okay, on chieftain someone ''won'' the game in 3000 bc, sure, i won in 1350 ad because i was waiting for knights

This IS INSANE, some ''won on diety by 2500 bc, hopefully 2k fixes this, or i might not want to play game of the week:mad:

They were both from austrailia, so i think there might be something wrong with the server, or the game

I've seen that. I wonder what they're doing to get those wins so early.

i think domination rushing, but thats way fast!

They're also probably nerfing the first few GOTWs since it's a new game. :mischief:

Personally, I found the GOTW to be harder than a normal single-player game. Maybe I'm just not using the Spanish right.

This was not a hack. It is possible to win the game as early as some of these guys are. You have to figure out how yourself though, but no cheats involved. This was already looked into by 2K previously.

This was not a hack. It is possible to win the game as early as some of these guys are. You have to figure out how yourself though, but no cheats involved. This was already looked into by 2K previously.

warriors couldnt possibly move fast enough to get to one of the capitols in 10 turns, theres NO WAY

This was not a hack. It is possible to win the game as early as some of these guys are. You have to figure out how yourself though, but no cheats involved. This was already looked into by 2K previously.
Do you have a 2k source for what they looked into? I find the scores highly suspicious.
For example the current number 1 on Deity finished in 2500BC (with Domination) that is in 15 turns. The 4 AIs are disposed in a sort of star pattern with the farthest (Saladin) at 16 regions distance (there are two at 12 regions -Bismark and Tokugawa- and one at 7 regions -Elizabeth-). On Deity the AI starts with 1 warrior (at least.. they might have other bonuses.. for example I am under the strong impression that they start with Bronze Working .. hence archers). Elizabeth has archers (Longbowmen) with +1 defense. Saladin is Fundamentalist wich means +1 attack. Bismark has elite warriors.
From the description above it appears clear that Saladin cannot be conquered with Warriors (not enough time to travel) so that means one needs at least one Horsemen (the only possible unit with 2 moves in the available time frame). Also because of the star pattern you need to produce more than one unit. The theoretical minimum is 2 horsemen.. 1 for Bismark and Saladin an 1 for Elizabeth and Tokugawa.. assuming it doesn't lose any turn to heal the first would need 10 turns to perform its mission and the second 12 turn (ignoring the fact that by the time yosuyu reach the capitals there is at least one archer inside). It beats me how could one have the first Horsemen in turn 3 (reasearching Horseback Riding take 5 turns).
If somebody has other ideas please say them no matter how crazy they must sound at first.

Do you have a 2k source for what they looked into? I find the scores highly suspicious.
For example the current number 1 on Deity finished in 2500BC (with Domination) that is in 15 turns. The 4 AIs are disposed in a sort of star pattern with the farthest (Saladin) at 16 regions distance (there are two at 12 regions -Bismark and Tokugawa- and one at 7 regions -Elizabeth-). On Deity the AI starts with 1 warrior (at least.. they might have other bonuses.. for example I am under the strong impression that they start with Bronze Working .. hence archers). Elizabeth has archers (Longbowmen) with +1 defense. Saladin is Fundamentalist wich means +1 attack. Bismark has elite warriors.
From the description above it appears clear that Saladin cannot be conquered with Warriors (not enough time to travel) so that means one needs at least one Horsemen (the only possible unit with 2 moves in the available time frame). Also because of the star pattern you need to produce more than one unit. The theoretical minimum is 2 horsemen.. 1 for Bismark and Saladin an 1 for Elizabeth and Tokugawa.. assuming it doesn't lose any turn to heal the first would need 10 turns to perform its mission and the second 12 turn (ignoring the fact that by the time yosuyu reach the capitals there is at least one archer inside). It beats me how could one have the first Horsemen in turn 3 (reasearching Horseback Riding take 5 turns).
If somebody has other ideas please say them no matter how crazy they must sound at first.

