Welcome to the C-IV SGOTM 04 Maintenance thread. The purpose of this thread is to give you somewhere to post about non-spoiler issues relating to the game. It is a way of communicating to the rest of the players outside your team, and with the staff about matters that affect your team or everyone. You can post about bugs, rule clarifications, problems with the roster etc. Please subscribe to it so that you are kept up to date with new information as the game proceeds.

The team lists are in the second post in this thread.

The Game
This Monarch difficulty game is on a Standard size, Gyathaar-special, fractal map, at Epic speed, against 7 rivals including India. All victory conditions are enabled except Diplomatic, but the laurels for this contest will be awarded to the teams who achieve the fastest Space defeat by Gandhi.

Versions
This game will be played in Warlords Version 2.08 only.

It will be played using the current version of the HoF Mod. This is version 2.08.003 for Windows. There are insufficient Mac players to form a Mac team. so it will be played in Windows only.

If later versions of Warlords or the HoF Mod are released they cannot be used for this game.

Start files will be available on the SGOTM Progress and Results Page (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/civ4sgotm_submission_list.php) at midnight, server local time, at the start of February 23.

Starting Position
Here's the starting position - click the image below to see a larger version.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/sgotm4_start_small.jpg (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/civ4games/images/sgotm4_start_large.jpg)

Map Parameters
Playable Leader/Civ - Ragnar of The Vikings
Rivals - 7 civs including Gandhi (who is locked in war with Ragnar)
World size - Standard
Difficulty - Monarch
Landform - Fractal, cylindrical, medium sea level, temperate
Game Speed - Epic
Diplomatic Victory Disabled
All other settings are defaults

Notes

Please visit the C-IV Warlords SGOTM reference thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208462) to check out the rules and procedures to ensure that you are adequately prepared for this game.

Warlords v.2.08 is supported for this SGOTM. No other versions can be used, and you will have to stick with the same version throughout the game.

Teams will compete for up to four awards - the Gold, Silver and Bronze Laurels for the fastest finishes, and the Wooden Spoons for the lowest scoring finisher.

Awards will be given to teams who achieve Space defeats to India in the least turns.

All saved game files uploaded to the server are parsed through software that extracts and archives data about your save, including reload count for each turn set.

Spoiler information will absolutely NOT be tolerated in this thread.

CDZ: BCLG100, Beorn-eL-Feared, Softnum, killercane, socralynnek, Drool

Chokonuts: Ozbenno, cubbiesin08, McArine, Mighty Dwaarf, ngraner42, Terminator3k

CRC: Grey Cardinal, Godwar, Gosha190, jeffa, kaizer, kicks, Lexad, Morcar - (reserves: Murick, Budda, mest, zxhex)

Fifth Element: BLubmuz, BrianS, Civicide, Doom Train, Merum, Sweetacshon, The Sansman

Fistful of Dynamite: Ralph Jackson, blid, Kikinit, Manic_ , pindicator, Rihiter, sooooo,

Geezers: Thrallia, Harbourboy, Htadus, Jenarie, markh, Sam_Yeager (The-Hawk)

Gypsy Kings: Ronnie1, Conquistador 63, da_Vinci, g_storrow, immaculate, Jon Shaw

Murky Waters: Erkon, Big Pig, Gnejs, JERFit, jouhpaulcain, LowtherCastle, Mîtiu Ioan

One Short Straw: mushroomshirt, llib_rm, mdy, mboza, RobertTheBruce, TDK

Peanut: a space oddity, ainwood, civ_steve, klarius, Mailman, malekithe, Wotan (archphoenix, DaviddesJ)

The Real Ms. Beyond: BeefontheBone, darkwatcher, Kodii, LKendter, ruff_hi, Sir Bugsy, TheArchduke

Smurkz: Methos, eldar, battchy, DeafDolphin, semolina, unkle, zyxy (CliftonBazaar, CommandoBob, Marc Aurel, Niklas)

Trash Team: pigswill, cabert, Cam_H, MrMahk, patagonia, remconius, stuge

VQ: bobrath, Cosmichael, GreyFox, healium, Maquis, namliaM, Scowler

Xteam: leif erikson, Bede, Cactus Pete, DJMGator13, Frederiksberg, rrau, sanabas

Opps.. seems I made a bad mistake here.. I somehow managed to disable space victory instead of diplomatic... if you havent started playing yet, then please wait untill I can replace the start files

Better now than later :D

Ok.. all starting saves replaced.. if someone already played with the original save, then let me know and I will modify the save you have at one point (no rush thou.. still plenty of time before you get that far into the game that it matters :P )

Just thought I would mention it:
If any team somehow manage to find a way to break the permanent warstate with Ghandi with some obscure method, then they are free to do so.

(Like the teams that managed to switch the permanent peace to permanent war in SGOTM1).

Personally I dont know of any way to do this.. but then I didnt know about the method that was used in SGOTM1 either :)

UPDATE:

See post #33

Since it appears there may be a bug that makes this possible, we have decided that you are no longer permitted to make peace with Gandhi, and if peace does break out then you must immediately declare war on him, either directly or via a vassalage.

"Don't touch that pot its hot!!"


Man I hate it when challenges like this get inadvertently dropped. ;)

If any team somehow manage to find a way to break the permanent warstate with Ghandi with some obscure method, then they are free to do so.
(Like the teams that managed to switch the permanent peace to permanent war in SGOTM1).

