http://www.civfanatics.net/methos/hof/staff/gauntlet.gifWhile the general Hall of Fame is an ongoing competition, we like to run time-definite competitions between updates that we call Gauntlets. Standard Hall of Fame rules (*) still apply, but any games meeting the settings will be counted towards the Gauntlet.

(*) Please read the >> HOF rules << (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/rules.php) BEFORE playing!


Settings:

Victory Condition: Cultural (though all victory conditions must be enabled)
Difficulty: Monarch
Starting Era: Ancient
Map Size: Small
Map Type: Pangaea
Speed: Epic
Required: Aggressive AI checked
Civ: Must have the Protective trait
Opponents: Must include Aztec (Montezuma), Japan (Tokugawa), Mongolia (Genghis Khan), Mongolia (Kublai Khan), Spain (Isabella), Viking (Ragnar Lodbrok), Zulu (Shaka)
Version: 2.13.002 or 3.13.001
Date: 26th March to 25th April 2008
Must not play as Inca.
The earliest finish date wins, with score as a tiebreaker.

Please note that you must use a leader with the Protective trait and must have aggressive AI checked.

How can I get Maya in Warlords?

How can I get Maya in Warlords?

Who is another civ that tends to be crazy or warmongering that is in both versions?

Once we decide, I'll switch them out. I want to keep it seven opponents and prefer them to be a little more bossy.

Who is another civ that tends to be crazy or warmongering that is in both versions?
Ragnar, perhaps. Or Shaka.

Ragnar, perhaps. Or Shaka.

We'll go with the berserkers. Swapped.

Who is another civ that tends to be crazy or warmongering that is in both versions?

Once we decide, I'll switch them out. I want to keep it seven opponents and prefer them to be a little more bossy.
Not that I plan on participating (nice setup but beyond my league) but do you really mean 7 opponents? Only 6 listed so far. Maybe throw Shaka into it as well?

Edit: if I ever go for it I'd resort to an quasi-conquest type of game. Cheesy but doable. I'll have to think more on this challenge. :)

Not that I plan on participating (nice setup but beyond my league) but do you really mean 7 opponents? Only 6 listed so far. Maybe throw Shaka into it as well?

I could have sworn I had seven. Ok, last modification. Shaka has been added to the party!

Oh, crap....on first look, this was interesting. But, looks like Vanilla is out? I still can't tell from the header or gauntlet info which versions, otherwise, but I don't recall any Vikings in vanilla. I assume there's no way to get enough leaders with those traits in vanilla?

A Protective leader can't be found in Vanilla either. ;)

But, looks like Vanilla is out?

A Protective leader can't be found in Vanilla either. ;)

The Protective trait wasn't introduced until Warlords.

Not played any games with agg. Ai, does it make the AIs fight more between themselves or just build more units and be more aggressive towards the human player?

Depends whether you are playing warlords or BtS.

Warlords, they hate the player more (-2 diplo modifier I think).
In BtS, they spam more units and are prone to war if they see an opportunity (not just against the player).

I've never played with aggressive AI either, but from the forums I hear bad things in regards to BTS and unit spamming.

I think this is a pretty clever gauntlet and sounds fun.

Hopefully I will have time for a try.

The 'Aggressive AI checked' requirement is missing from the Gauntlet page (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=major&gauntlet=106&submit=Go).
Edit: and so is the protective civ requirement.

The 'Aggressive AI checked' requirement is missing from the Gauntlet page (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=major&gauntlet=106&submit=Go).
Edit: and so is the protective civ requirement.

Welcome to posting! :band:

The display for both items hasn't been coded in yet.

Have you coded in something so that Random Personalities aren't allowed yet?

That could make a very different game otherwise...

Kublai and Izzy are the easiest to make good friends with from my experience, so I think I'll be relying on them being allies in one way or another. Also, Kublai, Ragnar and Shaka (in that order) are going to be the most dangerous from my experiences, since Genghis and Monty both kill their economy, Tokugawa never trades, and Izzy spends too much time building missionaries.

