Original post:
While the general Hall of Fame is an ongoing competition, we like to run time-definite competitions between updates that we call Gauntlets. Standard Hall of Fame rules still apply, but any games meeting the settings will be counted towards the first Gauntlet.

Any submissions meeting the following criteria will be considered Gauntlet entries:

Difficulty: Settler
Mapsize: Duel
Victory: Conquest
Starting Era: Ancient
Speed: Epic
Submitted before December 19th.


Whichever game has the earliest finish date will be declared the victor. The winner (and settings for the next Gauntlet) will be announced with the December 20th Hall of Fame update.

While each map can only be played once, players are more than welcome to generate new maps and submit multiple games. Also, as everyone is playing their own distinct maps, there is no need for spoiler limitation within the forum. In fact, we encourage detailed posting of strategy and gameplay.

Any games not finished before the submission cutoff may still be submitted to the Hall of Fame as general entries.
GAUNTLET CLOSED!
This thread can instead be used to debate whether Duel sized maps should be included in the Hall of Fame at all.

Strategies...hmm. Build 1-2 skirmisher and take their capital. :D

Whichever game has the highest Firaxis score will be declared the victor.So we're not going for FF anymore?

So we're not going for FF anymore?
We haven't got any fastest finish tables yet. For a conquest game the score should track the date anyway though. FF tables/Gauntlets are for later...

Strategies...hmm. Build 1-2 skirmisher and take their capital. :D

No. You will end up milking for 100+ turns before the score per turn starts to drop.

Which brings up another issue: are we allowed to reload and finish the game one turn earlier once we realize the score is going down?

Which brings up another issue: are we allowed to reload and finish the game one turn earlier once we realize the score is going down?
No reloading. Never, ever! I think we convered it in the following part of the rules:

You may not reload a save file to play parts of the game again. You may only load a save file to start a new play session. We recommend that you aim to play sessions of at least one hour in duration.

You may not play the game through again with the starting save. You must submit your first attempt at the game, otherwise you are replaying with knowledge of the map.

Ok. But it will be easier to resist temptation if you make me a utility that says the score will start to drop next turn. :D

Dave, you brought up a good point about going for score. Since this Gauntlet is designed to be a fastest finish event, we'll determine the victor by whoever wins earliest, by date.

We'll get a victory condition filter put in before the 20th.

I think I read in the SG forum about a certain way of choosing map settings that will cause you to start about 7 tiles away from your opponent on a duel sized map. Do I have to go find out how to do that or are there going to be restrictions on map-type? Here's the SG thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137333
Read the first few posts and it has to do with the team settings that causes them to start next to you.

One of the primary reasons the Hall of Fame is in 'beta' state is so that we can get to know the game and find out what's game-breaking and needs banning in the permanent Hall of Fame, and what else is just 'acceptable' game manipulation.

The current rules are no restrictions on map settings, so by all means go for it.

Doesn't seem to work. I set Russia as my only rival. I leave all default settings except for the map settings. I kill Russia on turn 5 of the game (they didn't even have a military unit yet). I check victory screen it says 0 rivals left next to conquest. I hit end turn about 5 times and still no conquest victory awarded. Not sure what's going on with that. Maybe you don't get credit if they don't build a military unit first?

edit: Ok I did some testing. First, I changed the enemy leader to Asoka so he would start with a warrior instead of a scout. I then did the same thing, capturing his undefended capital. Once again I did not get awarded with a victory. So I reloaded and fortified my warrior outside his capital until he built a warrior. Once he did that I attacked and got a lucky roll, destroying him. I was then awarded with Conquest.

I think this will come down to a lot of reloading (edit2: I mean starting a new game/map not reloading the same map). The key will be having your opponent build his warrior at the earliest possible date. That means having him start on a plains hill with a good production tile as his best workable tile. The problem with that is beating a warrior on a hill with another warrior is extremely difficult. So it will take many reloads to be successful. In the end everyone will have a tied date, probably. Personally I don't care for all the reloading since the game doesn't even keep your game settings with each new game so I'll let other people go at this one.

Dave, you brought up a good point about going for score. Since this Gauntlet is designed to be a fastest finish event, we'll determine the victor by whoever wins earliest, by date.
I'm glad you clairified that. :) There is a definate need to hold off conquering for awhile to maximize score.

My attempts:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Denniz_Beta_HoF_List_Gauntlet1.JPG

Damn. :mad: I didn't save any of my game starts. :blush: Just the final turn.

I submitted the 3560BC save. Will it be disqualified without the 4000BC save?

