1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Restrictions on Tribe Choices?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games' started by Cyc, Oct 6, 2010.

?

Would you like to see these restrictions on the available Tribes?

Poll closed Oct 13, 2010.
  1. No Agricultural Tribes

    25.0%
  2. No Tribes who have a UU in the Ancient Age

    12.5%
  3. Both

    37.5%
  4. Neither

    25.0%
  5. ABSTAIN

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Not a Simple Poll. :)

    The current discussions at CivForums involve the restrictions imposed on the Tribes all Teams may choose to play with. Some people are suggesting that all Agricultural teams be eliminated as a choice for teams. Others suggest that any Tribe that has a UU originating in the Ancient Age be disqualified. Some suggest both of these restrictions. If both of these restrictions were put into place, only the following Tribes would be available for Teams to choose:

    China, Japan, India, Mongols, Scandinavia, Russia, America, France, England, Spain, Ottomans, Arabia, Korea, Portugal.

    So to gather an initial feel of how the CFC crowd feels about this, this poll has 2 options for restrictions. Instead of running a multiple choice poll, I am also adding options for both, neither, and ABSTAIN.

    1. Eliminate Agricultural Tribes
    2. Eliminate Tribes that have a UU originating in the Ancient Age.
    3. Both
    4. Neither
    5. ABSTAIN

    This is a public poll and will be open for 7 days.
     
  2. Memento

    Memento The World is mine

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Bremen/Germany
    No agricultural is ok for me, but no AA UU?

    I don´t like a "Who first explored chivalry" run out.
     
  3. Furiey

    Furiey No Longer Just Lurking

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,344
    Location:
    Bedfordshire UK
    Discussion at Civforum.de: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69802

    Non agricultural, non AA UU Civs (from Civforum.de)

    - China (MIL, IND) (Rider --> 4/3/3)
    - India (REL, COM) (War Elephant --> 4/3/2) no resources necessary, +1 HP
    - Arabia (EXP, REL) (Ansar Warrior --> 4/2/3) -10 shields
    - Japan (REL, MIL) (Samurai --> 4/4/2) only iron
    - Mongolia (EXP, MIL) (Keshik --> 4/2/2) -10 shields, only horses and mountains and hills are like grassland
    - Germany (MIL, SCI) (Panzer --> 16/8/3)
    - Ottomans (SCI, IND) (Sipahi --> 8/3/3) +20 shields
    - Spain (SEA, REL) (Conquistador --> 3/2/2) 70 shields, all tiles as road, horses
    - England (COM, SEA) (Man-o-War --> 4/2/5) enslave, better bombing, +5 shields
    - Russia (SCI, EXP) (Cossack --> 6/3/3) blitz, +10 shields
    - America (EXP, IND) (F15) better bombing
    - Scandinavia (MIL, SEA) (berserk --> 6/2/1) +30 shields, amphibious
    - Portugal (EXP, SEA) (Carrack --> 2/2/4) safe on ocean
    - France (IND, COM) (Musketeer --> 2/5/1), defensive bombing
    - Korea (SCI, COM) (Hwach'a) lethal bombing, only salpeter necessary


    Non Agricultural AA UU Civs (from Civforum.de):

    Persia
    Carthage
    Rome
    Greece
    Egypt
    Babylon
    Zulu
    Hittites
    Byzantines
     
  4. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,527
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    I think it would be ok to allow "harmless" civs like Greece or Byzantium. (Others as well?)

    Some UUs however, I think are "game-breaking" or can be game-breaking in certain situations. The Persian Immortal and the Egyptian & Hittite chariots certainly belong to that category.
     
  5. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Restrictions being applied on both types of Tribes is the winner here. A close race.
     