Personally I dont know of any way to do this..

Free recipe:

Making Gandhi capitulate should do the trick, either to you (if trhat's possible), or to a civ you're at peace with.

Gyathaar
As I'm not a mapmaker, could you please expand on how do you set a permanent war between us and Gandhi so I can try to test it. If we can vassalize Gandhi and then set him free and remain in peace, the task is much easier than it should be, and vassalizing Gandhi should probably be banned.

I've not looked at the save yet, but I suspect that the use of Vassals was already thought of, and they're switched off....

Gyathaar
As I'm not a mapmaker, could you please expand on how do you set a permanent war between us and Gandhi so I can try to test it. If we can vassalize Gandhi and then set him free and remain in peace, the task is much easier than it should be, and vassalizing Gandhi should probably be banned. Banned for the other AI vassalizing with Gandhi as well as for us, right? Can that kind of selectivity be done (banning some vassals but not all vassals)?

dV

Gyathaar
As I'm not a mapmaker, could you please expand on how do you set a permanent war between us and Gandhi so I can try to test it. If we can vassalize Gandhi and then set him free and remain in peace, the task is much easier than it should be, and vassalizing Gandhi should probably be banned.
Just have a look at the SGOTM1 worldbuildersave.. you were locked into war with a civ there too..
Making Ghandi your vassal will be hard.. since in permanent war he will never ever talk to you..

I've not looked at the save yet, but I suspect that the use of Vassals was already thought of, and they're switched off....
I did various experiments with vassals, and found no way to get around the permanent war when I set up the game.. but I might have missed something.
The only thing I didnt test what would happen was if Ghandi capitulate to another civ.. this is simply because I was unable to make this happen no matter what I tried.

The only thing I didnt test what would happen was if Ghandi capitulate to another civ.. this is simply because I was unable to make this happen no matter what I tried.

I presume you mean within this particular game's set up. I've just been playing a random Warlords game where one of the AI Civs swapped between two different Vassal "masters" several times during the course of the game! I may be wrong, but isn't "No Vassal States" an option when starting a Custom Game?

I presume you mean within this particular game's set up. I've just been playing a random Warlords game where one of the AI Civs swapped between two different Vassal "masters" several times during the course of the game! I may be wrong, but isn't "No Vassal States" an option when starting a Custom Game?
Yes.. on this game...
making other civs capitulate or become peaceful vassal of Ghandi was no problem... same with making Ghandi become a peaceful vassal of another civ..

But making Ghandi capitulate, I was unable to make happen...
I tried giving one civ ALL techs.. and about 100 modern armors when Ghandi was still in ancient ages.. had the civ capture all but one of Ghandi's cities... but Capitulation would still be red.. and Ghandi saying 'Surely, you must be joking...'

Since I found out what would happen in the other cases (also after vassal was released again), I saw no reason to disable vassals :)

Banned for the other AI vassalizing with Gandhi as well as for us, right?
Not really, as I don't think that can be written in software other than changing Gandhi's xmls. If someone manages to get Gandhi vassalized by other team and it works should get the prise.

The only thing I didnt test what would happen was if Ghandi capitulate to another civ..
Exactly the thing I'm talking about.

Bah. After more trial I managed to provoke this to happen...

How about this rule?

If Ghandi capitulates to another civ, and this cause you to end up in peace with Ghandi, then you have to immediately declare war on Ghandi's Master. (this will put you back at war with Ghandi again..)

Bah. After more trial I managed to provoke this to happen...

How about this rule?

If Ghandi capitulates to another civ, and this cause you to end up in peace with Ghandi, then you have to immediately declare war on Ghandi's Master. (this will put you back at war with Ghandi again..)How about just redoing the saves with no vassal states?

How about just redoing the saves with no vassal states?
Because I want then enabled for the other options where Ghandi becomes master or vassal... :mischief:

Because I want then enabled for the other options where Ghandi becomes master or vassal... :mischief:Well, in any case it sounds pretty risky to me, without any guarantees. Furthermore, since you managed to do it and you know the situation pretty well, do you think it provides such a clear advantage in terms of getting the spaceship launched?

If not, I say let the daredevils go for it and the rest go their own way and let's see what happens.

This brings up another question: If Ghandi is vassaled and his master launches, does that count as Gandhi also launching or not?

making other civs capitulate or become peaceful vassal of Ghandi was no problem... same with making Ghandi become a peaceful vassal of another civ..
...
Since I found out what would happen ... (also after vassal was released again), I saw no reason to disable vassals :)

So, to save us all lots of fruitless testing, if Gandhi peacefully becomes someone's vassal, are you saying that this does not result in peace with Gandhi (once we have gotten peace with the Master civ)?

It should, cause Gandhi should follow master's diplomacy - both peacefula nd military master.

I have to say that this thread is making me glad I decided to take a pass on this round. It seems like less and less fun, as people spend more and more hours digging into the exact intricacies of the vassalage and war and peace system.

It should, cause Gandhi should follow master's diplomacy - both peacefula nd military master.
Looks like my tests on this case was flawed too.. decided to dig into the SDK first this time.. and this is definately the case...

So looks like if Ghandi becomes someones vassal, and you are or become at peace with the master, then you end up at peace with Ghandi...

So looks like if Ghandi becomes someones vassal, and you are or become at peace with the master, then you end up at peace with Ghandi...

