|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
Holy Warriors - Civilization 5 (BNW) Succession Game
|
|
I agree with T-hawk about moving 1NW to see what it reveals. This make it tied for moving vs. settling in place. If timmy doesn't untie it, I say whoever plays the turn can make the decision.
Speaking of which, who wnats to take the first set? I'll upload the save in a second. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2124...0.Civ5Save
Hi, was out this weekend. Sorry got real rushed packing and didn't post notice. I'll be around rest of the month though.
First, is it possible to turn off all the DLC and roll a new starting save? I have both expansions of Civ5 but never did any add ons. Apparently I need to hand firaxis more than the price of BNW to open Ichabod's save. Normally I view the time I spend playing a game as the "real cost" and the money is just noise, but this seems really irritating since we aren't using a DLC civ. Or if there is a way around it with this save let me know. Next, I think I'm in favor of 1NW move. Other less urgent stuff Things about social policies: @Thawk who hasn't looked recently - Tradition got nerfed by putting the garrison policy as a prereq for most of the other ones, so all the useful stuff comes one policy later. That said I'm not convinced that doing anything in Piety before finishing Tradition is best. I think the UA gets us the faith we need early mostly on its own. Not the most immediate concern though. One comment about "temples that help gold are nice" - eh, they really aren't. Your cities gold modifier from that policy (plus market/bank/stockexchange etc) only applies to tiles worked, which don't really produce gold anymore (river bonus removed as noted; still think that trading posts are not useful, so only tile production will be a few from improved luxuries). city modified doesn't apply to trade routes (even if you do gold caravans over food ones), or the city connection, or resource sales.  I should have checked the DLC issue before rolling a save.I don't think there's a way to keep this save, so I'll just generate a new one. I'll roll one with only BNW and G&K enabled; we miss on some Civs, but that's not a major issue. Hopefully we'll get an even better start! 
New save is in! Only BNW and G&K DLC enabled, since I didn't remember what were the DLC that everyone got with the game...
 I think this start is quite simpler than the one before. I'd settle on top of the marble. It gets the 3 forest needed for +2 faith per turn. It gets the sheep into the Capital's range, it gets a lot of rivers and all the resources in sight. Besides, we lose no turns doing it. With a coastal Capital in a river, we'll have powerful trade routes. I'll play the turn tomorrow, to give everyone opportunity to chime in on the start. But I think it's about time we kick things forward, so as to not lose interest. Build wise, I think we can go monument -> worker while going AH - Trapping or monument -> granary -> worker, while going Pottery -> AH -> Trapping. Opinions? I think finishing Tradition before starting Piety is a good idea... Or perhaps Liberty? There's no % bonus faith building or anything that makes faith prodcution better while going for a low city count strategy, perhaps it's better suited for a city spam strategy... Opinions?
Thanks for remaking. At a glance setting on marble sounds good.
Did we actually decide not to allow scouts? Distilling the thread on this topic: I ask if they are allowed Ichabod says "yes for exploring" Thawk agrees "yes for exploring", proposes only 2 at a time Ichabod says "maybe only one scout" I say "scouts are fine" Yuris says "can build scouts first 25 turns" rowain says no scouts Yuris changes his mind, says no scouts Ichabod then says "seemed like prevalent vote is no scouts". By my tally the vote was still in favor 3-2, unless Ichabod changed his mind on principle (sounded like he was miscounting votes). To be clear I'm still in favor of scouts. Fine with a limit of 2, and with any additional restrictions like 'cant use them to fight barbs/enemies in our land' or 'no killing barb archers in camps with scouts'. (I don't believe anyone has proposed disbanding the starting warrior, so assume we can use it as a scout). Sorry to drag that up again, but that's pretty important to clarify now since presumably scouts will get built in the first turnset if we allow them. Tradition v Liberty is interesting, Ichabod is definitely right that city spam with the UA may the route to faith generation. I really have no idea if the limiting factor will be amount of faith we can scrounge up for units, or getting ahead in tech to make the most of the limited faith we can spend (which might lean towards the more standard tall/Tradition)?
Settling on marble is ok. But don't delay piety too long.
About scouts: we either play the game as a real variant or we don't. Having scouts running around finding CS and gather ruins with all the possible goodies (including lots of faith) makes the restriction a joke and useless as a variant. For me the idea was to have to push faith first and not do a traditional opening relying on a civ-ability and hoping on scouts for tons of goodies.
Agree with settling on marble
On Piety: we do need it early. We need a lot of faith, so much so that +100% bonus to production and +100% faith output from Shrines is very relevant. Our civ ability only gives us 2 faith per turn; without doing anything to add to faith, it will take us almost 60 turns to get to religion, then 40 turns to buy a single Archer. The earlier we start generating additional faith, the better. So I think we should take the Piety opener and Organised Religion as the 2nd and 3rd policies, after Tradition (or Liberty) opener which gives a bonus to culture I think we should make the decision on Tradition vs Liberty after initial scouting and seeing how much land and how many spots with 3 adjacent forests we have available. I agree that Liberty has some merits, especially in an empire focussed on generating as much faith as possible I like Granary before Worker and therefore Pottery - AH - Trapping for research
Scouts follow the principle of the variant just fine. It's meant to be about relying on faith for military, which will still happen. I don't want an extra variant-within-the-variant that we can't explore and meet civs and city-states. If it's meant to be an isolationist game, then say so and make that the headline instead of hiding it under another layer of restriction.
I could suggest treating scouts like Civ 4, no attacking with them. I agree that killing barb camps with them would exceed the variant bounds. But we're not meant to play in the dark on the map and neighbors, or to awkwardly fake our way around such a rule by trying to explore with workers instead. I'm somewhat tempted to look inland with the settler. Coastal access doesn't do much in Civ 5 at least before BNW's trade routes, and the site is fairly limited long term. But there's no particular good site within view so on the marble is probably fine too. |
