Even after a year, I'm still coming to grips with what is a "good score" and what is a "close race" in terms of the Civ4 GOTM / WOTM leaderboard.

This month, the top of the leaderboard was fairly clear-but, with Doc TK getting back to the top. The highest base score (cow) and the silver medal went to EEO - another leaderboard regular. In third place, akots grabbed his first medal in the Civ4 GOTM competition (he has previously won 4 bronzes in the civ3 competitions)

Summary of Medal Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/GoldMedal.gif Doc TK: 1320 AD Domination Victory, 163,255 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SilverMedal.gifhttp://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/cow.gif EEO: 1590 AD Domination Victory, 123,919 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/BronzeMedal.gif akots: 1565 AD Domination Victory, 101,485 points.

Other Award Winners:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/world.gif RobertTheBruce: 225 AD Domination Victory, 70,651 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/parchment.gif Lexad: 1520 AD Diplomatic Victory, 65,849 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/visor.gif Gnejs: 700 BC Conquest Victory, 63,635 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/MusicNote.gif Grey Cardinal: 1680 AD Cultural Victory, 26,514 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/SpaceShip.gif Charge: 1966 AD Spaceship Victory, 15,382 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/burgundyshield.gif TeHGhost: 1330 AD Conquest Victory, 17,998 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenshield.gif archphoenix: 2006 AD Spaceship Victory, 9,307 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/purpleshield.gif Bindamel: 2000 AD Diplomatic Victory, 7,861 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/oliveshield.gif UB40: 1972 AD Cultural Victory, 7,747 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/blueshield.gif petritis: 2048 AD Domination Victory, 6,321 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/greenambulance.gif Pazarius: 1939 AD Domination Loss, 1,882 points.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/redambulance.gif mart777: 1565 AD Conquest Loss, 311 points.


>> See the full results here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/results/index.php?month=40016).
>> See the updated global rankings here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/rankings/civ_global.php).
>> See the latest Pantheon of Heroes here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/pantheon/index.php?table=civ_gotm_medals.php).
>> Award symbols are listed here (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards.php).

Sweet! Congrats to all winners, esp. Grey Cardinal and akots - who also had like 4-5 4th places in 4OTMs :)

So we arrive with GC 1 cow from Eptathlon... Let the hardiest score milker win! So far this guy always was GC :D

Edit: Первыйнах :p

Congrats to all competitors, and thanks very much to the staff!

Congrats to the winners.
Pity Lexad should choose Diplo :p
I should have gone Space since I had taken the bother to expand to domination limit.

So many scores between 40-80k !!! :eek:

I'm happy with my result this time. First conquest victory in a GOTM, fastest time and best score ever for me.

Congrats to the winners!

Nice. Looks like I spent the most time for a losing cause (9 hrs, 10 min; conquest loss). Ha!

Anyway, I think I tried to expand too quickly too far away in an attempt to block Alexander's expansion. Plus I had an early settler killed in a barbarian attack. :(

I did Quechua-rush and I was winning most battles in the jungles. But without catapults, I couldn't take enemy cities efficiently.

Well done to the winner: 163K in 3 hrs. Wow.

Praise to the winners. The quality of play continues to improve. Guess I'm going to have to adjust or be left behind.

Remarkable speed, Gnejs. Did you go after all the AI's simultaneously?

yeah, I knew my score was somewhat low... :)

Wow, well done RobertTheBruce, if it wasn't for you I would have had the fastest domination victory, and yet you were quicker than me by an enormous margin! :p

Great scores at the top! I'm still never quite sure whether to end quick or milk for a higher score...looks like a bit of milking worked in this one.

Yay! I got my first award! :woohoo:



Remarkable speed, Gnejs. Did you go after all the AI's simultaneously?

No, one at a time, except for the French that I took in parallell since they were in the other direction. Check my spoiler here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5225491&postcount=54).

How did your approach differ?

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/awards/burgundyshield.gif TeHGhost: 1330 AD Conquest Victory, 17,998 points.


Eh... guess I should go back and practice a little more :lol:

Can I add my congratulations to those already here for some of the fabulous results recorded.

But look at the dates:
Four BC conquests! Cactus Pete and kaizer very impressive at 50BC. jesusin and Gnejs superlative at 525BC and 700BC!!
And in the domination victories, RobertTheBruce (so much quicker than the rest of the field with his 225AD finish) really stands out.

At the other end of the timescales, I really thought I was in with a chance of some kind of award with my 1750AD conquest victory :blush:

However, dwat2 managed to spin it out even longer with a 1804AD finish, while I was pipped to the lowest scoring conquest shield by TeHGhost - despite a 1330AD finish date (what's going on?)

Yay, my first speed award in a GOTM. Congratulations to all the other winners.

Hey, congrats to all, some very impressive wins!

At the other end of the timescales, I really thought I was in with a chance of some kind of award with my 1750AD conquest victory :blush:

However, dwat2 managed to spin it out even longer with a 1804AD finish, while I was pipped to the lowest scoring conquest shield by TeHGhost - despite a 1330AD finish date (what's going on?)Hey - he edged me out by only 2 years (I won domination in 1802). But I ranked much higher due to a higher base score.

I've only played a few GOTM so far but I see a pretty clear pattern to my play emerging, relative to everyone else: I have higher base scores relative to most all but the best players, but not-so-high final scores. In this game I rank #42, but the only people with higher base scores than me in the top 50 are #1, #2, #3, and #20. Does that suggest I maybe move too slowly, press my advantages too little, wait until I'm ridiculously more advanced before I make my clinching moves? in most games when I do go for the kill I usually find I'm an unstoppable juggernaut (hardly even losing units). That's what's happening in GOTM17 too, I find. I don't know if this is what people mean by "milking," but I'm not doing this intentionally ... it's just he natural way that I play.

Am I interpreting this right? That this is telling me I need to be more aggressive, and push myself to move into endgame play earlier?

That would also let me finish games quicker, that would be nice :)

Ouch! That's the second game (out of 5) this year that I've been beaten to a fastest-finish award by just one other person.

Maybe I should just try to sweep up 2nd place for all the other awards :lol:

Seriously, congrats to all the winners! And to Grey Cardinal, the guy who beat me :)

I've only played a few GOTM so far but I see a pretty clear pattern to my play emerging, relative to everyone else: I have higher base scores relative to most all but the best players, but not-so-high final scores. In this game I rank #42, but the only people with higher base scores than me in the top 50 are #1, #2, #3, and #20. Does that suggest I maybe move too slowly, press my advantages too little, wait until I'm ridiculously more advanced before I make my clinching moves? in most games when I do go for the kill I usually find I'm an unstoppable juggernaut (hardly even losing units).


Depends what your goal is. In general though, you'll get a higher final score by finishing earlier because the formula used to calculate final score heavily disfavours later finishes. I would imagine that most of the people who finish fastest and who gain the highest final scores do quite a bit of warmongering when they just barely have enough units to win.


I don't know if this is what people mean by "milking," but I'm not doing this intentionally ... it's just he natural way that I play.


That's not what 'milking' means. Milking, roughly speaking, means that you are doing things that specifically increase your score, typically out of proportion to the 'quality' of your empire. So it means things like, eg. shortly before your victory, planting lots of economically unviable cities to get your population up, or farming over all your cottages, which has a similar effect (and also could crash your economy, if you had to continue playing beyond your victory date)

Concise, informative spoiler, Gnejs. Basic difference from my approach was that you were more agressive earlier, building nothing non-military and getting to all the AI's before they had a metal.

Did you raze any cities?

However, dwat2 managed to spin it out even longer with a 1804AD finish, while I was pipped to the lowest scoring conquest shield by TeHGhost - despite a 1330AD finish date (what's going on?)

Probably it was because my silliness (and lack of expierence)... I razed too many cities, that might be the reason for my low score...

Probably it was because my silliness (and lack of expierence)... I razed too many cities, that might be the reason for my low score...

I would say, in my case, that the score was the last thing on my mind when going for this conquest. My wins on Civ4 can still be counted on my hands, so victory - any victory - is the main thing and the score was incidental. As I improve and become more sure of myself, I guess I'll start considering what makes a higher score. That's for the future.