Just make a rule, as you proposed before, stating that you must always remain at war with Ghandi and his master. That would solve the problem, hopefully.

Just disable vassals. Seriously, that's the best way to do it.

but we want to be able to vassalize people, and Gyathaar wants vassals enabled.

Just accept that either someone will somehow manage to get Gandhi peaceful through some crazy vassalage manipulation, or that there will be a rule that if he capitulates to some other AI, you'll just have to declare war on him again.

I too am curious if Gandhi's master goes to space, does that mean Gandhi does as well?

It's not "crazy vassalage manipulation" - I think it will be quite common. In this game I think there will be lots of times when teams will share a common enemy with Gandhi. If the team+Gandhi alliance does well in the war, it is very probable that the common enemy will capitulate to Gandhi. I thought about this quite a lot when thinking about tactics for my team, and it's a really big problem. It puts whole strategies into the hands of the vassal gods - trying to be gamey and manipulate the vassal capitulation rules. Vassals need to be off to make the game bearable.

I think if Gandhi builds spaceship parts on his own, the game will be bearable no matter what else happens, after reading up on the Civ3 version.

This brings up another question: If Ghandi is vassaled and his master launches, does that count as Gandhi also launching or not?

I too am curious if Gandhi's master goes to space, does that mean Gandhi does as well?

No. Vassals can still win games (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186987)by Space Victory, which results in a loss for the master. It follows therefore that a space victory for the master is a loss for the vassal

Been digging into the SDK code.. seems it might be a bug that you can break the locked war by becoming a vassal..
There is code that prevents a civ from becoming a vassal if the civ is locked at peace, and the potential master is at war with whoever they are locked at peace with.. but the reverse code for locked at war is missing..

It seems to me that one of our objectives in playing this game is to protect Gandhi from becoming a Vassal through our Blood Pact. If Gandhi picks up a Vassal, then it is not a problem. If Gandhi becomes someone else's Vassal, then it could be a problem. That problem is easily solved by the requirement to be at war with Gandhi, our Blood Pact. :mischief:

Let's cut this debate, as I believe it will distract from the true goals of this game.

I think we all know that the objective in this game is to get Gandhi to the stars while we remain at war throughout the game. Gyathaar's initial response was based on his belief that you would not find a way to make peace with Gandhi. However, as usual, the SGOTM community has come up with options that may thwart our intentions.

We shall operate to the following amendments to the game rules:

"You are allowed no peace treaties with India" will change to "You are allowed no peace treaties with India, and you must immediately declare war on Gandhi or his master if you ever find that you are at peace with him, either directly or via a vassal relationship."

The winning condition will be amended from "Awards will be given to teams who achieve Space defeats to India in the least turns" to "Awards will go to the teams that achieve the fastest spaceship defeat to a launch by Gandhi."

Please confirm that the above changes resolve the debate, or suggest any remaining issues.

If we're going to allow peace with Gandhi by vassalage, then my question is, do we drop back into war with Gandhi if he unvassalizes?

We ain't gonna to. Thanx for clearing up, Alan.

We shall operate to the following amendments to the game rules:

"You are allowed no peace treaties with India" will change to "You are allowed no peace treaties with India, and you must immediately declare war on Gandhi or his master if you ever find that you are at peace with him, either directly or via a vassal relationship."

The winning condition will be amended from "Awards will be given to teams who achieve Space defeats to India in the least turns" to "Awards will go to the teams that achieve the fastest spaceship defeat to a launch by Gandhi."

Please confirm that the above changes resolve the debate, or suggest any remaining issues. I am all for it. The more winning is about being a leader and the less it is about being a programmer, the happier I am. I suggest that the following post

Just thought I would mention it:
If any team somehow manage to find a way to break the permanent warstate with Ghandi with some obscure method, then they are free to do so.
(Like the teams that managed to switch the permanent peace to permanent war in SGOTM1).

Personally I dont know of any way to do this.. but then I didnt know about the method that was used in SGOTM1 either :) be edited with the above revision, or a reference to it, indicating that it has been overridden.

Can I assume that our ability to capitulate to Gandhi was always disabled? I guess if we are never able to have a discussion with him, that would be true.

The change in winning condition is to clarify that a launch by Gandhi's vassal is not a win for us?

All of our inner pedants are out late partying on this one! :lol:

dV

I am all for it. The more winning is about being a leader and the less it is about being a programmer, the happier I am. I suggest that the following post

be edited with the above revision, or a reference to it, indicating that it has been overridden.Done.

Can I assume that our ability to capitulate to Gandhi was always disabled? I guess if we are never able to have a discussion with him, that would be true.Correct.

The change in winning condition is to clarify that a launch by Gandhi's vassal is not a win for us?Correct.

All of our inner pedants are out late partying on this one! :lol:
I'm not going to be allowed to forget that comment, am I! :D

New Question: If we find ourselves in the situation where Gandhi is suddenly at peace with us, will we be able to DOW him immediately, or will we have to wait 10 turns?

New Question: If we find ourselves in the situation where Gandhi is suddenly at peace with us, will we be able to DOW him immediately, or will we have to wait 10 turns?
In worst case.. just contact me and I will put you back in war immediately :)

I think it will be very difficult to let Gandhi win, without the option to make peace, give him some techs, then declare after 10 turns.

Anyway i got a question: how WW is affected by a permanent war status?

New Question: If we find ourselves in the situation where Gandhi is suddenly at peace with us, will we be able to DOW him immediately, or will we have to wait 10 turns?

In worst case.. just contact me and I will put you back in war immediately :) Might not be the worst case, might be the typical case should peace break out with Gandhi. The SGOTM 1 perm peace to perm war event suggests to me that what is locked is not the war state, but the ability to negotiate the war state. If that is true, then if peace breaks out with Gandhi, we may not be able to ever declare war on him.

Which might mean that all peace events will need to be fixed by Gyathaar, in which case perhaps we need a game rule such as "if peace should break out beween the human and Gandhi, immediately save and upload and PM Gyathaar to restore the war state. Perform no game actions in a peace state with Gandhi."

@AlanH: the inner pedant comment lives on only because it is so true of all of us, not because I want to poke you in particular with it. ;) (well, except for that initial PM :lol: ) I think that a robust inner pedant is a requirement in the personality that likes to play Civ. :D

dV

Might not be the worst case, might be the typical case should peace break out with Gandhi. The SGOTM 1 perm peace to perm war event suggests to me that what is locked is not the war state, but the ability to negotiate the war state. If that is true, then if peace breaks out with Gandhi, we may not be able to ever declare war on him.
Only way you can end up in peace with Ghandi is if he becomes the vassal of another civ. When that happens you can not declare on Ghandi, but you can declare on his Master...

However, there are 2 ways you could be prevented from declaring on the master due to the 10 turns of grace period after a peace deal:

1) Ghandi is a vassal of another civ, and you deliberately make peace with the Master... This is something that you should NOT do.

2) You just made peace with a civ, and then Ghandi capitulate to this civ before 10 turns has passed... this would be the case where I would have to manually put you at war.

In worst case.. just contact me and I will put you back in war immediately :)In other words, AlanH's Game Rules really oughta wanna explicitly state, in addition to the above:

No trading of any kind with Gandhi other than a simple DOW as needed.

1) Ghandi is a vassal of another civ, and you deliberately make peace with the Master... This is something that you should NOT do.But it may be our game interests to declare peace with the AI, aside from wanting peace with Gandhi. In that case, I assume we should make peace with him and then immediately send you a save for alterations, right?

(This is hilarious. Not sure you knew what you were getting into on this one, Gyathaar... :crazyeye: )

In other words, AlanH's Game Rules really oughta wanna explicitly state, in addition to the above:

No trading of any kind with Gandhi other than a simple DOW as needed.

I think it's explicit enough as I stated it. " ... you must immediately declare war on Gandhi or his master if you ever find that you are at peace with him". "Immediately" leaves no opportunity to trade with him!

But it may be our game interests to declare peace with the AI, aside from wanting peace with Gandhi. In that case, I assume we should make peace with him and then immediately send you a save for alterations, right?

(This is hilarious. Not sure you knew what you were getting into on this one, Gyathaar... :crazyeye: ) Can you be at war with a vassal but at peace with his master? If we make peace with the master (and thus peace with Gandhi), maybe Gyathaar can't fix that (as a war only with Gandhi)? So then making peace with Gandhi, and making peace with Gandhi's master are both forbidden? Perhaps ought to be, if Gyathaar can't reset war with Gandhi without resetting war with master.

So if Gandhi ends up vassal to a civ we are at war with, then in effect we are also at perm war with the master civ, until Gandhi is no longer a vassal? And does Gandhi becoming vassal automatically put us at war with the master? Or does that depend on peaceful or capitulation route to vassaling?

Where is the aspirin?

dV

The vassal always has the same state of war and peace as the Master.. so in order to always be at war with Ghandi, you have to never make peace with a potential master of Ghandi

I think both Alan & Gyathaar have made it quite clear.

We are at war with Ghandhi. Period. If by some chance you are not at war then you declare war immediately. No trades, no gifts,no nothing. If you can't declare immediately because of game mechanics then you PM Gyathaar to manually fix your save so that you are at war.

Let's just concentrate on the game please.

EDIT: Crosspost with Gyathaar's clarification.

The argument while interesting in a pedantic legalistic sense is probably not that big an issue. If Gandhi is so weak that he either gets conquered or vassalises voluntarily he's probably not going to be building a spaceship before the 21st century!

I am only concerned that players should not spend all their valuable playing time looking for short cuts to victory that go against the spirit of the game as designed. If a team happens to find a new and unknown bug in the Warlords implementation of permanent war, I don't really think that would be a fair way to determine the awards.

IMO, if you're a good player, you don't need shortcuts or cheats. Trying to find loopholes is what bad players do. :\

And before anyone takes offense, this is a general statement, not directed at any one person.

I think it will be very difficult to let Gandhi win, without the option to make peace, give him some techs, then declare after 10 turns.

I hope you're right. I'm looking forward to seeing all of you suckers lose!

The vassal always has the same state of war and peace as the Master.. so in order to always be at war with Ghandi, you have to never make peace with a potential master of GhandiRight. Of course.

