I have been watching a lot of succession games and help out games. It got me thinking about a slightly different game. We can play this a a normal succession type game, except each round will start with the WORST point score game uploaded. Out goal is to constantly fix the mess.

I see the rounds as:

1. 4000-2500 BC
2. 2500-500 BC
3. 500BC-500 AD
4. 500 AD- 1200 AD
5. 1200 AD - 1600 AD
6 1600- 1800 AD
7. 1800-1900 AD
8. 1900-Finish

You score whatever points you make in a round; +100 points for submitting worst score. Anybody upload a game win, and that round is the final round. Winner hosts the next game. No going into world builder, reloading or other game tampering.

Any interest?

But this won't help the person who got into the mess in the first place. They will continue to submit the worst game until they lose.

You are right, but it might help in learning how to fix a bad situation.

Bad situation--I thought this was a good idea, but can't figure out how to upload the save file or a starting image. Any help on uploading files?

_________________________________________________
Commenters--you are right, the worse players will not get the benefit except to see that bad situations can be fixed. The real challange (besides my spelling) is for the good players to show they can fix a bad situation.

About the start--Easy level--Noble. Pangea, standard size. I locked modified assets. I picked the AI's though. I wouldn't expect too many friendly AI's.

_________________________________________________
If anyone wants to give it a try, first round should be uploaded by Thursday Morning, 6 AM EDT.

you won't be fixing the mess.
Each round you dive further!

should go for one down, one up (so best "mess fixer" helps out the group, then worst "mess builder" puts your head back into the water)

Would only work with people who did it for practice, and NO compition to be the one who's game gets picked. Basically, Exactly the same of a normal SG - everyone tries thier hardest to do WELL, but the person who did the worst, even while trying, gets picked.

Here is the opening screenshot.


Maybe I did not explain my thoughts very well. Everyone has to pick up from the worst start at the beginning of each round. So if you do great in round 1, thats nice, but you have to pick up from the worst start for round 2. Each player has to keep digging out of a hole, maybe not of their own making.

Cabert--you might be right about 1 down, 1 up. I didn't consider that someone would go out, or just keep driving everything down. I want it to be a challange, not impossible. I thought the noble level start would fix that. Would you prefer a harder level and zig zag rounds, or does the noble level fix that problem?

As has been pointed out before, in the case in which there's a player consistently worse than the others, how will he learn? The only way I can see this work is if people look at all the saves and/or talk a lot about the next round and the person who's last in score takes their advice.

i don't like the idea for 2 reasons :
- you never will come out of the mess, so basically you will lose the game with no hope to escape unless you let only top players in
- score is irrelevent most of the time = my best games get started with crappy scores for the first half, then out of the blue, the expensive land grab starts to pay off and i cruise to victory.

edit : a better option is to let some newbie into a normal SG, and let him play half the turns ;)

Ok, I like this stuff and adds some intrest to the forums. If the goal is to give some bad material for the good players, I'll see how bad of a start I can manage :-) Will try to post a save by tomorrow morning!

Well I'll bite. ;)

The game went from 2050BC to 2480BC, so unsure which to post so I played the extra turn.

Not sure if it was better to get a second Worker or a Settler out quickly, but opted for the Worker.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/c.hills/oj_mali_copper.jpg

The Settler is nearly complete, and will head to the east to land on the desert and pick up the Copper, Clams, and Pigs (Tile X). A problem here is that the second city will need an Obelisk (we have Mysticism) to pop the border to pick up the Copper, which simply might be too long given that we've met Montezuma and will want to start working on Axes.

Other options include Y and Z that will miss the Clams and fresh water from the lake but will allow immedite access to the Copper.

Settling on the Copper is generally not advised, but will allow immediate Copper access without having to build a mine. The city is coastal and will still pick up the Pigs. It's unknown if there is a seafood resource off that part of the coast.

Timbuktu is still sitting on one population point, but should grow quickly and well with the farmed Rice, Silk, and Spices, and has access to a plains hill mine and a forested grasslands Silk.
Score 126.

Edit: So while the score is pretty rubbishy, the game I've submitted is not in a bad position ... is that the idea?

Or are we really trying to have a hopeless score but survive?

I'm a bit http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/confused.gif myself on this!

Yea--I noticed the year problem, good planning Paul

At this point I don't see a whole lot of interest, so I am gonna cancel. I still like the idea. So much advice is predicated on getting a good start that I really would like to see the what the better players do in a bad situation. I need to tweak the format to get more interest first though.

You did better than I did CAM. I might have more points, but misused my scout badly. I went on a hut search and came up empty

i'd like a "save my game" thread, but i'd go with different rules:
- it would be a 2 groups SG (the helpless and the saviors)
- first group (the helpless) plays 20 turns, select the "worst" situation from a vote (score isn't relevent),
- then second group (the saviors) plays 20 turns, select the "best" from a vote,
...
It may be fun :)
but i think the time ain't right for such games, warlords is just out taking it's toll on vanilla gaming, + it's summer = holydays for many.

If you go for such a game, i'll try my best but it's like a GotM slice : it takes time, you can't expect people to play and post in hours! I'd say 48 hours for 20 turns (posting included) then you need to select the worst/best.
Maybe vote isn't the best solution. Maybe a "game master" (not necessarily the best player, just the OP ;) ) should go through the different games and choose alone?

edit : about level, noble is good, but don't think every situation is salvageable on noble ;)

I don't get it... if you're always going to pick the worst score, why would anyone want to do well and fix the mess? Won't it just be a competition of who can screw up the Civ the most?

Hell if bad score games is what you're after I can hook you up with all you will ever need lol.

I'm wondering about something: do you want people to do their best, and then correct the "worst" game? It seems more logical than what some here have suggested. ;) cabert's idea does indeed seem interesting. Have begginers and experts collaborate but in two distinct packs: "here's what you must not do" and "here's how to get better". :D With lots of talks in between you might even get to the point where it will be hard to make a distinction between the "beginner" games.

On t'other hand to really screw up you need to know the game; have the 'experts' play badly and the beginners bale them out.

On t'other hand to really screw up you need to know the game; have the 'experts' play badly and the beginners bale them out.

you're a bad guy, aren't you:lol: I can screw any game in 10 turns in a way you'll never recover :lol: (declaring war against montezuma without any troop is a good start ;) )

I'm willing to try a down/up SG variant, but only if even the "down" part is played in the "best the player could think of" way.
Also, another option would be a "sticky" thread where newbies could post some desperate games. Could be a fun alternative to GotM competitive games ;)
But that would require a whole staff. I will propose some "fix my trash game" option to the GotM staff (meaning a game starting in 2000 BC, with only 1 city, no worker, one warrior, stonehenge being built, every worker tech researched ;)). Could be fun to force those experts out of known land.

back to topic (ie not a sticky thread but a SG),
How could we be sure the game is trashed enough?

The trick may be to play at a high enough level, so that newbies have a real hard time to just survive. Monarch may be hard enough:rolleyes:
The issue then is the ability of "experts" to effectively save the game...
I know I won't be saving any ill-started monarch game. I have a hard enough time winning games where i do everything i can towards early rush!:blush:

Maybe Prince would be enough? IMHO, it's the first challenging level.
I won the first noble game i played (that's why i don't think it's a challenging level), but lost a dozen of prince games before i could handle it (monarch is worse, i lost dozens of monarch game before reaching the point where i could build a third city ;) ).

How would that be?
SG variant
*Level : Prince
*Roster of 2 :
- newbie group (worst game selected, the goal is not to be selected!)
- expert group (best game selected, the goal is to be selected).

* After each set of turns (first round for each group is 20 turns, 10 turns/round after that), each "competitor" posts a save and writeup. The other group selects the game it has to play (score is only one indication, not the most important factor) among those (ie the expert group selects the worst newbie game, regarding his own comprehension of the game, while the newbie group selects the best expert game, with his own comprehension).
* If a game is lost, it cannot be selected. The player gets to play again the next round of his group.
* If a game is won, the game ends (even if it's a newbie player who wins it).
* For each round, each player has 48 hours to play and post the save+write up. Late coming writeups cannot be selected (48 hours is a long time!).
* A roster of each group has to be set up before the game starts. Any newbie willing to play the "up" part is welcomed to do so, if his game is selected he is officially declared expert ;) . Any expert that wants to play the "down" part is entitled to do so, but the "made up" game cannot be selected (so don't bother with a save).

Anyone interested?:confused:
what do you think Paul666?
DaveMcW could be expert, i think Cam_H, pigswill qualify as experts too.
The rest (no offense meant) i don't know. I'm no newbie either. I'm a bit humble as expert myself, but would like to try.

Maybe we should move to the SG games forum?

This ( Cabert's) format would work .It's a really good idea.

(Got kind of sidetracked with Warlords myself!! Love the new scenarios, but are all the old ones gone??)

Anyway, I always envisioned that everyone would try and do their best all the time. As I keep messing around with formats, I keep finding more problems with what I hoped to achieve.

Cabert--My biggest problem with your proposal is the 48 hour deadline. People (me) need more time to balance life with this Game! With the pregame sign up, we need some deadlines but I'm not sure the right time.
I assume the game would start on the "down" swing. I would definately be part of the down group. I think it is worth trying!

(Got kind of sidetracked with Warlords myself!! Love the new scenarios, but are all the old ones gone??)


old ones can only be played vanilla, if i understand things well

Anyway, I always envisioned that everyone would try and do their best all the time. As I keep messing around with formats, I keep finding more problems with what I hoped to achieve.

:confused:

Cabert--My biggest problem with your proposal is the 48 hour deadline. People (me) need more time to balance life with this Game! With the pregame sign up, we need some deadlines but I'm not sure the right time.
I assume the game would start on the "down" swing. I would definately be part of the down group. I think it is worth trying!
:D
48 hours was supposed to be vs "fastest player"
I have no problem with 72, 96 hours, or even a week. But the game would get really slow.

Anyone interested?:confused:
what do you think Paul666?
DaveMcW could be expert, i think Cam_H, pigswill qualify as experts too.
The rest (no offense meant) i don't know. I'm no newbie either. I'm a bit humble as expert myself, but would like to try.

Maybe we should move to the SG games forum?

I'm pleased to see this idea still being considered. Some good thoughts cabert. :thumbsup:

Now that I've been mentioned, just so you guys know where I'm at;

I can only play three days per week as my work and home locations are some 300 kilometres apart, and Lord help me if I bring Civ to work!

At the moment I am confident at Monarch but floundering at Emperor (one win from three starts only), so I'm in no-man's-land in terms of 'expertise'.

I do think that this one could go in the Succession Games forum.

Keep at it Paul666. It could be really helpful for the bottom group ,and enjoyable for the top group , who generally take an interest in mentoring new players.

I would like to play in the bottom group.
48 hours is surely enough for 10 turns. Newbies dont take 72 hours over 10 turns and a good player wouldnt need all that long to spot the errors, act on them, and post about it.

Hey, me an expert, don't make me larf, can't even win monarch regular. OTOH if it comes down to best games being selected then I can wallow in obscurity.

Very nice idea! I would like to join it. My current level is Prince, but I have not won or lost anything on it(won the Civil War and Mediterranean scenairio's with Washington resp. Caesar, but the scenairio's are too simple). I have only got the game for 3 weeks now, and I raced through Chieftain - Warlord - Noble. I hope I can steam through to Monarch, soon :lol: :mischief: :lol: :D ;) . But I have played Civ and civ3 many years. Does that qualify me as a newbie? Okay, n00b, if you like that better.

72 hours is the right time-control for me.

Thanks,

William III

who's gonna open the thread in the SG forum?
I vote Paul66 (the "fix my trash game" was his idea). If he doesn't want to, i'll do it.

We are a little short on the roster right now.
Current proposals are
- newbies : Paul666, mice, william III + (pettrucci maybe? or robertoZ28?)
- experts : hem, well, are there any? (i threw cam_h in, and he said well why not but he doesn't grab much about his expertise, pigswill said he is nowhere near expert but would give a try, some for me : not an expert but would give a try)

IMHO we need 4 in each team, so that :
- there are enough different games to choose from, even if one or the other doesn't manage the deadline (if there is only one proposal, we're into a SG without variant :crazyeye:)
- we don't need a week to sort the best/worse game.

So we lack one newbie
(a real newbie would be cool, william III may be too advanced already :lol:) and one expert
(at least! i understand pigswill isn't really willing, which would give a second empty place, with 2 not quite experts (no offense meant cam_h) trying their best:crazyeye: )
DaveMcW? still here? I'm sure you'd like to give us all a good lesson ;)

edit : vanilla for me. If it's warlord, it's without me.
edit 2 : time frame could be 2,5 days (60hours) to post, 1 day to select (enough for shuffling through 4 games, if we go over the board with "competitors", we need more time for selection). This way, we can have cam_h at home for the playing time each week ;) What day do we need to start?

- newbies : Paul666, mice, william III + (pettrucci maybe? or robertoZ28?)

Prince level I win about 60% of the time, so I would definatly benifit from the experts mulling over my last round played! Sign me up if another hasn't been selected already! I've always wanted to join in an SG so it would be fun as well :)

How about if some of the newbies just post mid way saves for games that they've screwed up, and see what the experts can do to fix them? I've certainly got a good candidate from my first Warlords game.

... with 2 not quite experts (no offense meant cam_h) trying their best:crazyeye: )

:lol: No offense at all!

edit : vanilla for me. If it's warlord, it's without me.
edit 2 : time frame could be 2,5 days (60hours) to post, 1 day to select (enough for shuffling through 4 games, if we go over the board with "competitors", we need more time for selection). This way, we can have cam_h at home for the playing time each week ;)

I'm very happy to go without Warlords to keep cabert in ... I like some of the changes in Warlords, but my view at the moment is that they are really just 'bells and whistles' and shouldn't impact on the point of this exercise, which is improving Civ gameplay.

Thanks for your understanding on my schedule. I can't go on a regular tag-team type roster as I'm simply unable to play four days out of seven. I am willing to chime in when able, and let the game roll on when I'm not.

So I'm ready to play any time. Vanilla is Ok for me too. About level. I think Noble will be too easy even for the newbies, won't it?
I am trying to move up to Prince, so Prince plus good advice would suit me.
The AI would punish a fundamental error more on Prince I think, however I will go along with the general consensus

Prince level I win about 60% of the time, so I would definatly benifit from the experts mulling over my last round played! Sign me up if another hasn't been selected already! I've always wanted to join in an SG so it would be fun as well :)

so you're just as much a newbie than i am an expert :lol:

About level. I think Noble will be too easy even for the newbies, won't it?
I am trying to move up to Prince, so Prince plus good advice would suit me.
The AI would punish a fundamental error more on Prince I think, however I will go along with the general consensus

Prince is good : enough of a challenge for the (not quite) newbies, enough room to recover for the (wanabee) experts

We still lack a thread OP in the SG forum (link in this thread if/when there is one) and a few real experts. I think the first try may not be that great, but the idea sounds good both for the learning (newbies) and the fun (experts). It may become a "standard", who knows?

cam_h: i think you can play on weekends only? making a start on sunday evening for the newbies so a save/writeup on wednesday morning, and a play time for the expert starting on thursday morning and ending on saturday evening possible? (we have only very few experts around, don't want to lose one :lol:)

Yeah ... I think that we have to lose this "expert" tag sooner or later, or someone's going to realise that we can't actually add up how many :food: are needed to fill a fat-X. ;)

I'd be erring on the Monarch side more so than the Noble side, so I guess Prince is a compromise. I think selecting a tougher game level will help the team deal with crisis management a bit better.

More of "where I'm at" ... a clue ...

http://www.crocodilehunter.com.au/crocodile_hunter/about_steve_terri/images/steve_alligator-250.gif

So just about everyone else's Thursday is my Friday, and so on. I have Fridays - Sundays off, so that's most people's Thursdays - Saturdays.

I would rather not go with a tribe that relies on an early and/or powerful Unique Unit, so nations such as India, Germany, Spain, or America would be my preferred so we don't skew the tech' path too much.

i'm waiting for Paul666 to tell if he OP or not...
If i get no answer, i'll open a thread on saturday (provided i have internet acess at home by then :crazyeye:
Then i'll leave for a week on holydays :lol: (that's a good reason for me not to be the OP, isn't it? ;))

I like the plan ... let's wait for Paul666, and if no response within a few days, fire away!

Holidays?

I'm still confused by the rules, and I would prefer some objective measure on what constitutes 'the worst game'. I'd feel happier if there was some measure like; least happy faces in total empire, or lowest GDP, or something like that. Maybe we can change the objectives in each round?

I also think that victory conditions should also be established, such as; Domination or Conquest or Diplomatic-by-own-vote-only.

I like the plan ... let's wait for Paul666, and if no response within a few days, fire away!

Holidays?

I'm still confused by the rules, and I would prefer some objective measure on what constitutes 'the worst game'. I'd feel happier if there was some measure like; least happy faces in total empire, or lowest GDP, or something like that. Maybe we can change the objectives in each round?

I also think that victory conditions should also be established, such as; Domination or Conquest or Diplomatic-by-own-vote-only.

ok about giving criteria, but the main thing is there isn't a golden rule of "best game" (would come back to score) per se

let's think about options. I see 2 big ones :
1- a score based on tech level/ Power/ land & pop
2- check list of possible problems/objectives

1) Very clearly, best game is the one with highest (reviewed) score and worst the one with lowest score. That's easy. What's not easy is how to count.
1 pop = 5 points, 1 tile= 1 point, 1 unit = 2 points, 1 tech = 5 points, 10 gold = 1 point, add current gold per turn (be it benefit or deficit)?

I think it's a dead end, in the learning area and a complete injustice for those with a plan (binary science would get a good whack on the head :mischief: )

2) Here we're in freedom land. Let me try 2 different approaches (examples, you could think of hundreds of ways) :
2a)
Before every set of turns, objectives are given out.
After the set of turns, you give a note on each objective from 0 (not even started) to 5 (complete).
best is highest note, worst is lowest note.
2b)
General set of objectives at the start.
One note for planning (ie : going for something, be it a victory condition or a general strategy, like conquering the continent) and going for it,
one note for economics (including tech and gold),
one note for power,
one note for diplomacy.

Would one those solutions be better than a simple vote from the next group?
I'm not sure. Although a real newbie may not see how powerful a well-planned strategy (although low on score) may be and they may end up selecting the wrong "best game". The vote thing gives more power to the writeup than to the actual game:eek:

So, is this still based on all newbs playing a round?

Let's see, this is hard to explain...

...So all newbs play 10 turns or so, with one expert picking the so called "worst round played" aka "worst game" via the scoring event, however that shakes out. Then the newbs all play another round, followed by another expert. Am I even remotely close to understand this?

Or perhaps it would be more like this...

... Maybe it will be more like one newb plays a round then an expert will play a round then a differant newb, then next round another expert? This would be more like a SG alternating newbs and experts!

As far as a scoring mechanism, I would like the idea of laying out a plan, and the next player trying to adhere, getting points by how well he does, but my question for you would be, who exactly is giving objectives out? The person who just played a round? With that in mind, if a "newb" gave an expert an objective and the expert thought it was daft, then what? Just trying to get a good grip on how this will be played out! Looking forward to this hurry up paul666 you :satan: you!

So, is this still based on all newbs playing a round?


you're wrong here. Obviously i wasn't very clear :smoke:

It's a new object, a "group competition" SG.
1) First 10 turns (20 for the first round?) are played by every member of the newbie group.
2) Then the expert group (through a selection mechanism not yet decided, vote? note?) selects the worst game posted (should be amongst 4, if we follow my rules).
3) Then the expert group (every member of this group, should be 4!) plays 10 turns.
4) then the newbie group selects (through a selection mechanism not yet decided, vote? note?) the best game posted (should be amongst 4, if we follow my rules).
5) = 1
6) = 2
...

As far as a scoring mechanism, I would like the idea of laying out a plan, and the next player trying to adhere, getting points by how well he does, but my question for you would be, who exactly is giving objectives out? The person who just played a round? With that in mind, if a "newb" gave an expert an objective and the expert thought it was daft, then what?

right, let's say this is dumb, ok? 2a) is out, for the exact reason you gave.

maybe 2b) is better:lol:

My preference is still a vote. Everyone can argue why he votes for this or that, and it's better for group discussion IMHO.
After all, we're looking forward 2 objectives = learning and fun!

I think the vote format for picking the starts make sense. After some thought I realized that score is not really much of an indication as to how well you are doing, some plans take a while to come to fruition.

I also like the idea of lots of discussion and planning. I always hoped this would somehow show ways to win after things go bad. That's a real weakness in my game. If I have a lead I will win; bad situations lead to silly moves.

I don't mind opening up the game BUT--- I am heading out on vacation next week 8/12-8/18 and don't won't to keep everyone hanging. My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).

I think the vote format for picking the starts make sense. After some thought I realized that score is not really much of an indication as to how well you are doing, some plans take a while to come to fruition.

I also like the idea of lots of discussion and planning. I always hoped this would somehow show ways to win after things go bad. That's a real weakness in my game. If I have a lead I will win; bad situations lead to silly moves.

I don't mind opening up the game BUT--- I am heading out on vacation next week 8/12-8/18 and don't won't to keep everyone hanging.

then OP the thread in the SG forum and put a link here.
we still lack a few people (experts!) to start the game, so we need to appeal to a few of those.
Timing maybe perfect : opening today, filling the roster until sunday morning
(8 am East coast time = 3 pm in France), then playing some (20 for the first hole digging seems right after some thoughts;)) turns and posting a save and a writeup leads to tuesday the 8th, 8 pm = 3 am wednesday here).
IMHO it's up to the OP to say "next group up : this save is selected" for each turnset. So it's perfect to you're still there on the 9th to launch the next playing round. Maybe selection for the third playing round will be a week long :lol:
The other option is to give newbies a whole week (well, 6 days) for the first hole digging until 2500 BC, then a week (when you're away) for the wanabee experts to prove their skill until 500 BC. Sounds good too and fits well with my own holydays ;). Fast players may post earlier, giving something to read...
You're the OP, you're the one setting the rules ;)

My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).

now we know who's the most powerfull around;)

That is exactly the reason why i said the timing isn't perfect for starting such a thing. But it sounds so much fun i want to see it

I think that you should let everyone play both the play the worst and play the best rounds. Everybody submits a game for the first round, and then you pick the one in the worst shape. There would be no need to limit this to the newbie people, and you could compare the worst games to some games that should be noticeably better. Then let everyone play the next round also, I would guess that the best game would come from an expert, but everyone could try.

I don't have clue on the best way to choose the games, though.

I'm still in, but I'm away from the 11th of August to the 18th of August. But 1 Newb less would be no problem for just one round, methinks? 3 days okay 2 1/2 days is okay for me too, but no less. Prince would be nice, but enable raging barbarians. They're the best way to make the first round suck.

One of the problems I have with this format is that different players ('experts' and noobs) will have different grand strategies/victory conditions in mind; what may be a good set of turns for a cultural strategy may not be a good set of turns for a conquest strategy. Picking the 'best' turnset each time may well lead to strategic drift.

I will try to set the links and threads up on Thursday. Let's keep trying to hammer out the rules though. Pigswill has a point about which is best game to pick. I think that is why you have to describe your game when you submit, and what you are shooting for. One way to ease this pain is to make the rounds longer, but that has some drawbacks too.


Quote:
My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).


now we know who's the most powerfull around

I appoligize for any sexism and bad taste in this reply

When I was single it was a constant state of barbarism. Since then the civics have changed. Even though my wife is more like Catherine that Isabella, she can change civics without any turns of anarchy. Her pyramids also mean that she can invoke any government civic. Usually it is representation, but police states can happen although rare. In theory there is free speach, but I find that vassalage is more prevalent. The labor systems seems to float from serfdom to the caste system:blush: , usually not slavery! State property is sometimes run, but free markets keeps everyone happy. Thankfully the religion stays set at paganism. That is way more that you wanted to know!:D

My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).


now we know who's the most powerfull around

I appoligize for any sexism and bad taste in this reply

When I was single it was a constant state of barbarism. Since then the civics have changed. Even though my wife is more like Catherine that Isabella, she can change civics without any turns of anarchy. Her pyramids also mean that she can invoke any government civic. Usually it is representation, but police states can happen although rare. In theory there is free speach, but I find that vassalage is more prevalent. The labor systems seems to float from serfdom to the caste system:blush: , usually not slavery! State property is sometimes run, but free markets keeps everyone happy. Thankfully the religion stays set at paganism. That is way more that you wanted to know!:D

I apoligize for any sexism and bad taste in this reply:
:lol: I'm glad I am still single... :rotfl: I always wondered what love and marriage were about, but now I see: Marriage is the unchangable variation of the fenomenon called 'love'. 'love', It appears, can be partly defined as Forced Labor. It seems Vassalage, State Property, and Pacifism have something to do with it too... :scared: :hammer2: :hammer2: :D ;)

^ :clap:

Short-term thinking

OK ... I tend to agree with pigswill that short-term objectives and long-term objectives are going to mess us up a bit.

For instance, we're next to Saladin. He's Hindu. Our city of New York is also Hindu, although 80% of our cities are Confucian; our founded religion.

Three players are up to bat ...

Player One: Convert to Hinduism ... start a campaign of building Hindu Missionaries out of New York to convert our own cities, while also building Confucian Missionaries to try to sway Saladin to Confucianism. In the meantime, trade technologies with Saladin with the view to a bee-line to Education so we can build Universities and start piecing together a tech' lead. We will deal with Saladin when we have Cav's.

Player Two: Envisage a war with Saladin by working towards Engineering and picking up Pikemen to counter his Camel Archers. In the meantime, stick with Confucianism and ramp up cities with Forges, Aqueducts, shoot for The Colossus, and when hitting Construction start pumping out Catapults.

Player Three: Load up our remaining Axes and Swords, and rush at a few of Saladin's border cities with the hope that in ten turns we'll take at least two cities and we can sue for peace. One Arabian city is on the fringe of an Ivory resource, and that would be great to grab before the Camel Archers arrive.

No strategy's bad ... but Player Three would probably get the points.

As such, 10 turn rounds is just miles too few and does not allow the player to execute for themselves any longer term strategy. We need at least 40 turns per round. :eek:

Victory

I also said it before, that the victory objective must be defined. I would push for; no Cultural, no Spaceship, no Diplomatic with a reliance of votes from other tribes. Most 'newbies' I suspect are either (a.) too passive, or (b.) too 'gung-ho' with poorly co-ordinated attacks. To dominate the world I think would be the best approach.

The *Up to Prince level players* play all

I'm taken by Welnic's suggestion that *Monarch+ level players* only step in each alternate round, while the *Prince- level players* involve themselves in every round. If a *Prince- level player* pulls off a Phoenix 'rise from the ashes'-like act - that would be brilliant!

Real life

I think that we need a group of say six people, and if four are on deck at any one time, then so be it. I don't think that the world will collapse if a few of us can't play for a week. I think that with a larger number of turns per round, there will be more to digest and work on.

Start that Succession Game!

Paul666 and cabert ... please do what you have to do once you two are satisfied with the arrangements.

As before, my preference would be for a tribe without a dominant or early UU, such as India, Germany, America, France, or Spain - but so long as it's not Rome - I'll be happy. I've slipped France in, as I'm still unconvinced about the 'Musketeer rush'.

Dave McW ... are you there? Are you 'in'?

Some good points about the rules:
let's agree on something (for a change :lol:) :

New proposed set of rules:
- vanilla, no reload, no world builder, no perpetual anarchy (no warlords XP yet in my hands)
- No groups, everyone on the roster can (not must) play each round of turns, if a newbie gets the best game, i'll offer my congrats and vote for it, if a wanabe expert posts the worst game we may consider it's a fake, and dismiss it (well, the writeup may explain how it came to that)
- The next round starts after a vote selects the worst game/best game alternatively, the OP post the save and the definition of next round before each round is started (= something like 3rd round is starting with this save, ending in 1000 AD, the worst game will be selected for the next round, please post your save and writeup before Saturday the 17th of august, 8 am east coast time)
- Rounds are 40 turns (i propose that after 1000 AD, we go down to 20 turns or some expert will kill the game in his round!)
- Each round of turns is to be played within a week, selection is 2 days at least (so everyone gets time to open every save, look it up and vote!)
- lost games may not be selected, so if one proposed game is not yet lost, the game is not over (however i think lost games should be posted, as a writeup)
- first reported win (see below conditions) ends the game
- Level is prince (ragging barbs? ok for me, but don't count on me as expert for those :eek: ! never used the option!)
- Domination/ conquest are our target victory conditions (a good plan towards cultural/space race/diplomacy/time (?!) is considered a bad move here, although those victory conditions are available to the AI)

Did i forget something?
Paul666, you're up ;)

PS : we badly need a real expert, but i think the fix the trash game concept may get us one or 2 in the SG forum

I disbanded my settler because it couldn't attack anything (how useless!) and now I have a scout. Where do I go from here?

sounds like i highjacked the thread:sad:
sorry about that

[QUOTE]As before, my preference would be for a tribe without a dominant or early UU, such as India, Germany, America, France, or Spain - but so long as it's not Rome - I'll be happy. I've slipped France in, as I'm still unconvinced about the 'Musketeer rush'.

I think playing a spiritual leader, without dominant UU, and NOT going for cultural is :smoke:
Not saying we should not do it, but it's somehow making things difficult.
Well, not having a dominant UU is already making things difficult in some way.
I vote for Bismarck because i never played him (didn't even know his traits :lol:, i checked it's industrious and expansive).

Dave McW ... are you there? Are you 'in'?

I will PM him, with a link here. It would be great to have him in the game.

I disbanded my settler because it couldn't attack anything (how useless!) and now I have a scout. Where do I go from here?

if you manage to stay alive 40 turns, you're selected ;)

sounds like i highjacked the thread:sad:
sorry about that

Not at all! It seems as though you and Paul have put some good thoughts into how this could be shaped, and I'd like you to lead us to 4,000 B.C. :)

I think playing a spiritual leader, without dominant UU, and NOT going for cultural is :smoke:
Not saying we should not do it, but it's somehow making things difficult.

I've had some of my most aggressive games playing with Mansa Musa and Montezuma! Fast switching into war civics and cheap temples to combat war weariness! Yippee!

I guess you're referring to India: They start with Mining and Fast Workers, so your already on your way to chopping an army of Axes ... and no Anarchy when you implement Slavery!

I want to avoid going for a :culture: win because it's far too easy to get to eight to twelve cities, hit Chemistry, and just turtle up for the rest of the game. It won't teach the *Up to Prince level players* how to be 'the' superpower.

Bismark is a good choice. A :hammers: powerhouse.

The traditional super UUs are praetorians, redcoats and cossacks; others have their proponents but these are the ones to avoid.

It doesn't have to be a race to the bottom; you still keep score by the best games submitted, but everybody has to start the next round playing the last-place save. The difference is, whoever submits the last-place save is eliminated from the competition.

Sounds like prince is a good level; raging barbs makes it bit more challenging at the start. If you're looking at 'noobs' and 'experts' I guess that players who feel comfortable at prince (i.e. expect to win) might be the 'experts' (maybe I suggested that to help me feel 'expert')

In terms of selecting best/worst then maybe every entrant gets to score the other games (say 1-10) based on personal judgement. Highest score one round, lowest score next round.

Sounds like prince is a good level; raging barbs makes it bit more challenging at the start. If you're looking at 'noobs' and 'experts' I guess that players who feel comfortable at prince (i.e. expect to win) might be the 'experts' (maybe I suggested that to help me feel 'expert')

In terms of selecting best/worst then maybe every entrant gets to score the other games (say 1-10) based on personal judgement. Highest score one round, lowest score next round.

well, i was still thinking (my bad) about "voting for the other group"
Didn't even think about the fact that i may have to vote for (or against) my own game:eek:
I think your solution is pretty good.

How do everyone think about ragging barbs?
I'm somewhat afraid of it, mostly because i don't know what exactly happens. I'd rather just stick with warmongring prince game. But if you guys think it's a change, i'll just try my best.
Obviously, ragging barbs gives you more free xp, so there is room for optimisation ,from experts and room for ill-managing and lost cities from newbies.
I don't know if i want it or not:cry:

It doesn't have to be a race to the bottom; you still keep score by the best games submitted, but everybody has to start the next round playing the last-place save. The difference is, whoever submits the last-place save is eliminated from the competition.

interesting but different.
It's more competetive, and less about learning.
We may try it another time.

About "elimination", i will repeat that a lost game may not be selected, but that doesn't mean the "loser" (no offense meant) cannot play the next round!

The other rule is that a win ends the game. That's for everyone, meaning that if someone posts a winning game for round 2, there will be no round 3.
Maybe we should only accept winning game from "ups"? It's somewhat lame, but if we don't, i fear the game ends with a win from an "expert" during one of the "downs":crazyeye:

I think raging barbs would be a mistake because noobs will probably be attempting slingshots or Rex in order to get good advice on how to do these. These starts could be seriously messed up by raging barbs

I think raging barbs would be a mistake because noobs will probably be attempting slingshots or Rex in order to get good advice on how to do these. These starts could be seriously messed up by raging barbs

all the more reason to put them on then :lol:

we don't want defenseless oracle cities;)

I'm happy to go with the flow, but my preferences at this stage are;

Bismark as the Leader

A good suggestion. Industrious might encourage 'Wonder addiction', but aside from that I think he's 'average' enough to go with. Stone or Marble in the fat-X could make things 'interesting'.

Standard World

I would prefer to avoid a map that urges a certain playstyle or puts too much emphasis on particular technological pursuits. I'd avoid a Pangaea.

'Normal' Barbarians

Again I'd prefer to go with 'normal' barbarian activity ... certainly not 'off', probably not 'raging' - the exercise is about learning, not hair loss.

Turns

Happy to go with 40 turns per round to 1000 AD and 20 turns per round after that. I'm sorry if this week-long per round thing is due to me - if it ends up being impractical then we can speed it up later on. I'm assuming 'Normal' speed.

Victory

I'm being repetitive, but I think that Cultural, Space, and Diplomatic* (*if needing votes from other tribes) should be out for the human player(s). Spaceship should be obtainable for the A.I. though.

cam_h,
i think we agree (as usual :lol:) on everything, and don't worry, the week long thing is because 40 turns may be long to play, and should not be hurried.
(I hurried the GotM9 and ended up retiring with 2700 points :()

i think we have enough for starting the game now.
Paul? you're up ;)

Can I just address the roster for the moment, as really it looks as though we have three Monarch-Emperor players, and four Prince players ... am I right in thinking this?

I am excluding people who've just added a comment or an observation, but not wanting to be exclusionary:

Cabert : Monarch-Emperor
Cam : Monarch-Emperor
Pigswill : Monarch
William III : Prince
Paul666 : Prince ... maybe?
Mice : Prince
Petrucci : Prince

I'm not sure if there's the yawning gap of expertise that I guess I envisaged. :confused:

I like all of these suggestions it seems both fair and just :-) I would however, vote on continents. It is very difficult sometimes to deal with what is going on over on that other island for instance, sorta like what Aelf is dealing with in his emperor game! Island maps are just tedious at times and I agree that pangea should be right out. Any leader works fine by me, including Bizzy.

I could go both ways with playing raging barbs but in my heart of hearts I was hoping we would all agree to them! It would be challenging exciting, and give a highly probable chance of getting that "bunk" first round played which you would have to save! Well, perhaps in "School the n00bz Pt. II !! lol The 40/20 play turns sound good and no worries at all from me about week long deadline.

I can play and beat prince, but I do consider myself much less experienced than you experts! Maybe not a newbie, but i sometimes gloss over choices which i should be paying more attention too. I'm more than certain i will make choices you guys will think is :smoke:!

Can't wait to get started!

Is this open to any noob or just who is already on the roster? I'm currently playing on Noble. My couple of attempts to move up a level did not go well.

It's basically down to Paul666 as OP but I'd reckon the whole point of the exercise is to involve players who are ok on noble but struggle a bit on prince.

The format sounds very open so in principle anyone could join.

Bismark sounds fine, continents sounds fine, standard map I assume, normal speed, random AI, raging barbs may be a bit raging so normal barbs is ok.
I suggested a score system for each turnset (so someone would have to tally them I guess) or a simple best/worst vote is the alternative.Best game one set, worst game next set. I week turn round for 40 turns (is that 7 days play, 2 days election or 5 days play, 2 days election).

It's basically down to Paul666 as OP but I'd reckon the whole point of the exercise is to involve players who are ok on noble but struggle a bit on prince.

The format sounds very open so in principle anyone could join.

OK ... I'll open a new game in a few hours.

Due to personal circumstances I too am going to struggle with time this week and would like to get this underway today.

pigswill - I would rather not have to go through 28 different versions of the same game, so I think we should cap it at the roster that I outlined on my previous post + VuDu (Welcome btw :)).

Arrrgh ... 'tis ready to go! :eek:

The Game is in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4363823) in the Succession Game forum.

(Good thing we start with Mining! ;))

Is Paul alive?

seems a nice idea

I was late for this one,

I may be interested in playing the 2nd opus of Fix the trash game, when there will be one, .. as a noob ... prince level player.

I would be please to be allowed to have to possibility to try risky things knowing someone will come to save the situation if I fail :) (usually I refrain from risk, going better than AI but not in a overwhelming-winner situation)

cala

seems a nice idea

I was late for this one,

I may be interested in playing the 2nd opus of Fix the trash game, when there will be one, .. as a noob ... prince level player.

I would be please to be allowed to have to possibility to try risky things knowing someone will come to save the situation if I fail :) (usually I refrain from risk, going better than AI but not in a overwhelming-winner situation)

cala

you can lurk a bit in the Sg thread, to get the taste of it.
Maybe we'll need reinforcements, 2 of our noble/prince players are MIA.

:bump:

Just to let you know that we're looking for a couple of enthusiastic people to join the roster over on 'Fix another trash game (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186358) :yuck:'

The game is played in weekly Rounds, and we take about five days to play and two days to vote per Round on either the most or least successful submission (it alternates).

We're looking for; A Monarch-level player, and A Noble or Prince-level player... to join the team. While I respect that many of you well and truly mastered Monarch some time back and yet may still be interested, the idea is to have people of roughly equivalent levels of experience involved - some slightly more experienced than others. This is not for players who are comfortable at Emperor or above (but personal congratulations if you are one!).

We also do ask that if you volunteer, that you're committed (within the bounds of reason ;)) to playing and participating on a regular basis.

It's fairly self-evident how things work from the thread, but at the moment we're at 1000AD and trying to get Montezuma into Space. The AI tribes we've got landed with are generally the peaceful-builder types. We're playing on standard settings at Monarch level, vanilla 1.61.

Interested? Click over to the thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186358) and register your participation. :)