I think the chieftain one might be possible, because i won by 1000 bc putting all research (4 per turn) and building horseman armies

But deity, no chance, the 2nd place guy on deity got 500 ad, and the rest finished it by 1900's ad

also, you start out as spain

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you allowed to play the GOTW as often as you'd like?

If so, then you can play several times, to get to know the map and your opponents, then plan a strategy, using that knowledge, for the fastest possible win.

Exactly, you can keep playing over and over again and your top score will be the one to apply to the GOTW scores. The 2K person that looked into this was Elizabeth, and there was already a multipage thread accusing people of cheating in GOTW. One of the top players had managed to develop a near perfect strategy after mastering the map. It was confirmed to be legit. In terms of movement, consider that you can get a zulu warrior out in three turns, and he can move 2 tiles per turn after coming out.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18829&page=2&highlight=gotw

Those guys actually have a website where they map out the entire game of the week map with all the money squares and wonders and starting positions etc.

Here's a link: http://civgameoftheweek.com/

Exactly, you can keep playing over and over again and your top score will be the one to apply to the GOTW scores. The 2K person that looked into this was Elizabeth, and there was already a multipage thread accusing people of cheating in GOTW. One of the top players had managed to develop a near perfect strategy after mastering the map. It was confirmed to be legit. In terms of movement, consider that you can get a zulu warrior out in three turns, and he can move 2 tiles per turn after coming out.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18829&page=2&highlight=gotw

you play as SPAIN, so you don't get that, and tell me how you could beat deity in 15 turns, the rest did it about a good 100 turns later,; uless he's the greatest civ player ever, he cheated

Its no hack. Trust me. Grumbles69 is a very good player.

I've also been able to do the chieftan one by 3200BC but it doesnt let you win before 3000BC. Its possible, no exploits, no cheats, no hacks. Its possible.

Its no hack. Trust me. Grumbles69 is a very good player.

I've also been able to do the chieftan one by 3200BC but it doesnt let you win before 3000BC. Its possible, no exploits, no cheats, no hacks. Its possible.

post up a video of your friend doing that, on youtube, then ill believe you , on deity lvl

To be honest, if you don't trust me I could care less. But I assure you that I'm telling the truth. Also, people like keeping strategies about to do it quickly to themselves. I wouldn't expect people to post videos of how to do it, then the top of the leaderboard would get crowded :P

This was not a hack. It is possible to win the game as early as some of these guys are. You have to figure out how yourself though, but no cheats involved. This was already looked into by 2K previously.

I'm not too sure that 2k actually looked into this. If you look at the thread on the 2k website, you can see that Elizabeth was taking the word of another player who said he had talked to one of the players who was achieving the high times, and that their strategy was legitimate.

The more I think about it, I do no think that these times are possible. My theory is that maybe there is a way to gain a domination victory after you have taken out just 1 civiliazation. Then their posted times will probably make more sense.

I apologize if I upset anyone who has obtained these remarkable times legitimately.

I apologize if I upset anyone who has obtained these remarkable times legitimately.

Not upset. Just incredibly amused. Its just funny that when people can't think of a strategy that is as good as others they automatically pull the HACK-card.

I think Alexandru nicely laid out why it's not possible and he's yet to be refuted.

hey guys,

just to let you know, grumbles and spencer (the aussies of whom you speak) aren't hacking the game. they have a very specific strategy, but i've tried it out, and it works. it's just really fast!

so rest assured, GOTW is still okay. just competitive.

I think Alexandru nicely laid out why it's not possible and he's yet to be refuted.

To be blunt, its cause he is wrong and not thinking of all the options and tactics that can be employed.

okie dokie.

So when this gotw becomes old, will the strategy be revealed? I take Elizabeth's word for it, but I'm still incredulous.

hey guys,

just to let you know, grumbles and spencer (the aussies of whom you speak) aren't hacking the game. they have a very specific strategy, but i've tried it out, and it works. it's just really fast!

so rest assured, GOTW is still okay. just competitive.

Okay. Thank you for testing it out for us. If 2000bc domination victories are possible, maybe there should be different leader boards for each victory type. Those civers who like to win by technology will never get a chance to see their names on the leader board. But, that is for another topic.