Possibly the worst cultural victory ever, but it was definitely fun. I had probably 10+ wars, including multiple two front wars and I was at war with up to three civs at once. I ended up winning in 1840, managing to go 48,000! culture over the threshold in my capital.

I went with random personalities...but I didin't like it.....I think it is easier to predict their moves even if they are warmongers causing you problems

This Gauntlet should be fun. Playing as Sitting Bull, Saladin, Gilgy and China should be fun and most useful here.

Saladin, Charlemagne and Wang Kon all start with Mysticism.

Random personalities seems like an exploit unintended by the creators of the gauntlet... I'll try it next game!

I thought random personalities were not allowed in HOF games?!

According to the Rules/FAQ page at the HoF site, they are.

shouldn't random personalities be banned for this particular gauntlet though as it defeats the point of specifying the warmongering civs

I agree, I just asked the question whether it had been addressed yet or not.

I had a go as Gilgamesh but next door to Toku so I decided to quit that game after failing to rush him.

Random personalities seems like an exploit unintended by the creators of the gauntlet...

Though random personalities is allowed in HOF submissions, I'm going to have to agree that it was unintended for this gauntlet. What is the point is specifying leaders/civs if you could just change their personality?

Random Personalities are not allowed for this gauntlet!

Though random personalities is allowed in HOF submissions, I'm going to have to agree that it was unintended for this gauntlet. What is the point is specifying leaders/civs if you could just change their personality?

Random Personalities are not allowed for this gauntlet!

In every previous gauntlet where you specified difficult AI opponents, I'm pretty sure most people played random personalities (if they thought of it.) I agree it's against the spirit of the setup, but can you even check for that? or is it just the honor system. I think it will be fun either way. I'm glad I didn't play yet though.

Is a culture victory possible with a OCC (BtS) ?

I acheived legendary culture (75K) in my one city but it doesn't appear to give a victory ? :confused:

cas

To get a cultural victory in OCC, you need to have a PA and your partner has to have the other 2 cities.

To get a cultural victory in OCC, you need to have a PA and your partner has to have the other 2 cities.

Ah, well...that will be impossible. It was a fun game anyway.

Thanks for the info.

cas

difficult but not impossible, it was a minor gauntlet a while ago

but can you even check for that?

Yes

Ah, well...that will be impossible. It was a fun game anyway.

It's not impossible and quite a few players here have done it. Check out the results from G-Minor 32 (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=86&submit=Go) and you'll find that eighteen players were successful at winning an OCC culture victory.

Maybe you should make no random personalities a requirement for any gauntlet in which you have specific opponents in future.

I can't see any issues with it for regular HOF games though.

It's not impossible and quite a few players here have done it. Check out the results from G-Minor 32 (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/gauntlet.php?show=minor&gauntlet=86&submit=Go) and you'll find that eighteen players were successful at winning an OCC culture victory.

I should have been more clear. I was referring only to my particular game and level of skill. :p

cas

That's the 4th attempt where a neighbour decided I was free land...

This is a fun change of pace. I've never played aggressive AI on BTS and never played most of these opponents. Not sure what to expect. My game is very odd. We're all one big happy family. I'm right in the middle, everyone likes me. Even stranger, when I trade with someone, no one complains that I traded with their worst enemy. I have not built one single military unit in the first 100 turns. I was waiting for someone to come after me now that I'm ready for a fight, but nothing. So now I have to pick one of my loving neighbors to back stab. Most share my religion. Unfortunately the 3 cities I like best are each under different AI control.

Is everyone having the same luck (or skill) as WastinTime? I was really hoping the AI would be very aggressive and let you all play with the protective trait.

My game was different to WastinTime's but still not very aggressive.

I played warlords and had the ideal map. My little Civ off to one side of a Pangea with all the good cultural resources nearby. I only got declared on once - by Ghengis Khan when he sent 3 archers against my swords and axes. I did go to war early vs 2 civs and kept my power up by building units.

Because I kept military up, didn't trade away much tech to opponents and got a reasonably quick finish date... there was no risk of having neighbouring civs with rifles and cannons looking at my cultural cities defended by only warriors - as I think the settings of the gauntlet might suggest.

No one was pleased or friendly with me though, I had tons of red -'ve multipliers right throughout the game. (Except for a short spell where I was buddying up with Izzy for some tech trades).

I'm curious how players are finding the protective trait with an aggressive approach, rather then defensive.

I'm curious how players are finding the protective trait with an aggressive approach, rather then defensive.

It's kinda nice, when you capture a city, to have 1 "super defender archer" to hold the city. The real problem with the protective trait however is you can't let them stomp thru your land and destroy improvements. Even if you're going to "turtle up", you need to attack units that enter the fat cross. Free City Garrison promo doesn't help defend a gem. Protective is obviously added to make certain AI difficult to attack. It's not meant for the human player. Maybe if you had a really nice map that has a choke point, you could put a blockade there. It wouldn't be one of your culture cities most likely.

P.S. super archer = protective + barracks + totem pole + archer.

Protective would also be nice, early in the game against barbarians. By the time real AI civs attack you, you have too many nice improvements to protect.

But who plays barbarians? I thought about turning on Raging for this gauntlet because it's so crowded, you probably won't see many.

I have found them very aggressive, especially Ragnar. I had 4 at once attacking me despite no negative modifiers besides close borders. The game I started with random personalities was a love-fest while it lasted, though. I am playing BTS, if that matters.

Protective would also be nice, early in the game against barbarians. By the time real AI civs attack you, you have too many nice improvements to protect.

But who plays barbarians? I thought about turning on Raging for this gauntlet because it's so crowded, you probably won't see many.

I tried the raging barbs not realizing how crowded the map is. One game they were raging...mostly against me because I was relatively far from the other civs. Several other starts with raging barbs was like normal or no barbs because of the crowded landscape.

I'm not very fond of crowded pangea with agg AI at this point.

cas

I tried the raging barbs not realizing how crowded the map is. One game they were raging...mostly against me because I was relatively far from the other civs. Several other starts with raging barbs was like normal or no barbs because of the crowded landscape.

cas

That's exactly why I didn't play raging. I figured if I got lucky enough to have an isolated start location, barbs would just ruin the game.

Regarding aggressiveness, my game is plenty aggressive now. In fact, it almost seems like a requirement that they each be in a war now. I just thought they'd start earlier. Too bad you can never seem to get them into a 2nd war.

In my game I finally decided to stab Ragnar in the back. That war lasted 5 turns or less. It was ended early by a random event. Fine by me I got the city I wanted. Later he attacked me back. Even during that 2nd war, he still liked me so much that he was "cautious" instead of annoyed or furious. During the war, not just after.

I'm curious how players are finding the protective trait with an aggressive approach, rather then defensive.

Protective didn't help me that much. I'd done most of the conquesting I wanted to do by the time I had chokuno's so the extra first strike chance wasn't that great.

However...

Chopping walls with stone hooked up for 300% efficiency was handy once or twice
:gold::gold::gold::gold:

Ok. At the risk of sounding mildly heretical...

Is it possible to achieve cutlural victory if you are someone's vassal?

If so, I'm thinking maybe the AI would think twice about coming after you...

Yes, you can still win the game as a vassal to the AI.

I don't think it;s possible to become a vassal.

an ally, maybe, but not a vassal

its definitely possible to win culturally as a vassal unfortunately humans can't be vassals

definitely having problems militarily though even when I have a modern and huge army the AI keeps invading and when you have dealt with one of them another decides to invade, at least i'm surviving longer than izzy and toku though
anyone got any suggestions for how to balance teching, having a huge army and building culture

Just finished my first attempt at this gauntlet game, which makes it my first win on Monarch, with Gilgamesh, finishing at 1932.

However, I admit I got pretty lucky. I wasn't attacked by the AI until turn 164, which gave me plenty of time to build up my defenses and found several religions. Although when it did happen, both Khans DoW'ed on me on the same turn, they being on either side of me, along with a barbarian uprising of swordsman, so I guess my luck balances out a bit :lol:.

Ragnar and Shaka were definitely the most aggressive, often coming at me with stacks that had no chance of winning. Montezuma ended up being vassalized early to Genghis.

Besides those two and the initial wave of Khan attacks, I wasn't in very many wars. After spreading my religion around and converting Isabella, I was able to tech peacefully while the AIs fought each other from time to time.

Overall, this was a very enjoyable and interesting game.

One thing about this gauntlet is that the quicker your finish – the easier the game actually is. A typical cultural game will have a period near the end where you stop research and set culture slider to 100%. In my game I only had macemen and musketeers at this stage. The game will get pretty tough if the aggressive AI neighbours start teching past you and start building rifles/cavalry and grenadiers. However, if you can hit the cultural victory while you still have a tech lead or at least tech parity then there’s not much to worry about.

Starting at one end of the Pangaea is good since you only need to station strong defence at one edge of your border.

Building military is not that much of a distraction if you can dedicate an early production city for making troops.

I think you should be looking to conquer one or two of the nearest civs and maybe even the progress of a couple of other civs. You will want bronze near your first city, concentrate on getting axes out as soon as possible.

Also, don’t trade away techs as freely as you would in a peaceful game. I only needed one tech partner; Isabella was happy enough to trade with me even though the rest of the warmongers hated me.

My first (only) game was in the 16th century and I was happy enough with it, although I messed up with calculating great people and making the best use of the ones I got.

I have found them very aggressive, especially Ragnar. I had 4 at once attacking me despite no negative modifiers besides close borders. The game I started with random personalities was a love-fest while it lasted, though. I am playing BTS, if that matters.

yea, I am encountering a problem in this game

I took out Kublai Khan easily, but then shaka and genghis dow me. I crushed their army and peace w/ them for catapults. Later, got my catapult army and capture genghis' capital...but shaka decided to molest my workers and backstabed him w/ his impis. :cry: I lost all my workers in that tile. In order to rush back to save my capital, I have to liberate gengis' captured capital back to him :eek:. All that hard work wasted and back to squate 1.

I think I am going to use that random personality, I would like a Gandhi shaka neighbor next time :mischief:

Random personalities aren't allowed for the gauntlet anymore, though.

I think warlord version is definitely easier than Bts for a number of reasons

1. No need to worry about spies pillaging improvement and inciting unhealthiness and unhappiness

2. Ai not as tactical as in Bts

3. Ai techs slower and dont emphasis on alphabet (in my opinion)

4. A stack of catapults can win -> less unit maintanence

I think I am going to use that random personality, I would like a Gandhi shaka neighbor next time :mischief:

Random personalities aren't allowed for the gauntlet anymore, though.

Correct. For this gauntlet and probably future gauntlets with specific leaders random personalities isn't allowed.

After a whole lot of tries, I finally got this, my first major gauntlet!

If I _ever_ see that bunch of psychos again, it will be too soon.

Finished in 1877, after fighting at least 4 major wars.

Jack

After a whole lot of tries, I finally got this, my first major gauntlet!

If I _ever_ see that bunch of psychos again, it will be too soon.

Finished in 1877, after fighting at least 4 major wars.

Jack

Beat me by a year! Same thing here, a bunch of tries and a bunch of wars, my finish was 1878 in BTS. I've tried a few more games on Warlords but no luck. It seems like it should be easier on Warlords cause the AI doesn't spam units like they do in BTS, so I'm going to try a few more games.

Bleh. 1720AD. Had a great map and implemented a couple of good strategies...but my capital ended up with ~140K culture because I concentrated too many wonders there. And I made several other mistakes...like teching too far...but I was concerned GK might bring a 30-40 unit stack against my longbows. Shaka did that in a previous game and it was not pretty.

A better player could have easily shaved 200yrs off that date.

I improved my skills quite a bit and enjoyed this Gmajor a lot. :goodjob:

edit: Another good map and I was able to decrease the date to 1670. Not going to win me a top spot, but not bad for me. I'm interested to see how many ppl win in the 1500's.

cas

This Gauntlet is finished.

Results:
1st Jimmy Thunder 1580 AD
2nd cas 1670 AD
3rd AAA 1694 AD

Congratulations!

Hooray!

Thanks for the gauntlet, I enjoyed the change of pace of this game.