Realms Beyond Emperor: The DSG's
- Thread starter Sirian
- Start date
PTW expansion. My first choice would be to play as Spain, as the Conquistador is getting ... less than rave reviews ... from many in the general CFC forum. Second choice would be the Scandinavians, just because. Third choice Mongols. Last choice, Arabs, because they are awesome but I'm currently playing a game as them and want to try the others out. I also really like the new commercial trait (from 1.29) and want to play with it again.
Roster:
Arathorn
Architect
Charis
JaxomCA
Sirian
in any order. That's just an alphabetical listing of people who have expressed interest.
Map -- I would like to play standard size, just to get a feel for the "normal" situation before going off into smaller/larger. Plus, the play time is less intense than for larger maps. As for make-up of the map, I'm ambivalent and would weakly vote for completely random.
Opponents -- Ambivalent -- would vote for all 7 random. Would be nice to see the other "new" civs, but I also like the new/old comparison.
Starting date: Recommended 11/18.
Rules: Add in "No use of scroll ahead between turns except to stop rioting" and I'm happy with them as presented at RB.
Win conditions: Just the plain old vanilla Civ3 ones -- conquest/domination/space/culture/diplomacy/histogram, so no regicide/mass regicide, elimination, capture the princess stuff.
Opinions/suggestions/changes?
Arathorn
PS My take on PTW (after one incomplete game, so take with a large amount of NaCl) is that corruption has not changed at all. 40-turn techs are an issue again. Research vs. purchase is FAR from clear. Early conquest is much harder. I can expand on any of these if anyone is interested.
Roster:
Arathorn
Architect
Charis
JaxomCA
Sirian
in any order. That's just an alphabetical listing of people who have expressed interest.
Map -- I would like to play standard size, just to get a feel for the "normal" situation before going off into smaller/larger. Plus, the play time is less intense than for larger maps. As for make-up of the map, I'm ambivalent and would weakly vote for completely random.
Opponents -- Ambivalent -- would vote for all 7 random. Would be nice to see the other "new" civs, but I also like the new/old comparison.
Starting date: Recommended 11/18.
Rules: Add in "No use of scroll ahead between turns except to stop rioting" and I'm happy with them as presented at RB.
Win conditions: Just the plain old vanilla Civ3 ones -- conquest/domination/space/culture/diplomacy/histogram, so no regicide/mass regicide, elimination, capture the princess stuff.
Opinions/suggestions/changes?
Arathorn
PS My take on PTW (after one incomplete game, so take with a large amount of NaCl) is that corruption has not changed at all. 40-turn techs are an issue again. Research vs. purchase is FAR from clear. Early conquest is much harder. I can expand on any of these if anyone is interested.
I'd like to play Mongols on rugged terrain, to see how Keshiks handle mountains. Second choice would be Scandinavia on a pelago to see how Berserks fare as amphibious units. Third choice would be Ottoman on any map setting.
Any map size is fine with me but I prefer no barbarians on deity level. All random opponents is ok.
The new victory conditions seems to be better suited to multiplayer although activating Elimination on deity would be quite a challenge.
Any map size is fine with me but I prefer no barbarians on deity level. All random opponents is ok.
The new victory conditions seems to be better suited to multiplayer although activating Elimination on deity would be quite a challenge.
Arizona_Steve
King
@Arathorn... Expand away...
Charis
Realms Beyond
Wow, my list is *identical* to Jaxom's!
As for Spain, my first game in PtW was them, because their units were getting maligned in reviews. Conclusion was - reviews were right. I had no luck with them and when it came down to it, Conq or 10 more shields for a cav, easy choice. That's not to say I won't come back to Spain sometime and try again, in a variant setting which requires heavy UU use, but I couldn't handle that again just yet
If it's a maligned unit you want, add "Korea" as fourth on my list after Vikings, Mongols and Turks.
Charis
As for Spain, my first game in PtW was them, because their units were getting maligned in reviews. Conclusion was - reviews were right. I had no luck with them and when it came down to it, Conq or 10 more shields for a cav, easy choice. That's not to say I won't come back to Spain sometime and try again, in a variant setting which requires heavy UU use, but I couldn't handle that again just yet
If it's a maligned unit you want, add "Korea" as fourth on my list after Vikings, Mongols and Turks.
