Von Münchhausen II

:lol: I took at least five cities in a ten turn set and burned half of them down. I can't imagine how that stretched the game out...
I think it's up to the player whether to take all towns or just focus on the capitals, but the last thing is a bit quicker.
Fighting for a civs remaining cities when the capital is already in our hands isn't strictly needed. At the moment Brichals has a similar decision to make; he can make peace with Oda, take all his money, accept Open Borders, heal our troops in Oda's territory and move on to Russia, or he can choose to take that last big Japanese town as well. I won't complain whatever he does, though.
 
As I said before, there's no reason to hold back, just go for it.

We have a great army, we can trash it while we take the two last caps...it's not like our dead soldiers will show up in the score?

So let's just kill the game as quickly as possible and then we all win. :)
 
OK I'm just going to mainly go crazy at war here

Turn 220 1550 AD

I make peace with Japan for 186 + 36gpt and OB.

Turn 221
Biology is in. Monster result! Elephantine is sitting on 7 oil and weve got 4 other sources.
I double bulb up to combustion. We now got 7 tanks on Russias border and plenty of destroyers that will move around towards Istanbul, taking a task force with them.

I research flight, maybe we could buy some fighters later to help finish, dunno. Normally I'd go electricitity but we'll be done soon.

Decide to declare on Catherine. Just to make it faster.

Turn 222
Just more military manouvres

Turn 223
I take Vladivostock and raze it. Yakustsk also falls but I keep it. Tanks are a bit crazy at this stage.
Statue of Lib came in. I moved up to Moscow and there is quite a bit of resistance.
Spoiler :


Turn 224
Im planning to take out Bursa by amphibious assault.
Spoiler :


I clear a lot of Cathys ground army but still Moscow will take a few turns. Can't get my arties up fast enough. I'm just throwing everything up there without much care. Still no losses for us yet though.

Turn 225
A deal with Sully ends, so I declare war anyway hahahaha.
I've been randomly building RRs for reinforce but I think it may be too late already.

Turn 226
Delhi gets a GE. I burn him for a GA because I cant see teh benefit of anymore buildings. Then I get my tea and I realise BIG MISTAKE! I could have rushed louvre then burnt 2 GAs. Oh well.

I choose constitution (2 culture per WW) for policy. Not really many others, bit of a dead rubber.

Turn 226
Moscow and Bursa take some pounding. More oil comes in.

Turn 227
Oh I lost a couple of dudes around Moscow, I pushed a bit too hard.
But its ours now and we have more men coming in big metal boxes. Moscow has Sistine chapel.
Spoiler :


Down to 3 smilies. I annex New York and buy a courthouse and theatre. 9 smilies now.

Bursa is down, its got a few good buildings so I keep it. 5 happy now and one city left to take.

Errm, OK love.
Spoiler :


As you can see, the route to Istanbul now looks very nice with OB from Cathy.
Spoiler :


Turn 228
OK I've started automating workers, theyll finish rail roads.

THIS IS OVER. Sullys got no army, Cathy is also banging on his door.

I'm going to finish it.

Turn 229
Istanbul takes some serious beatings. I think I will finish it next turn.

Turn 230 1600 AD
but OH NO, Cathy finished him!!!
Crap I wanted to save it one turn before the end. I'm surprised a rifleman finished Istanbul.
Spoiler :


Heres the save after the one more turn screen.

It was easy after we got 7 oil instantly.

Well done all!!! Enjoy your free May bank holiday Gozpel (I assume you have that in Aus.)
 

Attachments

  • SiamVM2end.Civ5Save
    1.2 MB · Views: 211
Fantastic! Well done, team!
:trophy2::band::cheers::band::trophy2:
Excellent last set as well. I think Cathy did the job for you because you're always nice enough to include a few pictures of her, Brichals. :lol:

We probably did even better than in the first Von Münchhausen. We finished there at turn 236, small map and Emperor level, this was a bigger map and a level higher, and we did it slightly less turns. Can't be bad, then.

