG thread. I think the basic rules are fairly straight forward really.

 

[Bleys]

I am sort of against playing the Ottos, Suily is this months LHC. His UB is outstanding though.

I am leaning toward a Pang/Fract map with a warmongering oriented type of Civ. I would lean away from a Horse based one (too similar to Ramesses), but I still think we should choose a leader whose traits are fairly easy to leverage.

I think traits is where we should look first. Once we decide on a trait we wish to play, we can look at the leaders who have that trait, and choose one. My preferred trait for the next round is CRE.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Creatie with a non-horse UU, and a war-mongering civ? Sounds like Pericles to me.

EDIT: Suryavarman is OK as well, but his UU is pretty niche. His UB is good though.

 

[Bleys]

We should use the 24/48 rule, and any rule set we can bum off of someone else. How about Noble/Epic, and how about Genghis Khan? We can set this up in the SG forum.

I would be willing to have a go. If you decide to set one up, post a link here.

 

[Groogaroo]

With regards to the next nobles club game,

I still think playing the mongols will be totally different to the horsie strat than the egyptians. For a start chariots would only be a stepping stone until you get HBR, for ger's and keshiks.

Kublai is CRE/AGG and he is an out and out warmonger really, looking at the traits and unique's.

The problem with other creative leaders like pericles is that they can be a warmonger, but they ain't really a dedicated warmonger. With pericles I'd be to tempted to focus on early research as he is a super wicked with an Specialist economy.

Have never played as Sury, PS is right about the UU, its an odd one, its ability is pretty naff as its only effective outside of cities.

As always, I'm easy going with what leader we choose, but it sounds to me like people want bloodshed and I say lets give em what they want!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Kublai is pretty good, I won my first ever game on Warlords (not the difficulty, the game, it was noble level) with him, domination in 1925AD, I don't think I used Keshiks much at all either!

Keshiks rock though, they ignore terrain movement penalties, they are great. And they rock! Plus, the tech for the UU unlocks the UB too.

 

[Groogaroo]

I won my only dom victory with the mongols on warlord (the difficulty level not the game) It doesn't really count becuase it was a tiny pangea with five leaders.

Which is why I fancy cracking some heads next time. I still havn't had a proper domination or conquest win yet on Civ4!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Blimey, I spent ages only having dom and space (EDIT: i.e. failed domination) wins

 

[Bleys]

Kublai is fine for me. So is Pericles for that matter. I do agree that a Horse Archer UU is far different from a Chariot one, so thats not a worry.

I only suggested CRE as my preference, but I am very very flexible here. I do think CRE is one of the easier traits to play when moving up a level in difficulty, which was a big part of my suggestion.

What sort of map? I dont mind Panaea, or Fractural (although they can be a PITA with warring). I am thinking Pangaea is much easier to warmonger on, thats for sure, so lets stick to the path of more obvious choices.

Also, anyone else who has a preference, please chime in. I do see a lot of folks looking for a game with more early warfare, and KK on Pangaea certainly will fill that request, but it there are other ideas, lets hear em.

 

[Krick19]

Pangaea is great, and for logistics, how many turns per round? I think to balance it (and speed things along), the turns in the BC era should be more. Like 20 turns in BC and 10 in AD.(Just a figure, I would want to go faster than 20 turns a round)

I only push for Sury cuz I haven't played him much, but Kublai is cool.

I can put up a save for Kublai, but only sign up if you're prepared to do a lot of screenies, and describe your plans a lot. Cuz we want quality reports before quality playing. So we can know why we're losing. Lol jk.

 

[schwartz]

First rounds should be something 40-30-30 for the first 100 turns then 15 per afterwards.. Up to everyone else, oh and I'll 'officially' sign up for an SG if we're going for it.
No preference on leaders or map, I have more time now so I can do better reports than I did in the Ramesses game.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I think it depends upon the number of players you get. If you have 3, 40-30-30 would be fine, but if you have 6 or more, I'd go 20 for the first round and then 10 thereafter myself. You don't want people waiting too long for their turn.

Good luck anyway, be sure to post a link when you start.

 

[Groogaroo]

I only push for Sury cuz I haven't played him much, but Kublai is cool.

Opps! confused? I thought we were talking about Kublai for the next normal Noble's club. Doesn't matter we can use him for the SG, kind of like a practice run.

Ibut only sign up if you're prepared to do a lot of screenies, and describe your plans a lot. Cuz we want quality reports before quality playing. So we can know why we're losing. Lol jk.

Count me in, I have plenty of free time at the moment, and I like posting my cunning plans for optimum failure,

 

[r_rolo1]

Just a advice:

If you want to run a SG, it is better to run it in the SG subforum... If you run it here, most likely a mod will move it anyway......

And , as a more experienced SG player , I suggest that you don't pick less than 4 and more than 7 players. Other numbers normally lead to unmanagable situations in human terms.