I don't play the GOTM often these days, at least don't complete them in time. But, when I read the ranom event feature in BtS, I wondered how it might effect, a likely, BtS GOTM.

# Events: New random events such as natural disasters, pleas for help, or demands from their citizens will challenge players to overcome obstacles in order for their civilizations to prosper.

Random events IMHO will probably be turned off - unless the player can manipulate them through game-play. But, then they wouldn't be random. They'd be predictable, like Great Persons.

I've not considered the other features fully, perhaps another might also present an issue.

Random events IMHO will probably be turned off - unless the player can manipulate them through game-play.

We'll have to wait and see exactly what the game does when it's released, but I strongly disagree. The GOTM philosophy has always (at least for many years) to play the game as designed by Firaxis, not to re-design it to meet some other set of preferences. I would expect and assume that random events of large magnitude will, by design, not happen very early in the game (when a volcano erupting under your capital could end your game right away!). Given that, the random events will be just one more thing for players to deal with. And there will always be the vanilla GOTM for players who don't like the features of BTS.

P.S. I'm very much looking forward to the addition of random events. I just hope they are substantial and not trivial.

We'll have to wait and see exactly what the game does when it's released, but I strongly disagree. The GOTM philosophy has always (at least for many years) to play the game as designed by Firaxis, not to re-design it to meet some other set of preferences.

How then was turning off Great Scientists in C3C GOTMs (Or did they begin w/ PtW?) not a re-design? I acknowledge that there may be mechanics behind Great Scientists I'm not familiar with. But, there was a random chance for them appearing.

How then was turning off Great Scientists in C3C GOTMs (Or did they begin w/ PtW?) not a re-design? I acknowledge that there may be mechanics behind Great Scientists I'm not familiar with. But, there was a random chance for them appearing.

OK, fair enough. I guess we'll have to wait and see just how random the "random events" are. I don't think they will be as wild and arbitrary as the SGLs were, but we'll see.

So would the global ranking then be based on combining three game types, and would there now be three games a month (not to mention three flavors of SGOTM? :crazyeye: )? The mind boggles! :eek:

Maybe the globals would have to evolve to include game-specific rankings (score, speed, and combined) for vanilla, warlords and swords (but if it is beyond the sword, maybe we should call it "guns") and a cross-game global (score, speed, and combined) like the current vanilla-warlords global.

Once the program is set up, I assume that game-specific rankings are not more work than the cross-game global, since both are output from the same raw data.

dV

Will we have 3 games each month after BtS is released? IMHO that is a bit too much. It will split the players' attention, wich will lead to decreased cometition in each of the games. Perhaps we should run only vanilla GOTMs and BtS BOTMs since the difference between vanilla & warlords seems much less then the difference between warlords and BtS?

Hmm, and how about finding a gold/silver mine early in the game, where there was none before? This seems very random, too.

You've got to include the random events. The game already has randomness in the outcomes of battles so this should be no different. Luck is a part of the game - otherwise we are just robots diligently following a set path.

We are considering only 2 competitions / month - maybe BTS & Warlords; dropping vanilla. But we're open to discussion.

RE events, it really depends on how they are implemented, and how game making/breaking they can be (especially early-on).

I don't know about dropping vanilla, here's the reason I say this, all those who have one or both of the expansion packs have vanilla, and those who have just vanilla don't necessarily have the other two. I'd say either pick one of the expansions or rotate between the two each month. That's just my thoughts...

We are considering only 2 competitions / month - maybe BTS & Warlords; dropping vanilla. But we're open to discussion.But then won't you be requiring any GOTM player to have bought at least two products before they can play? (since you will need to own vanilla to make BTS work, presumably, just like warlords).

Here's another POV: though warlords is an expansion, in a way it's more an improvement over vanilla (vanilla froze forever with 1.61 apparently?) and will never get better AI, etc in an official version. Right now it's therefore the "best implementation" of Civ4 and obviously deserves a GOTM. But once BTS comes out -- and assuming it incorporates all the additions of warlords -- it will no longer be a cutting edge version. BTS will be, and for the same reason warlords has a WOTM now, we will need a BTSOTM (?)

So that's one GOTM line for civ4 that I think is a no-brainer. If there are only to be two, then what's the other? To me it makes more sense to be vanilla not warlords. I figure there are two types of civ players -- the hardcore/monied who will buy the most current expansion (particularly if it is as significant as BTS is promised to be), and those that are not. I think the slice of players who have/will buy warlords, almost all will buy BTS too (if they are still playing). So most people playing any continuingg WOTM would have BTS, and probably would prefer to play BTS even if configured like a warlord game, just to get the better AI. So keeping WOTM going over vanilla GOTM might be a compromise that would excite few, the hardcore'd prefer the BTS most will own & the rest will resent having to buy warlords to play any GOTM at all (anyone who hasn't bought warlords yet and is playing GOTM will almost certainly buy BTS if they want to keep playing and not buy warlords)

Just some thoughts. Again, all of this is assuming BTS incorporates all warlords features of main game, something I think many are assuming?

Good points. We'll check submissions to see how many people are playing both vanilla & warlords.

Another key indicator will be how many first time entries are vanilla vs warlords.

My feeling though is you'll probably need to drop the WOTM and carry on a vanilla and a BTS GOTM. Vanilla is important as it's the way into GOTMs for people who've recently bought Civ and not (yet) bought an expansion pack, so I'd think very carefully about dropping the vanilla GOTM. Also, keeping vanilla and BTS maximizes the variety between the different games.

If we stay with two gotms, I agree with cds above, keep vanilla and rotate expansions or drop warlords if its features are contained in BtS.

I would prefer to keep vanilla. My time is limited due to a wife, two small children and a more than full time job, so I sometimes barely finish the GOTM in a month. I haven't bought warlords, both because of my time constraints and because I feel that I'm still learning the strategies and nuances of vanilla and don't want to muck my brain up with a different set of rules.

My impression is also that there are more submissions of the GOTM than there are of the WOTM. Keeping vanilla would probably result in more participation than a warlords/BTS selection.

I was considering buying warlords and playing the WOTM as a "fast" game without much micromanaging and on-the-fly strategic thinking, but with the announcement of BTS, I will now wait until that comes out.