Charis
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Arathorn: you accomodated my concerns for LOTR2, which I still appreciate. That game was a lot of fun. I'm happy to accomodate your request for this game (limited scroll ahead) and have you on board. The standard map size is also fine with me, and the five names you listed should make a good roster.
JMB, if you've beaten Epic 17, we'll take your word for it until report time comes -- that's only a week away, and we aren't even sure to start before then anyway.
As for the rest of the settings, there seem to be a variety of requests. I do favor some mix of old and new civs for the AI's. As for landforms, climate, etc, that might depend on the civ we choose to play.
- Sirian
JMB, if you've beaten Epic 17, we'll take your word for it until report time comes -- that's only a week away, and we aren't even sure to start before then anyway.
As for the rest of the settings, there seem to be a variety of requests. I do favor some mix of old and new civs for the AI's. As for landforms, climate, etc, that might depend on the civ we choose to play.
- Sirian
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Zed: I did, but there was an "if nobody objects" flag on there, so I'm still waiting on a firm decision. Is RBE4 ready to go with T-hawk's list of settings?
T-hawk
Transcend
Maybe I should put it this way - Sulla and Urugharakh, please confirm that you'd like to play RBE4 with those settings. 
(JMB did confirm; if you have any suggestions, fire away.) I know they're all pretty boring and standard, but I can't think of any compelling reason to change the map parameters or anything else, and the real star of the game will (hopefully) be some really souped-up AIs...
Also, I think falsfire and Iteean have checked in but aren't in either game. Would either game like to expand to six people (not sure if I'd want RBE4 to, but if everyone else wants, then sure), or maybe collect a couple more people for a third game?
(JMB did confirm; if you have any suggestions, fire away.) I know they're all pretty boring and standard, but I can't think of any compelling reason to change the map parameters or anything else, and the real star of the game will (hopefully) be some really souped-up AIs...Also, I think falsfire and Iteean have checked in but aren't in either game. Would either game like to expand to six people (not sure if I'd want RBE4 to, but if everyone else wants, then sure), or maybe collect a couple more people for a third game?
I've finished epic 17, but as report day isn't until next week, is there still room for me in the RBE5 roster?
I'd like to be towards the end of the roster, and I have no preference to the game, so long as the difficulty setting isn't tweaked to be "harder than deity" like DSG4 is.
I'd like to be towards the end of the roster, and I have no preference to the game, so long as the difficulty setting isn't tweaked to be "harder than deity" like DSG4 is.
More RBE5 Stuff:
Issues:
- Roster? Both Iteean and falsfire have expressed an interest in doing an RBE. I can't commit to more than one, but I prefer 5 (or 4) people to 6. We almost have enough that we could go with a third concurrent game, but....
- Civ? Compiling the results, it looks like either Mongols on a rugged environment or Vikings on a 'pelago. I would vote for the latter, as I don't believe a deity 'pelago SG has been played (or was the OCC 'pelago?). Either way, we're expansionist and militaristic!
- Barbs. Jaxom requested no barbs. I was going to request maximum barbs. I really think the new barbs of PTW add an exciting/different element that we should not ignore. I'd be fine with lowest level of barbs where camps actually form, but I do want to see some barbs.
- Who starts? Has Architect started an SG yet? If not, I say we let him start -- and make him make the final decisions if we can't come to a consensus. Sirian, Charis, and I have all started SGs before, I know. I'm open for anything, though.
Agreed on (or at least not disputed):
- Standard map size.
- Random opponents.
- All standard win conditions enabled.
Thoughts?
Arathorn
Issues:
- Roster? Both Iteean and falsfire have expressed an interest in doing an RBE. I can't commit to more than one, but I prefer 5 (or 4) people to 6. We almost have enough that we could go with a third concurrent game, but....
- Civ? Compiling the results, it looks like either Mongols on a rugged environment or Vikings on a 'pelago. I would vote for the latter, as I don't believe a deity 'pelago SG has been played (or was the OCC 'pelago?). Either way, we're expansionist and militaristic!
- Barbs. Jaxom requested no barbs. I was going to request maximum barbs. I really think the new barbs of PTW add an exciting/different element that we should not ignore. I'd be fine with lowest level of barbs where camps actually form, but I do want to see some barbs.
- Who starts? Has Architect started an SG yet? If not, I say we let him start -- and make him make the final decisions if we can't come to a consensus. Sirian, Charis, and I have all started SGs before, I know. I'm open for anything, though.
Agreed on (or at least not disputed):
- Standard map size.
- Random opponents.
- All standard win conditions enabled.
Thoughts?
Arathorn
T-hawk
Transcend
By my count, there's 7 people interested.. if one person has the time and wanted to double-up between games (including the people in RBE4, although most of them don't have the expansion), you could do two four-player games...?
Charis
Realms Beyond
Thanks for moving this forward, Arathorn. A good idea to get some new blood starting off the games. I didn't recall Architect's style or Deity-readiness, so I dug around - the Jag assault on Bapedi in RBE SG2 and the "Nationalism Slingshot" removed any fears I had 
Vikings archipelago works fine for me, and my plan (until the map or foes told me otherwise) would be aggressive sea exploration and amphibious assaults. Some barbarians good, weaker variety is fine, standard size is fine, any victory condition is ok.
But along the lines of "scientific", let me just toss out one more idea:
Asian Rumble
Civ: Korea
Foes: Japan, China, Mongols, India, Russia (see below)
Idea for a special rule: - At game end, must own Great Wall and Sun Tzu.
(Downsides to this: Korea isn't exactly the powerhouse most people would want for a Deity game, and second, the opponents are mostly classic Civ. But that's easily fixed by some name changes: Indonesians (Arabs), and if you prefer eight civs in the game instead of six - Thailand (Vikings) and Philippines (Spain). This one can 'hold for later' if folks prefer Vikings right now)
Charis
Vikings archipelago works fine for me, and my plan (until the map or foes told me otherwise) would be aggressive sea exploration and amphibious assaults. Some barbarians good, weaker variety is fine, standard size is fine, any victory condition is ok.
But along the lines of "scientific", let me just toss out one more idea:
Asian Rumble
Civ: Korea
Foes: Japan, China, Mongols, India, Russia (see below)
Idea for a special rule: - At game end, must own Great Wall and Sun Tzu.
(Downsides to this: Korea isn't exactly the powerhouse most people would want for a Deity game, and second, the opponents are mostly classic Civ. But that's easily fixed by some name changes: Indonesians (Arabs), and if you prefer eight civs in the game instead of six - Thailand (Vikings) and Philippines (Spain). This one can 'hold for later' if folks prefer Vikings right now)
Charis
Ozymandous
Prince
The conq isn't bad if you use it for what it was intended for, namely the ability to move like an explorer for pillaging, but having a modest attack/defense so it won't be immediately captured like explorers are.
I am playing a game now as spain, and am using these units to run 15-20 tiles deep into enemy territory to pillage and park on their resources. Sure they may die more than Cav's and not have the attack power but, IMHO, that's not their purpose. I do think their price could be dropped some, but I think the main reason people don't like them is that they are trying to use them in place of Cav, which is *not* what they are for.
I am playing a game now as spain, and am using these units to run 15-20 tiles deep into enemy territory to pillage and park on their resources. Sure they may die more than Cav's and not have the attack power but, IMHO, that's not their purpose. I do think their price could be dropped some, but I think the main reason people don't like them is that they are trying to use them in place of Cav, which is *not* what they are for.
Charis
Realms Beyond
Good point, I think you've hit the intended use.
I can't shake the memory of landing four of them on Arab land, in the mountains, as I chuckled... I'll move from mountain to mountain and pillage his homeland dry. In *ONE* turn they were not only slaughtered off the mountain by Arab cavalry, but I promoted two in the process. That was brutal to watch...
It's the cost. 70 vs 20 for Conq vs Explorers??
Or 80 for cavalry? If you want a strong, fast moving pillaging unit that won't die, spend 10 more for cavalary - AND you get the best offense in the game for the next 400 years.
They really could use a lower cost, maybe 50, or an extra defense point. OR make them available earlier. Back around the time of muskets, before cav hit the scene, a horse that has less offense and defense than a knight but that moves as if on a road, and costs slightly more, would be a good buy. Or let them "carry" a worker or settler with them
I'll try 'em again, when I next play Spain, but my initial game with them was very disappointing indeed (and I went in *wanting* to see them work well)
Charis
PS in EDIT - Hehe, we're having a good lunch hour I see...
