View Full Version : SGOTM 07 - Murky Waters


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16]

LowtherCastle
Jul 18, 2008, 05:36 AM
Done editing in your dates in the table as well. :)Looks good. Btw, this is my error, but it would be better to put "turns/DoW" so there's no confusion. Turns/war could be mistaken as how long the wars lasted.

Guess what? I found a specialized definition of "girlie builder" in the dictionary:A girlie builder is any CIV SG team that doesn't build the Heroic Epic before T100 on normal speed.We almost blew it, finishing ours at T97. :faint:

LowtherCastle
Jul 18, 2008, 05:42 AM
Bulldozing my little village and constructing a huge, ugly workshop over it :lol:
I also looked up the etymology of builder. Turns out it comes from Archaic Swedish and means villager. :lol:

:joke:

Erkon
Jul 18, 2008, 06:24 AM
Yes, we had some animated discussions were we never reached a consensus. I'd like to replay these hotly debated decisions as well:...

What would have happened if we be-lined chemistry before communism? That would have sped up KK's pre-PA conquest, and given us Steel in PA-tech...

LowtherCastle
Jul 18, 2008, 08:17 AM
Nope. I don't see HE coming much sooner. No place to fit in the barracks/axes much earlier without jeopardizing our PA date. The only way we might have finished sooner, that I see, would have been if we had been more successful with KK's pre-PA warring. That's an area of pure speculation. I think we played this pretty close to perfectly.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, klarius' warring strategy was way beyond perfect. There are aspects of what happened in our game that defy simple analysis. For example: Asoka capturing Kyoto has the appearance of a disadvantage since we teamed with KK, making Asoka research even faster and become more powerful. But in addition to removing Toku, who KK liked, the common war with Asoka also enabled us to get to Friendly with him sooner and the consequence was we got CS sooner from Asoka than if we had fully researched it ourselves.

I challenge anyone to replay this game and beat our finish date, using all knowledge of the map, etc.

But there is one observation I made in this analysis: We keep forgetting to list our builds in the Turnset Reports! Makes it hard to figure out when things got finished.

DJMGator13
Jul 18, 2008, 07:10 PM
Thanks! You will surely complete the second half for me as well, won't you? :goodjob:

Great wonders dates are also in the in-game log. But you are right that national wonders are not. Hmm, browse team threads? :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

He could also get some help from the teams that are finished :mischief:

Xteam's info

Oxford date: T116
PA date: T134
HE date: T144


Okay, your T134 save you still don't have a 10XP unit for HE. In your T155 save, you've built the HE, but you're building a cannon in 2 turns. In other words, you're prioritizing research over building 1 unit per turn. You're playing OCC. You're production is limited to 1 unit per turn, no matter what you build.

Never got 2 units a turn but we did get to 1 turn artillery, by building a cheap workboat to create an overflow. Used the workboats in coastal cities for needed population growth, so they weren't wasted hammers.

We ran thru 17 cities in 70 turns, so it wasn't too girlie, but after seeing your game we should have been at war earlier.

Erkon
Jul 19, 2008, 01:43 AM
...But there is one observation I made in this analysis: We keep forgetting to list our builds in the Turnset Reports! Makes it hard to figure out when things got finished.

You are right, we only have it in the PPP. One way for us to improve as a team would be to get even more structure :eek:, mainly in the reporting, but I don't know if team members are willing to carry that extra burden of following a PPR (Post-Play-Report) template, such as a specified way to list builds, kills, research, diplomacy and civics/religion changes. The risk is that this will take out the fun of the play, so this has to be sanctioned by the Peanut Gallery. I (or anyone else) can draft a suggestion, and we can reflect on the usefulness before we decide.

Another improvement would be to be more clear in our posts. Sometimes it's hard to understand how a specific suggestion fits into the overall picture. Perhaps we could assign a team-secretary that maintains a post on the first page that describe the basic ideas of our plans. Again, this will increase the administration and may reduce the fun factor so it may not be worth it.

Anyone who has a preference?

Erkon
Jul 19, 2008, 01:45 AM
Btw, Erkon, your 500 BC - 250 BC FiveAces Turnset link in your first page is gefrkenheimered.

What's wrong with it? :confused:

LowtherCastle
Jul 19, 2008, 03:25 AM
What's wrong with it? :confused:It sends me to page 94 (last page under my current settings).

daniel smith
Jul 19, 2008, 04:19 AM
Another improvement would be to be more clear in our posts. Sometimes it's hard to understand how a specific suggestion fits into the overall picture. Perhaps we could assign a team-secretary that maintains a post on the first page that describe the basic ideas of our plans. Again, this will increase the administration and may reduce the fun factor so it may not be worth it.

Anyone who has a preference?

Hmm, I have grown quite familiar with you guys even though you don't know me and I visit this place on a daily basis so I could lend a helping hand with that.

Mītiu Ioan
Jul 19, 2008, 04:21 AM
We won T177 1170AD.


Congratulations guys !! :goodjob:

LowtherCastle
Jul 19, 2008, 11:08 AM
We ran thru 17 cities in 70 turns, so it wasn't too girlie, but after seeing your game we should have been at war earlier.We took out 17 cities in 70 turns by using superior units, while they used an earlier warring start and larger numbers (1 turn builds) to overwhelm the AI's earlier... This would have been an interesting "post-PA" race if we each had the same number of cities to capture, even with the different PA partners that we choose.70t/17cities= 4.1 turns per city.

Corrected: After our PA we needed 42 turns for the remaining 12 cities = 3.5 turns per city.

Our rate was significantly faster even with weaker units. And waiting for the AI to capture cities was a praoblem for all teams, not just you. Most AI units prioritize pillaging. The question is, how do you deal with it?

ShannonCT
Jul 19, 2008, 11:51 AM
70t/17cities= 4.1 turns per city.

After our PA we needed 42 turns for the remaining 13 cities = 3.2 turns per city.

Our rate was significantly faster even with weaker units. And waiting for the AI to capture cities was a praoblem for all teams, not just you. Most AI units prioritize pillaging. The question is, how do you deal with it?

We didn't really deal with it. If we spent some time reading code we would have improved our rate.

Erkon
Jul 19, 2008, 12:23 PM
It sends me to page 94 (last page under my current settings).

I've fixed it, thanks for the notice. The link included a page number, and I'm running 20 posts per page... I did not know one could change that, will try right away. :goodjob:

Gnejs
Jul 19, 2008, 02:36 PM
He could also get some help from the teams that are finished :mischief:

Xteam's info

Oxford date: T116
PA date: T134
HE date: T144


Thanks! I have updated the table and will try to get the other finished teams to help me out also.

Gnejs
Jul 19, 2008, 03:11 PM
70t/17cities= 4.1 turns per city.

After our PA we needed 42 turns for the remaining 13 cities = 3.2 turns per city.

Our rate was significantly faster even with weaker units. And waiting for the AI to capture cities was a praoblem for all teams, not just you. Most AI units prioritize pillaging. The question is, how do you deal with it?

Actually, KK had 7 cities at the PA date, 2 original and 5 captured in the 90 turns from the first war to PA. After PA KK captured 10 more cities and we razed 2 cities, all in 42 turns. (All from Erkons summary on page 1, so if there is any error you have to blame our captain...)


For me, the biggest disappointment was the low number of cities at the PA date. I had my PA ally at 6 cities in several of my test games which I played through in less than an hour each. Here we spent so much more effort on setting up the right wars and managing relations and bribes, and still we didn't improve much on that particular aspect. But of course, if one takes into account that our PA came a lot earlier than in my tests then we did well. It is just that I feel that there is potential for having KK at ten or even more cities come T136 and then possibly a victory around T150.

ChrisFromLux
Jul 19, 2008, 05:36 PM
Here you go, Gnejs, our dates (Misfits) ...

Turn # of HE completion: T137 (540AD)
Turn # of Oxford completion: T117 (50AD)
Turn # of PA: T164 (1040AD); it was available on T160 (1000AD), though, but we waited

FiveAces
Jul 19, 2008, 10:42 PM
That's weird. XTeam and Misfits have near-identical dates for Oxford and HE but Misfit's PA is 30 turns later yet they finished earlier?

JerichoHill
Jul 20, 2008, 01:10 AM
We had a big tech lead and were bribing Asoka into wars prior to the PA.

FiveAces
Jul 20, 2008, 01:31 AM
We had a big tech lead and were bribing Asoka into wars prior to the PA.

But I think XTeam had artillery well before you? And were you taking cities before the PA? That's what is strange to me. XTeam started at PA with Asoka having just the 2 original cities. So if you started 30 turns later with just the 2 (or 3 or even 4) cities, and were slower to artillery, I'm not sure how you caught them, unless you were much more efficient after the PA which I would be interested in knowing why you were more efficient.

Erkon
Jul 20, 2008, 01:36 AM
...
For me, the biggest disappointment was the low number of cities at the PA date. I had my PA ally at 6 cities in several of my test games which I played through in less than an hour each. Here we spent so much more effort on setting up the right wars and managing relations and bribes, and still we didn't improve much on that particular aspect. But of course, if one takes into account that our PA came a lot earlier than in my tests then we did well. It is just that I feel that there is potential for having KK at ten or even more cities come T136 and then possibly a victory around T150.

There were several occasions when we as a team could not agree on the war progress, which led to situations where we could not utilize our combined skills. Irregardless of our choices were right or wrong, we did not have the same view on the wars in the team, and I think we performed less than optimal. Compare this with the MM, diplomacy and research, where we where more aligned, and thus achieved much better results.

One other advantage with playing solo games is that the warmongering does not suffer from player handover, which is one of the more challenging parts of succession games. The gut feeling is vital in warfare, something you can't really get in SGOTM.

Mad Professor
Jul 20, 2008, 01:38 AM
But I think XTeam had artillery well before you? And were you taking cities before the PA? That's what is strange to me. XTeam started at PA with Asoka having just the 2 original cities. So if you started 30 turns later with just the 2 (or 3 or even 4) cities, and were slower to artillery, I'm not sure how you caught them, unless you were much more efficient after the PA which I would be interested in knowing why you were more efficient.

The key to answering these and related questions is not the date of PA or HE. We entered PA around T130-something then had quite a period of peace thereafter because we were not ready for war.

The key to answering these questions is "When did the potential PA partner start conquering more cities?" From this you can see that MW are way ahead, and finished first. Misfits also got their PA partner attacking earlier thna we did despite the PA signing dates being the other way around.

FiveAces
Jul 20, 2008, 02:17 AM
There were several occasions when we as a team could not agree on the war progress, which led to situations where we could not utilize our combined skills. Irregardless of our choices were right or wrong, we did not have the same view on the wars in the team, and I think we performed less than optimal. Compare this with the MM, diplomacy and research, where we where more aligned, and thus achieved much better results.

One other advantage with playing solo games is that the warmongering does not suffer from player handover, which is one of the more challenging parts of succession games. The gut feeling is vital in warfare, something you can't really get in SGOTM.

I think the main reason why there wasn't a consensus on the warfare decisions was they're not deductive (calculable). MM, diplo, research can all be calculated to figure out more or less exactly what we get and when, we weigh the costs/benefits individually, and since we're all pretty good civ players we usually come up with the same answer. But deciding whether we should DOW Alex or JC when we don't fully know any of the AI's strength/unit positions is much a more intuitive type of decision. We have to make assumptions. And when our assumptions are different, we will probably come up with different answers, and might make a decision that proves to be non-optimal, but there was no way to know this based on the information available at the time. Unfortunately I don't see any way to change this, except to make sure we've fully considered all options and what-ifs which should minimize the chance of a non-optimal decision.

To help with player handover during warfare, I suggest the closing of the turnset report be instructions as to how the completing player would play the next 1-5 turns: e.g. Move the stack towards city X and reinforce with cannon from city Y and attack city Z when both arrive etc. We can then discuss this as a team during the break between turnsets.

The key to answering these and related questions is not the date of PA or HE. We entered PA around T130-something then had quite a period of peace thereafter because we were not ready for war.

The key to answering these questions is "When did the potential PA partner start conquering more cities?" From this you can see that MW are way ahead, and finished first. Misfits also got their PA partner attacking earlier thna we did despite the PA signing dates being the other way around.

That explains it. I assumed you had started attacking at PA.

namliaM
Jul 20, 2008, 02:34 AM
But I think XTeam had artillery well before you? And were you taking cities before the PA? That's what is strange to me. XTeam started at PA with Asoka having just the 2 original cities. So if you started 30 turns later with just the 2 (or 3 or even 4) cities, and were slower to artillery, I'm not sure how you caught them, unless you were much more efficient after the PA which I would be interested in knowing why you were more efficient.

I havent read XTeam's thread in detail, but here goes...

Pre-PA Asoka had captured (in conquest order) Cuzco (bombed by a GA of Asoka, tho we didnt really notice this in game.... I just now noticed this), Athens, Sparta, Madrid, Hamburg and Berlin (8 cities total). At this point he was pretty damn close to be the most powerfull civ, with only Saladin and Catherine just ahead of him.
We were also up to Steel allready in 520 AD, this really helped us beeing confident in making war. Because both Asoka and we are fighting Cannons and Grens vs LBs from that point onwards. This meant we didnt stop to heal (much) and just kept on pushing.

We even waited (4 or 5 turns IIRC) to sign the PA untill we killed Fred, becuase I had something in my head about not taking PA while at war. I later found a post, after beeing urged by the team to find proof, someplace that if you make PA while at war the AI will think it is at peace, something about having "No warplan". We finaly signed PA on turn 163.

After the PA Asoka's lands devided the continent in 2. So we had 2 front wars, which not only worked for us, but Asoka was pretty helpfull too.
(Cities again in conquest order)
A southern (excisting) detachment taking on Antium => Rome => Beshbalik => Karakorum => Tiwanaku
And a new Northern stack taking Kyoto, New York (raze), Washington, York and London.
IIRC it was only around the time we captured Beshbalik or Karakorum that we noticed we had pop problems due to Cathy having capture Egypt, whom we never met. Had this not happened this could easily have saved us 6 or 7 turns for going overseas.

Xteam on turn 164 only had Washington, York and London (also razed New York), so allready at this turn where they had PA for a while and we only signed PA... we had 8 cities vs their 5 cities (not counting NY because that Razing was REAL easy for us, dont know how costly it was for XTeam).
This difference of 3 cities I guess they were unable to catch up to even with more advanced units. Most of the time for us, Misfits, was to slug thru culture where applicable (i.e. Antium => Rome, 4 or 5 turns IIRC) then Bombard and Kill all but one defender, then wait for Asoka to come and take it. Sometimes leaving only 2 or so attackers to kill fresh build units while the main stack(s) advanced on the next target.
The culture walks and the waiting on the AI dont change (much) even if you have Catapults and Axemen or Artillery and Sams.

Eventho they had Artillery at 164 they were mostly fighting LBs and such units. Cannons vs LBs or Artillery vs LBs, doesnt much matter IMHO.

One thing they do have going for them is they were able to "preserve" the cities much better than we could. I.e. Cuzco was squished by German and American culture and Madrid by Japanese, roman and German culture.
Both Cuzco and Madrid starved down to size 2 or even 1 before regrowing again :(

LowtherCastle
Jul 20, 2008, 05:33 AM
T177 may already be close to the upper limit for this map/scenario. I have studied what we did somewhat carefully, and I have found only one point where there is conceivable improvement, based on trying to be honest about what we knew and were thinking at the time. This would be classified as a missed opportunity. klarius warned us about HC sending a stack up to MW well in advance of it happening. No surprises there. The (missed) opportunity would have been planning to use that attack for our 10XP unit. It's conceiveable that we could have gotten HE sooner that way. I think we would have had to delay the lh or something like that.

I don't see any other 'honest' improvement to our game that could arguably gain us more than a turn or two.

LowtherCastle
Jul 20, 2008, 05:48 AM
The more I look at the various saves of different teams, the more I realize you really can't compare performances with Gnejsian dates. The RNG made our situations too different. We had a Hindu block up north, another team had a Jewish block. :crazyeye: We partnered with KK, no one else. :mischief:

At the same time, I think there are some useful lessons to be drawn by comparing the ways teams played, possibly with corresponding dates. A first example would be at what point did teams decide on their VC? You could hypothesize that the medal winners are those who firmed up their strategy the earliest.

In this light, we can see that klarius' scout was a POWER MOVE. I looked at CRC's T59 save and their lonely warrior still hadn't finished his Walkabout! Now for them, that's not a problem, because they're not going for domination. Our scout ensured that we met all AIs by T44 Alpha. This also meant that we had met most of those AIs recently so trading with them was cheaper (for those trades that get more expensive the longer you know someone). But even more important, he allowed us to determine that our continent had enough tiles for domination at an an extremely early date.

Knowledge is power. In this case, map knowledge.

FiveAces
Jul 20, 2008, 06:22 AM
I looked in CRC's Russian thread. My Russian is terrible, but from what I can decipher they have now played to IIRC 450AD without a lot of new issues. They are still trying to sort out the diplo ramifications of the last session posted here but haven't hit anything they consider impossible yet. I could not find a target victory date though, nor could I find any discussion of other team's progress but I only looked on the last couple pages.

namliaM
Jul 20, 2008, 06:49 AM
have now played to IIRC 450AD without a lot of new issues.

No 450 save on the progress page -yet-

FiveAces
Jul 20, 2008, 07:20 AM
No 450 save on the progress page -yet-

It's a partial (4 turns) report to 425AD. I ran it though a pretty decent web translator - They bribed Fred against Izzy, started on electricity, built another missionary, appear to have set up a caravel chain (might have been done earlier) and are now discussing something about buddhism impacting what they are doing with Fred and KK.

If you're curious this is the translator I used: http://www.online-translator.com/text_Translation.aspx

JerichoHill
Jul 20, 2008, 08:20 AM
But I think XTeam had artillery well before you? And were you taking cities before the PA? That's what is strange to me. XTeam started at PA with Asoka having just the 2 original cities. So if you started 30 turns later with just the 2 (or 3 or even 4) cities, and were slower to artillery, I'm not sure how you caught them, unless you were much more efficient after the PA which I would be interested in knowing why you were more efficient.

When you get the PA didn't matter so much as when you choose your future AI partner and started helping him take down other civs. Our stack was mainly cannons/cats/with a few stack defenders since collateral damage wasn't nerfed in vanilla civ.

In our game we were worried about Asoka becoming too powerful before we got enough shared war turns...

jesusin
Jul 20, 2008, 12:46 PM
In our game we were worried about Asoka becoming too powerful before we got enough shared war turns...

