The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[Solon70]

That's an interesting format, but you'd definitely have to make the rounds shorter than a week since not everyone gets to play all 4 initial rounds.

You'd also miss the chance to get "valuable" participation from non-roster players like myself, heh.

 

[Bleys]

True, I like ours, which still needs tweaking, of course, but the participation is what I like, which is why we didnt run it as a straight CSG.

They have shorter turnsets, and ran into some of the same things we saw, too much similarity between the saves, not long enough to accomplish a "goal", etc. But I like how they eventually turned it into a regular SG. I have only played a couple SGs, but I enjoy them, the conversation and extra-special thoughts you put into your turns really helps to hone and sharpen your "regular" game.

I think our first game may get the "Lets all just finish it out" in a couple rounds, myself, so we can start the next one. We are pretty far ahead, the GLH is just a monster on maps like that.

 

[futurehermit]

Hey guys, I think after this next round our first game is going to be pretty much in the bag and we will just be mopping up pretty much. Is there any interest in posting a start for a second game while the first one is wrapping up?

 

[Diamondeye]

Woah! That's a tad early, imo. Perhaps you can start another "Win this" challenge while waiting. Else, I have an interesting Japan save you might wanna try if you need something to work with. It is Monarch and I am doing very well for the first time on my own, keeping almost tech parity, vassalizing HC and now leaning towards a Rifle/Nat beeline to get my beloved rifles drafted (Toku rules at that); I'll attach the save here if youre interested?

 

[futurehermit]

Do you think so? I already feel that after the end of this past round the game is already won and we are just killing time until the game acknowledges it Should get even worse after the next round. I'm not saying we would have to get into the next one, but we could post a start and talk about it for a week? That's two more rounds for the current game, which imo should be all we need (for sure) and would allow a seamless transition to the next one?

It's a moot point for me, I guess, because I will be on holidays

 

[Diamondeye]

I got the impression that there was way too much talk over the first rounds this game, so posting the next round early might be a bad move and lose interest if the real game starts on page 11 ... I think we are doing nice.

If I was to start something else, besides this series and my DG participation, it would either be a scenario (I like the "All random unrestricted leaders" games for a challenge), or more like one of Slobberinbears roleplaying challenges.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... after the end of this past round the game is already won and we are just killing time until the game acknowledges it ...

I can also see interest being quickly lost at this point -- on the parts of both lurkers and players.

I don't like the idea of playing out Game 1 while Game 2 starts.

Instead, I submit the idea to extend Round 5 to victory -- making it the final Round (1200 AD - Victory).

 

[r_rolo1]

I do agree with finishing the game from here... whichever save we use it will be mop up service, given the huge advantage that we have on the AI. there is no need to prolong the AI agony

 

[Solon70]

I think it would be interesting to see what strategy wins most quickly from this point, so I think your judgment is good.

 

[Bleys]

I can also see interest being quickly lost at this point -- on the parts of both lurkers and players.

I don't like the idea of playing out Game 1 while Game 2 starts.

Instead, I submit the idea to extend Round 5 to victory -- making it the final Round (1200 AD - Victory).

I sort of expected this, I tend to lose interest in my games as they get overly lopsided. Mopping up isnt that much fun or very interesting to watch. Personally, I have a tendency to play out these types of maps more than the pangaea type, though, because the water-warfare is one of my weakpoints, so I try to practice it. That reminds me, I need to finish up a couple other games, LOL, and start that darn GW LHC (well, play more, I have it started)

 

[Diamondeye]

Ehm, we can go ahead and make round 5 the final round for this game. That is a decision that will have to be made game to game ofcourse, and not as a general rule.

that said, I do agree this look a tad easy, but I am not all that sure it will merely be a mopup. I like my own save for the shot at diplo (suck up to Sal once I have gained AP residency, get him to friendly, then be elected world leader ), although any approach is possible .

Also, nice REXing this round Winston, you really got some settlers out. An economy teching @ 116 PT @ 30% is nice

 

[r_rolo1]

. That reminds me, I need to finish up a couple other games, LOL, and start that darn GW LHC (well, play more, I have it started)

Go play



Seriously, if your game go as mine did, you'll have a nice place for a modern war Domination. And Malls + SEAL are HUGE for that

On game:

It looks that we are somewhat agreed in making next round the last one....

This means it is time for start thinking on next game AKA next leader... Ideas?

 

[Diamondeye]

We will be playing Random Leader, anyone thinking we should generate a save and perhaps post civ info and such and no save or screenshots of save, and get a tactic discussion for that leader going, or should we wait?

Also, does anyone want be next game? I am fresh on taking on the task the next game aswell, but if someone insists, I am not going to argue.

We are also going to need to find out if we want a featured player the next game and in that case who decides who that'll be.

Comments!

 

[OTAKUjbski]

We will be playing Random Leader

As far as I know, yes ... in which case there's no discussion necessary about which leader or which type of map.

Anybody is welcome to step up and generate a map. Since r_rolo1 brought it up, maybe he should.?

That being said, whoever makes the map technically can check the map for "non starts" and regenerate the map as many times as they like, since we have no way of checking against that.

I like the idea of just going with whatever pops out, but we all have good judgement, so I trust any of us to submit a map.

EDIT: Actually, I think we should not duplicate any of this game's leader settings ... so no Germany, no IND, no EXP & no seafood! (I think I'd also regenerate Gems in the BFC since it's usually a no-brainer win.)​

... anyone thinking we should generate a save ... and no save or screenshots of save, and get a tactic discussion for that leader going

I'm not a fan at all of talking strategy around a leader without seeing a map, since my #1 rule is to play the map.