Sorry, I didn't think that one through properly. :wallbash:

I'm looking forward to seeing all of you suckers lose!
Ummm - that's the point of this variant isn't it? :lol:

I hope you're right. I'm looking forward to seeing all of you suckers lose!
There's surely a feeling between us... :crazyeye:

dunno how SG4 will go, but i can bet we'll get a laurel grom SG3

"let's stop this endless war and declare peace?"

anyway the laurels go to the faster loser

I have noticed that the "all" check box on the team summaries in progress and results only affects the first 7 teams on the list ... perhaps a leftover from the split lists in SGOTM 3?

dV

I have noticed that the "all" check box on the team summaries in progress and results only affects the first 7 teams on the list

Pleased to see someone attempting to use the facilities. :) Fixed it.

perhaps a leftover from the split lists in SGOTM 3?

Actually, no. It was the ghost of the non-playing Mac team disrupting the Javascript array :blush:

Actually, no. It was the ghost of the non-playing Mac team disrupting the Javascript array :blush: Hmmm ... I thought Macs were supposed to solve problems, not cause them ... ;)

dV

Quite right. No problem with the Macs, just too few Mac players.

Is it possible to show Gandhi progress diagrams for each team in an additional window as for team's progress?

I don't think I could do it without displaying spoiler information. What Gandhi progress data could be presented that is available to the players in the game?

I don't think I could do it without displaying spoiler information. What Gandhi progress data could be presented that is available to the players in the game?

the score could be enough

the score could be enough

I agree on this!

PS original game's require original info's

PS original game's require original info's
Not necessarily. For lurkers the information is available by visiting the team threads. The teams may prefer to keep such details away from the other teams. We don't publish *all* the stats for a game until it's over.

I'd need to hear from a few teams to know whether the players want this information to be available to the rest of the teams.

As captain for Real Ms. Beyond, I see no reason to publish this. IMHO it is getting into a grey area of what is a spoiler.

Not a captain for VQ, but I would agree 100% with LKendter. Giving out Ghandi's score would cross over into spoiler information.

As captain for Real Ms. Beyond, I see no reason to publish this. IMHO it is getting into a grey area of what is a spoiler.
I agree with this as well. :yup:

I see no positive use for such information. :dunno:

Is it really any more spoiler-ish than seeing other teams scores? Ideally we should only be able to see other team's scores (and Gandhi scores) up to the point of our latest save - otherwise there is an advantage to slower playing teams.

(EDIT: although I appreciate that arranging this would not be easy....)

What about displaying Gandhi's score instead of Ragnar's? (Don't know how much work this would entail for the moderators).

Information about teams' score/power/culture is vaguely spoilerish except that you don't have any idea how these were achieved until you've lost convincingly and can read other teams' threads.

I think we have two different concepts here. Strictly speaking, spoiler information would be some knowledge about the game you are playing that you should not have available yet ... location of a resource, what is hiding in the fog of war, who your opponents are that you have not met yet, etc.

But what we are talking about here is knowledge of more generic performance information from a game in a "parallel universe" ... score, culture and power of teams playing your position in another game. A somewhat different animal.

So the question is does this performance information from a parallel universe provide some unfair advantage to some teams? Does knowing what Ragnar's or Gandhi's score is really tell me where to move that caravel? Or whether to build that library or that axeman?

I think that the performance information does not really spoil the game, and to me part of the fun of the SGOTM is to watch the score graphs progress. I don't see adding Gandhi's score as any more spoiling than showing Ragnar's score, but then if most are bothered by that, I can live without it just as well.

dV

I think that the performance information does not really spoil the game, and to me part of the fun of the SGOTM is to watch the score graphs progress. I don't see adding Gandhi's score as any more spoiling than showing Ragnar's score, but then if most are bothered by that, I can live without it just as well.
dV

Well could not have said that with better words :goodjob:

I do not really care, but I do not see that as spoiler as well. From my side this adds to the burden (did I already thank you for this one AlanH/Gyathaar ? Now it's done, and that's a huge "applause") of the organizer, but adds to the fun of the competition... Ok could be helpful for slow teams but I tend to think it is not (how do you know if Gandhi is on track for SPACE RACE anyway ???)

I agree that we do not want to put any additional burden on our administrators who already do such a great job of running this whole thing for us anyway.

I don't see adding Gandhi's score as any more spoiling than showing Ragnar's score

- The sacred truth! When we are paying conventional games, we can see score's of any other teams. And nobody names this fact as a spoiler!

I agree that we do not want to put any additional burden on our administrators who already do such a great job of running this whole thing for us anyway.

- also quite agree! :hatsoff:

Thanks to all for theirs opinions!

I agree that we do not want to put any additional burden on our administrators who already do such a great job of running this whole thing for us anyway.

Nothing more needs to be said :goodjob:

Ralph

Is there a spoiler thread opening for this game?

It's under discussion :)

I love the spoiler threads from the previous games...but we definitely need a larger number of teams to submit them...the last SGOTM had a dismal number of spoilers.

I know it takes time, Geezers didn't submit one cause our designated writer ended up with other unexpected things taking up his time, but maybe it should start being required if you want to get a laurel, you need to submit a spoiler of some kind? Even if its not very good it'd be easier to read than going through a 400-1500 post thread after the fact to learn about the game.

I love the spoiler threads from the previous games...but we definitely need a larger number of teams to submit them...the last SGOTM had a dismal number of spoilers. Unlike GOTM where folks share opening strategy freely, no one does for SGOTM. I think that the same philosophy makes posting a mid-game spoiler less popular. So end game spoilers would be the rule, except that now the overlapping SGOTMs create a time pinch.

