Apolyton University - Page 10

Jawa Jocky · March 5, 2003, 16:15

I was giving some advice on a huge archipelago game and it occurred to me….. We really should have another AU course on island maps. I just wanted to get the idea out for review since AU 207 is probably a few weeks away.

No ultra early archer rushes, REXBG (REX by Galley), the other GL (great lighthouse), weaker Wonders (Hoover and other continentals), city spacing by the sea (now with commercial docks), and marines. Its just has some different strategies than your typical continental game.

Konquest02 · March 5, 2003, 16:29

Yes, this sound like fun. Something like a large 80% water archipelago might be really interresting...

--Kon--

nbarclay · March 5, 2003, 16:36

Would we want the Vikings for such a game, or a civ that's tactics are less unique? Or maybe "player's choice" (with prospective players indicating what civs they want and the AIs chosen from what's left)?

Konquest02 · March 5, 2003, 16:40

The Vikings are good because their playstyle is a big change for most of the players out here. I don't use much navy and I would be forced to reevalutae my tactics... It might be good...

We could leave 2 or 3 choices for the player, maybe England and France...

Food for thought...

--Kon--

Jawa Jocky · March 5, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Konquest02
Something like a large 80% water archipelago

--Kon--

I was thinking the same thing. It pushes the land masses away from each other without slowing down the game.

Vikings are a wild card for this. The UU was built for it but their traits are not. I guess that balanced

Konquest02 · March 5, 2003, 18:56

I would be happy to make this scenario and release it in a couple of weeks, allowing time for AU 206 to end. This is my first scenario so I might need that week(s) to make it interresting. If you have any ideas (or complaints), you can PM me or post them here for discussion!

--Kon--

badams52 · March 5, 2003, 19:09

OT: I see Ducki got his wings.

Nothing like playing PBEM games to up that post count eh?

Dominae · March 5, 2003, 20:23

I'm not against the Viking/naval idea per se, but it has something similar has already been done in one of the earliest AUs. Plus, designing a map to make good use of the Vikings is a little contrived for my taste (maybe that's just me being a spoilsport).

I would really like the AU students (all of us) to try something completely different. OCC. That's right, OCC. All AU students will have to put their biases and reservations aside and learn all about the wonders of OCC. As a learning experience that we have not done yet, I do not think we'll find a better scenario idea. For those who have never tried it, I guarantee it will increase your play skill.

Dominae

ZargonX · March 5, 2003, 21:28

An island scenario would be interesting, especially for those of us who missed earlier AU courses. However, an OCC scenario would also be very interesting, and definately a test of completely different skills...

Konquest02 · March 5, 2003, 23:28

Why not do/combine both...?!?

If not (which is probably going to be the case...) I suggest we start by OCC and then the island scenario, as fewer people have played an OCC game.

--Kon--

nbarclay · March 5, 2003, 23:38

An alternative way to handle OCCs would be to launch an ongoing "AU 211: Independent Studies in OCC" thread or set of threads spanning more than just a single scenario. People could participate as much or as little as they want to.

Personally, I view OCC games as practically a whole different game from Civ 3 - 2X instead of 4X, since almost all of the expansion and extermination are gone. They can provide useful "exercise" for developing certain specific "muscle groups" for the standard game, but they aren't the only way a person can develop those "muscle groups."

For myself, I'd rather stick to the standard game with all four X's open to me. But even people who aren't interested in playing OCC games could learn a few things from watching them, and if some AU students want a minor or even a major in OCC-ology, that's fine too.

Nathan

BigDork · March 6, 2003, 00:17

Hi everybody...

OCC??? Is that one city challenge? I have no clue. I think that both the island idea and the OCC idea(whatever it may be) are both workable. Since I am kinda new the the AU games I wouldn't mind kinda going over some of the older stuff but I can understand how those of you who have already done the older courses would have a problem. Perhaps using some of the old and spicing it put a little? Just a thought.

BigD

Dominae · March 6, 2003, 00:34

I think revisiting the "island-hopping" scenario is a fine idea, and the Vikings are definitely the civ of choice. I may not be big on playing the game myself, but that's no reason not to go through with the scenario.