My initial strategy basically comes down to "move or don't move" and "do I have Stone in the BFC". Other than that, the real strategy doesn't surface until 40 Turns later after I know what the map is (or is not) handing me.

Also, does anyone want be next game?

I volunteer. (My deputy would be Bleys.)

And on that note, I think it might be a good idea to make each game's Deputy scan the next game's King king.

The could also be the person who makes the map, but since I did that last time, I'd rather not do it again this time, you know.

We are also going to need to find out if we want a featured player the next game and in that case who decides who that'll be.

Solon70 and vale both played solid rounds the whole time, so I'd say either makes a great candidate (assuming they want to eventually be on the roster).

Can we have more than 1 featured player?

 

[Diamondeye]

That being said, whoever makes the map technically can check the map for "non starts" and regenerate the map as many times as they like, since we have no way of checking against that.

I like the idea of just going with whatever pops out, but we all have good judgement, so I trust any of us to submit a map.

EDIT: Actually, I think we should not duplicate any of this game's leader settings ... so no Germany, no IND, no EXP & no seafood! (I think I'd also regenerate Gems in the BFC since it's usually a no-brainer win.)​

, no more Bismarck, perhaps even no more Germany or Ind, I don't know about closing out two traits... And no gems in BFC, I can agree to tha,

I'm not a fan at all of talking strategy around a leader without seeing a map, since my #1 rule is to play the map.

Agree. I was just thinking out loud

I volunteer. (My deputy would be Bleys.)

Cool. Anyone against?

And on that note, I think it might be a good idea to make each game's Deputy scan the next game's King king.

We can do that.

The could also be the person who makes the map, but since I did that last time, I'd rather not do it again this time, you know.

I don't think I can, but it's up to you to find out who will.

Solon70 and vale both played solid rounds the whole time, so I'd say either makes a great candidate (assuming they want to eventually be on the roster).

Agree. Winston Hughes did a nice job aswell.

Can we have more than 1 featured player?

We may, but then we'll "use up" our amount of active shadowers/featured players sooner rather than later...?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I don't know about closing out two traits...

I don't mean permanently. I just mean back-to-back. So Game 2 wouldn't feature IND or EXP, but Game 3 could be either.

I don't think I can, but it's up to you to find out who will.

You can't make a map?

Now that I think about it, if each new game's is going to make the map, then if you make the map and send it to me, we'll be back on schedule to continue that, since Game 1's and would've both made maps already (just for opposite games).

We may, but then we'll "use up" our amount of active shadowers/featured players sooner rather than later...?

Is that a bad thing?

The sooner we can get 8 or more roster players, the sooner we can realize more options (like concurrent games)!

 

[Diamondeye]

I don't mean permanently. I just mean back-to-back. So Game 2 wouldn't feature IND or EXP, but Game 3 could be either.

Okay, we can do it like that. I just think that is shutting out many leader (as many as 19 others than the one played last round), combine that with the country that can be 2 more (America has 3 leaders, per example. England too.)

You can't make a map?

Not Friday at least, my parents are divorced so there's this thing about being more one place than the other that - even though they don't want to say it out loud - seems unfair. So I am not at a PC with Civ Friday...

Now that I think about it, if each new game's is going to make the map, then if you make the map and send it to me, we'll be back on schedule to continue that, since Game 1's and would've both made maps already (just for opposite games).

Hmmm. I can see the point in that. Unfortunately that doesn't change the above fact

Is that a bad thing?

The sooner we can get 8 or more roster players, the sooner we can realize more options (like concurrent games)!

Oh, I though we were going to make the featured player work as a roster player for that one game only, so, per example, we'd be using Vale this game, Winston the next, and so on - so we never were more than 6. Ofcourse if enough guest players are available to play on full roster, we can make "teams" or split the series up... I need some feedback on this, I don't know if I have gotten the idea all wrong...

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... I just think that is shutting out many leaders ...

Given there are 53 leaders, I think we'll be ok.

So I am not at a PC with Civ Friday...

That would be fine, IMO.

This Friday (23rd) I think will be the final round of Game 1 .?

So next Friday (30th) will be the 1st round of Game 1 (when we would need a save uploaded by).

Given the format, we don't really need to discuss strategy too much ... it's more of a formality. However, I could always post the opening screenshots as soon as I have a save but not attach the save until next Friday.

Even if you e-mailed me the save as late as Tuesday, that's still 2 (plenty) days to discuss opening strategies if we'd like.

... I need some feedback on this, I don't know if I have gotten the idea all wrong...

I'm not sure we ever nailed it down.

I imagined if a player wanted to become a roster player, they'd first be a featured player for a game (or two) then admitted fully.

If that's the case, I'd think we'd want as many featured players as are willing to bolster the roster more quickly.

... we can make "teams" or split the series up ...

I think there've been two ideas circulated so far about "splitting" the team.

• Two teams = two games. Team A plays Game n while Team B concurrently plays Game n+1. Roster players would be allowed to join both teams if their schedule allows it.
  
  
• Two teams = two paths. Team A and Team B both play in the same game. Team A takes one approach (peacemonger, CE, etc.) while Team B takes another approach (warmonger, SE, etc.) All players play together until a clear branching off point is met -- at which point the teams would split down the two desired paths.

 

[Diamondeye]

Oookay, I might be able to generate a save in the weekend. Let us conclude:
- No Ind
- No Exp
- No Germany

OTAKUjbski will be next game, Bleys will be deputy.
OTAKUjbski will choose who should be featured player(s), after taking contact to the players (after the save is posted? After this game is over?)

 

[Bleys]

All those things sound good to me.

Have we made a decision on the length of those early rounds? Later round arent too bad if they are shorter, since you can still accomplish a lot with more cities, but round 1 and 2 could use a tweak I think.