Doesn't seem to work. I set Russia as my only rival. I leave all default settings except for the map settings. I kill Russia on turn 5 of the game (they didn't even have a military unit yet). I check victory screen it says 0 rivals left next to conquest. I hit end turn about 5 times and still no conquest victory awarded. Not sure what's going on with that. Maybe you don't get credit if they don't build a military unit first?

edit: Ok I did some testing. First, I changed the enemy leader to Asoka so he would start with a warrior instead of a scout. I then did the same thing, capturing his undefended capital. Once again I did not get awarded with a victory. So I reloaded and fortified my warrior outside his capital until he built a warrior. Once he did that I attacked and got a lucky roll, destroying him. I was then awarded with Conquest.

I think this will come down to a lot of reloading (edit2: I mean starting a new game/map not reloading the same map). The key will be having your opponent build his warrior at the earliest possible date. That means having him start on a plains hill with a good production tile as his best workable tile. The problem with that is beating a warrior on a hill with another warrior is extremely difficult. So it will take many reloads to be successful. In the end everyone will have a tied date, probably. Personally I don't care for all the reloading since the game doesn't even keep your game settings with each new game so I'll let other people go at this one.
Actually, I think there is a bug or feature that doesn't let you win before end-of-turn of the 3560BC turn. I have destroyed the AI 3 times before that date. If I keep hitting end-of-turn then I get a victory notice after that date.

This picture is the autosaves and a screenshot I took on the turn I destroyed the AI. Notice the game dates and the timestamps. I am going to upload them over in the Bugs forum.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/Denniz_conquest_vic_issue.JPG

Will it be disqualified without the 4000BC save?
Technically, it should be, but since this is a Beta and not the permanent HOF, a few allowances can be tolerated.;)

I wanted to give this game a try, but then I read this:

Actually, I think there is a bug or feature that doesn't let you win before end-of-turn of the 3560BC turn. I have destroyed the AI 3 times before that date. If I keep hitting end-of-turn then I get a victory notice after that date.


So, is there a solution or definite ruling on this problem?
Otherwise it seems kind of pointless to play this... :(
Then we'd end up with a whole group of players winning in 3560 BC. Seems a bit silly to me. :mischief:

Technically, it should be, but since this is a Beta and not the permanent HOF, a few allowances can be tolerated.;)
Thanks. Cause that one is the only one I did with out resorting to the Team Battleground map option. Highest scoring one too. :thumbsup:

Boy, I sure miss MapFinder, CrpStats, and CivAssistII. I took a lot for granted. ;)

So, is there a solution or definite ruling on this problem?
Otherwise it seems kind of pointless to play this... :(
At this point, I am only sure it happens on Team Battleground map. Of course, the one pangaea map the I won in 3560 was a lucky walk-in victory. This is just like the tiny and small conquest categories in CIV3 HoF, it becomes a scoring race, but essentially pointless once the table fills up.

For the record, all the ingame HoF result in the picture in my post above were done on pangaea maps. Maybe we should restrict map types that Sirian warns are for multiplayer:


--------------------------
Warning to Single Players!
--------------------------

All of the maps can be played in single or multi player, at your discretion. However, some maps are specifically aimed at the multiplayer side of the game.


* Balanced

This script guarantees the key strategic resources are near all civs, knocking out the "risk" to certain civs who require resources for their Unique Units.


* Mirror

This script is aimed at 1v1 or two-teams play. It's a wild thing to play in single player!


* Hub, Ring, and Wheel

These scripts are completely artificial, intended to supply balanced environments for MP action.


* Team Battleground

The name says it all! This is a "deathmatch" map for multiplayer, aimed at quick, brutal gaming.



-------------------------------
Warning to Multiplayer Players!
-------------------------------

All of the maps can be played in single or multi player, at your discretion. However, some maps are specifically aimed at the single player game, while one or two require some additional warnings.


* Continents

Soren has described this map as the "anti-MP" map. It is our most random, least predictable map. Of all the maps in the game, this one is the least well-suited map for multiplayer games involving teams. It is also the default map for single player. The behavior is nearly identical to Civ3's "Continents" map setting, creating a random number, size and shape of continents. Civs will start on the largest/richest of these and usually have multiple civs on any large continents.


* Terra

This is the largest map script in our core group shipping with the initial game. I know some folks on the Civ3 forums caught wind of the notion that Large and Huge map sizes would be a little bit smaller than comparable maps in Civ3, but it just isn't true for this map type. Terra is gargantuan, and in fact, like the Earth Map scenarios, it may not perform well on older or slower machines.

Terra produces earth-like worlds. There is one large continent where all players begin. This is equivalent to Asia, Europe, Africa and the East Indies all rolled in to one, but it is produced randomly and will vary to a significant extent. A second continent akin to the Americas is lost out in the fog and will not be reachable until ships can safely cross long ocean distances. There will tend to be some smaller landmasses akin to Australia or Antarctica that may or may not be reachable prior to oceanic shipping.

Soren thinks this would be the ideal PBEM/Pitboss map and he may be right. At the very least, though, it is not a likely candidate for normal use in MP, being slower in almost every measurable way!


* Custom Continents

If you choose "One Per Team" setting, this map is akin to a "team version" of Islands and is very friendly to multiplayer gaming. Any other setting will tend to produce incongruous starts! This is a map chiefly aimed at the single player crowd! Use anything but "One Per Team" at your own risk.


* Maze

This is a novelty map. If it's not your cup of tea, don't complain. Just move on to something else!


* Mirror

This map is aimed specifically at 1v1 games or two-teams games. Four-teams is also relatively playable, but if you use it for anything else, expect some incongruous starting situations! Also please be aware of the dramatic difference between the land-only setting ("Small Lakes") and the oceanic settings!

Well, it's become apparent these aren't really interesting nor competitive Gauntlet settings, so we're going to go ahead and kill this one quietly before we announce to the world we're open.

Denniz, DaveMcW, we do thank you for your participation. (Dave won BTW, I think.)

The information posted in this thread really makes me wonder if Duel size maps have a place in the Hall of Fame at all. Thoughts?

Considering the large amount of map types and settings, if you are thinking about dissallowing one type, then you are probably not allowing other types as well. There are so many types that it seems the HoF will be hard to fill up. If it is hard to fill up (hundreds of open spaces) then it is not really a competition, but a holding place for scores.

But I don't know...maybe it will be competitive?

Well, the general setup of the Hall of Fame can be a tricky balance. I'd like to think we did a decent job of it in III. The Hall of Fame had thousands of slots, so it was open and inviting to new players, but we still had competition in focused areas such as the informal Gauntlets and the Quartermaster's Challenge. That balance I think we'll be able to repeat and instill competition.

The question is would duel sized maps be fair inside a competitive environment?

I expect duel will quickly max out with perfect scores. But Civ3 tiny also maxed out with perfect scores, and there wasn't too much complaining.

If I remember correctly, it was you who allow tiny maps in the Civ3 HOF in the first place. ;)

Duel Maps: Why Not? I thought the adddition of Tiny Maps on Civ 3 generated a lot of interest.........and was spiced up by the likes of boogaboo and DaveMcW. So, I vote Yes. :)

@'slug, Dianthus et al: Good to see you've got the Civ 4 HOF up and running! :goodjob: :goodjob:

Here's EMan's Gauntlet to both of you: Run the Civ 4 HOF for a minimum of 2 years!? You guys have done a great job with Civ 3.........All your time and effort is much appreciated. :goodjob: :goodjob:

Good Luck.........and Count me In. ;)

SmilEMan. :)

For anyone who is interested, I think I understand why you can't win a conquest before 3560.

In Civ4, you eliminate a Civ when you take/destroy their last city regardless of whether they have a settler somewhere. (Finding a Civ's last settler in Civ3 was one of the less fun things the got rid of.)

Well, there is an easy way and hard way to implement the change. It looks like they choose the easy way. As a consequence, I think they discovered that if you didn't settle in 4000BC, you would lose by conquest when you hit end of turn. So the just don't check for conquest until end-of-turn 3560BC. :rolleyes:

I verified this by starting game and hitting end-of-turn until 3560BC when I lost by conquest. I updated the Bug Forum.

I expect duel will quickly max out with perfect scores. But Civ3 tiny also maxed out with perfect scores, and there wasn't too much complaining.
I don't know that the early Tiny scores were 'perfect', as I recall some ingenious player posting the fastest ever Conquest wins just this year.;) Of course your projection of perfect Duel scores is a valid concern, since Duel is even tinier than Tiny!

If I remember correctly, it was you who allow tiny maps in the Civ3 HOF in the first place. ;)
No, tiny maps were in the HOF before I even joined CFC.

@'slug, Dianthus et al: Good to see you've got the Civ 4 HOF up and running! :goodjob: :goodjob:
Thanks, but I have to correct you. We have the beta up and running.

I verified this by starting game and hitting end-of-turn until 3560BC when I lost by conquest. I updated the Bug Forum.
Another great reason for a Beta HOF. In addition to chiseling out a permanent ruleset and battletesting our systems and procedures, there's something to be said for waiting for enough patches and bugfixes. This way we can play now without damage to the permanent Hall of Fame yet to be constructed. :goodjob: