Discussion in 'Civ4 - Succession Games' started by RRRaskolnikov, Nov 15, 2013.
Us: Mao/Peter/Sury/Mehmed, in that order of preference
Map type: not Pangaea, not Archipelago.
I've never played Rainforest. Could be interesting, but I hear the AI can't cope with so much Jungle.
Big and Small is usually good.
Fractal would need a proof-reader, to check that it will be fun.
I like Inland Sea, but it limits the player's options (only two targets; lots of land; biggest challenge is the barb rush).
Continents is also interesting.
I'm sure there are others...
I would like to play Mao but I'm fine with having him as opponent.
Rainforest sounds perfect for expansive leaders.
It's been a very long time since I played Continents, which is one of the staple map types -- wouldn't mind this.
My limited memory of rainforest doesn't like it too much, I have to open up some generated maps and have a look.
Our leader: yet to decide ... soon
AI leaders: either completely random or randomly picked between the other expansive leaders. I slightly prefer the latter as the former adds flavour but the latter adds more excitement. However, I don't feel strongly either way.
I am sleepy, reverse that final sentence regarding AI leaders, it came out wrong. I slightly prefer all random over random expansive.
us: one of Mao, Peter, and Sury (war elephants for me)
speed: quick just to see if my posts are actually read
as for the variant, I found this :
How about we preserve ourselve from martial stagnation, by not building any siege units? spies, horses, and zeppelin. The evidence is clear.
Variant sounds good to me!
Another point regarding maps:
I do like B&S, but the problem with it is that you pretty much know the Great Lighthouse will prove invaluable from the start, so you build it blindly. If it wasn't for this I'd play the map much more often.
However, continents is quite predictable as well, at least in terms of knowing how many AIs you will meet.
Not building siege sounds like a very severe handicap on deity. I might be undefeated on deity but I do not see me winning such a game. Add to that the no spies, horses or zeppelins. But then it might be interesting to see how a skilled team handles the problem.
For map how about lakes, rocky, temperate with 9 expansive opponents?
I think the variant is simply no seige so we capture cities with mounted backed up by spies and/or air power.
RRRaskolnikov will need to tell us what he meant but to me it looks like one sentence with a question mark behind siege to mark that it is a perhaps.
will watch this with pleasure...
if you want an opinion from lurker I vote Sury and fractal or continents...
got a bit too fed with all those pangeaish maps lately
What pigswill said. He means not building any siege -- horses etc are in. You will have to excuse his lackluster english.
No siege is fine in theory; in practice, it may be too restrictive, limiting us to Horse Archers (if we're blocked in) or Cuirassiers (if we have room to expand).
I don't know whether WEs can win wars without siege on Deity. Praetorians can, but they come much earlier and veterans can promote to CR III.
If we do play as Mao (and I'm not saying that we should) his Chuks might fit the variant well. I'm not sure that we would want to fight a Medieval war otherwise, even with massed spies.
Still, of the Mao/Sury/Peter options, Mao is probably the weakest.
Yes, it could be very harsh, but if we play for instance 'continents' then the chance of getting badly blocked in is very small. I'm open to ideas about other variants though, this was only Ras' 1st suggestion.
A great spy would allow for plenty of city revolts, but unfortunately it's very hard to get that reliably without the great wall (which you also can't get reliably on deity).
good discussion keep it up
@Folket: what pigswill and Rusten said. I meant just siege units.
@Doshin: I don't think the variant is too harsh since deity limits already war oppurtunities: using horses is already one of the best warmonmgering tactic there is.
I didn't mean harsh, but restrictive. My worry is that a "no siege" rule would mean that, if we are boxed in, we only have one option open to us (= HA rush), and, if we are not boxed in, we will simply expand and pursue the Lib/Military Tradition path (= Cuirassier rush).
But it's not a big deal and I would be happy to play this way.
In fact, if we pick a map that is not just on one continent, this will force us to be more creative. Horses have a hard time crossing the Ocean.
Hey! Just came accross this thread because I had never really lurked in the S&Tales sub-forum, and I think the concept is very cool.
Will definitely follow with pleasure, and would even be delighted to participate but the roster seems full... (I am an Immortal player learning Deity)
I must say I strongly regret not having discovered CFC at the time Attacko was still active, no player was as generous in game-breaking gems
Tip- forget all teachings by Sun Tzu
oops I missed ths... lakes/rocky/temperate sound ok but I fear it plays a lot like pangea/rocky. Rocky makes deity doable (eye of the tiger playing) though...
on the other hand 9 opponents might be too hard since we would be really short on land in the beginning (6 opponents on normal settings iirc). I'll let the rest of the team give input on this.
your opinion mirrors mine (or vice versa, dunno). problem of fractal is those isolated starts it sometimes produces.
all good points... though the point of a variant is to restrict normal play, isn't it? That being said, I am opened to other variant propositions!
Hi pomthom! Roster is full yeah but you are more than welcome to comment/lurk here There are plenty of awesome threads (acid games, free tip) in the SG forum, be sure to have a look
@team: anymore input on leader/map settings/variant/opponents/troy? I think we shouldn't spend a lot more time without a save on our hands!
Separate names with a comma.