Why?
You know you can PA with the most powerful AI, don't you?

namliaM
Jul 20, 2008, 01:11 PM
Why?
You know you can PA with the most powerful AI, don't you?

No we thought you couldnt? Didnt test it tho... but we all thought we couldnt...

ChrisFromLux
Jul 20, 2008, 02:25 PM
Exactly!

I read in some team's thread, after the game, that you and your partner can't have more than 50% of the power of the world to form a PA?!?

daniel smith
Jul 20, 2008, 02:45 PM
That is correct.

JerichoHill
Jul 20, 2008, 04:04 PM
Why?
You know you can PA with the most powerful AI, don't you?

We held a mistaken belief

FiveAces
Jul 21, 2008, 03:30 AM
Yes a think a lot of the teams used WastinTime's OCC PA guide as a reference, which is excellent except for the key error about not being able to make a PA with the #1 AI.

ArcadicGamer
Jul 22, 2008, 05:19 PM
We held a mistaken belief

I dont believe it slowed us down on getting the PA, or changed our plans any. We just had that info in our head as we approached what we believed to be the ceiling. Us getting the PA after Germany was totally optimal for our situation, since we had run out of techs to bribe with anyway.

If anything we are 20 turns slower for a few reasons.
1. Not instigating any significant early wars.
2. Bad Luck with Cathy absorbing Egypt.
3. Bad luck with no-one wanting to take cities in our one set of early wars. This did give us asoka as our target partner, but 1 or 2 more cities even being threaten would have been nice.

Well played all round though.

Sweetacshon
Jul 23, 2008, 04:18 AM
Well done, Murky Waters, for another outstanding win, with an impressive 3787 posts. I'm not sure anyone can catch you with the short amount of time left. :)


Oh, and the 1170AD domination wasn't bad either.

WastinTime
Jul 23, 2008, 10:04 AM
You could hypothesize that the medal winners are those who firmed up their strategy the earliest.


Domination will beat SpaceRace for medals 99.99% of the time, no matter what setup. Even if the map were different, and forced you to get 10 tiles on the other continent, how much longer would you think that would have extended your game? Would it have changed your plan if our continent wasn't big enough?

I've enjoyed the OCC-Domination gauntlets in the past. I would have enjoyed doing it that way, but I couldn't waste this setup on Dom/conquest. Every SG (past and probably future) will give medals to conquest/domination unless the rules forbid it. For me this one had to be Diplo, SR, or if this had been BTS, culture for sure.

WastinTime
Jul 23, 2008, 10:37 AM
I forgot to say congrats! 11xxAD has to be a very good domination date. Hey, they should give a medal for the team that finished the most turns ahead of anyone else with the same victory condition. I think you guys are 20? ahead of the other domination attempts.

Erkon
Jul 23, 2008, 11:13 AM
Domination will beat SpaceRace for medals 99.99% of the time, no matter what setup. Even if the map were different, and forced you to get 10 tiles on the other continent, how much longer would you think that would have extended your game? Would it have changed your plan if our continent wasn't big enough?

I've enjoyed the OCC-Domination gauntlets in the past. I would have enjoyed doing it that way, but I couldn't waste this setup on Dom/conquest. Every SG (past and probably future) will give medals to conquest/domination unless the rules forbid it. For me this one had to be Diplo, SR, or if this had been BTS, culture for sure.

The hypothesis would perhaps be valid for each VC at least? We assumed that for a large enough continent, domination will be fastest, just as you state. That's why we wanted to know before alpha (i.e. before the wars started) if the tiles were enough. We didn't discuss how much longer it would take for our PA partner to capture land on Far Away because we decided to postpone that discussion until we knew the tile-count, but it would probably still be quicker than a Space Race. A race to space would surely have had devastating effects on our team morale though, since certain team members would have insisted that a few wars would have been needed anyway, while others would have started quite a bit more than a few :mischief:

I assume that the tile count was deliberate to enable all teams to win the game.

Balthalion
Jul 23, 2008, 11:59 AM
Another superb game guys. Great thread too. It is going to take a while to get through it all, but I will. :scan: Erkon, thanks for organizing the information so well. That makes it a lot easier.

We didn't discuss how much longer it would take for our PA partner to capture land on Far Away because we decided to postpone that discussion until we knew the tile-count, but it would probably still be quicker than a Space Race.
This would be an interesting problem to figure out. I don't think I could do it -- yet. Did anyone on your team actually get it to work at all in a test game?

A race to space would surely have had devastating effects on our team morale though, since certain team members would have insisted that a few wars would have been needed anyway, while others would have started quite a bit more than a few :mischief:
Bloody warmongers. :lol:

WastinTime
Jul 23, 2008, 01:18 PM
I assume that the tile count was deliberate to enable all teams to win the game.

Hmmm. I was thinking the tile count was a major blunder. I woulda bet money that a hand-crafted map would not have allowed single-continent world domination. Very dissappointing. I can understand a lazy design on a gauntlet that runs for 2 weeks, but this is 3 months! It's like we were playing different games. /rant Maybe the designer thought OCC domination was impossible (forgetting about the PA) and didn't give it a 2nd thought. Easy mistake to make. It was certainly fun either way, so I shouldn't be so hard on the designer. Thanks!

Y'all still woulda easily won the game even if you needed tiles on the other continent. It just woulda taken longer and would have made this a wonderfully balanced competition. That would have actually been very interesting...getting cities on the other land mass. It never came up in the gauntlets because you choose a friendlier map. I would love to read the war plans on that! Something new for sure. I don't suppose the next SG will be OCC-domination huh?

WastinTime
Jul 23, 2008, 01:21 PM
A race to space would surely have had devastating effects on our team morale though, since certain team members would have insisted that a few wars would have been needed anyway, while others would have started quite a bit more than a few :mischief:


This would have been a great strategy for SpaceRace. Use a war to make room for your PA partner to expand/tech faster. We didn't go that route. That's why I wish we were all on the same victory condition. I'd love to compare these approaches.

Gnejs
Jul 23, 2008, 01:30 PM
Hmmm. I was thinking the tile count was a major blunder. I woulda bet money that a hand-crafted map would not have allowed single-continent world domination. Very dissappointing. I can understand a lazy design on a gauntlet that runs for 2 weeks, but this is 3 months! It's like we were playing different games. /rant Maybe the designer thought OCC domination was impossible (forgetting about the PA) and didn't give it a 2nd thought. Easy mistake to make. It was certainly fun either way, so I shouldn't be so hard on the designer. Thanks!

Y'all still woulda easily won the game even if you needed tiles on the other continent. It just woulda taken longer and would have made this a wonderfully balanced competition. That would have actually been very interesting...getting cities on the other land mass. It never came up in the gauntlets because you choose a friendlier map. I would love to read the war plans on that! Something new for sure. I don't suppose the next SG will be OCC-domination huh?

I did this in one of my test games.( Dom with an ally on the other continent). If there are TWO continents it is probably not much slower. Our city grabs quite a lot of land if the nearest AI cities are razed. Another difference is that we could tech and trade like crazy on the starting continent and then bring the future ally a huge tech advantage over its neighbours. THREE continents is another story, but in the current game someone like Saladin could likely be conquered before T200.

culdeus
Jul 23, 2008, 02:23 PM
Two continents would have been impossible:

From MW's thread.

Edit2:
And a note for planning our campaigns.
Every leader, not just Freddy, will raze cities more than 9 distance from his nearest city after he is over 4 cities total.

If I'm reading that right that means that you'd have a really, really hard time getting your PA to hold onto a foreign port given the distance between them. I doubt the GOTM designers knew that and it would have been just as an epic screwup as the recent BOTM bug. Well, it wouldn't be impossible it would require the AI to settle there rather than capture.

But maybe I'm missing something on that post.

Gnejs
Jul 23, 2008, 03:15 PM
Two continents would have been impossible:

From MW's thread.

Edit2:
And a note for planning our campaigns.
Every leader, not just Freddy, will raze cities more than 9 distance from his nearest city after he is over 4 cities total.

If I'm reading that right that means that you'd have a really, really hard time getting your PA to hold onto a foreign port given the distance between them. I doubt the GOTM designers knew that and it would have been just as an epic screwup as the recent BOTM bug. Well, it wouldn't be impossible it would require the AI to settle there rather than capture.

But maybe I'm missing something on that post.

Will not raze the last city of an enemy, IIRC. But my point was it is better to get an ally on the other continent if the starting continent is too small. This can perhaps even work in the 3-continent case if the biggest continent plus the extra land around the OCC city is enough.
As contact is made around T100 one could still get a PA around T140 even for a overseas civ.

culdeus
Jul 23, 2008, 03:28 PM
Will not raze the last city of an enemy, IIRC. But my point was it is better to get an ally on the other continent if the starting continent is too small. This can perhaps even work in the 3-continent case if the biggest continent plus the extra land around the OCC city is enough.
As contact is made around T100 one could still get a PA around T140 even for a overseas civ.

Ah, meant to put that in our thread, but no matter. So I guess if you had to go abroad to get more land you'd try to knock down one AI to one city and get your buddy to take it. Then spread out from there via the 9 tile separation as required.

klarius
Jul 23, 2008, 11:25 PM
The 9-tile separation on one continent is a different case than overseas for razing. But still in both cases that doesn't mean always raze. There are various conditions when a distant city is not razed.
Most useful here probably:
A city with an active world wonder is not razed :D.

jesusin
Jul 24, 2008, 01:17 AM
Hmmm. I was thinking the tile count was a major blunder. I woulda bet money that a hand-crafted map would not have allowed single-continent world domination. Very dissappointing. I can understand a lazy design on a gauntlet that runs for 2 weeks, but this is 3 months! It's like we were playing different games. /rant Maybe the designer thought OCC domination was impossible (forgetting about the PA) and didn't give it a 2nd thought. Easy mistake to make. It was certainly fun either way, so I shouldn't be so hard on the designer. Thanks!




Hmmm. I was thinking that choosing a slow VC like Space was a major blunder. ;) Especially when the tile count allows for Domination.

I bet the map creator added those tiles to allow for domination and carefully
studied the city settling on the continent. IMO it is not a lazy design, but a reward for teams that scouted early enough to make an informed decision about their VC.

LowtherCastle
Jul 24, 2008, 02:40 AM
Hmmm. I was thinking the tile count was a major blunder. I woulda bet money that a hand-crafted map would not have allowed single-continent world domination. Very dissappointing. I can understand a lazy design on a gauntlet that runs for 2 weeks, but this is 3 months!With all due respect to you, I don't think Gyathaar would lower his standards to create a 'lazy design' under any circumstances. Imo, his map designs are of the highest quality and I suspect he's extremely deliberate about every decision he makes. Personally, I consider this one of the best maps ever for one simple reason: Very little was left to chance--we all knew in advance what we we starting with. In SG5 the winner researched AH first and got the horses. In SG6, the winner researched BW first and got the bronze. In SG7, it didn't matter what you researched first, no special advantage. This game was pure strategy and execution.

WastinTime, you may have missed these posts:Planning to have the next SGOTM in BtS, so waiting for the final BtS patch to come out before starting it
(unless the patch take a very long time.. then perhaps will make a vanilla SGOTM first.. dont know)Next SGOTM coming shortly. A vanilla quickie suit you guys, while we wait for Firaxis to do its thing?I was almost certain that our continent would allow domination if this was designed as a quickie. At the same time, I think Gyathaar also attempted to make it possible to go for a Diplo victory with competitive times, which CRC is demonstrating is possible. Making Space competitive may be extremely difficult.

In any case, we built a scout and mapped out the continent asap and were prepared to go DIplo.

FiveAces
Jul 24, 2008, 03:39 AM
With all due respect to you, I don't think Gyathaar would lower his standards to create a 'lazy design' under any circumstances. Imo, his map designs are of the highest quality and I suspect he's extremely deliberate about every decision he makes. Personally, I consider this one of the best maps ever for one simple reason: Very little was left to chance--we all knew in advance what we we starting with. In SG5 the winner researched AH first and got the horses. In SG6, the winner researched BW first and got the bronze. In SG7, it didn't matter what you researched first, no special advantage. This game was pure strategy and execution.

Yes I was very impressed by how the map was set up to minimize chance associated with religion founding - asoka and izzy on the same continent, with asoka positioned to plant a 2nd central city to found his religions to promote spread of the one he chose, and given extra commerce to ensure he founded jud and christ and likely islam if the status quo held. Meanwhile Izzy was given only her capital. Mansa on the other continent with IIRC marble to Oracle CoL for confu, but minimal food to grow to a diplo-blocking threat, and Saladin given space to grow pop and run theo as a clear diplo opponent for whichever religion he might manage to found. So basically the map allowed for a realistic shot at early religious-based diplo victory beating home-continent domination, which is exactly what CRC is attempting.

It didn't always work - I think in one game hindu was founded in NY (major bummer) and in one liz founded confu, but overall I'd say an excellent design to give a competitive alternate to domination.

WastinTime
Jul 24, 2008, 09:31 AM
I bet the map creator added those tiles to allow for domination and carefully
studied the city settling on the continent. IMO it is not a lazy design, but a reward for teams that scouted early enough to make an informed decision about their VC.

I already explained in other threads how I personally couldn't waste this nice game setup on domination/conquest, so that wasn't even on the table. I was just hoping the map designer tried to make other VC's competitive since Domination/conquest will win 99% of the time. If so much care was put into making the different VCs competitive as you say, why make the obvious choice (domination, 99% likely to win) even easier?

Scouting the continent had little to do with it. Domination was going to win this one (or at least be a very competitive choice) even if there weren't enough tiles on the home continent. I doubt many teams would have switched VC's if they were a couple tiles short.

Yes I was very impressed by how the map was set up to...

With all due respect to a wonderful map setup, I think you guys are giving him way too much credit. Maybe he'll chime in. Five Aces, all that stuff about religions, Izzy getting only 1 city, Asoka purposely getting 2, minimal food to block diplo?, Saladin given room to be the diplo opponent, and marble for Mansa, etc. I'd be surprised if any of that stuff was planned. It seems like just good ol' random CivIV goodness. I am prepared to apologize if the map really took that much work to set up.

LowtherCastle
Jul 24, 2008, 10:22 AM
With all due respect to a wonderful map setup, I think you guys are giving him way too much credit. Maybe he'll chime in. I wouldn't go so far as the religion stuff, but I think Gyathaar carefully set up the home area, including placing the mountains where they were, and also in terms of choosing relatively peaceful AIs as our immediate neighbors. My guess is he also stuck KK on our continent because he's ideal for the domination partner. And I think he set Sal apart from others to make Diplo more doable (as klarius suggested in our thread sometime ago). I"m not giving Gyathaar any more credit than that. And I doubt he'll chime in. He's humble.

Thank goodness that still allows for randomness of all sorts of stuff. For me the key factor was no strategic resource early on based our your research path.

JerichoHill
Jul 24, 2008, 10:27 AM
The mountains DEFINITELY were edited. You could completely mess up an AI's attack script code just by putting blocking units on 3 tiles. The AI would see their route was blocked, and rather attack your feeble axe with their mace, route around to sea, buying you enough time to build if need be due to an unexpected dow. We playtested so many of those scenarios due to our early game goals of 4 wonders (meaning very little military early on)

WastinTime
Jul 24, 2008, 10:48 AM
He may be humble, or he likes the god-like status y'all are attributing to him ;) and doesn't want to dispel that.

He's probably a very busy guy. I wouldn't blame him for a quickie setup, that's what I would've done! Don't think I'm claiming I'd do better. I wouldn't have done any of that stuff you described and just let CivIV randomness make an interesting situation instead of trying to engineer one. For example, having 3 friendly neighbors seems random to me. If some evil designer were tweaking every detail, I would expect at least 1 crazy neighbor.

Same goes for the other example of chosing AH or BW to get the key early resource. Seems random. Why would you design the game so it's hinges on whether a team chose Animal Husbandry or Bronze Working? Seems like you'd put both on the map to make it interesting (or better...neither --war mongering should never be made easier than it already is! Go and capture the resource you want instead of have it handed to you!)

I always assumed GOTM was just a random map (maybe tweak the starting position). SGOTM could be exactly the same and that's would be just fine, but I was thinking maybe it had a little more care put into it since it's 3 months long.

I'm obivously an SG noob. Gyathaar probably has a long history of clever game setups, and I'm going to sound like an idiot claiming all his hard work is just random Civ joy. :blush:

jesusin
Jul 25, 2008, 12:37 AM
If so much care was put into making the different VCs competitive as you say, why make the obvious choice (domination, 99% likely to win) even easier?


I haven't said that at all. I have said it was carefully engineered to make some expected VC dates veeery different, so that early scouting is rewarded with the right VC decision.

For my part I am sure the map creator tested how the game developped more than 50 times.

LowtherCastle
Jul 25, 2008, 02:43 AM
He may be humble, or he likes the god-like status y'all are attributing to him ;) and doesn't want to dispel that.

Same goes for the other example of chosing AH or BW to get the key early resource. Seems random. Why would you design the game so it's hinges on whether a team chose Animal Husbandry or Bronze Working? Seems like you'd put both on the map to make it interesting (or better...neither --war mongering should never be made easier than it already is! Go and capture the resource you want instead of have it handed to you!)Most likely, imo, Gyathaar just tries to stay above the fray and not influence the execution of the game. I've only seen him once comment on anything and that was last SG in which one team (Smurkz?) settled near the rice which then suffered jungle creep just before their worker arrived. The team was so upset, some were ready to quit, etc. After the game was over, Gyathaar provided the code that shows the RNG likelihood of jungle creep.

I think you misunderstood me on the last detail. I'm not suggesting Gyathaar intentionally tried to give an advantage to AH or BW in those previous two games. I'm just saying that SG7 was a nice change because there was no such advantage.

MW suffered the disadvantage in SG5 and benefitted in SG6. Either way, it's annoying. In SG7, no team that tried for fastest finish has any map excuses, imo.

Gyathaar
Jul 25, 2008, 04:55 AM
He may be humble, or he likes the god-like status y'all are attributing to him ;) and doesn't want to dispel that.

He's probably a very busy guy. I wouldn't blame him for a quickie setup, that's what I would've done! Don't think I'm claiming I'd do better. I wouldn't have done any of that stuff you described and just let CivIV randomness make an interesting situation instead of trying to engineer one. For example, having 3 friendly neighbors seems random to me. If some evil designer were tweaking every detail, I would expect at least 1 crazy neighbor.

Same goes for the other example of chosing AH or BW to get the key early resource. Seems random. Why would you design the game so it's hinges on whether a team chose Animal Husbandry or Bronze Working? Seems like you'd put both on the map to make it interesting (or better...neither --war mongering should never be made easier than it already is! Go and capture the resource you want instead of have it handed to you!)

I always assumed GOTM was just a random map (maybe tweak the starting position). SGOTM could be exactly the same and that's would be just fine, but I was thinking maybe it had a little more care put into it since it's 3 months long.

I'm obivously an SG noob. Gyathaar probably has a long history of clever game setups, and I'm going to sound like an idiot claiming all his hard work is just random Civ joy. :blush:

Some maps i have carefully crafted..in some cases I have even totaly handmade the map, and not even starting from a pre-gemerated one... but this not this one.. t
his was just one I threw together really fast because it turned out the BTS patch was taking much longer than planned.. I am surpriced teams are still playing the game :P

I did make some changes to the map.. the mountains are obvious.. and I added some health resources near starting position... also shaping the ice around the starting position so only one tile needed to be blocked by boats....

However.. the AIs and their starting positions was all up to the map generator ... the land surrounding them was partially modified thou... why? well.. the original map was much easier to get domination victory on... starting continent was like 120 tiles above the needed domination treshhold.. this is why some AIs are really cramped on starting continent, and have lots of room on other continent... I removed a lot of tiles from starting continent, and added a lot on the other continent.. mostly around saladin... I believe I added a full island or two aswell.

So why didnt I remove so many tiles that starting continent would not be enough for domination? Well.. reason was simply that I didnt have time to playtest the map properly, so I left enough room to be sure that atleast some teams would win.. since I wasnt sure how big potential the AIs on 2nd continent had for running away with the game.. :)

LowtherCastle
Jul 25, 2008, 06:36 AM
Uh oh. The secret is out.
if Murky really does have anything that maybe ought to be konsidered an unfair advantage, it's not luck -- it's Klarius. Who IS that guy??? :eek:

morpheus11
Jul 25, 2008, 06:57 AM
@ Gyathaar, I want to thank you for chiming in on the creation of the maps. I find this process very interesting.

Erkon
Jul 25, 2008, 07:10 AM
Uh oh. The secret is out.
I hope no-one brings up the topic of who's the unfair disadvantage :scared:

Erkon
Jul 25, 2008, 08:25 AM
...For my part I am sure the map creator tested how the game developped more than 50 times.

... reason was simply that I didnt have time to playtest the map properly...

EEEK! I wonder how many times a proper playtest would be? 200??? :eek:

:joke:

WastinTime
Jul 25, 2008, 09:43 AM
Some maps i have carefully crafted..in some cases I have even totaly handmade the map, and not even starting from a pre-gemerated one... but this not this one.. t
his was just one I threw together really fast because it turned out the BTS patch was taking much longer than planned.. I am surpriced teams are still playing the game :P

I did make some changes to the map.. the mountains are obvious.. and I added some health resources near starting position... also shaping the ice around the starting position so only one tile needed to be blocked by boats....

However.. the AIs and their starting positions was all up to the map generator ... the land surrounding them was partially modified thou... why? well.. the original map was much easier to get domination victory on... starting continent was like 120 tiles above the needed domination treshhold.. this is why some AIs are really cramped on starting continent, and have lots of room on other continent... I removed a lot of tiles from starting continent, and added a lot on the other continent.. mostly around saladin... I believe I added a full island or two aswell.

So why didnt I remove so many tiles that starting continent would not be enough for domination? Well.. reason was simply that I didnt have time to playtest the map properly, so I left enough room to be sure that atleast some teams would win.. since I wasnt sure how big potential the AIs on 2nd continent had for running away with the game.. :)

Whew, I thought I was really digging myself into a hole. Thx for the response. I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing together a map and letting CivIV create the drama. Other than our starting location, the only thing that felt tweaked was that our continent was more crowded. I would have expected a generated map to put more on the other side, but now you've explained how that came to be. Though unintentional, that turned out nice, cus it gave the other continent a chance to keep up with the action.

It appears that all teams are likely to win. I also thought that some would die early...(most likely us). So it seems that you won't need to be so protective in the future. Adding Mountains, having 1 tile water defense, and allowing single continent domination are all advantages that none of the teams apparently need to win even on Deity! So in the future you can be more evil. Look forward to seeing that.

LowtherCastle
Jul 25, 2008, 10:28 AM
Adding Mountains, having 1 tile water defense, and allowing single continent domination are all advantages that none of the teams apparently need to win even on Deity! So in the future you can be more evil. Look forward to seeing that.This begs the question: Was this scenario standard deity level? For me it wasn't even close. A lot more like Monarch (or maybe Emporer), because the AIs were so constricted.

WastinTime
Jul 25, 2008, 10:51 AM
This begs the question: Was this scenario standard deity level? For me it wasn't even close. A lot more like Monarch (or maybe Emporer), because the AIs were so constricted.

Very good observation. The AI was crippled in this scenario.
The next Diety game we may all die early. It will still be fun and educational though!

JerichoHill
Jul 25, 2008, 01:19 PM
I think the limited access points (again, I bring up how we exploited the AI attack scripts by putting in blocking units, allowing us to forgo military in our building phase) did help out.

Yamps
Jul 26, 2008, 03:42 PM
What, only 191 pages? ;) No problem, just need some :coffee: Summary explains a lot: conquest first, PA second. :thumbsup:

Great game as usual, congratulations!

Erkon
Jul 26, 2008, 04:38 PM
What, only 191 pages? ;) No problem, just need some :coffee: Summary explains a lot: conquest first, PA second. :thumbsup:

Great game as usual, congratulations!

I learned a trick from LC: change your settings to 40 posts/page, and you're down to 96 :goodjob:

Gnejs
Jul 27, 2008, 11:06 AM
Is it possible for some friendly soul to update my summary with the latest developments? I am on my cellphone from which I can only post, not edit old posts...

Erkon
Jul 27, 2008, 01:42 PM
... friendly soul ...

What made you think you would reach a target for your post in this thread? :lol:

Mad Professor
Jul 27, 2008, 06:10 PM
Very good observation. The AI was crippled in this scenario.
The next Diety game we may all die early. It will still be fun and educational though!

Absolutely. The AI being so crowded is a real advantage to the human player because the AI can't get that more normal Diety frightening tech pace going because of lack of room. Then add to that the advantages of a OCC (being able to build unlimited national wonders in one city for starters!) and you have a game that was not even close to what your "average" Deity game might be, as long as you can handle the diplomatic situation early on.

My performance when playing tests of this one is testimony to that - there's no way I'm even close to a Deity player, yet I managed to win test games just fine when we were testing early on.

culdeus
Jul 28, 2008, 08:46 AM
Are you guys able to follow the Russians? How are they doing?

IL2T
Jul 28, 2008, 09:00 AM
Are you guys able to follow the Russians? How are they doing?
CRC doesn't show any activity at own Russian forum. Looks like summer hibernation.

JerichoHill
Jul 28, 2008, 09:40 AM
Last I checked they had little posting activity, and their game hadn't progressed much. I know they hit a -1 modifier with someone

Erkon
Jul 30, 2008, 02:49 PM
Not related to the SGOTM series, but since no-one outside this community cares, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my team mates (and our guests if they care ;)) that I have won my first Deity single player game (warlords)!

:woohoo::dance::banana::smug:

I've submitted to the HOF site and I don't know what will happen after that. Perhaps another game :lol:

Yamps
Jul 30, 2008, 09:07 PM
Not related to the SGOTM series, but since no-one outside this community cares, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my team mates (and our guests if they care ;)) that I have won my first Deity single player game (warlords)!

:woohoo::dance::banana::smug:

I've submitted to the HOF site and I don't know what will happen after that. Perhaps another game :lol:

So, this means you didn't win any SGOTM test maps that your teammates made? :p

Erkon
Jul 31, 2008, 01:09 AM
So, this means you didn't win any SGOTM test maps that your teammates made? :p

Ahh, such sarcasm fits excellent into this thread! I trust you feel well at home here :lol:

No, I didn't even try their games :shifty:. I generated my own, which I played to get a feeling for what to expect, but I quit well before Communism. I then used my test game as a worst-case progress baseline :cry:

Yamps
Jul 31, 2008, 02:59 PM
So, this means you didn't win any SGOTM test maps that your teammates made? :p

Ahh, such sarcasm fits excellent into this thread! I trust you feel well at home here :lol:

No, I didn't even try their games :shifty:. I generated my own, which I played to get a feeling for what to expect, but I quit well before Communism. I then used my test game as a worst-case progress baseline :cry:

Yeah, pleasant environment! :cool:

Winning one practice SGOTM map of my own was my first deity win. :king: That was a late space launch, but that was used as a very good reference at the time. :lol:

Love those klarifications here, keep on the good work! :thumbsup: Btw, maybe Klarius could write some BtS klarifications before the next SGOTM begins? :D

Gnejs
Jul 31, 2008, 04:35 PM
I have finally updated my team comparison (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7043582&postcount=3720) with some of hte more recent finishes. I hope I haven't forgotten anything. If your team is missing info then please provide it to me and maybe I will get around to enter it. :)

oyzar
Jul 31, 2008, 05:06 PM
I have finally updated my team comparison (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7043582&postcount=3720) with some of hte more recent finishes. I hope I haven't forgotten anything. If your team is missing info then please provide it to me and maybe I will get around to enter it. :)

Nice work. It is nice to see that we were first in the things we actually cared about in our discussions even if it were the wrong things we cared about... Missing chopping trees towards the end(or actually earlier) was pretty bad, but obviously alot of other things also slowed us down.. It is not so much the klarius advantage but the fact that you plain put down more effort than us. We never tested much in alpha vs early mids, we kinda just went with the gut feeling there. We never tested early war vs later war and we never calculated much about production with chopping or which AI to ally with. Heck even our early buildorder was probably wrong(yet another time early scouting is oh so crucial...).

mikeyredk
Jul 31, 2008, 08:23 PM
I have finally updated my team comparison (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7043582&postcount=3720) with some of hte more recent finishes. I hope I haven't forgotten anything. If your team is missing info then please provide it to me and maybe I will get around to enter it. :)

What do you need to know ill help in filling it out for you

LowtherCastle
Aug 04, 2008, 10:49 AM
Smurkz has stopped at T184 and will get a T186 diplo victory. :goodjob: Pretty damn close to ours, if you ask me. Congrats to Smurkz and to Gyathaar on setting up a map that could almost be won by diplo rather than domination.

