Ruff09: Which Improvement?

[CHEESE!]

Oh please don't expect this game to be anything but long. Only VCs allowed are time and conquest (another reason why I wonder about ruff suggesting russia ) and conquest on a huge map really will be a challenge.

I think the main point of this game will be whether or not you manage to win by conquest before time (though noble helps a lot there).

I would suggest the aztecs as a great warring civ (I guess you know why) and some spiritual leader probabely (though some anarchy might come in handy, especially early) so probabely pick... agg/org hammurabi? (well doublespeed altars are just insanely cheap (though not as cheap as zigs but still - sumer would be another great civ to help you here - please consider vultures and cheap PH courts... about as good as you're gonna get it).

I SHOULD have read the variants fully.

I think we want the leader to be Philo.

Hmm on Sumer.

I am considering the most cakewalky civ we got, Rome. IW is top priority anyway (rainforest map!!!!!!!) and we CAN settle on Iron (woohoo!). We can also whip teh Prays For Mercy (Praetorians) with our SUPERFARM civ.

 

[CHEESE!]

One more thing- do we pillage cottages, mines, etc?

 

[mystyfly]

I was wondering too whether you HAD to pillage those. I think you'll have to as most of your empire will be ex-AI land and thus variously improved.

BTW I really don't think a game as rome would be fun... for a reason this game will be only noble or even lower. Someone mentionned RR2 - no worker paradise (in which I happen to have participated) where we played on noble too - it was a walk in the park (though a long walk with next to no roads ).

edit: Why are you so stuck on philo? With so much food and likely a food corp (consider what corp you'll have the most resources of!) GPs won't be much of a problem. Bulbing is next to no use with so weak AIs that your traits should primarily help your warring efforts (and not bankrupting your eco), thus I suggest hammurabi.

 

[CHEESE!]

Because..... because..... um... I know!.... no... um.....

Ok, if we dont run Filo (curse you for altering mah opinions) I would vote Washington of the Aztecs, whipper's paradise.

 

[CHEESE!]

Wow. I have just looked up the Rainforest map. It is SCARY. Resources abound eh? I think we want Cereal Mills......

 

[CHEESE!]

Anybody out there? Why has this been so discussionless?

 

[ruff_hi]

Lots of discussion and not much of it co-ordinated .

Civ
Well, reading thru it I think there is an obvious lean towards the Aztecs.

Leader
Now for the actual leader ... lots of discussion but I think the team settled on a philo leader ... that means ...

Alexander - Philosophical - Aggressive
Elizabeth - Philosophical - Financial
Frederick - Philosophical - Organized
Gandhi - Philosophical - Spiritual
Lincoln - Philosophical - Charismatic
Pericles - Philosophical - Creative
Peter - Philosophical - Expansive
Sitting Bull - Philosophical - Protective
Suleiman - Philosophical - Imperialistic

Of these leaders, Fred, Lincoln, Pericles and Gandhi got actual mentions (that I picked out). I think the decision has to come down to the 2nd trait ... so:

• The war monger traits don't appeal because of the difficulty - we will not need any help in this department (scratch: agg, char, prot and imp)
• Financial - this might be good as commerce will be difficult (only farms), however, will there be many tiles that naturally generate 2 commerce?
• Organized - our civ will be large - so this will be useful
• Spiritual - wasting turns in anarchy is never my strong point but this is a long game
• Creative - good because I hate having to build culture buildings in new cities just to pop borders
• Expansive - extra health and quicker hammer production of workers - that will help

For me, and also factoring in some of the discussion, lets go with Organized. That means our leader is Frederick.

Corporation
Not so much discussion here. However, 2 were the main candidates ... Cereal Mills for food and Mining Inc for hammers. To me, this is an easy decision ... Mining Inc as we will have all the food that we need. Now, someone did mention the early Corp costs - I'll balance that out .

So, that's settled ...

• Difficulty: Noble
• Leader: Frederick
• Civilization: Aztecs
• Corporation: Mining Inc

 

[Liquidated]

Totally agree with Aztec Fred and either hammer corp is perfectly fine with Liq. One thing I would suggest considering is Creative Corp on account it's just like having ...

Creative - good because I hate having to build culture buildings in new cities just to pop borders

plus uh... a whole lot more haha.



Either way, Aztec Fred and his amazing Miners works for Liq.

We get to choose from a few maps or just roll with what the RNG says?

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[ruff_hi]

I've rolled up our start ...

Anyone got suggestions on where to settle?

We get to choose from a few maps or just roll with what the RNG says?

I rolled a few maps, including a peek into WB to make sure we where not on the side of the map, etc. Rainforest map starts look very very similar so I didn't offer multiple possible starts - team ok with that?

 

[Liquidated]

That's fine!

Sweet start considering it's effing rice lol. The rice are both on the river so no need to road them to hook them up or civil to irrigate so win.

Seems we want to settle on top of the gems just to get their happy. Moving SW one (the scout first to see what we can see) would nail a major happy that never obsoletes, which is too good to just ignore. Also means that farm-able banana is left for a town at least on the pigs. If all else fails, moving south to settle on the river seems superior to in place.

I would move the Scout SWish two to make sure and first build would actually be another scout (snag all those huts!) instead of a worker.


Tech wise:
Agriculture -> BW-> IW as we need to locate our corp metals!

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[CHEESE!]

Settle the gems. It seems the RNG knows we were going to do this!

Agree with Liq's techpath. Get the metals!

Edit: Do we START with one corp? As in we will WB in Mining Inc after settling?

 

[ruff_hi]

settling on gems takes us out of range of the hammers (hills, plain, forest) ... but does bring in happy. Reasonable trade off?

 

[CHEESE!]

Ugh. Move the scout first.

 

[Liquidated]

need to move scout but this is my idea...

Each initial town location starts with 3 hills as far as I've seen and there's only 2 seen with the fog in the west. That means one of those three hills is in the west and we keep one of the hills in the BFC going SW.

Need to see the land via scout first though imo as thsoe gems are too good to pass up by default.

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[ruff_hi]

move the scout which way?

Edit: Oh ... SW, SW. Sure.

 

[Liquidated]

SW then either west or SW. The real question is jsut how much jungle we pick up moving south so SW SW (or 1,1 hehe) works for liq.

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[CHEESE!]

I find myself in perpetual agreement with Liq. If Liq said to worldbuilder in nukes, and stagnate the population with citizens I would agree.

 

[Liquidated]

Liq says worldbuilder in nukes, and stagnate the population with citizens.

Er wait!


Ok SW to gems looks good. Pick up a jungled hill but if we are bee lining IW then that gives the workers something to do! Looks like a hill NW of the jungle as well from the map discolorization so looks win. Any way you cut it, this is a hammer poor starting area. I would double back with the scout to snap up the hut once Capital is set and hope for mining!

Cheers!
-Liq

 

[ruff_hi]

ok - the plan is to settle on the Northern gems, tech Agriculture then head towards IW while building scout, worker and other stuff.

I will have a report up by tomorrow night

 

[Liquidated]

Good luck! let there be massed evenly spaced metal in a 3x3 tile grid, perfectly aligned with the gems. Oh and lots of irrigated corn!!!

Cheers!
-Liq