Nathan, I understand your point of view, but do not see why we have to create a whole dedicated section for "elective" courses. I see all the courses as elective. Those who want to sit this one out will not be waiting for too long, because OCC games are much shorter than standard ones.

You're one of the best city managers I know of, so I can see why OCC is not very appealing to you. But I think a scenario dedicated to the management of one city could definitely be of benefit to many players here. OCC also teaches the player about how to trade smartly with the AI, since if you neglect this you'll probably lose. This skill, effective trading (including learning AI priorities and such), I consider extremely important, one that deserves to be learned here at AU.

Dominae

Dominae · March 6, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by BigDork
OCC??? Is that one city challenge?

Yes. It's very doable and fun.

Quote:

Perhaps using some of the old and spicing it put a little? Just a thought.

That's what I'm thinking: we could re-do "island hopping" (which I also missed), but with the Vikings which were not available the first time around.

Dominae

nbarclay · March 6, 2003, 00:50

It's not the "elective" aspect that drives my AU 211 idea. It's the fact that OCC games tend to be a lot shorter than normal games, making it practical for the OCC area of AU to be an ongoing thing rather than a single discrete class.

Dominae · March 6, 2003, 00:55

Hm, but why would it need to be an ongoing thing? I would think that if it is onging people would likely participate less. If it's made "official" for one of the next scenarios, people will be more inclined to "check it out", and then read the spoilers (which would contain more than a fair amount of strategy, since there's not much "storytelling" in OCC...).

The reason why I'm pushing this so is that I remember learning loads about Civ3 when I played my first few OCC games. It's not my favorite way to play Civ3, but's I think its definitely something everyone in AU should at least try out.

(I'll stop repeating myself now...)

Dominae

BigDork · March 6, 2003, 00:59

Thanks Dom. OCC sounds difficult to me. But possibly fun. And I'd be glad to use the Vikings again. I had a lot of fun in AU204 playing as them and I'd love to give it a try a different enviroment.

BigD

nbarclay · March 6, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Hm, but why would it need to be an ongoing thing? ...

The reason why I'm pushing this so is that I remember learning loads about Civ3 when I played my first few OCC games.

(emphasis added)

You answered your own question. For those who are sufficiently interested, there's a lot more to be learned from OCC than can be learned from a single game. Indeed, it could easily take a game or two for a person just to get used to what is or isn't practical in OCC games. (For that matter, just picking an appropriate difficulty level could be a serious challenge for those of us not used to playing OCC.)

I wouldn't be against opening the AU 211 thread-set with a standard AU game, but AU 211 would also provide a place for people to show later games, either to ask for ideas for improvement or to suggest ideas that others might want to try. Also, because OCC games are so short, players might want to squeeze in OCC games between other AU games or such.

Dominae · March 6, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
I wouldn't be against opening the AU 211 thread-set with a standard AU game, but AU 211 would also provide a place for people to show later games, either to ask for ideas for improvement or to suggest ideas that others might want to try.

Fabulous idea. Of course, we should get a feel for what the other players want before we set up the game (and we should leave some time to finish AU206...).

Dominae

BigDork · March 6, 2003, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Fabulous idea. Of course, we should get a feel for what the other players want before we set up the game (and we should leave some time to finish AU206...).

Yes. I must finish AU206. Even if it kills me I'm gonna finish this game.

BigD

Jawa Jocky · March 6, 2003, 10:32

An OCC AU would be so short I wouldn't see a problem having it overlap with other courses. I also saw mention of a 5CC. Would that be worthy of an AU course?

BigDork · March 6, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
An OCC AU would be so short I wouldn't see a problem having it overlap with other courses. I also saw mention of a 5CC. Would that be worthy of an AU course?

Personally I don't see why a 5CC wouldn't be worthy of AU. Isn't AU about experiencing different aspects of the game and learning from it? I dunno. Seems like it could be a good idea to me.

BigD

Dominae · March 6, 2003, 11:44

If you're inclined to try OCC, you should have no qualms about doing the same for 5CC. The two types of game play out very differently, but the general theme is the same. I think we should try out OCC first, since it involves some real lateral thinking. Then, after some "normal" games, we can go for 5CC (which I have yet to do myself).

Dominae

Konquest02 · March 6, 2003, 11:48

I think we would learn more by OCC than with 5CC, although the two can be experimented

--Kon--