I worked on the basis that I would raze all cities except the capitals (and any useful wonder / culture ones). Not really sure why, though. I guess I wanted to have some outposts for troops to heal, and to keep the barbs at bay. Certainly wanted to keep below the dom limit, but was never going to endanger that.

The thing that really stretched my endgame out was when I conquered the whole main continent in the 1500s and saw there were cities left on islands - and I didn't have sailing!!

No sailing in 1500...nice. :)

Gnejs, that report is positively delightful. Pfft, who needs horses anyway? :p

Congratulations to everyone. Special thanks to the spoiler-writers and to the staff.

I am most impresed by RobertTheBruce domination date.

I was second once again. I have been trying to compare my game to Gnejs' since we wrote our spoilers.
Gnejs, please, did you really settle in place and never build a workboat?
Other differences are
-I sent my first 4 Jaguars to France, you attacked them later.
-I built my roads later.
-I built useless obelisks in Paris and Karakorum.


On a side note, I don't really like the way the results are announced. A first post with the score results, and a lot of text about the relative differences between the 3 best ones. A second spoiler for "other awards" with no comments at all. It looks almost despective. Since I don't give a damn about points (with all my respect to the skill of DocTK and all other expert milkers), I would like to see just the oposite, lots of comments about the three best in each speed cathegory and a side note about points. But that's just me.

Congratulations to everyone !

Well done Doc TK. Between two 4OTMs, I 'll try to analyze your game (but, don't forget spoiler is specially appreciated when you have gold ...)

On the other side, there is an interesting competition between Lexad and Grey Cardinal for the next "Eptathlon" Award. Both only need Cow to achieve it. To make the situation more funny, A'AbarachAmadan should come back and play each remaining GOTM for Cow :lol:.

On a side note, I don't really like the way the results are announced. A first post with the score results, and a lot of text about the relative differences between the 3 best ones. A second spoiler for "other awards" with no comments at all. It looks almost despective. Since I don't give a damn about points (with all my respect to the skill of DocTK and all other expert milkers), I would like to see just the oposite, lots of comments about the three best in each speed cathegory and a side note about points. But that's just me.

Hmm... You know, when I played my first GOTM (GOTM1, one year and a few months ago), I had the 2nd fastest diplomacy victory and was completely surprised seeing how low my score was (28 K - 62nd in score) :confused:. I had not analyzed the score formula yet ...
But I had to accept the way the site worked and it was clear that emphasis was put on Firaxis score, fastest finish awards appearing as consolation awards ... Then I decided to adapt myself and to play for score, because I saw it the most representative, according to the spirit of the site. The score formula could certainly be highly improved, but I think we need one criterion to compare every games.

Concise, informative spoiler, Gnejs. Basic difference from my approach was that you were more agressive earlier, building nothing non-military and getting to all the AI's before they had a metal.

Did you raze any cities?

Nope, kept everything. Wasn't much to keep though, I captured 1 Mongolian, 2 French, 2 Greek and 3 Incan cities. Probably why my final score was so low... :)

I was second once again. I have been trying to compare my game to Gnejs' since we wrote our spoilers.
Gnejs, please, did you really settle in place and never build a workboat?
Other differences are
-I sent my first 4 Jaguars to France, you attacked them later.
-I built my roads later.
-I built useless obelisks in Paris and Karakorum.



Settled in place, never even researched fishing. The corn was enough to support working four mined hills, with a happiness cap at 5. I did not use the whip much at all, but I chopped some forests instead.

Not much difference between our dates, so maybe you would have beaten me if you had attacked Genghis Khan first. Roads might have been quite important too. I got lucky and popped wheel from a hut. I also used workers primarily to build roads, with the result that the roads were advancing just one or two tiles behind the first jaguars.

I completed my first Jaguar in 2120 BC (and already had a road to Karakorum in place by then). Could you check how your start compares to that? Would be interesting to know the difference between our opening strategies.

Edit: I also built an obelisk in Karakorum, but it seemed worthwhile because that let me work the Iron and Gems.

At Prince I usually start with warrior rush - it was also effective here, I killed Genghis with my first two warriors while spying with scout and watching his power graph. It's even more efficient if you start with a warrior.

Settled in place, never even researched fishing.

Ouch, I had never seen such a lack of sensibility for the map particularities! :p :p :p

I completed my first Jaguar in 2120 BC (and already had a road to Karakorum in place by then). Could you check how your start compares to that? Would be interesting to know the difference between our opening strategies.


My first Jaguar came out in 2080BC, 1 turn later. I didn’t have the Wheel at the time, and I even decided to research AH before the wheel, while I started a settler, just in case there were horses. There weren’t.

Our games are really similar. In my opinion my opening strategy is stronger: by 2800BC I was working 3 improved tiles and soon my capital stabilized at 14hpt. I think the late roads explain part of the difference. Also after killing France I kept some units there to protect Paris and the iron, I shouldn’t.


At Prince I usually start with warrior rush - it was also effective here, I killed Genghis with my first two warriors while spying with scout and watching his power graph. It's even more efficient if you start with a warrior.

I agree, early warriors were more important than anything else. I wouldn’t have used them to take cities, though, but to steal workers, thus forcing them to stay OCC. I still think my worst mistake was worker-stealing Khan instead of Capac.




@all: Comparing games and strategies its very interesting, Thank you.

Ouch, I had never seen such a lack of sensibility for the map particularities! :p :p :p

Well, sometimes it pays off to play differently. :)

My first Jaguar came out in 2080BC, 1 turn later. I didn’t have the Wheel at the time, and I even decided to research AH before the wheel, while I started a settler, just in case there were horses. There weren’t.

Our games are really similar. In my opinion my opening strategy is stronger: by 2800BC I was working 3 improved tiles and soon my capital stabilized at 14hpt. I think the late roads explain part of the difference. Also after killing France I kept some units there to protect Paris and the iron, I shouldn’t.

Two of the hills had forests from the start, and the odds are quite high that a forest will grow on any of the other hills. Improving these tiles only adds one hammer each, so it is probably more important to grow quickly than to improve the hills. But you are probably right that your strategy meant quicker growth. I will see if I can find the autolog and see when my city grew.


I agree, early warriors were more important than anything else. I wouldn’t have used them to take cities, though, but to steal workers, thus forcing them to stay OCC. I still think my worst mistake was worker-stealing Khan instead of Capac.




@all: Comparing games and strategies its very interesting, Thank you.

Agree totally. This is half the fun, learning different solutions and better ways to play. :goodjob:

Well done Doc TK. Between two 4OTMs, I 'll try to analyze your game (but, don't forget spoiler is specially appreciated when you have gold ...)

Thanks for the complement - unfortunately, it's been so long since I played the game, I really don't remember much about it. And, I actually didn't think my score was going to be good for a win, especially since I'm not a very good early attack person. I'll try to do a better job in the future - of course, there have been a couple of horrible games for me recently - no write up needed on those. :cry:

Ouch, I had never seen such a lack of sensibility for the map particularities! :p :p :p



My first Jaguar came out in 2080BC, 1 turn later. I didn’t have the Wheel at the time, and I even decided to research AH before the wheel, while I started a settler, just in case there were horses. There weren’t.

Our games are really similar. In my opinion my opening strategy is stronger: by 2800BC I was working 3 improved tiles and soon my capital stabilized at 14hpt. I think the late roads explain part of the difference. Also after killing France I kept some units there to protect Paris and the iron, I shouldn’t.




I agree, early warriors were more important than anything else. I wouldn’t have used them to take cities, though, but to steal workers, thus forcing them to stay OCC. I still think my worst mistake was worker-stealing Khan instead of Capac.




@all: Comparing games and strategies its very interesting, Thank you.


I replayed this GOTM several times trying to get the fastest conquest possible. As I recall, in my best attempt I also did not build a workboat.

It's interesting that even with cheating (i.e., I had full knowlege of what the map was going to look like, I would reload if things went poorly), I could only finish several turns faster than Gnjes.

Two of the hills had forests from the start, and the odds are quite high that a forest will grow on any of the other hills. Improving these tiles only adds one hammer each, so it is probably more important to grow quickly than to improve the hills. But you are probably right that your strategy meant quicker growth. I will see if I can find the autolog and see when my city grew.