Assuming BTS is a more advanced and better product than warlords, I would think that dropping warlords and using BTS as the second game would be better. I would think that almost everyone who now has warlords will buy and play BTS as the latest thing and there would be greater participation with BTS as the second game.

I think the answer is reasonably simple.

First, you'll wait to see if Beyond the Sword is any good and whether people are buying it and playing it. Once there is enough critical mass for it, you implement 3 versions of GOTM for a little while.

After a few months, you'll get a feel for the playing patterns. If one of the versions becomes noticeably less popular, then reduce the frequency of that GOTM.

Balance it all out in a way that keeps the load on administrators to an acceptable level (e.g. maybe make them all a bit more spaced out).

Warlords and vanilla are almost identical in gameplay - I think running games on BTS and vanilla and dropping warlords would provide the greatest variety and satisfy the most players.

I know it will mean additional time & effort, but...
1st of month Vanilla
15th BOTH a BTS and WOTM?

Or the alternating BTS & WOTM on the 15th (as mentioned earlier) is a good compromise?

Or 1st, 10th, 20th to do all three in a month!
* Then re-evaluate at the next expansion ;)

Some players will try to do it all...some will naturally gravitate to their faves?

All three raises an interesting question about scoring for global rankings ... keep best one of the three played in a given month?

If all three are done each month, maybe wait to start the BtS until the series is GOTM 21, WOTM 11, BOTM 1 in the same month?

dV

My vote (zero weight as it has) would go for either all three or dropping out vanilla - simply because Warlords are more balanced. Maybe it's biased since I have both.

IMHO The only glaring thing that Warlords has over the Vanilla is an improved AI.....it's a night and day difference between the two. I almost "hate" playing the vanilla, cause it is not challenging unless you get to the upper difficulty levels (which is just more cheats for the AI) ....

If the vanilla could be augmented with Blakes AI, then there would not be a great difference between Vanilla and Warlords (again IMHO)

I think the staff said it was alot of work to incorporate Blakes AI into the vanilla HOFMOD though ...

I greatly prefer Warlords over Vanilla because of the Unique Buildings and improved AI...I prefer a smarter AI over a more cheating AI...it feels like I have a better chance against them at higher levels.

However, I think that simply deciding not to do a GOTM for either Warlords or Vanilla based on differences isn't a good idea. I think it'd be better to see what games are more popular as we get there...and indeed, perhaps even do 3 OTMs at a time for a short time to see which ones are preferred in general.

I know that means more workload for the staff, but I'd be willing to help out with any of that I could, and I think with some added help setting it up, it might not be too much more overall workload to sustain it...and if it is and its decided to keep all 3 versions, then I'm sure there'd be volunteers to help out on an ongoing basis.

I greatly prefer Warlords over Vanilla because of the Unique Buildings and improved AI...I prefer a smarter AI over a more cheating AI...it feels like I have a better chance against them at higher levels.


I don't understand. Warlords gives you an AI that is smarter while simultaneously being equally 'cheating', it doesn't give you an 'instead'. How does Warlords give you a better chance? I was under the impression that Warlords higher levels were harder than the same levels on vanilla???

IMHO The only glaring thing that Warlords has over the Vanilla is an improved AI.....


There is another glaring difference (at least for me, dunno about anyone else?): Vanilla, with the latest patches, is stable and performs reasonably well on a medium-spec machine. Warlords OTOH I find to be fairly unstable - it still suffers unpredictable crashes, and has horrendous problems with freezing up at regular intervals.


it's a night and day difference between the two. I almost "hate" playing the vanilla, cause it is not challenging unless you get to the upper difficulty levels (which is just more cheats for the AI) ....

I agree with you that I prefer playing Warlords (or at least, I would if it wasn't for the crashes and freezes). However, general point to everyone saying we should scrap vanilla GOTMs because warlords is 'better': The problem remains that if you scrap the vanilla GOTMs then, unless Firaxis changes the way it packages Civ, you automatically bar everyone from a GOTM who hasn't bought Civ AND separately bought an expansion pack. For me, that's the killer argument that says we need to keep the vanilla GOTMs (and perhaps consider scrapping the WOTMs if the aim is to keep just two GOTMs a month).

well...it is true that on equal levels, the warlords AI is just plain harder than the vanilla AI because of the intelligence difference and the cheats...but I tend to compare Warlords levels to Vanilla+1...which I feel is a fair comparison(possibly more than fair) and which gives me the feeling I'll play a better game in Warlords than in Vanilla...I may be completely off my rocker, but my 3 highest finishes in the combined rankings have all come on Warlords(once I got past the point of dying off in 3 straight WOTMs lol)

I think we will want to keep vanilla, mainly because that is the entry level of Civ for new site members, I suspect. Assuming that attracting new participants to the (S)XOTM series is an important goal, vanilla will always have a place.

I know that I only had vanillla when I started in the GOTM series (some may say that is an argument to scrap it! :lol: )

dV

I agree with you that I prefer playing Warlords (or at least, I would if it wasn't for the crashes and freezes). However, general point to everyone saying we should scrap vanilla GOTMs because warlords is 'better': The problem remains that if you scrap the vanilla GOTMs then, unless Firaxis changes the way it packages Civ, you automatically bar everyone from a GOTM who hasn't bought Civ AND separately bought an expansion pack. For me, that's the killer argument that says we need to keep the vanilla GOTMs (and perhaps consider scrapping the WOTMs if the aim is to keep just two GOTMs a month).

Agreed ... I think we should go with "Vanilla CIV4" but augment with Blakes AI (which what makes Warlords AI so good!)

Warlords OTOH I find to be fairly unstable - it still suffers unpredictable crashes

Really? It has never crashed on my PC. I guess those are probably going to turn out to be famous last words.....

I've actually found Warlords 2.08 to be more stable than Vanilla 1.61...I've had vanilla crash once and never had warlords crash :D

I think I may just be lucky though, as I've never really had any crash issues...not even with vanilla 1.00(although though I did have slowdown that made me search out Harkonnen's patch)

I guess what actually happened is that Warlords changed which machines suffered the crashes - probably Firaxis attempted to fix the crashes they knew about and ended up causing other problems.

Guess I got unlucky with warlords (but lucky with vanilla) :crazyeye:

Haven't noticed Warlords to be more "crushy".