If 2000bc domination victories are possible, maybe there should be different leader boards for each victory type. Those civers who like to win by technology will never get a chance to see their names on the leader board. But, that is for another topic.

I can agree with you there.

okie dokie.

So when this gotw becomes old, will the strategy be revealed? I take Elizabeth's word for it, but I'm still incredulous.

it's their strat to reveal. i only listen so i can tell the dev team. must keep their trust!

this is just all word of mouth, and has not been proven yet, either way.

IF, you people are right, then GOTW is broken and unintresting because people have no lives and play it endlessly until they have the perfect stradegy.

i think you should only play GOTW one time, so there's more challenge in the game

I also thought of the GOTW being playable only once. I think that's a good idea.

I play on the PS3 as "cristig" and I was 3rd last week with a "normal" game. After my initial reaction - "not possible!", I tried some things and I saw it is possible. Unfortunately the PS3 version have some bugs with the leaderboards and my other results were not saved, but I applied the learnings also this week and it works.

How it is possible:
- use micromanagement to work only the forest from the start and have a warrior in 3 turns
- work then only the water regions and develop horseback riding in 5 turns
- in the mean time conquer the barbarian village on the left (it's only one barbarian unit on turn 5) and you most probably will get a galley;
- put the warrior on the galley and got to Berlin; you will find Berlin empty so you will get your first capital;
- the ranger militia can be used on the way to get some money; buy the first horseman;
- after this start use the barbarian villages to promote the horseman units coming from the two cities and to get money to buy other horseman asap
- you need to be quick with the english, as their capital is on a hill an the archers can be a problem;

I did not get to 2500 BC but I think now that this is possible if you have enough time to perfect your plan.

The only problem with this approach is that GOTW is more like the challenges in Portal, not like you will play real Civ.

The only problem with this approach is that GOTW is more like the challenges in Portal, not like you will play real Civ.

EXACTLY! I love the challenges in Portal :D

I am one of those people who initially thought that there were cheating going on in GOTW, but now I firmly believe that all those times posted are totally legit. You can't just think in the limited terms of "5 turns to get warrior, they move 1 tile per turn." There are more things you can do to speed up the process. It takes a lot of creative thinking and some luck to come up with the posted times.

I tried it out myself to see what the fuss was all about, and after doing it myself and seeing it with my own eyes, I firmly believe that there is no cheating. Even 2K has tested and verified this as well.

My time wasn't like super crazy 2000 BC ones, but at least I got one in King before I hit the A.D.

this is just all word of mouth, and has not been proven yet, either way.

IF, you people are right, then GOTW is broken and unintresting because people have no lives and play it endlessly until they have the perfect stradegy.

i think you should only play GOTW one time, so there's more challenge in the game

that's an interesting idea, the 1 time thing, but we knew some would play the game of the week over and over to perfect the very best strategy for it.

i can tell you that i'll probably never dream up one myself, i usually play it a couple times and move on to other things (so much to do!)

Civ has been around for along time, it's longtime players have been adapting and perfecting strats with each new version. There's a reason these guys (like grumbles and spencer) are top of the leaderboard.
Now I'm fairly new to the community, but having read posts for the last three months, "before" the console was blessed with this newest version, cheating ain't their style. You don't really need a 2K rep to confirm, but hey, one has.
I'll confess, seeing the leaderboard, I was mighty skeptical, and over the last three days have spent a great deal of time trying to learn, "how was it done" I only know what you cann't do, you cann't use a previous map to up stats to a new map, you cann't lag, or glitch your way up there, and there's no exploit.
I can say through playing this week's board over and over;
I reach Horse tech at 3800BC,
First horse pops out at 3500, Second at 3200BC,
I'm at China door's at 3000BC.
A far cry from dominating at 2800Bc, but hey, I'm doing better at the game now then prior. And I'll keep trying for a bit yet before giving up.
One thing I have learned, Micro management is very much alive in Civ Rev, it's just not as important as in previous versions.(I don't miss making citizens happy!)
GOTW gives us all a common board to play and disscuss, it's for honing skills, gives a gauge on where others are at, and will most likely improve domination skills.I
t needs no improvement other then DRGOAT's mentioned "have a leader board for each victory type", which I think is a great idea.
Keep posting those insane scores boys, I've learned a lot trying to get there!]