Here is a screenshot of the whole map again. A lot of the settings were random, it looks like it turned out to be a cold map, and we started in the best part of the map, I think:

 
Very nice finish and thanks Cathy for dealing the final blow to Sully. :)

No May bank holiday here, whatever that is, still now I can go back to my huge settler game against one AI and continue building a hundred plus cities. :lol:

Looking back at the game, I can sense a few different personalities in our team, which opened up for some great ideas and the time shows that. It was short, but fun. :)
 
GG everyone!

This is the first game I've finished at Immortal so I'm very pleased!

That was a storming set Brichals. Well done.

Looking at the map it seems we were lucky with where we started. If we'd stated some where further south we might have tried a different VC. Maybe? I guess we would have had to expand to get some better land for nearly any VC. I really liked this map. It was great to explore as it was very hard to know what it was like until quite late in the game.

Looking forward to the next one!
 
If we had started in the tundra I don't think we would have picked that start. ;)

Halfway the game I thought the map was too big, with so many civs and land still to conquer, and that small is better for SG, but since we finished this quicker than the small one, I don't feel so strongly about that anymore.

Still, I could imagine picking a smaller map again for a test run on Gods & Kings. I think for both Succession Games I just suggested a map size and nobody objected, but some feedback on this is very welcome, if there is some.
 
Oh yeah. I remember now! We had seveal starts to pick.... :lol:

On the map size I think that Small and Normal have pros and cons. Surprisingly.

Towards the end of the game loading times were getting pretty silly and its not like my pc is a slouch. Having more civs to trade with is a definite plus as well as there just being more map to explore. I think larger maps are also a little more complex (a good thing) as there is more AI interaction gong on.

Smaller maps don't lag as much. They also reduce the fatigue I often find with pushing through the last part of a game as its usually shorter.

It pretty even between them to be honest but with an SG I think a normal size map might edge out small maps as the fatigue issue isn't so great. Playing with settings can also make either size play totally differently....

For G&K I agree starting small would be a good idea. Maybe even selecting some of the AI so we could see some of the new civs in action. Obviously its pretty hard to much till we have the game in our hands. As you said before though some basic house rules might be good to establish before the, such as how we'll trade with AIs etc.
 
G&K, of course a smaller map will show us things easier, so I agree to that.

But onwards after that, nothing smaller or bigger than Standard maps for me. ;) Well, maybe if we change the sealevels, I can live with it.

My fav scenario is to play Terra, with lower seas and a couple more AI's. Always make a fun game and then by looking for science/culture victory, it can be a little bit demanding for the synopses in your brain. But still fun!

Before speculating on what map/victory, I suppose we all have to play a few games on single to get the radar right? It will be a huge change, well, if they implemented it correctly. And new civs too, I heard?
 
I guess G+K be a bit imbalanced in the beginning, but I'm planning to have a good blast on it as soon as its released. I actually look forward to a new SG, I got a bit distracted mid way through this one but it was fun and I think we did very well and had some good discussions. I think we all played at least one power set and we never did a bad one.
 
For the rules:

Don't sell OB's one way, it's lame. I see it as a little friendship deal, you look at mine and I can look at yours. ;)

Never sell anything to an AI that we're going to attack within 30 turns, never!

Scouting was terrible in this game and also in my other, but at least a couple of scouts died there to find something. So, every tile you reveal during the game, can win you the game. Everything possible has to be checked out, as we're not playing Settler diff. And didn't we find some natural wonders at the end?

On my own games I usually start with just the one scout on continents plus the free warrior, but different maps like Pangaea or Terra and even Fractal, I want at least 2 out early, then depending on the layout or one is killed, I might another one later. But not too late.

Of course there are a load of situations where you sell some luxes or whatever, like when you see a SOD coming your way. Deals like that I understand and IF the AI breaks it, not your fault.