And I wouldn't be overoptimistic towards Blake's AI, the way it makes workers change towns (not cottages) to farms and then back over and over again, or first irrigate resource overed by jungle (spending 8 extra turns on Epic), and then building appropriate improvement over it makes me grind my teeth.

Maybe all three could rotate, keeping two games a month? Or are there a lot of people that still have only vanilla?

I like Warlords more than vanilla, but I think it would be a shame to drop either one. I'm a big fan of the improved AI - it has its quirks, but overall the smarter AI is more fun to play against, even if it's harder - and the other aspects of Warlords have grown on me as I've played it more. The UBs add a whole lot more to the game than was apparent when Warlords came out and the expansion adds other complexities and features that are subtle, but strong improvements.
However, since vanilla is different enough to stand on its own and is the original, it doesn't make sense not to play it.

How Beyond the Sword is, of course, affects how things are done.

Maybe all three could rotate, keeping two games a month?

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.

I really like this idea too, I don't know what to do about the game name, but this would be pretty cool. Might be kinda tricky remember what days what games close and stuff, but still would be fun.

well, Game of the Month could just be the 'brand name' of the competition, just as the SGOTMs don't actually take place once per month, but rather over 3-4 months.

and to specify, I like Daviddes' idea...it would also allow the mapmakers to try out a marathon game or large map game sometimes, such as was done over the Christmas holidays recently.

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.I like that idea too, the only fear I have concerns the 45 day open period, as it is I barely remember games by the time the scores come out, I fear this might make it worse if I finish the game quickly. I told myself that the reason I want to play GOTM is to learn from comparing my strategies to others', but by the time the results come out it's just really hard to recall details anymore, so I haven't done a lot of that -- I get a lot out of reading the spoilers, but the replays are just too late.

I think we will want to keep vanilla, mainly because that is the entry level of Civ for new site members, I suspect. Assuming that attracting new participants to the (S)XOTM series is an important goal, vanilla will always have a place.
For what it's worth, my first GOTM is a WOTM, because I loves the Warlords. *shrug* you may still be right though.

I think one big piece of information we still lack is needed before a decision can be made:

Will BTS include all changes in gameplay introduced in Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings and so on)?

If so, then I think WOTM could be scrapped, if not... I'm not quite sure, actually.

Or go with all three. I'd be just as fine, most months I can't play more than one game anyway, so I could pick the one I'd feel like playing each month.

I think one big piece of information we still lack is needed before a decision can be made:

Will BTS include all changes in gameplay introduced in Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings and so on)?

If so, then I think WOTM could be scrapped, if not... I'm not quite sure, actually.

Or go with all three. I'd be just as fine, most months I can't play more than one game anyway, so I could pick the one I'd feel like playing each month.Well, it's official (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225548). BTS will include all the functionality of the Warlords core game -- yay! (just not scenarios, etc). So I think this means eventually the WOTM should go the way of the dodo, the two games should be GOTM and BTSOTM; the only question is the timing of the switch. Perhaps that can be driven by either 1) pollings/survey of current WOTM players, and/or 2) waiting for first patch to come out for BTS. Although of COURSE it will be perfect as shipped ;)

added: ... and of course 3) when the HOF mod can be adapted to it.

So BTS is an expansion of the basic Civ 4, rather than an expansion to Warlords, right? But it will include great wall, trebs, etc from warlords I assume. That means that there will be a group of players who will own vanilla and BTS but not WL. Perhaps there will be a group of players who will own Vanilla and WL but not BTS. Depending on which one is either larger or louder in the GOTM forum, that will eventually determine which two versions go forward in the GOTM series (if we don't pursue all three).

My sense is that perhaps BTS will be enough like WL not to have both, and the value of vanilla as entry level to the GOTM may clinch it to remain as well.

dV

So BTS is an expansion of the basic Civ 4, rather than an expansion to Warlords, right? But it will include great wall, trebs, etc from warlords I assume.Not sure what you mean. If it includes great wall, trebs, generals, etc, doesn't that mean it IS an expansion to warlords? (functionally spekaing -- as far as installation it'll just require vanilla, not warlods). I interpret it as an extension of warlords (itself an extension of vanilla):Sam Gibson wants answers concerning Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, addressing Alex Mantzaris, Lead Designer and Programmer at Firaxis Games on the new expansion.

How will the new expansion tie in with Warlords and will it include any of the code from that expansion?

Beyond the Sword will include some of the code from Warlords - specifically the stuff that impacts the core game functionality. The assets and code from the scenarios in Warlords will not be included.That means that there will be a group of players who will own vanilla and BTS but not WL. Perhaps there will be a group of players who will own Vanilla and WL but not BTS.Let's be realistic:

1) Of people already owning warlords and playing GOTM, how many are NOT going to buy BTS eventually, assuming it's even half of what it's touted to be? Anyone at all??? <crickets chirping?>

2) Of those that DON'T already own warlords, and haven't bothered to buy it yet, how many would suddenly buy NOW (and not also buy BTS) if the only thing warlord has that BTS does not is some (rather mediocre) scenarios? <more crickets chirping?>


Personally I'm already starting to think I should try to dump my warlords on fleabay for maybe $10 before it becomes totally worthless ...

Not sure what you mean. If it includes great wall, trebs, generals, etc, doesn't that mean it IS an expansion to warlords? (functionally spekaing -- as far as installation it'll just require vanilla, not warlods). What I meant by expansion to Vanilla was that I assume Warlords is not required to be installed for BTS to work. If it includes all of the new features of Warlords ... the Great Generals, unique buildings, the new civs, the new units, plus its own additional features, then it would seem to make warlords obsolete, as you are suggesting.

The Cossacks game series by cdv (with CSC as the marketer?) started with European Wars, then had Art of War as an add on, and then Back to War which introduced the oxymoronic concept of the "stand alone add-on": you could play Back to War without ever owning the first two in the series. That pretty much obsoleted the first two versions as all improvements and patches to the first two versions were included in Back to War.

Similarly, if BTS includes the Warlords features and does not require Warlords to play, then it will obsolete Warlords, and it will probably make sense for XOTM to eventually evolve to Vanilla and BTS (GOTM and BOTM?)

dV

Similarly, if BTS includes the Warlords features and does not require Warlords to play, then it will obsolete Warlords, and it will probably make sense for XOTM to eventually evolve to Vanilla and BTS (GOTM and BOTM?)