This strategy really suprises me but you definitely would have had pre-AD domination finish if you had spammed settlers. I saw each forest as a jaguar waiting to be born and didn't really think about working them.

I'll have to check my logs but I think my capital built warrior, wb, worker: a very conventional start. (The fish and corn to grow after two pop whips plus mines for production. I thought more frequent whips would overtake the faster worker/IW/jaguar.) Were you able to whip aggressively without the fish or does the faster start (weaker enemies) more than compensate for the lower production in a BC era conquest? (I didn't build any libraries or courthouses in my game and I think I still probably overbuilt for a fast conquest.)

My autolog (I will have a look at it later today myself...)

151669

Edit: Ok, as far as I can reconstruct from the log, this is my growth in Tenochtitlan:

Finished first worker on turn 14 (3440 BC)
Grow to size 2 on turn 20 (3200 BC) <- about here the corn is farmed
Grow to size 3 on turn 25 (3000 BC)
Grow to size 4 on turn 33 (2680 BC)
Whipped a second worker on turn 36 for two pop (2560 BC)
Grow to size 3 on turn 40 (2400 BC)
Grow to size 4 on turn 46 (2160 BC)
Grow to size 5 on turn 55 (1800 BC)
Grow to size 6 on turn 80 (875 BC)
End of game in turn 86

Not sure how bright it was to whip the second worker. Hmm, lets see...

Early happiness cap was at 4, right? 5 was later with the gems. 10 turns unhappiness. So I lose 4*2+6 = 14 turns of working improved tiles, say about 42 hammers. Whipping gives 30 hammers, a net loss of 12 hammers. On the other hand, I can chop and road twice as fast, meaning more jaguars to the front earlier. No, it seems as if it was ok to do it.

Edit #2: Err, the whipping gave 60 hammers, not 30. Definitely a gain then.

This strategy really suprises me but you definitely would have had pre-AD domination finish if you had spammed settlers. I saw each forest as a jaguar waiting to be born and didn't really think about working them.

I'll have to check my logs but I think my capital built warrior, wb, worker: a very conventional start. (The fish and corn to grow after two pop whips plus mines for production. I thought more frequent whips would overtake the faster worker/IW/jaguar.) Were you able to whip aggressively without the fish or does the faster start (weaker enemies) more than compensate for the lower production in a BC era conquest? (I didn't build any libraries or courthouses in my game and I think I still probably overbuilt for a fast conquest.)

Well, I didn't analyze this when playing, but now it seems you are right on whips being more productive even without a granary. I only whipped that second worker (and, if I recall correctly, a Jaguar in the final turns to chase off a barbarian).

Still, was the workboat really needed? I grew from size 2 to size 4 in 10 turns without it...

Well, I didn't analyze this when playing, but now it seems you are right on whips being more productive even without a granary. I only whipped that second worker (and, if I recall correctly, a Jaguar in the final turns to chase off a barbarian).

Still, was the workboat really needed? I grew from size 2 to size 4 in 10 turns without it...

I think you are right, the workboat lets you whip from 7 to 5 in 10 turns (gems plus elephant IIRC for happiness: working the 2 food resources and 4 mines) but it probably takes more than 150 turns for this to pay off. The strategies for a really fast conquest are counterintuitive. A lot of moves which second nature for a longer game (workboat, granary) are a waste of turns.

Edit: I guess this is why I have never come close to a fastest conquest finish in a Pangaea or galley reachable GOTM. I am comfortable with the tradeoffs for a fast, Astronomy required conquest. Finding the techs which can be neglected is critical for any fast victory, I just never considered Fishing to be one of those techs. You and Jesusin both played great games.

Wow, I missed the forum for a while just to discover that I won my first award ever!!! :eek:

Really it was a good idea to search a victory condition a few people would have... :p

Thanks to the staff and congratulations to all winners! :goodjob:

Cheers.
Charge

Congrats Charge! ;)

This game was my first game submission ever. At only 93rd, I'm very happy. A late victory, but conquest isn't my usual style. Hooray for the little guys!