What role should the warlords expansion play in future SGOTMs?

There are a few different options here... the easiest is only running one version each month.. this could be vanilla, warlords or to alternate between them.

Another option is to set up the same map in both vanilla and warlords like we ran vanilla/ptw/c3c in the civ3 sgotm for many months... the disadvantage with this is that you are a bit limited in what civilizations you can have on the map. This is a setup I personally would like to try atleast once to see how much differently the games would play... :)

A last option I see is to make 2 different competitions.. one for vanilla and one for warlords.. with different maps and possibly different variants. This would allow teams to play in both competitions.. downside is it would be a bit more work to set up, and teams/players who choose to play in both could end up overloaded with playturns :evil:

Finally.. if sgotm3 should be in warlords, then the start of the game might get delayed if the planned patch in middle of october gets delayed (dont really want to start a sgotm and then have a planned patch show up one week into the game)

Really hard to tell. In my limited experience, the games are greatly different. Probably, the difference is similar to vanilla Civ3 versus Conquests. So, may be map can be same but competitions might be separate.

More games - more fun.

More players more fun. I d like to play Warlords too but I don t think a separate Warlords(or Vanilla) game would attract much players(or vice versa).

Running one version each month is fine...

I have become a big fan of Warlords - I would rather go forward with Warlords exclusively.

Is it really feasible to have the same map for warlords and vanilla? I remember some discussions on a GOTM thread that this was a technical challenge for the staff.

...

Another option is to set up the same map in both vanilla and warlords like we ran vanilla/ptw/c3c in the civ3 sgotm for many months... the disadvantage with this is that you are a bit limited in what civilizations you can have on the map. This is a setup I personally would like to try atleast once to see how much differently the games would play... :)

...


That was my vote. I trust this would be after the new patch for Warlords.

I have become a big fan of Warlords - I would rather go forward with Warlords exclusively.

Is it really feasible to have the same map for warlords and vanilla? I remember some discussions on a GOTM thread that this was a technical challenge for the staff.
The game rules in the two versions are sufficiently different that you can't compare performances between them, hence the need for two different GOTM competitions each month. But using the same map should not be a problem. There would be separate awards in each "division" - Warlords and Vanilla - just as we had in Civ3 SGOTMs when Conquests and PtW/vanilla teams played on the same map, but had separate awards.

That was my vote. I trust this would be after the new patch for Warlords.
As Gyathaar said in his post, we would wait for the patch before starting a Warlords SGOTM.

i think using the same map is a good idea. could use the same or different variants. sounds like a more easily managed process. my only concern would be if you are playing the warlords you couldn't look at any of the vanilla games. even though they would be different in most respects, the map wold be the same. guess it would be okay once the whole world is known.

I don't like the idea of playing warlords and vanilla on the same map, because I think that all the teams should compete for the same award. I would prefer to have a single game in any version, but two completely separate competitions is also fine if the staff can handle 40 threads at once (you should be able to find some extra volunteers for that :))

As I have not installed "vanilla" and do not know its advantages/benefits I vote warlords only. Do you really need any more variations of the game?

However, if the moderators want to commit even more of their time by running two games then fair play!

As I have not installed "vanilla" and do not know its advantages/benefits I vote warlords only.
Vanilla civ4 is plain civ4 without any mods or expansions.. if you have warlords installed then you have vanilla civ4 too.. (the first 2 sgotms has been played in vanilla :) )

Would it be feasible to have both games run on the same map but with different civs (in each version)? If you use the same map, there would be a level of normalcy, but with the trait changes, both games would be significantly different. Simply keeping the civs the same would become stupid because of the traits, UB's, etc.

Perhaps an option would be form the teams and have every team enter whatever they would prefer: vanilla, warlords, or both. Any advantage gained by previous knowledge of the map would be offset because all the teams already know how it is. Players could sign up for whatever they like (v, w, b), and teams could be assigned accordingly.

I guess this would be an intermediate step between the separate games and the same game.

I voted two different competitions, although I know this would create more workload for the staff, I didn't really like any of the other options for how to go about using both warlords and vanilla. Alternating is not really a viable option because then people who want warlords or who want vanilla have to wait 2-3 months before they get another SGOTM-which could cause them to not come back again.
And having both warlords and vanilla available on the same map would mean that warlords people would have the experience dumbed down a bit because they wouldn't be able to have any of the new civs as enemies, or play as one of them.

2 different competitions if anything, i'd much prefer just vanilla civ4 though because if not then i'd have to leave my team as over half of them dont have warlords.

I intend to play Warlords only. I would have no objection to running a parallel version in vanilla with the "same map" to the extent possible (e.g., the Warlords-specific civs would have to be substituted). I wouldn't like the Warlords version to be limited (e.g., use only civs from vanilla) just to make the two more comparable---they aren't going to be comparable anyway. Alternating vanilla and Warlords would be my second choice---every other month is more than enough for me anyway. Running both vanilla and Warlords on different maps (so that people can play both) every month seems too much to me---you would dilute the player pool with all the different games.

My two cents would be to NOT try to make comparable vanilla & warlords games. Either run two completely separate competitions, or try the cludge with the same map & two different version streams.

In the former, active teams could even play both, whilst the less-active (slowest playing :mischief: ) teams could choose the version / competition that they wanted.

I personally am not ready to switch to Warlords (I also do not have the money). We had a lengthy discussion about Warlords vs. Vanilla at the Realms Beyond forums, but over there it was about the Epics. Though I would like to stick only to Vanilla, it is unfair to close off Warlords completely. That is why I voted to have two separate competitions. One for Vanilla, one for Warlords.

Looking at the poll results so far a clear pattern emerges..
Vanilla vs warlords have about equal following..
The majority of the voters want some kind of mix between the two, with most people wanting two seperate competitions.

I suggest the following:
Next SGOTM will be a split competition, using same setup for both vanilla and warlords, players will have to choose one version to play in (I will try to set up the map so it will deliberately will play very different in the two versions... it will be interesting to see how the different versions will compare)

After that there will be two seperate competitions.. possibly start a vanilla game every 2 months, and a warlords game also every 2 months, but staggered so there is a new game starting and ending roughly every month (players who have a lot of time on their hands would be able to play in both competitions if they wish)

Any huge objections?

seems a good idea :)

With the suggestion of SGOTMs every two months are you intending that teams finish each SGOTM within two months or that we are likely to have overlapping SGOTMs if we haven't finished the last in time?

That's an interesting subject in its own right. What do players think about trying to complete games in two months? I don't really want overlapping games in the same series/version. If games can't be completed in two months we'll have to define a slower pace.

Some of the time is in the design. The current game will take longer, I think, than the first one did. The recent Barbarian Civ III SGOTM took longer because it was designed to.

I'm not sure two months is a sufficient time for a game. If a ten turn set gets played every three days, that's about 200 or so turns in those two months. For some teams, it may take a few more turns. :blush:

I would expect that some future SGOTMs will be even longer (culture or space race objectives, instead of domination or conquest?). Having a firm limit of 2 months for all SGOTMs doesn't seem realistic to me.

I would expect that some future SGOTMs will be even longer (culture or space race objectives, instead of domination or conquest?). Having a firm limit of 2 months for all SGOTMs doesn't seem realistic to me.
I agree - although a firm time-limit up front would be workable. I think 3 months rather than 2.

I agree - although a firm time-limit up front would be workable. I think 3 months rather than 2.


Two months is probably achievable. However I suspect if it was implemented then less people would be interested in the first place followed by an increased drop out rate subsequently. I don't believe that's what was intended. :p

I agree with you that 3 months is far more realistic.

Three months for an SG sounds more realistic than two months. I'd favour two seperate competitions for warlods and vanilla with different maps and difficulty levels; stagger them so really keen people can play both. Obviously this depends on moderators' resources to run two games.

I'd second pigswill. Of course, I've never played a succession game, but I'd really like to, and I think that a staggered three month gaming set-up would be great.

I voted for 2 separate competitions.
With the new patch 1.61 and 2.08 are 2 deeply different games, IMO with more differeces than vanilla civ3 compared to conquest.

Run a game every 2 months, alternating vanilla and warlords means 4 months to complete a game.