  6. Calis

    Calis on time

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,967
    Location:
    Germany GMT+1
    As there is still no result on this matter, I once again listed all civs, except for AGR civs. I added my own evaluation +/O/- (with tendencies) of each civ. And I think there are several good options:

    China (+)
    India (+)
    Arabia (+0)
    Japan (+)
    Mongolia (+0)
    Germany (+0)
    Ottomans (+)
    Spain (-0)
    England (-)
    Russia (+)
    America (-)
    Scandinavia (+0)
    Portugal (-)
    France (-0)
    Korea (+)
    Persia (+)
    Carthage (+0)
    Rome (+)
    Greece (+)
    Egypt (+)
    Babylon (+0)
    Zulu (-0)
    Hittites (-0)
    Byzantines (+)

    On top of this, the proposed pot of civs could be used as follows:

    Each team choses four civs from the above mentioned options. The four most often mentioned civ get into the pot and will be assigned to the teams randomly.

    To avoid irritations after the assignment the pot could be disclosed to all teams, so we can be sure all teams agree to all four civs. Then afterwards nobody can complain.

    This is expecially meant as a proposal to the conference of four.
     
  7. I. Larkin

    I. Larkin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,396
    I don't like an idea of random assignment. Some team may like one and hate another and vise versa. As a result we may get all /two unhappy. I think "random assignment" should be if 2 team wil want to take the same civ.
     
  8. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I'm not liking the thought of random assignment either. Gives us some more time to try and narrow the decision, please.
     
  9. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,527
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    The conference is already working on a decision...
    I think it will amount to the "Calis list" or a slight variation. (At least it looks like most people currently discussing this topic like your list a lot, including me...)

    Lanzelot
     
  10. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Who was responsible for adding the Tribes that have AA UUs?
     
  11. Calis

    Calis on time

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,967
    Location:
    Germany GMT+1
    Probably me!

    Do you love me now? Or do you hate me now? :D
     
  12. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Niether. But our polls are now trashed. We will have to start from block 1 with a larger assortment of choices and debates. :dunno:
     
  13. EvilConqueror

    EvilConqueror Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    455
    Location:
    USA
    Why is that? It looks having both restrictions won in our poll. Did Civforum.de also have a poll on this?
     
  14. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Apparently d7 didn't like the setting and then Calis added the "no AA UUs" to the list a couple of days ago. And I guess we're rolling over....
     
  15. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,527
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Yes, the polls are a "bit invalidated" now... But I think the discussions over at Civforum show a clear tendency towards Calis' list and many people here like it as well, so we should not need a new poll.
    I guess we should still remove some of the "killer units" (Persia, Rome, Egypt, Hittites), and then the list should be fine.
     
  16. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    So you want to put back Tribes that have an AA UU, but only the ones you deem suitable. We should probably drop Greece with their Phalanx, too. The Zulu are also too powerful with their Impi. Let's make this fair.
     
  17. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,527
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    It's not my selection. I only report here, what I gathered at the Civforum discussion. People are afraid of the attack units (Immortal, War Chariot, Legionary), but the defensive units should be harmless. (Phalanx and Impi with attack value 1 can simply be blockaded with 2-3 spears (or even warriors!), if you don't want to let them into your territory and neither want to attack them. So using them in an aggressive way should not be too effective. And using them in a combined arms approach (e.g. Phalanx+Swordsman, Impi+Horseman) requires researching more techs and producing more units, so that should give the other side enough time to counter this as well.)
     
  18. I. Larkin

    I. Larkin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,396
    You may block Impy only if continent has bottelneck. Otherwise they will pillage all around your Capital very fast. Then it will come time of swords and/or horses.
     
  19. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Germany
    This list is too arbitrary. No agris is a clear borderline, that effectively increases the diversity of chooseable civs. Other limitations reduce this diversity.
     
  20. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Yes, I believe the list is a bit arbitrary (although I'm not sure we agree on the cause of arbitrariness). I'm not sure why you think "No Agris" is bordrline. Do you mean because of the votes in the polls? I have to be honest here. Your poll was not very good. It did not list the proper options, that's why I chose "free choice". I would change my vote, as I'm sure others would too.

    But the part of your post saying "that effectively increases the diversity of chooseable civs. Other limitations reduce this diversity." is correct and very well stated. I'm impressed.
     

Share This Page