Roleplay Team

[GodKing]

I usually play persia as well, as it has the best combo of overall traits. However, I like to mix things up every now and then......... so any will do, except korean, their UU I tried out last night and they suck.

[ruby_maser]

I would like to join this team since the realpolitik team is no more.

[roleplay]
I would like to join this team since the realpolitik team is no more.
[roleplay]

I'm a natural

[jdjdjd]

Someone who has the game, maybe they can list the new civs, and their traits and UU (and what UU replaces).

That way those of us without the game, yet, can better analyze which new civ to use.

I agree with Togas completely, in that we should take a new civ and forget the old ones.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Someone who has the game, maybe they can list the new civs, and their traits and UU (and what UU replaces).
That way those of us without the game, yet, can better analyze which new civ to use.

I'm not at home right now to look at the stats or I would... however, if someone else gets to it first, could you please list the cost of those units too.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Arnelos
Togas = Carthage, Celts, Spain (in that order)

Toss in Ottomans, too. I'd be happy with Carthage, Celts, Spain, and Ottomans in ANY order.

I don't know how much the new UUs cost, as I don't have the game, but I know this much about the 4 new civs that are my tentative favorites:

Spanish, Conquistador (3/2/2) replaces Explorers, Religious & Commercial

No industrious trait but a decent pairing. Their Conquistadors treat all squares as roads, which makes them deadly useful as sabatage units and for deep strikes into undefended enemy cities and resources. Could be a well-timed GA, but we'd have to survive through the dark ages first.

Celts, Gallic Swordsman (3/2/2) replaces Swordsman, Religious & Militaristic

I adore this UU and the Religious trait helps. Could be a fun Civ to Roleplay.

Carthaginians, Numidian Mercenary (2/3/1) replaces Spearman, Commercial & Industrious

I'm leaning towards these guys as their UU would protect us in the early stages of the game and their traits are both strong. I'd be worried about our GA coming too soon or not at all, but if we got a strong start this Civ could remain dominant throughout the game.

Ottomans, Sipahi (8/3/3) replaces Cavalry, Industrious & Scientific

Another good pairing of traits with a good UU that gives us a GA at the right time. Trip's team wants to play this Civ so if we want to claim them too, we'd better step up and say so.

--Togas

[GodKing]

As I think we may be looking at early war, I would favor teh persians over the ottimans. Imortals rock in the ancient era, and if we are on deity, we need all the help we can get the sooner the better IMO. We might not make it to the later stages if we are unlucky in the early game, particularly with all the war mongers we have against us.

Celts might be a good alternative with there fast movement to keep them alive against other units... the ability to retreat can be awsome. Also, being militeristic, we have a better chance of getting those GL's!!!!

Anybody but the Koreans... I played with them last night, and there UU is a cannon replacement, bombard of 12 instead of 8 IIRC. And they can kill units. But you try to send out 6 of them, and bobmard a unit for 10 turns, and on the 10th let that unit creat a GL for the mongols, who sent in their reserve and captured my UU's, and then I just got so fustrated I shut it down. Never actually killed anything, so I never got the golden age. Pain. Real pain.

[realpolitic]

I'm interested in joining, if you decide to be Persian. However, if a team wanted to be Iroquis, that would be my first choice.

[Togas]

Originally posted by realpolitic
I'm interested in joining, if you decide to be Persian. However, if a team wanted to be Iroquis, that would be my first choice.

Are you saying that you will join only if we choose one of these two civs?

Just to be clear, I'd like to see us pick a new Civ to play and I think that when all the dust clears that's what we'll end up with.

--Togas

[MrWhereItsAt]

I don't yet know all the PTW civs and attributes (I will look them up now), but from what I have seen of the new Civs, Spain and the Celts are my pick.

We aren't necessarily going to have to duke it out massively in the early goings, and if we have a UU like the Swordsmen, then our opponents may be less likely to blatantly attack us with that strength available. Remember, if a civ has a later age UU, they want to above all else survive until when they can use it. The Swordsmen are also not so early that they give us a "useless" GA so early in the game - although a Cavalry replacement seems ideal for a GA, we need to survive that far.

It's disappointing that the Conquistador replaces the Explorer - that's quite a way down the tech tree. We might have to beeline somewhat for them. But think of the roleplay! Spain owes its Golden Age (in RL!) to the American conquests, and we would have plenty of mustachioed Explorers in our midst relating tales of how they were educating the local heathens in the glory of Christianity.

[mrmitchell]

I just got PtW about 4 hours ago! Yeehaw!

Since this is the RP team, I'm just going to assume the [roleplay] tag is permanently on. I hope more people follow my shock of the blinding obvious.

I tried the Ottos and so far theyre ok, I switched enemy civs from random to all new so I get a taste of how good they kick butt, I aint done with that game and about to hit the sack so I'll report what Civ totally kicked butt when it's done if it helps us decide the team's civ. SP, of course.