Hmmm. 'Beyond of the Month'. Hmmm.

SOTM (Sword of the Month)?

(Except I'd very quickly end up changing the T to D and pronouncing it 'sod 'em')

Hmmm. 'Beyond of the Month'. Hmmm. I guess that gives an advantage to the Real Ms. Beyond players. :D

"BTS of the month" was more what I has in mind with BOTM. ainwood could then write stuff like "Cactus Pete is once again at the top of the BOTM" :lol:

dV

Good points. We'll check submissions to see how many people are playing both vanilla & warlords.

I think that the number of contributions to each competition must be a key point when discussing the options, so I quickly reviewed the number of entries in the published results, and the figures are as follows:-

GOTM18 98. .. .. .. .. .WOTM8 79
GOTM17 106 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM7 59
GOTM16 133 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM6 83
GOTM15 83 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM5 104
GOTM14 107 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM4 85
GOTM13 117 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM3 45
GOTM12 148 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM2 60
GOTM11 124 . .. .. .. .. .WOTM1 148
GOTM10 177
GOTM9 189
GOTM8 261
GOTM7 317
GOTM6 276
GOTM5 389
GOTM4 208
GOTM3 290
GOTM2 386
GOTM1 623

I know I am repeating a number of points made earlier, but I don´t believe that dropping vanilla GOTM is a desirable course of action.

There will be people who - for whatever reason - do not have access to either of the expansion packs; there ought to be a GOTM which caters for this crowd.

Also, based on the figures in my earlier post, it would seem that significantly more people play GOTM than WOTM. (44% more to be precise over the last 8 months).

If GOTM was removed, perhaps some of these would switch to WOTM, but I´m far from convinced that this would be the case.

Whilst I would agree that Warlords is the "better" game, it is nonetheless the case Warlords and Vanilla are essentially the same game. (I basically see WOTM as an opportunity to have a second competitive game in the month).

Whilst I prefer Warlords as a game, I nonetheless prefer GOTM as a competition. It is more fun knowing that you are pitting yourself against more competitors. And - not that I´ve ever won anything other than a red ambulance or low score awards - I presume that this would give more satisfaction if I ever did win one of the competitions.

In summary, I don´t believe that there could possibly be an excuse for dropping the most popular competition.

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

I don´t like the idea of a 45 day cycle for the games. It´s bad enough as it is at the moment having to wait for the results to come out. Having played two (or three) more competitions (plus HOF) before the results are published, I´ve usually forgotten what the game was all about, and this does detract from my pleasure. (For instance, in the last GOTM18 there was only one cultural entry with - with all due respect to Cat Behemoth - a very modest time. I usually go for a cultural win, but this time I submitted a spaceship victory, so feel a little peeved. I´m not complaining - I´m sure I changed my tactics for perfectly valid reasons - its just that can´t remember what it was all about, which is a shame).

Having to wait an extra 15 days would only make this worse.

I like that idea too, the only fear I have concerns the 45 day open period, as it is I barely remember games by the time the scores come out, I fear this might make it worse if I finish the game quickly. I told myself that the reason I want to play GOTM is to learn from comparing my strategies to others', but by the time the results come out it's just really hard to recall details anymore, so I haven't done a lot of that -- I get a lot out of reading the spoilers, but the replays are just too late.

O.K. This is essentially the same point that I was making.

Do we know the number of persons who downloaded the save files for each XOTM? That might be a better measure of interest than the number of games submitted, if it differs substanitally from the submission number (if we know the download number, of course).

dV

Yes, we count downloads ...

GOTM 11-18: 11,287 downloads, 916 submissions
WOTM 01-08: 9,830 downloads, 663 submissions

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than there are proportionally a lot more non-playing lurkers for Warlords than for vanilla. I think we are more interested in participation than spectators, though I guess some spectators may turn into players eventually.

Yes, we count downloads ...

GOTM 11-18: 11,287 downloads, 916 submissions
WOTM 01-08: 9,830 downloads, 663 submissions

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than there are proportionally a lot more non-playing lurkers for Warlords than for vanilla. I think we are more interested in participation than spectators, though I guess some spectators may turn into players eventually.

Warlords has a slightly higher drop-out rate amongst people who download intending to submit [because the better AI makes it a slightly harder game on balance, so more people find themselves heading for a loss, and people who are losing are less likely to complete or submit] ?

I find those statistics to be staggering. Less than 10% of people bother submitting their games? Why bother downloading then?

Warlords has a slightly higher drop-out rate amongst people who download intending to submit ... ?

"Slightly" is a wonderful piece of British understatement :p

If the download-to-submit ratio for Warlords were the same as for vanilla we'd have 130 more submissions in those eight WOTMs. That's a 20% increase.

Less than 10% of people bother submitting their games? Why bother downloading then?
Quite a lot of it is multiple downloads per player per game. Often for multiple classes, but also duplicate copies. I'm not sure what that's all about :confused:

I'm sure they include:

- people who download intending to play but then don't; or, as DynamicSpirit suggests, they abort when they get a lousy result

- players who want to compare their performance with the submissions but don't want to stick to the GOTM rules

- players who want to dry run a few games before starting to submit

- people who hit a download link as a reflex action "because it's there"

- ... and other reasons I can't even guess at.

Yes, we count downloads ...
GOTM 11-18: 11,287 downloads, 916 submissions
WOTM 01-08: 9,830 downloads, 663 submissions

Although informative, I really don't feel a decision on how to proceed should come from these numbers. Obviously, if no one was submitting, that'd be one thing. But, CFC (Thunderfall and Co.) has always been inclusive. I should know being a Mac user. I remember when cracker and the GOTM staff went through great pains to make the files operable in Mac Civ3.

Likely, running GOTMs in all three for a couple months may give CFC an idea. But, it still will not be enough because more and more copies of BtS will be purchased every month. We may have to do with a little less customization of GOTM maps, etc. in order for the staff to have time to produce files.

As some have mentioned, I for one do not want to see longer periods to sumbit games.

Quite a lot of it is multiple downloads per player per game. Often for multiple classes, but also duplicate copies. I'm not sure what that's all about :confused: The submission number represents unique individuals, I assume (we are in trouble if it does not :eek: ), can the downloads be expressed as number of unique individuals who downloaded?

If it includes guest downloads, then perhaps not ... but then maybe the number of members who downloaded is a number of interest? If it is readily available, of course. I wouldn't spend a big effort to chase it.

I think that we can conclude that Vanilla is more subscribed than Warlords. The question of whether Vanilla is more popular depends on semantics a bit. I would use popular to mean which is prefered among those who own both, a harder question to answer. My guess is Warlords wins that one, but I could be wrong.

Maybe the ultimate question is how many play WOTM but not GOTM? And if it is a large enough number, what is the reason? If just a matter of time, then replacing WOTM with BOTM at some point may not adversely affect them. But if they just don't like Vanilla, and would play both WOTM and BOTM, then the loss of WOTM would affect them negatively.

I'm sure they include:

- players who want to dry run a few games before starting to submit

I do hope you mean dry run a few OLD games before starting the CURRENT one to submit! ;) Because dry running the current game before starting the play for submission is, of course, verboten! :nono: (Just don't want any newcomers to get the wrong idea :crazyeye: )

The old dry run downloads could be weeded out by excluding games downloaded after the submission deadline for that game (if easy to do).

dV

The submission number represents unique individuals, I assume (we are in trouble if it does not :eek: ), can the downloads be expressed as number of unique individuals who downloaded?

If it includes guest downloads, then perhaps not ... but then maybe the number of members who downloaded is a number of interest? If it is readily available, of course. I wouldn't spend a big effort to chase it.I'm not gong to try to extract that number ... way too many unknowns.


I do hope you mean dry run a few OLD games before starting the CURRENT one to submit! ;) Because dry running the current game before starting the play for submission is, of course, verboten! :nono: (Just don't want any newcomers to get the wrong idea :crazyeye: )
I actually meant they may choose to dry-run current games prior to submitting FUTURE games, since I think the majority of downloads are during the current game. We'd probably catch them if they are submitted later.

The old dry run downloads could be weeded out by excluding games downloaded after the submission deadline for that game (if easy to do).
1238 GOTM downloads and 1811 WOTM downloads after the game deadline. So approx. twice as many WOTM by proportion.

If it is not too much trouble for the staff, I'd vote for keeping 3 games/month at least for a while, and reevaluate this option a few months later (based on submission figures).

My reasoning behind this suggestion is that the expansion packs aren't readily available all around the world. IIRC, Warlords showed up here only 3 or 4 months later, a few days before the deadline of a marathon-speed game.:sleep:

I'm one of those who downloads but only submits about 25% of the time. Like some others, I too am busy with family, job, pets, etc, etc and sometimes don't even finish a game in time. But I do value the gotm of the month series. I'd rather play a 'designed' game like a gotm then start up game 'fresh'.

I would also agree that having a 3 gotm for 3-4 months tops would be a good idea. But so much depends on how much of Warlords is included in BTS. I guess we'll find that out pretty quickly once BTS is out though. In short, I think it would be best to ultimately have just 2 gotms: vanilla and WL/BTS. Whether WL or BTS is thrown out or they rotate would depend on the particulars of BTS.

Just my $0.02,
Gorgon

"Slightly" is a wonderful piece of British understatement :p

If the download-to-submit ratio for Warlords were the same as for vanilla we'd have 130 more submissions in those eight WOTMs. That's a 20% increase.

Is it significant? I don't think so.
Different games, different figures.
It's interesting to see the numbers for each game, I'm sure there are a lot more DLed/submitted games for prince level than for emperor level.
This is irrelevent to WL or vanilla or BTS IMHO.


Quite a lot of it is multiple downloads per player per game. Often for multiple classes, but also duplicate copies. I'm not sure what that's all about :confused:

Let's hope there isn't a massive fraud...

I'm sure they include:

- people who download intending to play but then don't; or, as DynamicSpirit suggests, they abort when they get a lousy result

- players who want to compare their performance with the submissions but don't want to stick to the GOTM rules

- players who want to dry run a few games before starting to submit

- people who hit a download link as a reflex action "because it's there"

- ... and other reasons I can't even guess at.
I'm (like FC Gorgon) one of those submitting only a handful of games although DLing most of them.
These days I only try WotM, because the CD is in the tray ;).
For 2/3 of the games, I try to play it fast (kids, wife, dogs and job...), then when I feel I'll lose I dumb it.
Like FC Gorgon, I appreciate a designed map more than a totally random one. I don't necessarily play to compare results. I still submit the game if I win, but I never milk for score, nor try really hard towards any award.
I guess I should, since it's a competition, but I just cannot spend the time.
My submitted/DLed ratio is like 20%. 50% if you only count warlords, since I simply never submitted a vanilla GotM.

I have only played GOTM 18 and GOTM 19. submitted both of them, both losses. I don't have much time to play and really enjoy the pre-game discussions and the threads. i feel i get so much more out of the few games i get to play a month because everyone is playing the same game, going for each VC, and the skill levels are all different. I have only played vanilla, with the intention of playing it for six months and getting Warlords, playing that for six months and getting BTS. For the two GOTM's i have played, i have easily had enough time to play and submit my games with more than half the time left before the deadline. With that in mind i would either like to see all three games a month (and risk running out of time, but getting to play more games and thus learn more) or just vanilla and BTS because ultimately those are the two i would end up playing.

Alan, I have another explanation proposition for people downloading WOTM but not submitting:

-people who don't own Warlords yet but download them to play when they have Warlords/BTS

Probbly not really many people as they could just download it later...

I hope people aren't expecting to be able to play WOTM starts in BtS. I can pretty well guarantee that they won't work, as BtS will certainly require its own version of the HoF Mod.

I think your classification is included in my fourth one :p

As I learn more about BTS -- particularly Friday chat topics -- I'm more and more inclined to just say that we just suspend this whole question from a final decision until BTS has been out for at least a couple months. They've changed so much (forts, colonies, corporations, all that) that this is starting to look like a different game (hopefully they didn't break it). If that's the case (it's broken, or it's a completely different game), WOTM may have to stay as the ultimate "civ" GOTM, even though BTS incorportates all the core game changes of Warlords.

I dunno, too hard to tell at this point. Should start getting an idea in August. They're so ambitious that it could take a while (multiple patches) to get all the bugs ironed out, just like the vanilla release.

When will you decide if you will keep doing vanilla GOTMs? This will impact my decision on whether to buy BTS more than any other thing.

It's flattering that your buying decisions are so driven by the GOTMs. :)

I can't see us dropping vanilla in the short to medium term. After BTS appears, we'll need time to get a HoF Mod to run with it, work out how it plays, and set up the submission systems to handle it, but even then, the general flavour of the debate here is that we should retain vanilla games to support those who don't want the mods. It *is* still the most popular version, by any measure!

That only leaves the question how we divide up the games between the three flavours of Civ4, which is still under debate. Note that we supported all three flavours of Civ3 until a year ago, and even now we support the two distinctly different versions, PtW and C3C.

It's flattering that your buying decisions are so driven by the GOTMs. :) Although I would have purchased Warlords eventually, the specific timing of my purchase of it was influcenced by needing it for SGOTM 04. ;)

That only leaves the question how we divide up the games between the three flavours of Civ4, which is still under debate. Note that we supported all three flavours of Civ3 until a year ago, and even now we support the two distinctly different versions, PtW and C3C. Which raises two questions:

First, how did you cycle the three Civ III versions? Would that make sense in Civ IV?

Second, what led to the dropping of Vanilla in Civ III? I suppose after BtS comes out, we can expect a price drop in Warlords, and combined Vanilla+Warlords Packs for the original price of one. Over time, I can see in interest in Vanilla waning, especially if newcomers to the game start by having both in a combined package.

dV

We have only ever provided two Civ3 games a month.

Because vanilla Civ3 and Play the World (PtW) were very similar, mainly just adding new civs and units, Cracker was able to provide a mod pack that enhanced vanilla sufficiently that we could run one game a month, using a few amendments to PtW rules as well. We had different start files for the two versions, but they used the same map and generally produced comparable results. We called that the "Classic" game.

A second game was introduced for Conquests, some time after that was released. Once Conquests and PtW became available for Mac players, we dropped the vanilla mod pack last year, and were able then to provide Classic games for out-of-the-box PtW, with the Conquests games continuing. So, still two games a month.

That wouldn't be possible with any two of the three varieties of Civ4 as far as I know, as they all have distinct game play characteristics. Results from different Civ4 versions couldn't be compared. The scale of the differences between them is more like the differences between PtW and Conquests in Civ3 terms, where we simply had to run two different games each month.

Whatever decisions we make about supporting the three versions now, I'm sure they will need to be reviewed as time goes on and the mix of players of each, and the ways they are sold evolve.

.
I can't see us dropping vanilla in the short to medium term. After BTS appears, we'll need time to get a HoF Mod to run with it, work out how it plays, and set up the submission systems to handle it...........
.

Honestly, if you got someone to draw up a good email I bet firaxis would leak you a full release to get this going for the launch. This is a pretty big core user group and they might be keen to support them in this way.

That almost sounds like you want me to say we'll be moving to BTS just to give you an excuse to pre-order it? :p

That almost sounds like you want me to say we'll be moving to BTS just to give you an excuse to pre-order it? :p

He suggest you could ask firaxis or 2K for a free and before release copy.
If their marketing service isn't run by monkeys, I think you will get it (or at least someone with windows and some modding abilities could get it).

I'd like a good reason to preorder too:mischief: .

A copy of BtS would be little use to me as I don't run a Windows PC.

lol I got a good reason today...I received a surprise, very late christmas present of 30 bucks from my cousin today. I think that I'll be using that on BtS :) :woohoo:

That almost sounds like you want me to say we'll be moving to BTS just to give you an excuse to pre-order it? :p

Oh well, I pre-ordered it anyways. :lol:

So please get a BGOTM going SVP

I find those statistics to be staggering. Less than 10% of people bother submitting their games? Why bother downloading then?

Let me think here, when first joining a GOTM. I've played with 3 now but not submitted...mind you one i could have submitted and didnt, and one i left unfinished, because i didnt understand the exact meaning of a "reload".

However, the third one i tried, was not with a plan to submit, but more to see how well i coped with the settings and a change of strategy, and if i wanted to (though i didnt need to) i could reload the game over and over and over and compare what score i got with those who submitted. I think there is an underestimate of the download and play ratio compared to download and submit.

There are many reasons someone wouldnt submit:

1) They die.
2) They want to practise and reload and compare scores.
3) They are bored and just want to try a new tactic on a map with a decent capital.
4) They score too low and don't want to look bad.
5) They score too high (but not high enough to be happy) and would lose their adventure class access (because they think only way they could get an award is with this option).

I expect they are the main reasons? Most newbies would struggle to get a decent score on anything above noble, I play monarch typically but i've been playing civ since the original? I watch newbies play and struggle on noble and could see why the just wanna play the game but not submit because they simply can't compete.

Scoring low is no sin, and it gets you some Global Ranking points. Some points are better than no points.

5) They score too high (but not high enough to be happy) and would lose their adventure class access (because they think only way they could get an award is with this option).

To clarify - there are no awards available for Adventurer class. If you want the awards you have to step up to Contender.

Scoring low is no sin, and it gets you some Global Ranking points. Some points are better than no points. The other benefit to submitting a loss, or at least posting a spoiler about it, is that you almost certainly will get some useful advice. I think Adama is the best example of someone who had gotten their "money's worth" out of the community regarding advice.

My first GOTM was #10, on immortal and I was at best prince level if that at the time. So I got crushed, of course. Submitted game and spoilers, and JerichoHill sent me some basic advice, and I ended up wining GOTM 11 on monarch (at adventurer) with that advice. A 21st century win, so nothing fabulous, but a win. So playing and submitting losses might just be the best way for new or struggling players to improve!

dV

If I didn't submit my losing GOTM games, I would never be able to submit anything! By submitting my losing games, I help make everyone else look good. I see that as doing my bit for the community. :rockon:

If I didn't submit my losing GOTM games, I would never be able to submit anything! By submitting my losing games, I help make everyone else look good. I see that as doing my bit for the community. :rockon:

I will second this! 0-2 in my short GOTM career and looking like 0-3 with GOTM 20 at immortal level.

I started out 0-5 before I finally won a game, I won the Germany Monarch Archi. game, then somehow won the next game, the first Immortal GOTM. Since then I've gone slightly over .500, but I've won more than I've lost in the WOTMs.

I don't play Vanilla anymore. It feels like playing JV Highschool soccer after a couple years of Varsity College Soccer. It's just too easy. The AI is a wimp, etc...I've evolved and will evolve again once BtS is out. Admittedly, I also only play modded versions of Civ anymore (except the occasional GOTM/WOTM).

I can see that there is a huge fan base for Vanilla Civ 4, however, so I would agree with those, who would accept getting rid of WOTM in favore of BtSOTM and GOTMs.

My 2 coppers and a lint ball.

Back to the original topic...

It is possible that a random number seed could be specified, and saved with the game, in order to make it so the "randomness" of bad rolls will vary depending upon the play.

Sure, that may mean one person gets a bad event, while another gets a bad combat... but as long as events aren't unbalancing, it will hopefully not break the game too much.

Since it is all hypothetical right now, I lean toward keeping events on as the default position...as long as events aren't an extremely major part of the game that can quickly reverse your fortunes with little you can do about it.

I think of it like gambling at the casino. Players get streaky, that's how the laws of probability work, but in the long run, it all balances out. however, just like poker, a player's true skill comes in handling the good AND the bad, and converting the random events into a strategy for victory.

One solution to playing all three XOTMs might be for the admins to make at least one of them a "shorter" game. Quick speed, smaller map, etc.

Now if Firaxis is planning to bring out a third expansion pack, then probably the easiest solution is Game of the Week... :)

Anyone heard anything about actually implementing a BTSOTM or are we still just speculating? Just curious as I have installed the game and can't wait to see what the team comes up with for a game challenge!

We don't have a HoF Mod for BtS yet. when we do, rest assured we'll let you play with it :)

Any word yet on when BOTM will start? My guess is likely mid-month August, with BOTM replacing WOTM... or (less likely) 20 Aug, with BOTM in addition to the others.

My only real hope is that, without a patch out to fix Epic/Marathon espionage missions, the first BOTM will occur at Normal speed. Otherwise, BTS has been incredibly enjoyable! Random Events on, and espionage from nearly the beginning... thank you Firaxis!

Sam

It won't be at least until the BtS HOF mod is finished, and there's no word on that yet. It may be September when we finally get it...it depends on how much spare time Denniz can devote to rebuilding the mod.

Looking through, there are a number of issues that I think need to be resolved first. A HOF mod may address some of them.

As someone who was expressing reservations about rushing into this, I have to say I've come around 180 and would like to see a game as soon as the HOF is ready & the admins think we're good to go patch-wise, & have a set of options that are stable. I haven't played BTS that much yet, but enough to not really want to go back. As it is I'll probably not even bother to go back and finish WOTM11 (even without considering the hassles of undoing the new patch). I only have so much free time to play, and I'd prefer to p,lay BTS when I do (one game a month is all I usually find time to play anyway, I think I'll just give up on trying to play two). No rush, I can live without xOTM for a while, but just thought I'd throw in my comment.

p.s. boy is it hard to play without the HOF mods once you are used to them!

Been years since i last played the Gotms. (before the HOF mods came)
Realy looking forward to BOTM, so thanks for using the time to make the HOF mods.

Well, the BTS HOF mod 3.02.001 is out (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235378), it's not 100% of the old HOF mod, but it fixes notable bugs (poison wells, all that).

well, since that's done, I expect we'll have the BtSOTM debut either in August or in September.

Well, the BTS HOF mod 3.02.001 is out (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235378), it's not 100% of the old HOF mod, but it fixes notable bugs (poison wells, all that).
:goodjob:
some guys here are just brilliant

It looks like they are accepting HOF submissions already using 3.02.001 link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236296). Is this enough to say that we'll take a crack at a BTSOTM as early as next week?

If mods still think things are "not ready for prime time," may I suggest just calling it a "beta BTSOTM" (meaning it doesn't count for awards rankings etc). You could even not accept submissions at all (or accept them for purposes of a beta, but don't publish results if you don't want to), just give the save & open spoilers. Personally I'm mostly interested in seeing the spoilers, seeing the new strategies that people have come up with in BTS by playing the same game as them & see what they do different; I could care less whether it "counts" for anything ...

Just call it "BTSOTM0" (zero) ;)

I also like the sound of that suggestion.
I'm not a submitter very often, but I do like to see how my game is progressing compared to others strategies.

Well, I haven't played gotm's for a very long time, but my suggestion, in regards to Dojoboy's concern on random events in BtS, is to talk to Sirian about it as he's the one who designed this feature.

Also, according to his description at his forum (and if my reading comprehension is ok :) ), if everyone plays the same original save, they will get the same random events, in the same order, and at the same time. However, since GOTM has 3 different saves, I'm not sure if the "random events deck" gets reshuffled each time.

Well, I haven't played gotm's for a very long time, but my suggestion, in regards to Dojoboy's concern on random events in BtS, is to talk to Sirian about it as he's the one who designed this feature.

Also, according to his description at his forum (and if my reading comprehension is ok :) ), if everyone plays the same original save, they will get the same random events, in the same order, and at the same time. However, since GOTM has 3 different saves, I'm not sure if the "random events deck" gets reshuffled each time.

It doesn't seem true. It would only be true if you did exactly the same moves.
However, the "random" events aren't totally random.
For example, the more you whip the more you get slave revolts (at least that's my experience), and the quests you get depend on what you did.

So IMHO, the random events should remain in the game of the month.

Well, here's the thread where Sirian discusses the events -> http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2396 Post #9 is where he compares them to a card deck, though it would make sense if slave revolts happen more often with whips.

Well, here's the thread where Sirian discusses the events -> http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2396 Post #9 is where he compares them to a card deck, though it would make sense if slave revolts happen more often with whips.

After reading this, here is my understanding : in each new game, only a given number among all possible events is selected. So all the players will have the same "deck".

(my opinion, not based on the link)Some events may not be totally random, like the slave revolt, and will certainly be included in every game, and happen if the circumstances are there.

I interpret Sirian's comment differently. I think what he is saying is that some of the possible random events from the entire universe of random events are randomly removed from the deck at the start of the game. That means that everyone in a BOTM would start with the same, now limited, deck of cards containing random events. It eliminates some, but not all, of the variability between players starting from the same save.

However, I don't think he means that random events would occur in the same sequence at the same time for every player starting from the same save. If the likelihood of random events is influenced by game conditions and decisions (use of the whip increases likelihood of slave revolt, for example), then it can't be that way. Although I don't have the know-how to look at the code for random events, I suspect that there is a check each turn for whether a random event occurs and, if so, a further check for what random event, with the probability of particular random events being influenced by game conditions. It may also be that some random events (such as slave revolts) are independently checked for probability of occuring each turn.

That is somewhat like how popping a hut works as I understand it. What you get out of a hut is influenced by original game settings (difficulty level) which establishes what is in the deck and sets initial probabilities as well as an in-game decision (popping with a warrior vs. a scout).

I interpret Sirian's comment differently. <snip>. Hence the suggestion for someone in the GoTM staff to talk to Sirian directly, as I'm sure we'll all have different interpretations, but only Sirian knows the code.

One thing I've noticed in the BtS games I've completed, the events are not game-changing. The one exception is the quests, which might alter one's overall score but I believe it would be negligible.

If quests can be edited into the save file, then an interesting scenario could be developed.

Hence the suggestion for someone in the GoTM staff to talk to Sirian directly, as I'm sure we'll all have different interpretations, but only Sirian knows the code.
The code is available for everyone to read.. it is all in the SDK and python

to those curious about the random events...ori went through the code and found most of the relevant information about them here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236727)

The code is available for everyone to read.. it is all in the SDK and python

I guess I should go back to college for a couple of years to learn computer programming then. Has the field advanced much since I took Fortran as a college freshman in 1982? :hmm: I vaguely recall using punch cards.

I guess I should go back to college for a couple of years to learn computer programming then. Has the field advanced much since I took Fortran as a college freshman in 1982? :hmm: I vaguely recall using punch cards. I can relate ... I remember those noisy dot matrix printing keyboard stations producing paper tapes when learning BASIC as a college senior in 1978! :lol:

dV

Maybe all three could rotate, keeping two games a month? Or are there a lot of people that still have only vanilla?

I like Warlords more than vanilla, but I think it would be a shame to drop either one. I'm a big fan of the improved AI - it has its quirks, but overall the smarter AI is more fun to play against, even if it's harder - and the other aspects of Warlords have grown on me as I've played it more. The UBs add a whole lot more to the game than was apparent when Warlords came out and the expansion adds other complexities and features that are subtle, but strong improvements.
However, since vanilla is different enough to stand on its own and is the original, it doesn't make sense not to play it.

How Beyond the Sword is, of course, affects how things are done.

I agree that some sort of a rotation should be implemented.

I think once BTS is patched it should be the one that plays monthly; then Vanilla and Warlords could rotate every other month.

Yes, we count downloads ...

GOTM 11-18: 11,287 downloads, 916 submissions
WOTM 01-08: 9,830 downloads, 663 submissions

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than there are proportionally a lot more non-playing lurkers for Warlords than for vanilla. I think we are more interested in participation than spectators, though I guess some spectators may turn into players eventually.

Perhaps more people do poorly on the warlords, and don't submit, as it is a more challenging game to play, you definetly must be able to war well.

While I don't often submit my games, I'd like have the option to play two games a month. The improved AI in warlords and much improved AI in BTS make the games far more enjoyable than vanilla. I vote for dropping Vanilla, because I suspect that virtually everybody that plays GOTM on a semi regular basis has forked over the money for one or both expansions.

Comeon, GOTM crew usually pretty efficient, but no BTS GOTM yet, WTF?

Comeon, GOTM crew usually pretty efficient, but no BTS GOTM yet, WTF?As explained in related thread, they are waiting for 1) next patch, and 2) HOF compatible with it to be released.

"GOTM crew" has no control over either of those.

Comeon, GOTM crew usually pretty efficient, but no BTS GOTM yet, WTF?
Well, if "efficiency" means around 10-20% of prospective players having their submissions lost due to unrecoverable crashes, then I'd sooner be inefficient.

Well, they've never lost my one submission :D

I'd like to resurface this now that the patch has come out. Can we plan on a BotM anytime soon? Obviously a HOF needs to be released, but are there plans in the works for this, or will we have to wait for the next patch?

I'd like to resurface this now that the patch has come out. Can we plan on a BotM anytime soon? Obviously a HOF needs to be released, but are there plans in the works for this, or will we have to wait for the next patch?

I'd like a BotM too!
The HoFmod will certainly need to include bhruic's patch of the patch, but I guess it's doable in a few days (weeks?). Let's hope, for now.

Am I too late to post my opinion, for what it is worth?
If there will be only 2 XOTM, I kindly ask them to be BTS and Vanilla, dropping Warlords. My reasons:

- Everyone that owns Warlords owns Vanilla too. The opposite is not true. (If you want to know, yes, I am in that case).
- As a purist, I consider Vanilla to be the real game. The original game, well thought of, almost perfectly balanced, is Vanilla. The expansions are nice, more civs to match your nationality, more buildings… so you can look around and enjoy what you see. But not balanced at all, when compared to Vanilla.
- If expansions correct previous mistakes and improve the game (I have high hopes in BTS improving the boredom of endgame), then BTS is the state of the art version.

The original game, well thought of, almost perfectly balanced, is Vanilla. The expansions are nice, more civs to match your nationality, more buildings… so you can look around and enjoy what you see. But not balanced at all, when compared to Vanilla.

What does "balanced" mean? I don't understand what it means to say that one version is more or less balanced than another. Do you mean that particular strategies are more dominant in Warlords/GOTM, while there are a broader range of viable strategies in Vanilla? I don't agree with that.

What does "balanced" mean? I don't understand what it means to say that one version is more or less balanced than another. Do you mean that particular strategies are more dominant in Warlords/GOTM, while there are a broader range of viable strategies in Vanilla? I don't agree with that.

I think he means vanilla opens up less exploitive moves than the expansions:confused: .
I can see why you would think BtS is less "balanced" (as in lacking testing) but warlords is quite good in this area.
I still think a few improvements from warlords and BtS are really welcome (like the great general, or the spying system). So although I'm more of a purist in general, I have the feeling that in the end the state of the art BtS is the "final cIV", and not only an expansion with nice scenarios.