Why do you want aggressive? You can make it work, but the most likely map type won't do much favors to you. I won't place capitals near each other, unless tightly packed map is specifically asked for. Aggressive doesn't provide anything for economy or early expansion so you would fall behind top leaders after early game making it harder to gain military advantage later. If you really want it, I suggest taking the strong economic or expansion pairing with it i.e. Fin, Org, Cre or Exp.
I think our first choice of civilisation does seem to be Sumeria. I am thinking that haveing an organised leader will go much better with the UB of Sumeria than anything else.
So maybe here is our preferred order?
Hammurabi of Sumeria
Alex of Rome.
Hammurabi of HRE
Kublai of Zulu
Ragnar of HRE.
Judging by the comments so far by those who are playing, it looks like we want to be playing a rather warmonger like game, so if we go down that path we need the traits to best suit our intended playing style. Normally I am a rather peaceful player so I want to be doing things differently.
I'm going to just go ahead and post my opinion on something, please tell me if you'd prefer me not to repeat doing so: AGG is a worse trait for warring then FIN, etc., especially on a non-cramped map.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
I definitely feel that we should be at least Organised since that trait works best with two of the UBs (Sumeria and HRE) we are more than likely going to have. Now do we want aggressive? If we want to be warmongers we should evaluate each trait to give is the best chances. I am starting to think that Charismatic would be better than Aggressive since the Exp bonus applies to all units and not just to two categories. If we choose Cha/Org then we would go for Napoleon. Financial is always powerful no matter the circumstances. So that would be Darius.
So civs we want are either Sumeria or HRE and the leaders we want are Hammurabi, Napoleon or Darius. But if we want to stil goAgg, then the above list is best.
You're missing at least 3 steps there:
Step -2: Settle and improve new cities
Step -1: Research economic techs
Step 0: Have a neighbour that is close, dumb, and cheap to beat up.
(August 1st, 2013, 03:15)classical_hero Wrote: Normally I am a rather peaceful player so I want to be doing things differently.
This selection is based on the intent of going in a new direction with an aggro playing style. Followed up by riveting diplo, it could become fun, or it could become really annoying if all the other teams decide to wipe us. In any case it is a different tack than the normal peaceful style. I'm good with that.
Plako states that the map may not favour this style. In that case a more subtle form of aggression could be called for. TBH the fact that aggro is stated to be one of the weakest plays actually makes it more fun. It makes it less of a meta-game-power-play and actually adds a bit of spice. How bad ass is our leader? Will he routinely crush chickens with his little finger? Decapitate the slow learners? Get assassinated by his own family? I just look at Machiavelli and Japanese feudal lords for a number of inspirations in this fashion. It could make us have less of a game edge but could set us up with fun fun fun in the diplo department. Just wanted to say that.
As to why I chose Boudica over Darius/Hammurabi, I felt that was a good combo when I wrote it.
If however, we choose to throw AGG out, then Lincoln would be a leader I would like to go for. PHI/CHA nets something for both peace and war. Lincoln of Rome perhaps?
There was a post that may be of use while I wrote this:
(August 1st, 2013, 17:58)Maga_R Wrote: Let say there are 3 players and they are randomly assigned numbers 1,2, or 3. Number 1 picks first (leader or civ), then #2, #3, #3 again, #2 and #1. Hence the "snake pick", it goes along U shape of sorts.
Should we then look for at least 3 civs, with preferred 3 leaders for each civ, just to be safe? Here I roll out a selection based on both AGG and other, more peaceful(?) traits.
C2Leader1 - Lincoln PHI/CHA
C2Leader2 - Alexander AGG/PHI
C2Leader3 - Gandhi PHI/SPI
C3Leader1 - Darius FIN/ORG
C3Leader2 - Ragnar AGG/FIN
C3Leader3 - van Oranje CRE/FIN
Nobody expects the Spanish Apolyto- Inquisition!
..wait. Is that good or bad?
Sisu Wrote:You go to Civ with the BFC you have.
Commissioner Pravin Lal Wrote:"Once a man has changed the relationship between himself and his environment, he cannot return to the blissful ignorance he left. Motion, of necessity, involves a change in perspective."
![[Image: i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing-science-dog.jpg]](http://www.modernette.ca/press/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing-science-dog.jpg)