(My net connection is as good as a horse who can only run in a dry track and it just rained 6 inches and the track is a mud pit and the horse has four broken legs and it's dead. But I'm going to get a broadband connect by the end of the year probably)

You can assume me a member of the RP team unless a Friaxian opens up a team with all the Civ developers at Firaxis, lol.

What will the minimum/maximum limit for this team be as far as no. of members?

Will all the Presidents and Ministers of the CivIII DG flock to join this team? I can see it now, the Sid Meier Team vs. the DG Position Holders team,

Really tho, sign me up as a 'will join' instead of 'might join'. I want to play a game to have fun rping and practice for the multisite, not to win. (Although I will try to help the RP team win as much as legally possible.)

And for the civ picking: Thanks for the summary Togas of Spam, now that u think about it a Ancient Age against human competitors will be truly most brutal. Spam would only be good if we were content with simply holding off the evil attacking tribes until we get Conquistador. If the other new civs are snapped up though Spam is ok.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd be interested in joining this time, though I won't be able to get PTW until Christmas or so.

[Palisol]

I'd like to join if there's still room in this team. I've never played a democratic game before so I don't exactly know how it works but it sounds like alottafun. And we should play as Vikings.

[jdjdjd]

So far, of the four Carth, Spain, Celts, & Ottomans -
oh, and Korea, I would knock out Korea. If we skip Ottomans because Trip's team takes them. Then knock out Spain because the UU comes late and its only 3/2/2, which will have problems beating anything once we get that far.

Of Celts and Carth, I normally would like Carth's attributes; but for a roleplay team - Miltaristic and Religious sounds much more fun than Commercial and Industrious. Also, gotta like the UU, a fast Swordsman - nice.

So, I change my vote to the Celts, however, should someone chime in with the specs on the other three: Vikings, Arabs & Incas (is that the last one?) I'll reassess.

[OliverFA]

This really looks funny! I would like to join

[Nuclear Winter]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
But think of the roleplay! Spain owes its Golden Age (in RL!) to the American conquests, and we would have plenty of mustachioed Explorers in our midst relating tales of how they were educating the local heathens in the glory of Christianity.

Totaly agree!!!!
We Must think first on the roleplay, since we are a Roleplay team!
Spain or Celts are now my preferences for civ, for they would be cool. Also, I don´t know about arabs, but they could be cool (Jihad!!! ), but if there are going to be persians and Ottomans as the other teams, who would we Jihad against?
So I am in favour of the Celts (Pagans x Muslims, ha, might be cool) or Spain (A little taste of Spain´s reconquest war, ha?´´ Let´s kill Moors!)
So this is my opinion.
Just a note, i guess trip will take Ottomans, and probably the other reams will soon take Scandinavians and persians (everybody wanna be Pers. Wonder if that is because of their excelent carpets... )
By now I guess that´s all folks!
See you later!
--Nuclear Winter

[Crousto]

I'd like to join, this roleplaying Civ concept sounds great
I'm an experienced Civ player (since CivI on the Amiga) but totally new to MP (don't have PtW yet) and Democracy games.

The Arabs sounds nice to me, because they are religious and as someone else said earlier anarchy will be a huge pain if we are roleplaying (or maybe we could play a Quake game first then let the winner play the next Civ turn ). Expansionnist is nice too (knowledge of the map will be crucial in MP, and getting goody huts sciences or gold is always nice to get an advantage early in the game). Their UU looks like odd however unless I'm missing something about it (just a 4/2/3 knight instead of 4/3/2?) - great time for a golden age too.

[realpolitic]

Are you saying that you will join only if we choose one of these two civs?

Not only that, I'll hold my breath til I turn blue.

[jdjdjd]

Are you now saying that the Civ we choose must be blue for you to join the team?

Originally posted by realpolitic



Not only that, I'll hold my breath til I turn blue.

[mrmitchell]

Spam is the obvious roleplay choice if we can get the Mideast civs to settle in our south at the late ancient, that way we can kick them out and then send all those elites to conquer North, South America. (It's what Spam did in RL, I believe)

Spam has 3 major advantages:
-It's gonna be a real great party to roleplay it
-Virtually everyone who has ever been in a US or WORLD HISTORY class for one day knows at least part of their history
-I've already created my funny misspelling of it (Stuff Posing As Meat, haha)

And I know I haven't noticed it till now but nice sig GodKing.

[GodKing]

thanks

[Arnelos]

I'm still heavily in favor of Carthage... and I fail to see how playing the Carthaginians would leave us without anything to roleplay

C'mon... we'll probably re-name whatever civ we get to our likes and role-play it however we want to anyhow...

[Ninot]

Well, i think we need to make ANOTHER decision....


are we choosing our civ purely for their strategical value, and creating our own history, myths, whatever?

or are we choosing a civ for a roleplaying significance, borrowing from THAT civ's history, mythology, and ideas?