Might need to write a short summary paragraph intended for the spoiler with each turnset ... then just stick em together for the spoiler (edit out the excess).

Then, some players are time pinched enough to play or post, much less write ...

dV

... except that now the overlapping SGOTMs create a time pinch

Speaking of which, as well as discussing the spoiler options we have also been reconsidering whether overlapping the SGOTMs is really a good idea. When this game started, several teams deferred discussing it or playing it until they had finished SGOTM 3. But the overlap was only a couple of weeks.

How do players feel about this now? Would it be better to let this game finish - albeit with a reasonably tight deadline - and then start a vanilla one? Or should we start the vanilla SGOTM 5 within the next week or three, and have it overlap the current game?

I guess it in large part depends on how many teams/players intend to take part in both vanilla and warlords. If there is very little overlap in personnel then overlapping the games may not be an issue.

From my perspective, overlapping is tough to handle. I am still :mischief: in SGOTM3 and not yet in the mood for SGOTM4. But it is doable... I'd rather have tighter deadlines (well... not too tight :D ).

Looking at the last three SGOTMs several teams have finished within two and a half months and the vast majority within three months. Personally I think two months is too short a timescale whereas three months is realistic.

If a new SGOTM starts in the next two or three weeks then I would be inclined to give it a miss. Either our team would have to start playing two SGOTMs or else delay until we finish the current game. However if we do that then we have even less time to finish the next game before yet another one starts and so it would go on.

I know some teams would not find it a problem and wonder what all the fuss is about, but I don't think that is the case for the majority of teams.

I think I could happily start a new SGOTM in the next few weeks as I find it does not take up that much time given that you only play 10 turns every week or so - plus any time you can devote to discussion and tactics.

But if a new one did not start for a while, then that's fine because with GOTM, WOTM, and HoF - there is plenty of other stuff to keep me busy.

The big question is really how much overlap there is between vanilla and warlords. Whilst I would play both, I would find it easier to just concentrate on Warlords.

I would personally find little problem with an overlap, but as I'd want to play both games on Geezers, it could be a team problem.

Perhaps, since many teams finish within 2 months, and the general deadline seems to be 3 months, perhaps have them just overlap by a month. I don't think we want zero overlap, but having an overlap of more than that might cause some teams that would otherwise play both to pass on one of them

Those of us who are sadly WL-deprived don't want to wait too long for another playable game... :mischief: (although my work situation says it's probably a good thing if there's a delay :sad: )

I think holding separate contests for Warlords and Vanilla practically requires an overlap, otherwise each type will have no competition going while the other type finishes. It would be hard to keep a team together that was playing only Warlords, if each Warlords SG had a 2 or 3 month down time while the Vanilla SG finished.

My opinion is that a game every 2 month can be good, and a player can play with 2 different teams, if the team doesn't want be too busy.
For SG4 we was finishing SG3, and no pre-game discussions about SG4, we was too concentrated on our rush.

Also many people doesn't play (or own) Warlords, and more than 4 months between the games is too much.

Would it be worth considering repeating sgotm3 and running the same game with different game versions. When Beyond theSword comes out that will complicate things further.

To a large extent it depends on the amount of work the mods can sustain. I'd rather play a well planned and well run game every three months than a lower quality game every month.

I notice some players use the Search facility occasionally to find posts by other players. I recommend you avoid doing this for players from other SGOTM teams, in case you see parts of their SGOTM thread posts in the search results.

I notice some players use the Search facility occasionally to find posts by other players. I recommend you avoid doing this for players from other SGOTM teams, in case you see parts of their SGOTM thread posts in the search results.

This happens sometimes, whatever I search for. I just don't look at those snippets, when they come up. It seems a bit much to say that SGOTM players should never use the forum search facilities. I'm not sure why a search for a player would be any more or less likely to cause this problem, than any other kind of search.

I've found that the best thing is to use the advanced search where I can select which forums to search in. That way I avoid searching in the SGOTM forums and inadvertently seeing posts from current games.

I've found that the best thing is to use the advanced search where I can select which forums to search in. That way I avoid searching in the SGOTM forums and inadvertently seeing posts from current games.
that's what I do too
not only is it a sure way to avoid the not wanted tripping in a competitive thread, but the results are also a lot nearer to what you're looking for :)

It seems a bit much to say that SGOTM players should never use the forum search facilities.
I'm not barring SGOTM players from using Search. It was meant as a "recommendation" to think about what you are searching for and where, based on my monitoring of forum activity. Restricting searches to non-SGOTM forums as suggested above will eliminate the problem.


I'm not sure why a search for a player would be any more or less likely to cause this problem, than any other kind of search.

A search for posts by a specific competing player is almost certain to bring up SGOTM threads. Probability close to 100% of finding quite a few posts you shouldn't be reading unless you restrict the forums you search.

A search on a specific key word set *may* bring up SGOTM threads. If you only get one or two hits on SGOTM threads then they are fairly easy to ignore. Sure, if the topic you are researching is a hot one in your team it may also be hot in other teams, bringing the probability up to a high level.

I think holding separate contests for Warlords and Vanilla practically requires an overlap, otherwise each type will have no competition going while the other type finishes. It would be hard to keep a team together that was playing only Warlords, if each Warlords SG had a 2 or 3 month down time while the Vanilla SG finished.