Next game we should talk more and listen even more. NotSure mentioned the Honor tree many times and while it didn't make a difference in this game, maybe we should find out a bit more about possibilities/disadvantages of how going about with SP's in a team. I never really tried the Honor tree, except just to get an easy culture win.
 
I think we all played at least one power set and we never did a bad one.

Come on, I played 3 Powersets and felt like I had to drag you'll to victory! :lol:

No, it was a pretty good teamgame, NOT as it was in Civ3, then by playing 5CC on Deity, if someone mucked up it could be the death of the game.

But fortunately, Civ5 is a "little" bit nicer in that aspect. :)

For the upcoming XP, I have to say that I liked religion in Civ4, but disliked the spy thing, maybe I just didn't get it.
 
Hey I've been reading some Civ3 SGs, oh the exploits! And replayed turnsets. And also people generally fighting with each other :D (not saying your games were like that because i didn't see you in those games I read recently. But I probably have read most of the older ones when I was a lurker to this forum).

I must say though , Deity on Civ 3 is an entire different ball game to anything Civ5 has to offer. You need to know the game in and out.

Not that I ever played Deity, I think I stopped on Immortal and that was already ridiculous.
 
Mine are few years further back and didn't have any cheesy mods.

Type in goz7 or whatever, I even played a SID game with one of the greats, but couldn't play it through myself.

A couple of my late games at that time was like that, but I was unlucky then. IRL, I almost died twice during my last 2 games. So it took a little bit of recovering.

But the team went on and won.
 
Ya, our starting position made all the difference in this game. Well, that and the devastating power of Goz of course.:D We got so strong it honestly felt like a King or Prince game by about the time we attacked Egypt.

I'm not too excited about a lot of house rules. I'm ok with a few as long as they don't get too restrictive. The only request I'd make is that we declare how we intend to win right from turn one.

I prefer standard maps, but I'm ok with small. It might be a good idea to play a smaller map and/or drop a difficulty. What's the release date again? June 9?
 
If it was completely up to me and me alone (which it isn't) there would be these rules:
  • Open Borders: We don't attack a civ that grants us Open Borders. I feel this makes up backstabbers. You can amass all your army on a civs borders and they won't blink with an eye. An Open Borders agreement should be respected for 30 turns. These agreements are hardly needed anyway apart from a bit of early scouting, so I think a strict rule is workable here.
  • 30-turn lux exports: In principle respecting these for 30 turns as well would be ideal, but I don't think this'll be practicle. I don't know what the players after me want to do, and if I want to attack and some player 2 or 3 turns before me still signed a deal, I would be stuck.
    These lux deals we need to sign all through the game, and it's difficult to count turns for every lux deal we're making, so I think we need a rule that allows us to make errors of judgment.
    I suggest a 10 turn strict must-respect period, maybe 20 if a majority finds 10 too lenient.
  • Settling on luxes: Not allowed. Settling a town on top of a resource should mean loss of the resource, since already settling a single building like a custom house or academy does that. We are only allowed to settle on top of a resource if there is no other tile available, like with a one-tile island.
  • Worker steal: Declaring a war with the sole intent to grab a worker is not allowed. That's just not something you declare a war over, wars should be part of a greater strategy, decided by the team.
Don't sell OB's one way, it's lame. I see it as a little friendship deal, you look at mine and I can look at yours. ;)
I found these one-way OB deals cheesy as well when I just started playing, but looking at the huge bonuses the AI receives on the higher levels, I don't feel that way anymore. I think on Emperor a rule like this is perfectly alright, but it would make an Immortal game an Immortal+ game. With the current mechanics it could also make the CS's redundant, because of lack of money to invest in them. That would make the game poorer. With Gods & Kings the role of money with regards to CS's will diminish, so that could make a rule like this easier to accept.
Scouting was terrible in this game and also in my other, but at least a couple of scouts died there to find something. So, every tile you reveal during the game, can win you the game. Everything possible has to be checked out, as we're not playing Settler diff. And didn't we find some natural wonders at the end?
You have to look at yourself as well. I believe a few posts ago you addressed me personally, but I did start the game with building two scouts (even the third one, much later, was built by me). You were one of the people who didn't venture out with our early scouting units, but looked at every corner of our own sub-continent instead.
In my second set I tried to scout beyond Egypt, but some of our units were around the dead end of England and India instead, and the units that were nearer to Egypt I needed badly to block an Egyptian settler, otherwise we couldn't have settled Maung Saluang.
The oceanic exploration was very late, but you simply need a different tech path when going for a pangaea domination. Once we had the right tech, I was the first one to ask for a caravel. Before that we couldn't have found those wonders.
So any failings in scouting have little to do with me. I'll probably have placed a few remarks here and there that could suggest I find scouting not important, but we often had different priorities in this game as a team.