[Arnelos]

In the event we'll creat our OWN history (which I greatly prefer):

Carthage

In the event that we want to use that civ's history:

Rome

So, in other words, I seem to want to fight the Punic Wars against myself Seriously, though, I really think Carthage would be fine... I fail to see how being "industrious and commercial" means we have less to roleplay than if we were relgious Being a commercial civ or an industrious civ still gives us PLENTY to roleplay... and a form of roleplay that could be quite fun... it would be DIFFERENT than Apolytonia's RP in the single-player Civ3DG, but why would we want to just repeat being the bananas of Apolytonia in the multi-player one???

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Arnelos
why would we want to just repeat being the bananas of Apolytonia in the multi-player one???

On that note.....

may this team NEVER hold the banana in any higher regard than that of a fruit, with the use of comedic relief should it be improperly disguarded.


i beg of thee, may we not choose this piece of produce as a diety.

[notyoueither]

Pagans!

[Togas]

I was hoping we'd roleplay the civ we pick to some extent. I'd rather not see us rename it and make up our own deities and history, etc. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter what civ we picked, we'd pick solely for UUs and traits.

Bottom line, pick a civ that's both fun to RP *and* gives us a decent chance of success in this multiplayer game.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
I was hoping we'd roleplay the civ we pick to some extent. I'd rather not see us rename it and make up our own deities and history, etc. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter what civ we picked, we'd pick solely for UUs and traits.

Bottom line, pick a civ that's both fun to RP *and* gives us a decent chance of success in this multiplayer game.

--Togas

Ok, based on that... here's my thoughts:

CARTHAGE:
RP: Good (personally I think it would be a blast to roleplay "commercial" and "industrious", not to mention the entire Phoenician/Carthaginian/Numidian classical mediteranean-spanning commercial empire Only catch is there's that whole bit about Carthage historically being defeated by Rome and having the fields covered in salt...)
UU: Good
Traits: Great

OTTOMONS:
RP: Decent/Mediocre (I agree with Togas that I'd rather not RP as the Ottomons if we're RPing real history)
UU: Good
Traits: Great

SPAIN:
RP: Good
UU: Horrible (so we can pillage stuff easily... this isn't exactly what I'd hope for in terms of significantly adding to the survivability of our civ and competitive other human civs...)
Traits: Mediocre

CELTS:
RP: Decent (similar issue to Carthage in terms of their eventual defeat and subjugation... once they were beaten down at the end of the "ancient" age and early "middle" age... they've done little remarkable since other than being oppressed and exporting most of their population to other nations - most notably the United States, a much more successful "nation" in the "industrial" and "modern" ages )
UU: Fair (this thing isn't all its cracked up to be... most of you thinking the Gallic Warrior is the bomb HAVEN'T PLAYED AS THE CELTS YET IN PTW... trust me, the cost is prohibitive, especially for a non-industrious civ... they're significantly more expensive than the normal swordsmen It takes quite a while to build up an effective group of these guys, but I will agree that they kick enormous amounts of a** if you survive long enough to build up that attack group... so it's a toss up).
Traits: Decent (religious is really a wonderful trait, militaristic has very limited uses... though a furiously competitive multi-player game might be one of them )

In all, I'd rank the above four as follows:

1. Carthage
2. Ottomons
3. Celts
4. Spain

Carthage and the Ottomons, in my opinion, stand head and heels over the Celts and Spain in terms of actually playing as them... in terms of roleplay, that depends more on your tastes. I wouldn't want to be the Ottomons (they'll probably be picked by Trip's Team anyway - meaning we'd have to compete for them).

[GeneralTacticus]

Personally, I'd go for the Ottomons, for the traits and UU, and I don't see any reason why we have to focus on the negative aspects of the RP - just RP the successful bits of their history and keep doing so through the less successful bits.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Arnelos
In the event we'll creat our OWN history (which I greatly prefer):

Carthage

In the event that we want to use that civ's history:

Rome

Am I wrong or you Republicains dislike elephants?

[Togas]

Everyone, please vote in this poll. It should help us decide what Civ to play.

Once we have that down, we can properly name our team, get a logo done, and decide other roleplay issues.

Spain is the Civ I know the most about, but of the choiced I posed, it probably has the worst UU.

The Celts is a Civ I know the least about. If their UU is as expensive as told, they may not be the best choice for us as their traits are only average.

Ottomans and Carthage are right there in the middle. I think the Ottomans have the best UU, but Carthage has a very good trait set. RP-wise, they seem average to me, as I'm not exceptionally familiar with either of their histories.

Anyone want to do a late rally for the Arabs, Vikings, or Monguls? Better post away in the Civ Choice Poll.


Next issue on my mind: Who amongst us is interested in leadership? Who's good at what? My strong points are diplomacy and government. I'm decent in most other areas. I'm hoping that there are some cunning strategists and economists amongst us. We may well want to support our best general as dictator in the beginning. Let me do more of the diplomatic work.

--Togas