I agree with this for the teams that are purely warlords/vanilla. If the time frames are beng tight with two overlapping games on for other teams, then the time frame for a game may be able to increase to 4 months, with a game starting every 2 months.

I've found that the best thing is to use the advanced search where I can select which forums to search in. That way I avoid searching in the SGOTM forums and inadvertently seeing posts from current games. Is there a way to use advance search to search the game of the month forum but not the two succession subforums? I was using advanced search to look in GOTM to see whats been discussed about using Vista for GOTM, but it pulled up SGOTM posts as well.

dV

You may be able to achieve that by unchecking "Also search child forums". But I haven't tested it.

Note that I've not seen anything concerning Vista in the GOTM forums :)

The latest WOTM requires HOF Mod 2.08.004. Will we be able to use the new version of the mod for this game's saves?

You will have to keep using 2.08.003 for the SGOTM and 2.08.004 for the WOTM. HoF mod game saves are only able to be used in the version they are created in.

You can have both versions installed at the same time (in fact currently I have all 4).

I know I can have >1 installed at once, it's just I'm lazy and I don't much like the thought of having to swap between mods depending on the game I'm playing :) My default start up is always with an HOF Mod for this very reason.

If you click on the save game from the desktop, it will open and load the correct mod, so you don't even have to think about which mod you need.

My only take on the question of overlapping games is that some vanilla players may have gotten the impression they only had to wait 2 months before the next one began. They might not even be looking at this discussion, so their voice won't be heard.

But if it's a administration overload, you guys should by all means limit your load so you can maintain your high-quality standards.

I'm not concerned about admin overload. Only player overload.

Make no mistake, we at CDZ do not feel overloaded. We make sure no one has to play too many turns too fast - by stalling when necessary.

My default startup loads the most current HoF version but if you load the game from the save file instead of loading the game then loading save it will load the correct version of HoF.

Hope that made sense. Reworded...

If you have a game being played in the old version, use the save game file to load the game instead of opening game and chosing the load version. This will load the game with the correct HoF.


Edit: Crossposted it was already answered. Somehow I missed there was a page six...

I'm not concerned about admin overload. Only player overload.
Is it really possible for a CivFanatic?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please do NOT discuss the details of this game in the public threads.
If you have any issues with the game design then contact me or Gyathaar via PM, or keep discussion for the appropriate spoilers or the end of the game.

Then, it was spoilerish... :eek:
Sorry, i was convinced the game was enough advanced to let me post my opinions. :sad:
I always make some mistake with SGs :blush:

Just to know...
No a spoiler thread for this game???
I'm curious to see how things are going

edit: (after 36 hours) nobody cares my questions?

After my post of may 8 no answer and no news about a spoiler thread for SG4.
So i post to ask again... do we wait the end of the game for the first spoiler?
btw a deadline for this game is planned?

And... no vanilla SGs?

OK, you've talked me into it. Previous spoiler threads have generated little discussion, but we can always hope ...

I've opened the 1000 AD mid-game spoiler here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225091)

Re. the next game, the current activity level doesn't look promising for trying to sustain a long overlap between two concurrent games. We'll try to estimate when this one might finish, and get started on planning the next one for a short overlap.

Thanks Alan for your answer and for the spoiler.

About the new SG, probably i misunderstood, but i thought you wish to overlap a vanilla SG with a warlord SG to avoid long inactivity for teams who don't play warlords.

In my misunderstanding i had this schema in mind:
Warlord: start month 1, finish month 5;
Vanilla: start month 3, finish month 7.

How many players are excluded from SGOTM4 because it's Warlords? If, as I believe, there are not many, and few SGOTM4 players are able to handle two games concurrently, then that would form a rather small group to compete in an overlapping vanilla game.

[Update]To give some numbers:

152 players signed up for vanilla SGOTM 3
112 players signed up for warlords SGOTM 4
69 of the SGOTM 4 players also signed for SGOTM 3

So my assumption *may* be incorrect, and there *could* be 83 vanilla players who didn't go for the warlords game. Maybe I'll open a poll in the vanilla forum to see what the response would be.

I've opened a poll thread in the Vanilla SGOTM forum here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225240)

Please make your feelings known about if and when you would like to start the next vanilla SGOTM

planning the next one for a short overlap.Speaking of planning and overlap, how much more time do we have to finish SGOTM04? Some of us might need to plan that out a bit too...

That's why I gave you the somewhat vague options "yes, but not yet", and "when I finish SGOTM 4".

Do some planning yourselves, and tell me how long you think you need :)

How many players are excluded from SGOTM4 because it's Warlords?
Some of our CFR fellows, like Dynamic or Witan. And we are ready to compete in overlapping SGOTMs :)

My team (Fifth Element) is goin' slow, due to personal problems of some member.
In addiction we can't know how much time India (or a different AI if we are not good) can need to win this game.
Then i propose a deadline for the end of July, and a vanilla SG can start right now: sign-up, build-up teams and so on it probably cannot actually start before june 20th.

It can't start at all if we only have 20 players all together! That's the total votes cast for a game, even including those that don't want to start until SGOTM 4 ends.

Hey Alan, not bad the results of the vanilla SG pool.
Perhaps not enough to start, but i'd like to see what can happen if you start a sign-up thread.

A bit disappointed for the spoiler, my team is the only one which posted... strange, strange:hmm:

I'll start a sign-up thread when I have a game to announce.

SGOTM spoilers have never been very popular. Even if several teams publish a summary, there is seldom any real discussion. I suspect that the main issue is to do with the wide variation in speed of play. The normal single-player games are all over in a month, so there's never more than a couple of weeks separating most of the players, and they can discuss the game while it is reasonably fresh in their minds. SGOTM teams are not so well synchronised. A second issue is that team members may not feel comfortable disclosing information about their decisions and actions mid-game, and once the game is over they go off to do new things.

Thrallia volunteered to write our spoiler but he is away for a couple of weeks, right when the spoiler thread opened.

I got the impression that no one was allowed to post except for one team approved summary which would disallow discussion although that might have been a misinterpretation of the rules on my part.

The rules state:

"To qualify to POST in this thread a nominated scribe from your team must post a summary of your game up to the point defined above".

This applies to all players. So once the team scribe has published your spoiler you are free to post in that thread.

"To qualify to POST in this thread a nominated scribe from your team must post a summary of your game up to the point defined above".

Maybe this rule is unnecessarily restrictive?

It doesn't seem to be accomplishing the goal of encouraging teams to post summaries.

It only really reflects the way the single player GOTM spoilers work. Players summarise their progress, and discussion ensues. The summaries provide a context for the discussion, and demonstrate that the teams involved have met the spoiler conditions. The summaries don't have to be works of great literature, if that's what is discouraging you.

It only really reflects the way the single player GOTM spoilers work. Players summarise their progress, and discussion ensues.

There's no requirement in the GOTM spoiler threads that players post their own summary in order to participate in discussion.

The summaries provide a context for the discussion, and demonstrate that the teams involved have met the spoiler conditions.

I'm only saying that they don't do this if no one actually writes them. And as an empirical observation, you might get more participation and more content in the spoiler threads, without this rule. Just a theory.

There's no requirement in the GOTM spoiler threads that players post their own summary in order to participate in discussion
Sorry if I didn't express myself well. I don't think I said there is, but most players entering the GOTM spoilers do so before commenting. When a team is playing there needs to be some signal to say that the members of that team have reached the spoiler point.

I don't think it's fair on the other teams to allow team players to post questions or comments on their games with (a) no indication that their team is eligible and (b) no basis for comparison of the progress to date.

I think it's correct:
Once a team has posted (and they *must* agree if and what post) a member of that team can post his personal comments or questions regarding the other posts.

We did so for our (still alone) spoiler: i wrote a text, submitted to the team approval, corrected (also my poor english), then posted.

BTW i suppose there was an explosion of spoilers, but i was definitely wrong.

Alan, I think it is very reasonable to expect a team to post before participating in the discussion. And now that it has been explained I can see what the rule meant. But I think that maybe I'm not the only one that first read the rule as saying no discussion was allowed... maybe it would help to spell it out a little more.

Of course that doesn't help with getting the summaries posted in the first place. :)

I'm not sure where the scope for misunderstanding arises, but I've added another sentence to the posting qualification statement:

"To qualify to POST in this thread a nominated scribe from your team must post a summary of your game up to the point defined above. Any member of the team is then free to add more information within the limits, and to discuss and comment on other team reports."

Does this help?

I guess I don't see why it would be "unfair" to anyone if players from all different teams feel free to post in the spoiler thread after they have reached the spoiler condition. The fact that they are posting is the evidence that they have reached the spoiler condition. No one seems to complain that we have a problem in the regular GOTM with people getting an "unfair" advantage by posting and participating in spoiler threads without posting an adequate summary of their own games.

The current system isn't working, it seems to me a more open system might have a chance of working, and I don't see how it could be worse than the totally empty threads we have now. No discussion can start because almost all of the SGOTM players aren't permitted to contribute or reply unless or until their team fulfills this "requirement".

It's a minimal requirement. I doubt if players who can't put together a simple summary of their game so far are going to put much effort into discussing the game, either. And if no one posts any progress information, what are players going to discuss?

I've suggested other reasons for the spoilers not working - are you suggesting that they are invalid?

I think there are a variety of reasons for lack of spoiler activity, but one of them is that it's considerably more effort to put together a summary of a game played by several different people over a period of a couple of months, than a summary of a game played only by myself over a few days.

I think there are lots of things that players could discuss. Overall strategy and goals. Timetables for various key events. The public score graph, who is ahead and why. I'm not sure how much of this discussion to expect, there might be very little, but I still think it could be more than what we have now.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion. I'm not even a participant in this cycle, I have no stake in it one way or the other.

Previous games have had more summaries posted. This one may only have one because I opened the thread late. I can't go back and undo that. But even when we have had summaries, there was very little discussion. The first Civ4 game had a "Trash Talking" thread that attracted more activity than the spoiler.

The next Vanilla SGOTM Sign up Thread is posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228830).

Just to alert those still playing SGOTM 04, the new patches, which automatically install with a BtS install, will lock you out of SGOTM 04 unless you set up a dual install.

The thread with all the details is here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232115

dV

This game has been rolling for four months now. Please can the teams who are still playing try to wrap it up by August 26? I suspect that, if you don't do it by then you never will.

Okay, if you insist. We were hoping to play forever....

You can play until hell freezes, by all means, but I'll publish the results a bit before then :)

GK will finish by then for sure ... I think we are down to 4 more 20-turn sets, or fewer.

dV

I've published the Results for this game here