RB2 - Clueless Catherine Conquers Crowded Continents

[Kylearan]

Hi,

as mentioned in Darrell's RB1 thread, I'd like to organize another Civ 5 succession game. After reading about how some AIs fail to expand or that there might be not enough competition for the love of the city states, I've thought along the same lines as Aretii - put more AIs into the game!

RB2 - Clueless Catherine Conquers Crowded Continents

Leader: Catherine of Russia (+1 production per strategic resource, horse/iron/uranium provide double quantity)
Map: Continents
Level: King or Emperor
Size: Standard
AIs: 11
Speed: Normal
Victory Conditions: All enabled, but we should try domination

Four AIs more than normal (with the default number of city states) might make this game interesting - or not. I'd like to go for a domination victory on a continents map so we get to see some naval action, too. The game should last long enough for us to see most of the tech tree. I chose Catherine because I haven't seen many others playing her, and the production bonus and late UU should come in handy.

I was thinking about King or Emperor difficulty depending on what others (with more experience) want, with me slightly prefering Emperor. Five players would be ideal. The only requirement is that you should write verbose turn reports with enough screenshots and detail so that we can discuss and learn a lot.

Aretii and SleepingMoogle already expressed interest. Do you still want to play?

-Kylearan

[Aretii]

Hell yes I'm in.

I haven't played Cathy yet. Kreposts seem very good, and I really want to bring the with some Cossacks.

I'd vote for Emperor over King.

[SleepingMoogle]

Yep, I'm in as well. So far I've been playing on King without too much difficulty (it's more figuring out how to fit the pegs in the holes), so Emperor to smash some heads sounds like a good challenge.

[SpazzMaticus]

Hi,

I'm interested as well, if you'll have me. I've got about 4 unfinished civ 5 games under my belt. Was Immortal/Deity player in civ 4.

So far I have trouble finishing civ 5 games so far. On emperor I can usually obtain winning position after ~150-200 turns so no point of going on. On immortal the game gets incredibly tedious when all AIs are running with hundreds of units and I must wait 30 seconds between each turn. This SG might be the only chance for me to experience later stages of the game

I sure can write verbose reports with screenshots, no probs.
Emperor diffuculty is a must imo. King is very easy if you had previous experience with civ 4.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I'll gladly take a spot if one is available.

I am very noobish at Civ compared to most of the people here, but I don't mind advertising my mistakes in lavish screenshots and write-ups.

My vote would be to not do anything too weird in terms of banned actions or rulesets, since we are still just taking the training-wheels off Civ V.

[Cyneheard]

The one banned option I would suggest, from feedback from several players (Krill in particular) is worker steals, at least from the non-barbarians.

Yeah, Kreposts look to be quite good. And one can't go wrong with the double-resources letting you spam those armies...

[Gold Ergo Sum]

The one banned option I would suggest, from feedback from several players (Krill in particular) is worker steals, at least from the non-barbarians.

But isn't one of the points of these early games to allow everyone to really learn something about the current design of the game?

If it is broken, having detailed turn reports and screenshots to document it could definitely be informative.

[Aretii]

Launching early wars to nab undefended workers and make peace immediately is not fun. I'd rather not take advantage of a hole in the AI. The game is more fun when you're digging yourself out of a hole with skillful management of cities, tactics, and diplomacy, as opposed to using blind spots that will hopefully be patched away.

That said, if our neighbors do a poor job of protecting their workers during wartime as we invade (as Oda did in my Immortal game), then by all means take them. But that's a different case entirely from raids over the border to carry away their workers without fear of repercussion. I'm not going to go quite as far as saying we should ban the tactic, but I personally don't plan to engage in it.

[MuLepton]

I'll definitely be watching this (I had considered signing up yesterday evening, but it seems you have enough players, plus my skill level is likely a few notches below the others in here).

Regarding the workers, I agree with Aretii - don't grab them just because you can, but in wartime (i.e. when you've decided to go after someone else in earnest), they're fair game.

GoldErgoSum, what else would you consider "banned" actions?

[Kylearan]

So I'll get to play with Aretii, SleepingMoogle, SpazzMaticus and Gold Ergo Sum - all new faces, to me at least. Looking forward to it! Gold Ergo Sum, don't worry about being noobish! One of the main points of SGs is to report about mistakes so that the whole community learns from it. I think I'll be a weak link in this game as well, as the others seem to have way more Civ 5 experience than me already.

I'd like to avoid early worker steals though. While Gold Ergo Sum is right that we should leave most things on the table to show it's broken, the community knows already how broken worker steals are (and is very vocal about it). So, nabbing workers during wartime is okay, waging limited war only to grab workers is not.

I'll start the thread at CFC in a couple of hours and will post a link here.