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

Good Point.

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

Excellent points. I agree with how it is more like a puzzle of the week rather than a normal game of civ, but I would like to see my scores compared to other players scores when the game is played like normal civ.

I think if we add some rules we may be able to accomplish this. Some ideas:

- a peace treaty till a certain year
- a mode where you cannot declare war (I'm not a fan of this idea being that it will stop people who want a normal domination victory)
- you can only take out one civ before AD

When you load up your game of the week you can choose either to play it with no rules (for the quick domination puzzle people), or with the rules (for people trying to get other victories or a long domination victory). You then have two different leader boards for both styles.

These are just ideas I came up with in a few seconds, so please take it easy on me.

I just wanted to add that their strat is definitely legitimate. I just got a 26 or 2700BC victory on chieftan. I would have been faster if it wasn't for some unlucky combat.

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

It's not the usual civ, but a puzzle that will help you to learn. You can try the same approach in real games, but you must be careful with risks: other players may be trying the same thing as you ;) .

What I like about civrev is that we are back to simple rules and more fun. I hope that the things will stay simple and we will not follow the same path to complexity. Even if there are some strategies that can help you in some games, I am sure that it's not so simple for everyone to understand and follow them.

My hope is that 2K will work on improving the maps for GOTW (as they learned how the maps until now can be won in under 30 turns on deity) and they will not start complicating the rules.

I don't own this yet (see my other thread - Should I buy this if I'm a Civ 4 veteran?) but I certainly don't like the sound of people winning in 15 turns.

I personally like Civilization for, you know, building up your civilization and taking down others. Obviously sometimes barbarians or opposition pressure you early on and yes they might beat you, but if this becomes a consistent thing (i.e., Player A does strategy X every time) I would be pretty annoyed (like a previous post said, no technology victories on leaderboards, etc.). I think Civ is at its best when you can choose and adapt your strategies to win and when you can really explore the freedom you have to achieve victory.

I would be especially annoyed if this "super-fast" victory strategy was unavoidable - if it's nearly impossible to protect against this strategy (as it may be), I would assume the only way to protect against it is to do the same strategy. Thus, a game full of freedom becomes a battle of one strategy.

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

You make a really great point. I think it is definitely more "Puzzle of the Week" for people to try and crack it ASAP. I don't think the mode takes away anything from the rest of the game, and certainly helps people come up with different strategies (as other posters have said). There are many different games modes...GOTW is just one of them.

for GOTW to become interesting to me, it will have, as other pointed out, to have separate leaderboards per victory condition.
As it stands today, domination is the only way to top the rankings.

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.
This is such a good point, I thought I'd quote it again.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.
And an even better one. It's a puzzle, a new one every week. I never thought I'd even play this mode, but when I saw the scores and started to play I found it actually addictive. It has actually helped my overall game skill, like playing scenario's have.
Learning sometimes requires losing.
The Leaderboards are just some numbers, and if numbers were so much fun, we'd be all play with calculators.

Until someone shows me a step-by-step method to win this week's game by 2800BC, I'm not buying it.

I'm staring at the map right now (on civgameoftheweek), and there's just no way you can even get to from Moscow to Saladin's capital by that time, no matter how good a strategy you have, even if you manage to magically pick up horses or boats. Even less if you stop along the way for at least 4 fights.

As promised:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7047816#post7047816

I was actually trying to go for a Cultural victory for GOTW, but I just couldn't hold off the blood-lust much longer. I was extremely surprised to find that the leaderboards were not by victory types. I had just naturally assumed they would be. Hence, I'm like the 5ththe from the bottom last time I checked a few days ago.

Victory type leaderboards would be really great! And yes, there will be the typical ones beating it by 2800BC, but like someone mentioned earlier, it will just get you thinking even harder....how did they do that?...and make you a better player.

Maybe 2K can tell us for the leaders in the past weeks how many times they started the GOTW. It will not change the leaderboard, but it can give the other the right view about how to do it.

When someone can conquer the world in 15 turns, separate leaderboards by victory type can not help as the guys winning in 15 turns can spend that very little time again for the best start for the other victory types. I am sure that in time the maps will improve and if domination will no longer be possbile so soon then a filter by type in the leaderboards will help.

I think you should get less point depending in how many times you play the GOTW. I usually play the GOTW twice, one in Emperor and another one in Deity. But for those who spend the whole week playing it over and over again of course are going to find a perfect way to finish him.

I think you should get less point depending in how many times you play the GOTW. I usually play the GOTW twice, one in Emperor and another one in Deity. But for those who spend the whole week playing it over and over again of course are going to find a perfect way to finish him.

Yes, but then people would just practice with a throwaway account and do their final round with their main account, once they've perfected their strategy. There is simply no way to prevent that, so they didn't even try.

I think the chieftain one might be possible, because i won by 1000 bc putting all research (4 per turn) and building horseman armies

But deity, no chance, the 2nd place guy on deity got 500 ad, and the rest finished it by 1900's ad

also, you start out as spain

totally agree with you guys there seems to be something bogus unless they are building a wonder until almost complete then making it obsolete by achieving a tech which obsoletes the wonder, rendering all production into a dozen or so units but still not by 3000bc and deity

I think you should get less point depending in how many times you play the GOTW. I usually play the GOTW twice, one in Emperor and another one in Deity. But for those who spend the whole week playing it over and over again of course are going to find a perfect way to finish him.

This the best I've read so far. You could minus one year for each time played, that would be be kinda cool;
eg: " 2629" B.C. (instead of a flat score of " xx00 B.C"):)
Score or no score: Maybe the dev's planned GOTW to be played as it is?(I know, crazytalk) People seem to want tailor made games these days. (Maybe that's the next gaming generation)

In the end, no matter what we want done to leaderboards , and what they actually do, doesn't matter.
People will always be at the top, or others will be below in any leaderboard, any game.
The same attitudes towards that "leaderboard" will prevail. I enjoy playing games more then the scores after them.

Maybe the dev's planned GOTW to be played as it is?(I know, crazytalk)

FWIW: Back in November this is exactly how they presented GOTW to DanQ and myself. So, as far as I can see, it's working as designed....

This entire issue is the lack of a random seed.
The game plays EXACTLY the same every time. if you follow exactly the same steps. If you have a fight, you will win or lose and take exactly the same amount of damage every time. This allows the player to "Metagame" his way through the game.

I think they need to go to a random seed for the game play. (keep the fixed seed for the map generation if thats what they are doing) That way the game will be slightly different each time you play. Then these people would be playing the GAME rather than PLAYING the game mechanics (metagaming)

Or at least have TWO games of the week.. one with a fixed seed for those rats who LIKE to run complex mazes (which is what the GOTW is right now) and those of us who like to play a more randomized game where you cant count on a winning a specific battle (or finding a specific bonus in a hut or whatever) because thats what happened last time you played the game at this point.

GOTW kind of reminds me of that old video game... PACKMAN! once you know the pattern for a map, your done. Move on to the next one.

So, right now, the leader boards only reflect those people who have the patience to sit down and memorize the pattern over an over and over. BORING.

Sorry to come off so negative.. but it irks me to see such a fine feature with great potential boiled down to packman on steroids.

Rob

hey guys,

just to let you know, grumbles and spencer (the aussies of whom you speak) aren't hacking the game. they have a very specific strategy, but i've tried it out, and it works. it's just really fast!

so rest assured, GOTW is still okay. just competitive.

Then patch whatever they are exploiting.:crazyeye:
REVISION - I'm a moron... it's totally possible!

Well, I thought this was a dead issue.. hacking, cheating exploiting, what ever. The link below will show year a 3000Bc score in cheiften. In it you'll notice nothing special, no insane bonus, quantum leaps or whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJnLYT_5zk8

Nicely done randomfires. I was just one turn behind you, i think its when you changed one tile from science to production at the beginning, would give you and extra turn. I still wonder how people get such good times on deity, i find it much harder. It would be interesting if anyone posts a video showing a 3000bc deity victory.

Yep, you hit it. Since I was getting more then enough gold for the warrior rush, I figured, why not try to get horses tech out the fastest I can. Getting horse tech one turn earlier mad all the difference in the world.. Even grinned ear to ear strolling up to the cities seeing no flags in three of them. Such a little thing made all the difference. This why I say, random seed may effect the game, but over all strat casts the bigger shadow.
Looking at this weeks map, and the leaderboards, I better wait till dusk to play. :blush:

I played last night - it's totally possible I bow my heads to those that figured it out before, beating the thing in 10 turns is totally possible - I did it on Chieften, Warlord, and King. It takes longer the harder you get but the same strat still holds up.

This entire issue is the lack of a random seed.
The game plays EXACTLY the same every time. if you follow exactly the same steps. If you have a fight, you will win or lose and take exactly the same amount of damage every time. This allows the player to "Metagame" his way through the game.The way it is now, the result is pure skill and detective work. Adding a random seed to GotW only means those on the top of the leaderboard are vying for the best luck. If you can't get on the leaderboards now, my guess is you wouldn't be able to with a random seed, either.I think they need to go to a random seed for the game play. (keep the fixed seed for the map generation if thats what they are doing) That way the game will be slightly different each time you play.The game can be different each time you play if you do something different each time you play. But are you saying you wouldn't do something different, because you're always picking the best move? --but this is exactly what GotW caters to. What's the problem, really? Then these people would be playing the GAME rather than PLAYING the game mechanics (metagaming)They are playing the game. The problem is, you don't like the game they're playing.

erislover.

You are correct. I do NOT like the game they have made. If they intend to leave it the way it is, then so be it. The rest of the game is good.

Since many people seem to want a CivPuzzle game, then they should keep it. Perhaps add another Game of the Week which has the random elements in it.

One thing people always argue is that Random elements mean that the leaderboard leaders will be the ones with the best luck. This is not true.

One of the many key skills to gaming is creating a strategy which accounts for luck (or random circumstances as they are called) and is able to prevail in spite of the randomness.

Games with no random elements other than the player are simply puzzles. Complex puzzles to be sure.

What I am interested in is a game about history.. about civilization.. about expanding your empire and defeating your opponents. One where something unexpected can happen and the player has to have the skill to deal with the consequences rather than just reload (or replay the entire game to get a better result.)

Speaking of reloading.. why did they remove the save game feature for GoTW? they should have left it in. Instead of playing the game like this:

Turn A - Turn B - Turn C - Turn (oops, not the best choice) - Quit - Restart
Turn A - Turn B - Turn C - Turn D (ahh.. thats better).

You would have this:
Turn A (save) - Turn B (save) - Turn C (save) - Turn (oops.. wrong move) - Reload Turn C - Turn D (ahh.. thats better)

The two game examples are IDENTICAL in result... but the second one is less tedious to play.

(From the Manual: I quote. "Note that to prevent cheating and ensure an identical experience for all user, the ability to save your game is disabled while playing the game of the week)

HUH? To prevent cheating? I suppose they are worried about people hacking a save file. Certainly cant be to prevent saving every turn to replay a turn to get a better result.

I know someone will bring up chess as a counter example so I will address that. While the game mechanics for Chess are not random at all, Chess actually does have a random element to it. Its called your opponent. The complexity of possible moves and move trees is extremely high in chess.. high enough that we cannot compute all the possibilities with modern computers... yet. Once a computer can process every move tree then it will be unbeatable by a human. But until then, humans will make flawed assessments and bad moves that another humans can take advantage of.

Rob