I think Napoleon is clearly stonger than most of the rest of that list.
I agree. Au revoir shorty.
Churchill is strong once his UU comes online.
Not an especially good reason for disregarding my namesake, since a later UU is unlikely to make much of a difference here. But a reason nonetheless. Goodbye baldy.
I think Genghis, Hammy, Toku, or Charlemagne would present a challenge assuming we didn't get a solid start/fit.
The challenge bit depends as much on the distribution and land-quality of the AIs as it does on our own start (we had a pretty crappy starting area in the first MC, but the AIs were utterly hamstrung by the map).
I agree that any of those guys should make for an interesting game, though. Personally, unless someone has a more substantive argument, I'd go for Hammy just because I've played less games with him than with the others.
I prefer shorter turnsets, especially earlier on. I know that people like to play out what they had in mind, but I would rather have more rounds during the crucial early periods and check our egos at the door when it comes to voting![]()
Hmm, I half expected everyone to disagree on shortening the turnsets. But since you're of the same opinion, I'm going to go a step further and raise the idea of playing 60 turn rounds from the very beginning. A greater focus on the small decisions would be most educational, especially if the tougher map seriously limits the range of strategic options (which seems inevitable imo).
Any takers? Or is this just too damned slow for you guys?
