Let's Play: Civilization II?

So, here's a chance for the House of Lords to be like a real House of Lords. If you guys think it's a good idea, I can make a CivII version of the Let's Play series.

So, how will it go?

As it will be very hard to provide screenshots for "every turn", we set a number of steps of turns on which I will provide the situation of our empire. If we meet a new culture, or an existing civilization declares war on us, I will post an update explaining the situation and call for a meeting of the House of Lords.

We will actually discuss and vote the policies to follow, which way to channel our research (not individual technologies, but a general policy). The style we will play will be up for votes as well. We should pick a nation and difficulty level too. I'd suggest the "normal" level, one step above the easist, as in other levels, the computer "cheats".

So, you guys up to it?

 

Well, I am. Also, we should have the 'normal' level, indeed. Which nations can we choose from?

 

Do it

 

Alright, we have at least four parliamentaries then.

Here are the first things that need to be decided:

1) Do we play on the real world map, or do we have a randomized map? If randomized, define the geographical qualities:

- archipelago/continental
- wet/arid/normal
- cool/warm/temperate
- old/young earth
- map size

2) Choose the difficulty level. Chieftain games will have the HoL ruling over all easily. In Deity, the computer blatantly cheats (really). The available difficulty levels are:

- Chieftain
- Warlord
- Prince
- King
- Emperor
- Deity

I would advise Warlord or Prince.

3) Choose the nation. We can have customized nation names, titles and cities, but I would prefer not ruling over Arthgonlovescockia (a United Arcanum nation "could" work with Arcanum city names though). The standard choices are:

- Romans / Russians / Celts
- Babylonians / Zulus / Japanese
- Germans / French / Vikings
- Egyptians / Aztecs / Spanish
- Americans / Chinese / Persians
- Greeks / English / Carthaginians
- Indians / Mongols / Sioux

4) Architectural style. You have Bronze Age Monolith, Classical (Hellenic, Hellenistic and Roman), Far Eastern and Medieval styles.

Barbarian activity level will be highest with classical ruleset, by the way.

** edited-in ** I'm thinking 20 turn jumps.

 

1) Real World map.

2) Warlord.

3) Aztecs/Vorakia

4) Classical style.

 

Like the new avatar DE.

 

Do Warlord, with a random map (standard settings), and do an Arcanum nation with the English base (because their shield is red, which I relate to Arcanum for some reason) is my vote.

 

I was sitting here this whole time trying to remember who was red, then you said it Grakelin. I thought of red because of the forum colours being maroon and black. I fully endorse Grakelin's options and claim them as my own.

 

Unified Kingdom has more cities to name after, I assume we'll use all the names mentioned in Arcanum but we could say Cumbria and there for Caladon joined the Unified Kingdom. Besides, if we are lords and we are using the English, surely the UK would be appropriate.

 

Just a note, Englad has Orange color, red is the Barbarians in CivII.

I'll start the game 24 hours after the discussion post was put in.

 

Orange? ORANGE!?

Cool.

 

I am actually surpised that Holland is'nt incorperated in CiV II, because Orange is very typical for the Dutch. Also, the Netherlands was just as important as England before and in the Golden Age.

PS: It seems that I am not the only one who voted for Vorakia.

Also, could you tell me more about those custom titles in CiV II?

 

This sounds fun. Play Prince level on a real world map. Play as England, name it the Unified Kingdom, classical style.

Also, wasn't there an Arcanum Civ map? Or was that Civ IV?

 

That was CivIV.

Also - a new discussion topics:

1) What kind of empire will we have? The choices are:

- Techno-militaristic: We start off as a powerful technologically advanced democracy, and then break into communism and roll everyone once we have the blatant technological superiority.
- Expansionist-raiders: We quickly militarize by learning siege weapons and defense units. We roll everyone and gather technologies from captured towns. Goes for fundamentalism.
- Interventionist-merchantile: We go for a democracy, and switch to communism when war breaks out. We go into wars when two other countries are fighting each other, only to kill them both. Strong airforce/missile power is a must.

2) Do we develop in England before expanding to the rest of the world, or do we rush? If you want a fully developed and powerful island base, I will make the first step creating the powerful Great Britain. If we rush, we only take enough power to create siege weapons and ships.

P.S. I would advise fully developing Britain.

 

I vote for Techno-Militaristic, it is more Tarantian.

 

Seeing that socialists take over with Donn Throgg, perhaps.

 

Understandable. But how about Arthgonsucksballsia then? No? Bah, you're no fun.

 

One vote for Arthgonsucksballsia =p

On a serious note, here is what we have so far:

- Real World (3) / Random (2)
- Warlord (3) / Prince (2)
- Unified Kingdom with English base.
- Classical by overwhelming majority.

Only TP talked about general policy, but I take it that we follow Tarant's example (Monarchy - Republic - Communism).

My votes would be:

- Real World
- Prince
- UK
- Medieval

This brings the difficulty level to a tie. However, since I will be the person playing the game/putting all decisions in effect, I guess my vote carries less of a value for the generality of this forum. So it's Warlord. We'll rule easier this way anyways.

Arthgon, I forgot to mention customizable titles. In CivII, you can create any presidential title you like for any government type. I'll just put in standard Arcanum-esque titles.

Also, we need a leader name. I'll just get this started and name him Willoughsby though.