With GOTM13 due to release in the next 24 hours, it is time to reveale the opportunity for everyone to play the early game as their best possible game and submit it as a Quick Start Challenge.

The objective of the quick start challenge format is to have you play your game to create your best and most powerful position by 1000 BC and then compare how you accomplished this feat with other players.

There is a special scoring system that gives your credit for everything you do in the game. Every unit, every building, every city, every citizens, every unit of food, every gold coin in your treasury, every tech, contacts, embassies: all of these elemenst increase your quick start score.

There will be a lot of discussion after the fact for the Quick Start Challenges because one of the key features of the game play format is for each player to keep a simple early timeline that should accompany you submitted save file for 1000BC.

You can play the same GOTM and submit it as a quick start and then play that GOTM out until the end and submit it to the GOTM ranking. SO you get two competition opportunities for playing one game.

A numebr of people have already played GOTM11 and GOTM12 in this format to test the process and we will have some examples posted in the next week.

For now you can find out more information on Quick Start Challenges by visiting the webpages at:

Quick Start Challenge Pages (http://www.civfanatics.com/doc/civ3/cracker/quik_start/index.htm)

Good luck to all players in the QSC for GOTM13.

The skills that you hone in a quick start challenge will transfer directly to PTW once the bugs in that game are worked out and patched in the time frame after Christmas. SO now is the time to really polish your quick start skills and prepare to kill the impatient non-players who will wallow in the initial release bugs of PTW will the real players continue to refine their gameplay here in the GOTM forum.

What's the due date for the Quick Start Challenge? Same as for the GOTM?

Yes the due date is the same but there is a slightly different submission process.

My suggestion is for you to submit the QSC as soon as you get to 1000BC and have your timeline ready. This will help avoid confusion and mistakes because later you can submit the completed game to the correct format.

Also, we will try and hold off on any spoilers of any kind related to the QSC formats until at least after the 15th.

I am working on some tools to help promote comparison and discussion of the differences that may appear in the QSC games but we will have to see how these evolve as more people participate.

OK count me in.
Phil M's thrown down the gauntlet....

Seems like a great idea, I'll give it a try even though I may just not be good enough...

I'll submit even though I'll get a lousy scoring whatever method you will use. Still, I may prove the opposite of what you are trying to determine here, that is how you can win with a lousy set of first moves (and I mean losing two of your first 3 cities including the capital - ouch).

Here's a link to an excel file that includes a scoring worksheet for quick start challenges.

The worksheet calculates the actual tech values for the various ancient age techs on different map sizes and difficulty levels so even if you do not use it to help with your QSC you may find it helpful to assist you in evaluateing some tech research and trade issues.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/timeline.zip

nice spreadsheet cracker. Do I understand correctly that cum value is the cumulative value of a tech and it's necesarry predecessor? (in other words cum value of iron working= raw value (bronze working+iron working)

Also wondering: are the raw value points exactly reflecting the relative values of the techs from the AI point of view. In other words does the AI think iron working is twice as valuable as bronze working and will it use this relation during trade agreements?

Propain,

I think I understand that you have the "cum value" correct.

The intent here is to give an even heavier weight to those techs that build on techs you already have.

I am not yet the ultimate expert on tech research (but I'm working on it ;) as usual). My general take on tech research is that extreme penetration of the tech tree is more value than making broad progress uniformly across the base of the tree. Depending on how well you match your big picture strategy to your terrain position, build plan, and tech research sequence you will usually be in a stronger position if you can get quickly one of the techs on right hand side of the tree rather than getting all the techs on the left hand side of the tree. (just an early thought process)

The score worksheet should give you the raw value for the tech and I am pretty sure this is the base value used by the AI players. Yes, the AI has a different cost but I think they compare the costs consistently within their framework by either using just their cost or just your cost. SO this essentially yields the same results from either perspective.

How the AI values techs is not just based on the cost of the tech and the number of known civs that hold that tech. Tehse are the first steps but there are some much bigger distortion factors that we (I +others) have not fully quantified yet. These factors could include:

wonders (whether they have already been built or not)
resources revealed
special abilities
new units
and hardcoded distortion factors

a clear example is Nationalism which the AI's value at 2 to 3 times what it would cost to research (you will have to wait until you see some upcoming SOTDs to put this in perspective).

But back to the subject of Quick Starts: the idea in the scoring formula is to push you to extremes of reaching for penetration vertically into the right hand techs by having each tech cummulatively add in the value of all its pre-requisites again and again.

thanks for the quick reply.

somewhat of topic but I'm sure AI values techs different before and after an asociated wonder has been built. I experienced this once in a game I played where I was the first player to discover musical theory. I checked what the AI's would pay for the tech. They wanted to pay lotsa money but I didnt sell it because I wanted to built the wonder first. After completion of the JS cathedral (maybe 4/5 turns later) I was still the only one to have the tech but the price dropped to almost nothing. Should have made some screendumps but didnt. IIRC the prices went down from something like 1000 to a 100 gold.

Interesting to read your point about penetrating the tech tree. Recently I have been playing just the opposite way and sometimes researching a 'less advanced' tech first to get 'prices' to drop on the other techs and so discovering them relatively faster. I'm not performing a very methodical indepth research on the subject but trying to get a feel for matters.

Anyway, I will definitely enter the QSC cause I feel improving my play in the early stages of the game will finally open the door to winning deity...... I hope.......

Originally posted by Yndy
I'll submit even though I'll get a lousy scoring whatever method you will use. Still, I may prove the opposite of what you are trying to determine here, that is how you can win with a lousy set of first moves (and I mean losing two of your first 3 cities including the capital - ouch).

:lol: Well put, Yndy!
I'll take your approach even farther, and demonstrate how agonizingly you can lose with a lousy sequence of initial moves!!

Hi Cracker,

That's a very good initiative.
I tend to play the first moves too quickly. Keeping an accurate log forces me to slow down. If this will improve my decisions is another question ;)
It will be very interesting to compare the different timelogs!

Thanks

Ronald

since i already finished my gotm13 when I saw this I had to do a remake ... funny how things never turn out the same ... I suuuucked in this one ... Russia had some form of freakin' miracle.

OK Have played up to 1000BC and have kept a timeline and a diary. Not great works of lierature but I hope they're OK. I tend to forget to enter stuff when the going gets exciting! I'll go back over some saves and fill in some more details. Just overtook Russia in the histograph before 1000BC!
Certainly could have improved but am generally satisfied with this start.
Am entering scores onto spreadsheet and will send soon

I just submitted my QSC, and I must say it was a lot of fun.
I'm only up to Regent, so trying to keep up with the AI was quite a challenge for me.

I really wish I could post it somewhere and get feedback, but I'll have to wait a while to avoid spoiling it for anyone.

Thanks for hosting this Challenge!

cracker,

you mean we actually HAVE TO fill the timeline and submit it with the save or is it just suggested?

Because I'm already in 300BC and don't have anything but the 1000BC save. I don't believe I can fill the timeline even remotely accurate.

Please advise.

The timeline is technically optional, but you get a 25% scoring bonus for having a credible timeline. "Credible" is a fluid definition but the webpages give you a good idea of some things you should watch for.

This is an evloving genre, so as you see examples of what people do with their games and timelines you will get a better idea of how you can get the most benefit out of your timeline.

They key here is for you to play the game you want to play but then to have a format that lets us all compare notes to see if we can learn about how the game is played by comparing our opening moves and choices to the moves and choices of others.

I guarantee you that you will see some interesting differences and the timelines will be a key part of revealing the "tricks of the trade".

Yndy,

For your specific case, I would say you should look to see if you have any interim saves and then use you domestic advisor screen to open your existing cities and try to reconstruct the best timeline you can for the period up to 1000 BC. You can look at the city founded dates and the dates that structures were constructed in from the cultural advisor. Make sure you put a note at the bottom of your timeline and I will do my best to reconstruct any missing elements I can find by using "my magic wand". Hopefully not too many people will ask me to do this because it is can be time consuming. The fee for reconstructing your timeline for you is one box of white chocolate covered Christmas style oreos. ;)

Good luck in the QSC and the overall GOTM,

Can I submit the Quick Start Challenge without finishing the GOTM? I have never played the GOTM because I don't have enough time to finish it within the same month. However, getting to 1000BC won't take too long.:lol:

This is precisely the intent of the QSC. Many people will play the QSC without even trying to play the whole GOTM and hopefully a number of new people will try to play the GOTMs at higher difficulty levels because the QSC affords them an opportunity to set a short term goal that any civ player should be able to achieve on any difficulty level.

Originally posted by Moonsinger
... getting to 1000BC won't take too long.:lol:

Yup, even the ADD crew can play this one too. ;)

To cracker:

Thanks for the previous info.:) After I reviewing the QSC scoring system, I have just a few more questions:

Is there a point value for the strength of the unit? For example, an elite warrior should be worth a lot more than a regular warrior. Moreover, how many points do we get for the GL or the army? Since we may decide to use the GL for building an army instead of rushing a Great Wonder, I think the scoring system should also take that into account.

Thanks cracker,

I did have to make some research to see what an oreo is but fortunately succeded.

Will keep in touch

Moonsinger,

I think the scoring system will give you zero points for a great leader that you are holding on to, but you are correct that you should get points for an army. I'll have to test some numbers to see what the point value of an ancient age army would be. The real greatest value in having an ancient age army is in doing something with it.

There is no greater point value for unit experience at this time but that has been discussed.

I have to disagree on giving points for a GL or an Army actually...
I really feel it's down to luck whether you get a GL at all, scoring should not reward luck, but skill.
However having experienced units should be taken into account as that reflects the "value" of your civilization in way. In the early ages, if you just 5 or 6 military units and half of those are Elite, makes a huge difference with 5 or 6 regulars...

I really appreciate the QSC initiative and I hope everyone will keep a good log as it will be interesting to compare tactics and improve ourselves.
I have no time to complete a full GOTM as I play only a few hours a week but QSC is perfect for me.
However I feel some civfans might have time to try all possible tactics to maximize a QSC score by exploiting the tricks of the scoring system instead of just playing a "normal" GOTM game.

But I guess we will find this out after a few challenges and I trust Cracker to build a scoring system that does not allow for such "cheating" of the spirit of the game.

Thanks Cracker for a great idea !

Originally posted by Skyfish
I have to disagree on giving points for a GL or an Army actually...
I really feel it's down to luck whether you get a GL at all, scoring should not reward luck, but skill.

Since we could use the GL to rush a Great Wonder that could be worth at least 300 points, if we don't give points to the Army that was created by the GL, it would be unfair!

Moonsinger and Skyfish,

Your points have been noted and both sides of the debate have been raised. This QSC competition is run sort of as a benign despotism so we have to weigh the points that might be awarded in terms of the choices they might encourage someone to make. The finally scoring decision will ultimately on this issue will have more to do with "behavioral guidance" than it will have any relationship to fairness. ;)

The two major factors that can impact QSC scoring in terms of raw luck are goody hut results and the possibility of GL production. The GL factor can actually overwhelm the results, so this may result in all the GL QSC games getting set aside into a separate category that rates the game in terms of how the GL usage fits into the player's overall strategy of the game.

Building a three warrior army might earn you a 400 point short sightedness penalty. ;)

On the cheating issue, I am sure we will have some people try to exploit the system, but I assure you that helm has a firm hand on the wheel of the ship and that public humiliation is a powerful tool. ;) ;)

Civ3 is a game of good mechanical decisions and that will show up very prominently in the QSC format. We will adapt the scoring system to filter out luck from the equation whenever possible.

FYI I played 30 turns in QSC GOTM13 but not interested in finished game. So why posting?

Well I created a log tool that you might find helpful. Attached is a zip file:

Contents:
1. a 100 turn blank log file: octo_log.
{octo == eight, eighty turns in civ3 == 1000bc}

2. sample completed log file: octo_log_gotm_13b

3. sample save which goes with the completed log file. 13b_2590.sav. This is the first 30 turns of GOTM13.

I will try other GOTM but not GOTM13.

Enjoy.

-- PF

I asked the mods to remove the link to your zip file Planetfall because we really want to avoid spoiler information on the QSCs particularly on a thread that is not intended to be a spoiler. This was complicated by the fact the you wrapped the spoiler in with something that other people might have considered of value.

As an example, I havenot even looked at the GOTM13 startposition yet and have been avoiding the spoiler thread until I get through with some admin stuff.

See if you can at least play the QSC up until 1000BC and thens ubmit the timeline and the save to the quick start email address on the webpages. 30 turns of play will not give you very much of a basis for comparison.

Good luck,

Cracker,

Split apart "spoiled info". Here is zip with only the blank QSC log file to use with any QSC game.

If moderators can move previous post to spoilers thread that would be best.

It was interesting to note that toggling to the log file and completing the sections each turn did two things:
1. slowed down play, surprise, and
2. gave me fresh insight into what is happening with play.

Again, enjoy.

-- PF

Originally posted by cracker

See if you can at least play the QSC up until 1000BC and thens ubmit the timeline and the save to the quick start email address on the webpages. 30 turns of play will not give you very much of a basis for comparison.

Good luck,

I understand but my test was not of GOTM 13 but rather of the process of logging QSC data and playing the game. Before I submitted a potential log file, I wanted some game play experience.

Right now GOTM 13 was not where I enjoy playing. 1- difficulty level is current level, but only completed one game at this level. 2- close packing of civs forces more early warfare and I enjoy building at least 4-5 cities before meeting other civs. Neither AI or I get early quick knock out 1-2 city empire option. 3- No new play options. I need to explore PTW before GOTM.

I like the idea of a QSC but will pass on GOTM13 and wait for next GOTM.

-- PF

To Cracker:

It seems that all my concerns have been discussed else where before. Is there a thread or a webpage for these discussions? I really hate to bring up topic that already been discussed.:(

I assume you guys already thought about the Golden Age too. If it has been discussed, please forgive me and ignore the rest of this post.

------------

The Golden Age would also be another factor that the QSC should consider. For example, in the GOTM13, you could trigger the early Golden Age around 2000 BC or sooner. Therefore, by trigger the Golden Age 20 turns before 1000BC, you would end up with the best possible score for the QSC but realistically, it is not the move that most of us going to make.

In this GOTM13, I would normally wait until I build at least a dozen cities and get this civ into Monarchy which I expect to happen around 1000BC before I trigger the Golden Age. Therefore, in the end, I may end up with the better score for the GOTM but an average score for the QSC. It seems to me that what is best for QSC may not be best for GOTM. Therefore, at this moment, I will play the game as I would normally play and don't pay too much attention to the QSC. My guess is that those who do well in the GOTM would get a lower score than those who intent to play only until 1000BC.

Moonsinger,

If you play the best overall starting play sequence I guarantee you will be well recognized rewarded. ;)

This is an evolving genre, so I am sure new things will emerge that need to be accounted for. Don't sweat the little things until we all get a few attempts at this under our belts.

The early GA thing has not been discussed yet. Most of the discussions were in PMs and emails over the past eight weeks. Some very good inputs have been received to help get the foundation going but beyond that, these first several QC games will see some evolution.

Cracker,

Ok, I will submit my game within a few day. I played for about two hours last night and got around to 2000BC. Keepping note of everything is a lot more time consuming than I thought. Here is a sample of my note:

2000BC:
Warrior #1 NW+N+open hut & got XYZ
Worker #2 I
Worker #1 E (current loc=3 square SE of ABC)
Worker #3 R
....

As you see, it is a little bit out of hand after I have a half dozen JWarriors exploring and workers working in the field. I hope that after I load up the game tonight, I would be able to figure out which one I called Warrior #1 and which one is my Worker #99?:crazyeye: j/k

Btw, I note my location as N,S,E,W. Warrior #1 NW+N= move warrior #1 to the North West square then move to the North square. I guess I'm developing a new writing skill after all.:)

I also found that keeping the log really slowed me down, but sometimes, for me, slowing down helps me actually think about what I'm about to do and whether I might be better served by doing something else.

This was a new difficulty level for me, so I was quite a bit more conservative than I would have been at Regent level.

Also, if Firaxis gets the gamesave compatibility thing worked out, we could rename our units using PTW. Unfortunately, I accidentally loaded up in PTW on day 2 and crashed 4 turns in. And the PtW quicksaves are not compatible with Civ vanilla.

So I had to restart in vanilla Civ and replay 4 turns.
Fortunately, I had my log and was able to replicate exactly what I had done.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the Random Seed is different from Civ to PtW, so instead of getting an Elite at one point, I lost a Vet.

This was my first attempt at a GotM or anything similar and it is a lot of fun. Hopefully I didn't stink too badly. :)

Points and no points for Leaders. Since it is luck based you shouldn't get any? I think you should. Alot of stuff is based on "luck" in the game. Like what you get out of a hut, how the battle go (ok it is modified but still you get the occational upset).

So if you get lucky and score a great leader (which I didn't) you should get a few extra points for that ... I think...

I think we should cut cracker and his crew a little slack. This QSC is just in its infant stage. These guys are developing it as you read this. Certainly suggestions like Moonsinger and Skyfish made, where both sides of an issue are presented, are very valuable, but let's not beat it to death.

Let's get our submissions in and let cracker digest them. I am sure he will then come back with an improved QSC next month.

I know I sure learned a lot about the starting sequence from his Opening Plays post. That and having to log my moves, even though they were not as detailed as Moonsinger's, certainly raised my awareness of what I was doing and made me think more carefully. I don't know whether it will show up in the scoring, but I know I am a much better player than I was a couple of weeks ago. Thanks, cracker.

Here Here.

I always plunge headlong into my games without much thought to opening strategy. I am currently 15 turns off 1000BC in a better position than if I had played normally. Not great but better.

The analysis should be fun.

*%&###@%!!!!

I DID find it a good idea, though!
Well, I started with the best intentions, with Notepad and Excel in backgroud, with a few paper sheets and a pen, duly taking note of the most important events and units' movements.

And this is the problem: I was so concentrated on taking notes that I actually did not focus on the game... So I quit. Shame on me!

But I'm not giving up. I'll try it again either in the Tournament on in the next GOTM -hopefully the other activities that are now subtracting time from Civ3 will have slowed down a bit too...

Hi cracker,

I don't care much about the scoring system of the QSC, but I am very interested to compare my timeline with the other people.

How and when are you planning to post them?

Thanks for this interesting initiative.

Ronald