I think it's important we discuss the points Gozpel made and the bullet points I put at the start of this post. Once we're in a game again we will want to move on with the game, so to work something out before that seems the easiest option.
 
Well, that and the devastating power of Goz of course.:D

That's what I want to hear!!111

I killzd 2 Civvs, nothing could even see me!!1

In a team, you're setup to do something, and that's where we shone...at least with the wars. I'm still a non-mongerer, no matter what you taught me here, It's not my style of play, maybe I can take these lessons onto my own games one day...

Rules, They have to be firm or else we do this and that and we end up struggling to understand what we want.

My first rule would be, don't cheat the cheating AI. So as I said, don't sell if you don't wan't to keep the term, That is easy. Don't grab gold from onesided OB-deals and so on. Nothing really hard to understand, play fair.
 
I'm going to address the first 2 bullet points in one. I personally play with no restrictions when I can DoW but i can see why people don't like it. It should have a penalty with other civs. Strict 30 limits are unworkable IMO. 10 or 15 turns no no and then majority agreement after that period if you want to DoW. If your troops weren't kicked out of the enemies borders then this would definitely be a no but as it is its ok.

I have no problem with settling on resources but I do it so rarely (almost never) I don't see this as a problem. I do kind of think that you should have to improve a resource to get it as well. GP buildings are an exception as they should never have been included and should have stayed as settled GP in cities. Poor design decision from the devs.

Again I very rarely worker steal so not doing it as the sole cause of a war is fine by me.

I have no problem with one way OB and wouldn't want to stop being able to do this. I simply don't see how its cheating the AI.

Scouting. Some of the poor scouting was my fault. Manly due to just not thinking about it. Its not really something that requires a rule or anything though. This is a team play issue and is solved by simply listening to each other more, which is some thing I could definitely do better.

Finally I know we don't use mods for fairly good reasons but I have to say not using civwillard is a real pain in the arse. The vanilla trade screen is shockingly bad and the UI designers should be ashamed of themselves. I would say that as long as we all used the same version and didn't upgrade without a team discussion then this would be ok. Of course G&K might break the mod but if not its something to think seriously consider IMO.
 
Finally I know we don't use mods for fairly good reasons but I have to say not using civwillard is a real pain in the arse. The vanilla trade screen is shockingly bad and the UI designers should be ashamed of themselves. I would say that as long as we all used the same version and didn't upgrade without a team discussion then this would be ok. Of course G&K might break the mod but if not its something to think seriously consider IMO.
Yes, I remember we did a little compatibility test before Von Münchhausen I, you uploading a save and me failing to start it up with my game - I don't know if it was CivWillard or InfoAddict or whatever, but we didn't give it a proper chance.
There should be no problems using a mod, except just after Gods & Kings will be a very awkward time. Mods make alterations to original files, but if those original files are changing, the mods need to be updated. At the moment Gods & Kings comes out, you have to consider every mod as unreliable until you see in the mod's thread that it's okay again.

There are interesting mods around, though. Modders like Whoward and Gedemon are doing interesting things. I used a little interface modification myself this game, the CS banner modification you saw in the screenshots I learnt from Whoward.
The only 'official' mod I play with myself is 'Show Influence', I like that one. CivWillard I don't care for myself, but I would like to make an effort to get it into an SG, even if only one person wants it and nobody objects.
 
If it was completely up to me and me alone (which it isn't) there would be these rules:
  • Open Borders: We don't attack a civ that grants us Open Borders. I feel this makes up backstabbers. You can amass all your army on a civs borders and they won't blink with an eye. An Open Borders agreement should be respected for 30 turns. These agreements are hardly needed anyway apart from a bit of early scouting, so I think a strict rule is workable here.

  • The AI appears to be coded to value it's own open borders. What I mean by that is that, if you've earned some warmonger reputation or the AI is weak, the AI will make you pay an arm and a leg for open borders or it just won't give it to you. The AI constantly tries to get OB from the player before attacking as well. For these reasons, it seems to me to be a legitimate move. The game appears to treat back-stabbing in general as an accepted and even encouraged tactic. I don't really care about this rule too much because after I've scouted the terrain at the beginning of the game, I rarely renew OB. My only concern would be that the rule would prevent us from making moves in our best interest. As long as we all agreed to stop making these deals after initial exploring though, I agree it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal.

    [*]30-turn lux exports: In principle respecting these for 30 turns as well would be ideal, but I don't think this'll be practicle. I don't know what the players after me want to do, and if I want to attack and some player 2 or 3 turns before me still signed a deal, I would be stuck.
    These lux deals we need to sign all through the game, and it's difficult to count turns for every lux deal we're making, so I think we need a rule that allows us to make errors of judgment.
    I suggest a 10 turn strict must-respect period, maybe 20 if a majority finds 10 too lenient.
    A ten turn restriction is fair enough. I've seen players try to deal with this issue by only using GPT for trade with future war targets. I'd be ok with that as well. I just have to get used to considering this rule when I play. I'll never try to steal from an AI right before a war declaration, but I just don't give future plans a whole lot of consideration when trading with the AI unless there's a RA involved.

    [*]Settling on luxes: Not allowed. Settling a town on top of a resource should mean loss of the resource, since already settling a single building like a custom house or academy does that. We are only allowed to settle on top of a resource if there is no other tile available, like with a one-tile island.
    I'm with Grandad on this one. I see the GP improvement as the real problem here. They should settle inside the city. I don't often do this but it doesn't seem like an exploit to me and doesn't seem unrealistic either. We don't really need to do it unless we play a Deity game and need the cash fast, so this rule isn't that big of a deal to me I guess.

    [*]Worker steal: Declaring a war with the sole intent to grab a worker is not allowed. That's just not something you declare a war over, wars should be part of a greater strategy, decided by the team.
    I don't think this rule will be necessary with G&K. I believe the new design allows the player to mass some troops near the CS border and demand gold or a worker. Fair warning - I'll do this.:lol: Again, if we don't play harder difficulties we can adopt whatever rules we want. Fast starts make it possible to win at harder difficulties. If we want a rule that prevents bullying city states I think that should be on a game-to-game basis considering overall strategy and difficulty level.

    I found these one-way OB deals cheesy as well when I just started playing, but looking at the huge bonuses the AI receives on the higher levels, I don't feel that way anymore. I think on Emperor a rule like this is perfectly alright, but it would make an Immortal game an Immortal+ game. With the current mechanics it could also make the CS's redundant, because of lack of money to invest in them. That would make the game poorer. With Gods & Kings the role of money with regards to CS's will diminish, so that could make a rule like this easier to accept.
    I agree with your assessment here. They redesigned the game to make the player poor (no gold on the city tile, reduced trade route income and nearly worthless trade posts yields until Economics) in the interest of making the game harder. It worked. The OB gold is pretty much mandatory at higher difficulties. I also agree this might change with G&K. Some of the improvement yields looked significantly buffed in the demo and CS are supposed to be more quest-oriented, so this rule might be ok. Maybe we should hold off on this until we see.
 
Top Bottom