"Users Browsing this Forum: Jaffa Tamarin, Sirian, Arathorn, T-hawk, falsfire"
I can't shake the memory of landing four of them on Arab land, in the mountains, as I chuckled... I'll move from mountain to mountain and pillage his homeland dry. In *ONE* turn they were not only slaughtered off the mountain by Arab cavalry, but I promoted two in the process. That was brutal to watch...
It's the cost. 70 vs 20 for Conq vs Explorers??
Or 80 for cavalry? If you want a strong, fast moving pillaging unit that won't die, spend 10 more for cavalary - AND you get the best offense in the game for the next 400 years.
They really could use a lower cost, maybe 50, or an extra defense point. OR make them available earlier. Back around the time of muskets, before cav hit the scene, a horse that has less offense and defense than a knight but that moves as if on a road, and costs slightly more, would be a good buy. Or let them "carry" a worker or settler with them
I'll try 'em again, when I next play Spain, but my initial game with them was very disappointing indeed (and I went in *wanting* to see them work well)
Charis
PS in EDIT - Hehe, we're having a good lunch hour I see...
"Users Browsing this Forum: Jaffa Tamarin, Sirian, Arathorn, T-hawk, falsfire"
Max barbs I think would be crazy for us in PtW. Fun to watch and read about, but we'd get soooooo run over by 'em. (this based on the barbs seemingly more intelligent behaviour in RBP1)
Low barbs, viking pelago if that's what everybody else is pushing for, sounds like fun. I tried a similar game myself, but ended up with one of those "pelago"'s where 6 of the eight civs started together on one island...altogether dissappointing.
All in all, I'm not picky bout it. I just don't want to be the one who goes first! When I play solo games I agonize for hours over each move in the early game, when I know others will be analyzing my moves I'd probably just freeze up
Low barbs, viking pelago if that's what everybody else is pushing for, sounds like fun. I tried a similar game myself, but ended up with one of those "pelago"'s where 6 of the eight civs started together on one island...altogether dissappointing.
All in all, I'm not picky bout it. I just don't want to be the one who goes first! When I play solo games I agonize for hours over each move in the early game, when I know others will be analyzing my moves I'd probably just freeze up
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
OK, time to voice my preferences for RBE5, now that I've had time to consider what sort of game I'd like to play.
Like everybody else, I want to experience the new civs, but my urge takes a different direction. I am more interested in seeing how the AI handles the new UU's than in what we as players can do with them. I would like to play AGAINST the Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, Koreans and Ottomans. I also prefer to leave all variant concepts for another game. The DSG's are not the best arena for wild variants in the first place, as Deity alone can provide a stiff enough challenge generally, but this being the first PTW game for me, I want to focus on the basics. Also, having just gotten out of a grueling start position, I want a more user friendly start. Doesn't have to be pristine, but I want some elbow room and decent land around.
I agree with Arathorn about the barbarians: I want them in there, even if they cost us the game. I want to experience them under the changes. "Raging" might be a bit much, as we (at least I) don't know what to be doing vs them yet, and part of the idea of DSG's is that they are the stomping ground for experienced players. Well, that ain't us when it comes to the new barbs, so let's take them in moderation for starters. Roaming or Restless.
I would prefer to play an industrious civ, but without religious or scientific: France, China, America or Carthage would fit well. RBE2 was pelago, but I do not have any specific concerns about the map other than that the start be on the fertile side of the scale.
- Sirian
Like everybody else, I want to experience the new civs, but my urge takes a different direction. I am more interested in seeing how the AI handles the new UU's than in what we as players can do with them. I would like to play AGAINST the Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, Koreans and Ottomans. I also prefer to leave all variant concepts for another game. The DSG's are not the best arena for wild variants in the first place, as Deity alone can provide a stiff enough challenge generally, but this being the first PTW game for me, I want to focus on the basics. Also, having just gotten out of a grueling start position, I want a more user friendly start. Doesn't have to be pristine, but I want some elbow room and decent land around.
I agree with Arathorn about the barbarians: I want them in there, even if they cost us the game. I want to experience them under the changes. "Raging" might be a bit much, as we (at least I) don't know what to be doing vs them yet, and part of the idea of DSG's is that they are the stomping ground for experienced players. Well, that ain't us when it comes to the new barbs, so let's take them in moderation for starters. Roaming or Restless.
I would prefer to play an industrious civ, but without religious or scientific: France, China, America or Carthage would fit well. RBE2 was pelago, but I do not have any specific concerns about the map other than that the start be on the fertile side of the scale.
- Sirian