Niklas
Aug 04, 2008, 11:55 AM
Thanks LtC! :thanx:

Though I think this game could definitely have been won faster on diplo than what we did. CRC might beat you yet. ;)

LowtherCastle
Aug 04, 2008, 12:01 PM
Thanks LtC! :thanx:

Though I think this game could definitely have been won faster on diplo than what we did. CRC might beat you yet. ;)Absolutely. I wanted to add that to my last post. If CRC can figure out how to speed it up the way you guys did, we're in trouble. :cool: I want gold, but I wouldn't mind seeing a best diplo beat a best domination. That would be a nice change of pace.

Mastiff_of_Ar
Aug 04, 2008, 12:07 PM
Anyone watching what CRC is doing?

Renata
Aug 04, 2008, 12:27 PM
Congrats to Murky on your probable victory. :)

JerichoHill
Aug 04, 2008, 01:13 PM
CRC has been dormant for many days now on their forums. Basically a good many of their roster went AWOL

Niklas
Aug 04, 2008, 07:23 PM
IMPORTANT DATES AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Smurkz data:
Alphabet: 58
Pyramids: 48
Great Library: 72

Oxford: 111


Turn 1000 stats:
Units built: 5 land + 5 sea (+ 1 worker + 4 workboats, in case you count those too)
Total buildings: 12 improvements plus the wonders below
World Wonders: 2
National Wonders: 3

No of own wars: 1 (+1 phoney)
No of total wars: 6

Great people spawned: 8

Niklas
Aug 06, 2008, 02:06 AM
I posted an issue in our thread that had me baffled during the game, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7111081&postcount=1131). I would really appreciate if someone could give me the answer to that, and I'm guessing this thread is the most likely place to find that someone... :)

LowtherCastle
Aug 06, 2008, 03:11 AM
I posted an issue in our thread that had me baffled during the game, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7111081&postcount=1131). I would really appreciate if someone could give me the answer to that, and I'm guessing this thread is the most likely place to find that someone... :)For starters, somewhere in our thread klarius said that the rolls can only be 0,1, or 2, if I'm not mistaken.

Skim through our thread and download one of his spreadsheets for the AI attitudes and I bet you'll figure it out. (The specifics will be different, of course, but you can se how he calculated the stuff.)

Erkon
Aug 06, 2008, 11:11 AM
Niklas, you can find the link in this post:

Well here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=181554&d=1214758696) is he latest update (didn't really care towards the end :D).

Niklas
Aug 06, 2008, 11:32 AM
Thanks a lot LC, Erkon and klarius. Though now I'm even more confused than before. klarius' calculations are identical to my own (the how of it, if not the exact numbers of course, including how rank modifiers are handled). And with only 0, 1 and 2 as possible rolls, it would be even harder to fulfil the constraints I posted. :crazyeye:

But what that spreadsheet doesn't tell is how you reached the random peace weight factors. Care to enlighten me on that too? Though I may come upon it anyway, I'm reading through your whole thread, though you guys talk a lot so it'll take me a while. :D

klarius
Aug 06, 2008, 12:26 PM
But what that spreadsheet doesn't tell is how you reached the random peace weight factors. Care to enlighten me on that too? Though I may come upon it anyway, I'm reading through your whole thread, though you guys talk a lot so it'll take me a while. :D
I just updated the spread sheet for every save posted, looked for contradictions and adjusted the peace rand. After some time I didn't find contradictions anymore :D.
And I still don't see where the problem was at the time you pointed to in your game. Looks all fine to me.

Niklas
Aug 06, 2008, 12:50 PM
I'll dig up my old notes and spell it out then, and you can point out my error.

Meanwhile, reading back in your thread, I came across the following:
Resources can help. It's not just turns that count, but turns*number_of_resources. Swapping resources is already 2 resources involved. So it's better for the counter to receive a useless (e.g. health early) resource than gifting. But gifting would count towards the peaceTimeGrantCounter for fair trade.
I can safely say that this is not true, not sure if you figured that out too during the game. Only the resources the AI gets from you are counted, not the ones you receive back. (The two different blocks in the getNumTradeBonusImports are just to account for when the AIs are the first or second player counted in a particular deal.)

Glad to be able to contribute something for once. ;)

Gnejs
Aug 06, 2008, 12:55 PM
Smurkz data:
Alphabet: 58
Pyramids: 48
Great Library: 72

Oxford: 111


Turn 1000 stats:
Units built: 5 land + 5 sea (+ 1 worker + 4 workboats, in case you count those too)
Total buildings: 12 improvements plus the wonders below
World Wonders: 2
National Wonders: 3

No of own wars: 1 (+1 phoney)
No of total wars: 6

Great people spawned: 8

Thanks Niklas, I have updated the summary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7043582&postcount=3720) with your data. Great game, btw! :goodjob:

Niklas
Aug 06, 2008, 01:09 PM
Hmm, I think I spotted my error when comparing with your notes. I had set the AI's handicap to 0, I must have read the wrong entry for Noble. If there's another -1 between all the AIs, that would make many of the constraints much easier to fulfill. Stupid error on my part. :hammer2: Thanks for helping out! :)

Niklas
Aug 06, 2008, 03:17 PM
Will a camped warrior prevent forest creep?

Will forest ever creep to a tile with unrevealed horsies?

Mais oui, Monsieur.

Don't you remember the Smurkz SG6 complaints about their jungle-crept rice? It's one of the few times I remember that Gyathaar, as map creator, felt obliged to address players' concern with code and explanation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6591359&postcount=1116).
The answer to Erkon's first question is yes, as Gyathaar shows in the post linked to by LC. But the answer to Erkon's second question is no - forest can never creep onto horses (or copper, iron and a bunch of other strategic resources). ShannonCT tested that regarding Copper, and I later verified it in the code. The relevant information can be found in CIV4BonusInfos.xml, under the "FeatureBooleans" category.

I've sworn never to end up in that situation again, so I've read up. ;)

EDIT: Right, I should have known that klarius had already answered that, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6761444&postcount=227). :)

Reading on... :coffee:

Erkon
Aug 07, 2008, 12:34 AM
Happy reading Niklas! Only 3620 posts left to read. Oops, I mean 3621 :lol:

As you may have noticed, we typically brainstorm a lot before the PPP's are written, then we post suggested improvements to the PPP. So most of our posts are obsoleted very quickly :cry:

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 02:19 AM
Hehe, thanks! That's really how Smurkz has historically played too, though maybe not as, umm, extreme as yours. ;)

Sadly for this game too many of our players had issues and dropped out, leaving more or less only me and Renata to do the brainstorming. That made it a lot easier to do it on IM instead, which was fun too. But at any rate, it's the brainstorming that makes for the interesting reading, as that's where I find the nuggets of information and strategy that I didn't previously know about. :)

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 04:35 AM
Present with words (not only numbers) the characteristics of Tokugawa, Elizabeth, Asoka and Washington.

I'll give it a try: Tokugawa does normally not want to trade away techs that are not already known by most AI. On the other hand, once you're friendly with him, he will trade even monopoly techs. He is pretty aggressive, and disliked by most, especially ??? (dang, where's the chart when I need it!).
Nobody took you up on your challenge eh? Pity. But let me clarify what you wrote about Tokugawa here.

Tokugawa never trades away techs that are not already known to all AI. On the other hand, once you're friendly with anyone at all, including Tokugawa, that someone will trade even monopoly techs (unless there's a wonder attached that they have in their queue somewhere).

:)

Erkon
Aug 07, 2008, 05:03 AM
Nobody took you up on your challenge eh? Pity. But let me clarify what you wrote about Tokugawa here.

Tokugawa never trades away techs that are not already known to all AI. On the other hand, once you're friendly with anyone at all, including Tokugawa, that someone will trade even monopoly techs (unless there's a wonder attached that they have in their queue somewhere).

:)

One reason we perform well is that my team mates have learned to ignore most of what I write :D

I'm afraid your clarification contains contradictions, since the first sentence is only true if the second sentence is considered. And your second sentence can not be true if the first sentence is true :crazyeye:

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 05:24 AM
:lol: Right you are! :crazyeye:

Ok, to clarify, the second sentence takes precedence. Tokugawa never trades away techs that are not already known to all AI unless Friendly, at which point he will trade away everything just like everyone else would. Also, unless at least Pleased, he won't trade techs that everyone else knows either.

In numbers, his TechRefuseAttitudeThreshold is Cautious (must exceed to consider trading at all, otherwise you get "We just don't like you enough"), and he is the only one with that high threshold. His iTechTradeKnownPercent is 100 (that many of his other contacts must have the tech, otherwise you get "We don't want to start trading away...").

To contrast, Mansa's TechRefuseAttitudeThreshold is Furious, and his iTechTradeKnownPercent is 0 (which means he will trade you monopoly techs even at Annoyed). Gandhi and Cathy actually have threshold None, but require that 20% of their contacts know a tech before trading it.

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 09:10 AM
BTW, the extra representation beakers for specialists aren't even amounting for 1 GS bulb in this game, probably.
I made a quick count in my excel sheet. It's probably not 100% correct, but close enough. The calculation for each turn was:
INTEGER(3*nrSpec*beakerMod*prereqMod)
The extra representation beakers then amount to roughly 8400, which is ~5.5 GS bulbs. :smug:

Gnejs
Aug 07, 2008, 11:44 AM
I made a quick count in my excel sheet. It's probably not 100% correct, but close enough. The calculation for each turn was:
INTEGER(3*nrSci*beakerMod*prereqMod)
The extra representation beakers then amount to roughly 8400, which is ~5.5 GS bulbs. :smug:

I think you may want to revisit that calculation. Here is my quickie:

Pyramids gets us an additional 100 turns of representation, which adds 3 beakers per specialist. Lets assume that we get the full 200% bonus (library,academy,uni,oxford) for all 100 turns. That makes it 900 beakers gained per specialist. Where you by some chance running 9 specialists continuously for the whole game? :p:lol: (ok, add the 20% prereq bonus and it gets a little bit better, but not much).

Compare that with the lesser trade value from a later Alphabet, not getting the bureaucracy bonus to the raw beakers as compared to raw commerce, and slower growth from running more specialists and fewer food tiles, and I think it is possible that the Pyramids even slowed down research. It is difficult to compare our games since we were so focused on getting one unit built per turn. But otherwise I am sure that we could have reached Mass Media at a comparable date.

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 12:05 PM
Ok, I'll revisit the calculation:

We were in Representation for roughly 120 productive turns. During those turns we were running an average of 5.84 specialists. We had Oxford from turn 112, meaning roughly 60 turns of at least 300%, but we also had Observatory from turn 118 and Monastery/Free Religion/Both from turn 127, for 335-345%. Before Oxford, our average was 3.87 specialists per turn (counting from Library on). After Oxford and until the end of our research spell and switch to HR, our average was 10.19 specialists per turn.

Also, you're neglecting the (at least) +20% bonus prerequisite bonus that goes outside the base beaker modifiers (those from Library etc).

10 scientists for 60 turns, with a beaker modifier of 3.35 and a prereq bonus of 1.2 is 7236 extra beakers.

It's true that the last 20 or so of those turns we actually had Constitution too, so we could have run Representation then regardless of Pyramids. But to simply remove the last 20 turns from the calculation is a bit faulty, since obviously we got to that point faster due to having Representation early (though beelining Alphabet like you did is another way to speed up the way there, of course).

Good enough for you? :p

EDIT: Maybe I should point out that many of the specialists were settled GP, so we weren't actually running 11 scientists in our towns. The most actual scientists we ever had was 7 (including the 2 from GLib), but at the end we also had 6 settled GSs and one settled GM (from Economics).

klarius
Aug 07, 2008, 12:14 PM
This game is meant to be our game, where we generated only 4 GP total and didn't intend to go beyond communism.

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 12:19 PM
This game is meant to be our game, where we generated only 4 GP total and didn't intend to go beyond communism.
Yes, of course, I never meant to imply that you meant anything else. I just wanted to give a comparison to our game and our strategy, in which I would argue that going the Pyramids route was preferable. (Of course we did run the risk of being attacked early since we didn't foment wars, but we were blissfully unaware of that :D).

klarius
Aug 07, 2008, 12:28 PM
There is still another point lacking in your calculation. That's not working coast and cottages when having scientists.
With a bureaucratic capital that reduces the advantage of representation scientists quite a bit.

Niklas
Aug 07, 2008, 01:28 PM
Oh certainly, and I'm definitely not trying to argue that we got 8500 beakers more than we otherwise would - only that that's what Representation gave us. We did run cottages and coastal tiles too, while we still had the incentive to grow. The scientists were run on top of that, thanks to the food available.

But really, it's not one thing in isolation that makes me think we did the right thing with the Pyramids. It's really the synergy between that and running Pacificm+NE to generate a lot of GS for settling. Each settled GS generated 9 bpt, same as a town under Bureaucracy (pre-PP). And the extra happiness from Representation allowed us to go CS before bothering about Drama and Globe (and if only some AI could have researched MC in time, we could have waited even longer :mad:).

All in all I'm still convinced that Pyramids and Representation was preferable for our game, for the strategy we opted for, with long-term research. The fact that you beat us to Education and Liberalism by a few turns should undeniably be attributed to your superior execution. :) or should I say our fumbling around without a clear goal...

Renata
Aug 07, 2008, 01:41 PM
What, you mean "get to mass media at some point and somehow get everyone to vote for us" isn't a clear goal? :D

All I know is that as someone who's never even managed to beat Monarch on her own, hitting 700+ beakers per turn near the end was FUN!

LowtherCastle
Aug 07, 2008, 04:49 PM
The fact that you beat us to Education and Liberalism by a few turns should undeniably be attributed to your superior execution. :) or should I say our fumbling around without a clear goal... In our pre-game Pyramid testing, Representation and settling GS'es didn't get us to Communism faster. It just got us to later techs faster, which is what you folks wanted. It's not just the human bpt rate, it's also techs you get for free in trading. That's the main reason we didn't have any motivation to tech faster or build more GPs. We preferred to start warring asap and invest in more hammers.

It's even possible that we could have gone for Construction earlier and built a bunch of early cats, but we needed the :) from our theatre, so probably not.

klarius
Aug 07, 2008, 07:33 PM
Well, CRC is playing again.
I took their latest save and played it to an easy T182 win (340/310 votes). Though they will probably not have as many mutual struggle points as I had :D, they should win it anyway. I played a bit sloppy when attacked by Alex (let him pillage the marble), so maybe T178 is still doable for them.

Renata
Aug 07, 2008, 08:32 PM
How did you get to mass media so fast? They have no scientists, no cottages, aren't running representation, free market, or free religion for extra research, and don't have corporation yet ... I was in the middle of trying to see how fast they could get to mass media if they switched to maximum possible research *right now* when my computer croaked (literally; hoping it was "just" the power supply :wallbash:), so I didn't get to finish what I was looking at, but first glance didn't look like they could make it that quickly, especially since the pending war declaration makes it less likely they'll focus fully on research for a while. Obviously I missed something.

Niklas
Aug 08, 2008, 02:14 AM
Well, they are basically 14 turns ahead of us in research to Physics so they do have some leeway. :shifty:

Gah, a 182 (or 178) win is really the worst possible. I wouldn't really mind the bronze if it meant a diplo game beat the domination games, but it they aren't going to win anyway then better they finish behind us. :cry: :p

Gee, we minimized our score towards the end to stay in the bottom half. Let's hope it doesn't come to a tie where they beat us in that regard. :wallbash:

Gnejs
Aug 08, 2008, 02:34 AM
Niklas, I think our maximum science output was close to 400 beakers per turn before we switched away from commerce tiles to production tiles (and LC got us to whip away our pop and bulldoze our cottages, all in the name of "one unit per turn"... ;)). This probably happened sometime before T120, but let us assume that we decided to tech for Mass Media instead of Communism upon discovering SciMet on T126. The techs we then needed would cost 25800 beakers (Physics,Electricity,Radio,Mass Media), less a lightbulb using our idle GA and another one using the free Physics scientist. So some 23000 beakers. Even at status quo (no cottage growth, no new cottages, no new trade routes, no observatory, no new great people) this would take 23000/400 = 57.5 turns. In other words, Mass Media on T184. IIRC correctly you got it on T173.

And there is plenty of room for improvement on that too. The observatory alone would gain us some 5 turns. At size 14 working 5 coastal tiles, 5 cottages, deer, sheep, fur, marble we have 8 food surplus that could be used for e.g. representation specialists. In our game, Saladin adopts Representation on T127 so I assume we could have traded for Constitution pretty soon afterwards I we had wanted to.
Add in 3 representation scientists from T140 and another artist spawned and we get to Mass Media on T171.


But of course, we would likely have had way too few friends for a Diplo victory. Unless klarius could set up enough wars for us to remove that little obstacle.. :lol:

Renata
Aug 08, 2008, 03:25 AM
Oh, that's what I missed; I forgot they had the observatory cued up to finish in a couple of turns.

Oh well, at least the computer's not actually dead. (yet?)

Niklas
Aug 08, 2008, 03:44 AM
...let us assume that we decided to tech for Mass Media instead of Communism upon discovering SciMet on T126. The techs we then needed would cost 25800 beakers (Physics,Electricity,Radio,Mass Media), less a lightbulb using our idle GA and another one using the free Physics scientist. So some 23000 beakers. Even at status quo (no cottage growth, no new cottages, no new trade routes, no observatory, no new great people) this would take 23000/400 = 57.5 turns. In other words, Mass Media on T184. IIRC correctly you got it on T173.
Well, let's assume that we decided to tech for Mass Media instead of fooling around upon discovering SciMet on T126. :rolleyes:

We could have had SciMet on T126, but we switched it out to fool around with other totally unnecessary techs (while keeping GLib and Monastery alive), only returning to complete it on T143. And from that we indeed got Mass Media T173. Of course it wouldn't have taken only 30 turns starting from T126, but maybe 35? That means T161 - and in hindsight I totally understand klarius' :eek: that we would deliberately delay research since we didn't think we'd have the relations. :hammer2:

EDIT: Actually, if we hadn't bothered to learn Gunpowder, we could have used our free Physics GS on Electricity as was the plan. Now we had to settle him instead, which cost us a few turns too. :( But then there was of course Kublai, and a bunch of others who needed elimination, and gifting Gunpowder and Chemistry (and later Rifling) around sure helped there. So in theory we definitely could have arrived at Mass Media a lot faster - but there's no telling if we would have managed to win any votes then.

Niklas
Aug 08, 2008, 03:53 AM
In our pre-game Pyramid testing, Representation and settling GS'es didn't get us to Communism faster. It just got us to later techs faster, which is what you folks wanted. It's not just the human bpt rate, it's also techs you get for free in trading. That's the main reason we didn't have any motivation to tech faster or build more GPs. We preferred to start warring asap and invest in more hammers.
Exactly my point too. I'm not saying you should have played it any differently - you definitely shouldn't have! I think the results from the different Domination wins of different teams speak for themselves. Your strategy of going for Alphabet first was quite simply better - and you executed it better too, and in the end have a 20 turn margin to the second fastest Domination win.

But for us, who didn't need all the hammers and could run a lot of scientists instead, I still think that we made the right choice. Our execution of it could have been a lot better though. :)

LowtherCastle
Aug 08, 2008, 04:44 AM
Gee, we minimized our score towards the end to stay in the bottom half. Let's hope it doesn't come to a tie where they beat us in that regard. :wallbash:
Not to worry on that account. From AlanH's C-IV SGOTM Reference Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168439):

The Gold, Silver and Bronze Laurels are awarded to the members of the three teams that abide by the variant rules and achieve the prescribed victory condition in the fewest turns. In the event of a tie then the award will go to the members of all the teams involved in the tie.There were several ties the last time we played for diplo. (SG3) And the way AlanH does it, that's favorable to the team behind you guys, because then they get the bronze.

Niklas
Aug 08, 2008, 04:48 AM
Ah, great, thanks for the clarification! I just assumed that the rules would be the same as for the Civ3 SGOTMs. That's one less thing to worry about at least. :)

Gnejs
Aug 08, 2008, 06:16 AM
This is interesting and sort of reflects the CE vs SE economy debates. Though here we three have distinct strategies:

Alpha beeline + high commerce (MW)
Pyramids + settled specialists (Smurkz)
Pyramids + lightbulbing (CRC)

In my comparison we seem to reach Education at almost the same time with Smurkz lagging just a few turns, and I guess all three of us made minimal deviations from the Education beeline. After this (or even slightly before) we in MW deprioritized research so it is difficult to extend the comparison using the actual game developments. But assuming that we would have continued to focus on max research, at what point would your accumulated beakers have surpassed ours? And when would you have passed CRC? And would our more mature cottages, post-representation scientists, and lightbulbs have put us ahead of CRC at some point and even made us close the gap to you again?


I think we can come up with answers to all these questions since it is pretty straightforward to predict the beaker output for all three approaches. The only unknown is the tech trading, but if we start from T100 we are all almost equally advanced so we can probably neglect that one too.

WastinTime
Aug 10, 2008, 05:40 PM
Alpha beeline + high commerce (MW)
Pyramids + settled specialists (Smurkz)
Pyramids + lightbulbing (CRC)

In my comparison we seem to reach Education at almost the same time with Smurkz lagging just a few turns,

But MW (maybe) lightbulbed education. You'd need to figure that in to get a meaningful answer. If you're interested, Fifth Element's goal was to prioritize the Academy over alphabet, which got us first to civil service by turn 84. and we did not lightbulb Edu which could save something like 10 turns. We had some really bad luck though, we lost the Fur tile for a while to culture problems (no religion spread, early religion for George). Even with the problems, I think we could've had Edu before turn 95 if we wanted to bulb it.

FiveAces
Aug 14, 2008, 08:12 AM
Well guys I go on vacation for 2 weeks without internet access, come back and check to see the final standings, fully expecting us to have the gold in hand only to find we got beat! :( Well hats off to CRC, they played a great game and earned it.

One question for you guys though to try to help improve our play - did we not put enough effort into the diplo/dom decision? I think the extent of it was LC's observation that diplo required more techs and my response that dom was theoretically possible the turn after the PA, but we never did any testing or even reasoning on whether a great diplo could beat a great dom. In fact thinking back, we never estimated a "safe" date to shoot for which might have impacted some of our decisions. Or it might not have. I'm probably overanalyzing since I'm bummed we didn't get gold. Oh well we still played a great game and can't wait for next one (yes I will definitely install BTS for it ;) )

LowtherCastle
Aug 14, 2008, 08:33 AM
Diplo schmiplo. We surely had way more fun.

It is an interesting question, though. Whether to take the controlled route of diplo or the wild route of getting an AI to dominate. Gyathaar made a good set-up.

Erkon
Aug 14, 2008, 02:24 PM
I was convinced and I am still convinced that a great dom will/would beat a great diplo. We just did not execute the wars good enough. No blame against anyone intended.

I think it would be easier for us to agree on the progress in a diplo game, compared to a warfare game. We had lots of disputes, and on several occasions we did not agree on the progress. I imagine we would have disputes in a diplo game as well, but diplo is easier to predict than warfare. Just a thought...

Gnejs
Aug 15, 2008, 12:17 AM
I was convinced and I am still convinced that a great dom will/would beat a great diplo. We just did not execute the wars good enough. No blame against anyone intended.

I think it would be easier for us to agree on the progress in a diplo game, compared to a warfare game. We had lots of disputes, and on several occasions we did not agree on the progress. I imagine we would have disputes in a diplo game as well, but diplo is easier to predict than warfare. Just a thought...
I agree on the Domination path being the one that have the potential for the earliest victory. We figured a victory being possible at the PA date, around T130-T135, while the earliest possible Diplomatic is probably less than 10 turns earlier than what CRC managed.

Now we did a very good job in our game, evidenced by the margin with which we beat the other domination teams. But I still think we could have done a lot better. Check these figures:

Wars started T46
Cities captured by KK:
Tiwanaku T49
(Kyoto captured by Asoka T75)
Berlin T84
(Cuzco captured by JC T90)
Sparta T101
Antium T123
Madrid T133

PA on T135
Cities captured by KK:
Athens T142
Hamburg T143
Kyoto T150
Bombay T152
Delhi T157
York T160
Cuzco T160
London T163
Washington T170
New York T170

Victory on T177

I think the critical events are those that happen before the PA. Having KK at 7 cities on T135 was a big disappointment, but we didn't really manipulate the situation in the best way, did we? Just one or two extra cities to KK before the PA could easily mean ten or more turns on the finish date.

LowtherCastle
Aug 15, 2008, 01:31 AM
I still think some sort of beelining cats is the only way to significantly alter the outcome, other than luck, even if it means delaying the PA by many turns. Maybe use that 1st GS on the academy.

EDIT: One other serious possibility would be teaming with Asoka. He was so far ahead in tech that he could have seriously beaten down on some AIs before they became more advanced. SInce the AIs are programmed to build culture after capturing cities when surrounded by other culture ( I didn't realize this in advance), we didn't really need KK's extra 2 culture, I don't think.

morpheus11
Aug 15, 2008, 07:14 AM
Wasn't one of the reasons that you teamed up with KK b/c of he often built suicide units and would then be more likely to attack cities? Wouldn't teaming up with Asoka slowed down your domination b/c it would be harder to get him to attack cities?

It seems like the other teams all teamed up with Asoka b/c he techs really fast. But, they couldn't get domination as fast as you guys. I guess the question would be how much did KK play a part in your domination? Could you have had the same results if that was any AI?

LowtherCastle
Aug 15, 2008, 12:44 PM
Wasn't one of the reasons that you teamed up with KK b/c of he often built suicide units and would then be more likely to attack cities? Wouldn't teaming up with Asoka slowed down your domination b/c it would be harder to get him to attack cities?

It seems like the other teams all teamed up with Asoka b/c he techs really fast. But, they couldn't get domination as fast as you guys. I guess the question would be how much did KK play a part in your domination? Could you have had the same results if that was any AI?Yes, though, klarius said that that factor wasn't all that significant. I think other teams started warring too late. Knowing how to keep the AI in offensive mode is probably enough to work Asoka effectively.

Erkon
Aug 29, 2008, 01:02 AM
Sign up thread for next game is up.

fizbankovi
Aug 30, 2008, 03:55 AM
well done guys. I always read your sgotm games, keep up the good work!

Murky
Aug 30, 2008, 08:56 AM
Congrats on the win. :goodjob: Good luck with the next one.

oyzar
Aug 30, 2008, 09:56 AM
Congrats on the win. :goodjob: Good luck with the next one.

They didn't win, they got second.

Gosha190
Sep 02, 2008, 01:57 AM
They didn't win, they got second.

but they didn't lost the game... So they WIN! :D

LowtherCastle
Aug 18, 2013, 06:36 PM
boo!!!

neilmeister
Aug 18, 2013, 08:02 PM
boo!!!

Have you forgotten to take your pills again? :mischief: