Welcome to the 65th edition of the Lonely Hearts Club where we will explore isolated strategy with... Pacal of Myan.
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af56/Svhussey_2010/Civ4ScreenShot0001.jpg?t=1297450621
As an AI Pacal is one of the games biggest wimps and culture whores, although he can declare at pleased.Finanical is one of the games best economic traits and expansive is always a nice bonus to health and worker production.
THE UU:
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af56/Svhussey_2010/Civ4ScreenShot0002.jpg?t=1297450625
The Holkon, a spear replacement, its no preatorian but it will help out with fogbusting.
TheUB:
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af56/Svhussey_2010/Civ4ScreenShot0003.jpg?t=1297450631
A collseuem replacement that helps your happy cap, cant say no to that.

The Start:
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af56/Svhussey_2010/Civ4ScreenShot0005.jpg?t=1297467711

Hmm.. not bad,but not the best start i rolled for this (no tripple gems for you!;)) Not as nice as the previous map.
The map is a standard size fractal with no huts and no events and with an exrta AI for balance. You will find the zipped saves below. Choose your level then choose your speed and get underway. Suggestions for updates are:

Checkpoint 1 - when we have explored the island and are aware of what resources it has. Its not so important when this is, but this is a time to discuss city sites etc. Don't look into a checkpoint 1 spoiler until you have reached this point yourself.

Checkpoint 2 - first contact - when we have met all the other AIs. At this point we can discuss our strategy to get to this point and our plans for dealing with them.

Checkpoint 3 - when we are committed to a victory condition (or at least think we are).

Checkpoint 4 - Victory (or defeat).

Finally, a thankyou to r_rolo1 and all those that came before him in this series' initial run and to TheMeInTeam for the map creation guides, and thanks to hrun for co-hosting and reviving this series. Enjoy!

Reserved

You should have posted the triple gems start. It would have been fun to see who could do the best at exploiting such a start.

You should have posted the triple gems start. It would have been fun to see who could do the best at exploiting such a start.

It would've been way too easy. That map was landlocked anyway.

this isn't isolated

this isn't isolated

Nope, not even close. It IS more challenging than the previous one at least.

Immortal/Normal

1923 Space



Surrounding land is pretty awful so went worker AG/AH and put out stonehenge/GLH ASAP. I then beeeeeeelined metal casting for colossus but got beat there by like 4 turns. Spammed out mostly coastal (3 inland) cities to cover our island and kept things civil w/ ragnar.

I was pretty behind when I met the AI but not as much as expected. Trading astro a bit helped me get back into the game a bit, then constitution/demo put me middle of the pack by trading them.

Then, FIN cottages kicked in and I blasted past everyone, getting internet @ early 1800's AD. I cut about 500 BPT to SP shop spam over all my towns once I knew I'd get internet. This helped me actually build the ship on a bad piece of land w/o corps. Fortunately, much of the AI land is bad also. Despite bismark getting ~ 20% land after capping HC he couldn't quite catch up. He finished his ship just as mine landed. Nobody else was remotely close, embroiled in war hate in the hate triangle charlie/ragnar/SB. Thus while this felt like an awful game it was not difficult and I clinched victory easily.

this isn't isolated

Are you kidding me??? Third time's the charm i guess. What can i do to edit this map so i can make it isolated? Im not reroling again.

Ive made changes in the WB so iths is'nt isolated, hopefully. Apologies, this is my first time messing aroung with the WB like this so i was expecting to make some mistakes.

no huts and no events

Rolo never imposed his views on the players. You don't like events and huts, that's fine. Give us the choice, though. I know I can turn events back on, but what about huts?

Rolo never imposed his views on the players. You don't like events and huts, that's fine. Give us the choice, though. I know I can turn events back on, but what about huts?

I don't intend to impose views on anything either. In the previous LHC several players complained about huts being unblanced. The AI's do get enough bonuses on EMP+. I could find out about placing huts and upload a save for you and for other players who want them though.

Looks like I missed lots of fun :D I'll give this a go as soon as I get the chance. As for about huts and events it was discussed (admittedly kinda briefly) in the new bullpen.

Rolo never imposed his views on the players. You don't like events and huts, that's fine. Give us the choice, though. I know I can turn events back on, but what about huts?

This isn't about imposing views. As you said, if you want to turn imbalanced things back on and play that way, have at it.

However, leaving huts on FORCES them on just as much as taking them out forces them off (clicking "no huts" has no effect in WB scenarios that have huts).

Now, the reason for no huts/events for forum games:

1. They are fake difficulty (or help). If you don't understand what fake difficulty is, you can learn here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Both undeniably pass multiple checks for fake difficulty. Both are options that can be turned off. In a setting where players are comparing their approaches/outcomes, these things add noise.

2. They are not balanced. The amount of help and hurt from them is substantial. While huts are less extreme than events (ever had 20000 :hammers: of units removed in an instant with events on? You can you know. You can also be forced to declare into defensive pacts, get insta-gibbed around 2000 BC, or win outright on diplo), they also provide the advantages earlier when the game tends to snowball. One guy getting something like writing or alpha or even ASTRONOMY dozens of turns before the other provides a large advantage; large enough to make their approach decisions incomparable. WHY are we doing this on a forum game?

3. They are unreliable. You can easily get your a unit picked off by barbs from a hut (most extreme case is an AI popping one near your borders before you can reach it and killing you). AIs on other continents can use them to sling ridiculous things like 1500 BC feudalism and either run away or in some cases PREVENT a runaway. Why, in a game where we are all comparing the game from the SAME START, are you advocating settings that makes it NOT the same start? This isn't a question of beliefs, but rather hosting philosophy. If you don't want to play the same start as other players, why are you downloading a forum game?

One of the biggest stains on XOTM and HoF is that they allow these things while normally trying to limit the amount of "luck = better finish" or "replay = skill" that goes into those formats. Arguably, huts/events are slightly less offensive here where we're not ranking player finishes, but they still break from the spirit of forum-posted games and are imbalanced, trashy features that were never given the attention they needed to even pretend to be well-thought-out.

And here we get a post chastising a rookie host for doing the RIGHT thing and removing fake difficulty/different start noise...claiming that he is IMPOSING HIS BELIEFS.

Haha! :lol:. Why not just give yourself 50 gold, delete your starting warrior/scout, and place a barb warrior somewhere and call it a day if you want huts so badly? Or play a format that ISN'T meant to have the same starting position?

As TMIT ... rather forcefully! ... says, huts and events add significantly to randomness. Since the point of forum games like this is to compare different approaches to the same situation, adding randomness is a bad thing, since the idea of the situation being "the same" is no longer true.

That said, removing huts from a WB save is 15 seconds of effort - I do it for every Noble's Club game I play. So it's not like it's hard to take them out if the game organiser leaves them in (whereas if they are left out to start with, there's no easy way to add them).

I won an unexpected time victory in 1908. Not sure how that happened.

I won an unexpected time victory in 1908. Not sure how that happened.

You changed the game speed setting from the original save. You have to go into the WB save by text editor and change the turn limit to 0 I think. It's been a while since I had to do this so I may be misremembering.

You changed the game speed setting from the original save. You have to go into the WB save by text editor and change the turn limit to 0 I think. It's been a while since I had to do this so I may be misremembering.

I did change it from normal to epic, but I was unaware that would change the number of turns in the game. I play the noble challenge games and have played previous lonely hearts games with running into this situation.

I did change it from normal to epic, but I was unaware that would change the number of turns in the game. I play the noble challenge games and have played previous lonely hearts games with running into this situation.

It's probable that the people creating those games made the change in the WB save before uploading. Seems there are a lot of little wrinkles that can trip someone up when providing a map for play :)

I did change it from normal to epic, but I was unaware that would change the number of turns in the game. I play the noble challenge games and have played previous lonely hearts games with running into this situation.

Thats really wierd, ive never heard of that happening before. i followed TMIT's guide and changed the speed to 0 so it could be played on any game speed.

Also happened in LHC10 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=255768&page=2).

Since the point of forum games like this is to compare different approaches to the same situation, adding randomness is a bad thing, since the idea of the situation being "the same" is no longer true.
The start is no longer the same from the moment you post a WB save. Forgetting for a moment the difficulty difference that is quite frequent, several things happen differently when you start a new scenario, different AIs founding the religions, for example. As we know that religion is, perhaps, the most significant factor in diplomacy together to peaceweights, posting WB saves already make a fair comparison impossible. If the purpose is really comparing games, initial saves with random assets locked should be provided.

But I don't think the point is only comparing the games. My main objective when I start a single-player game is to wind up from work and have a nice time playing a map. LHCs provide a specific situation that is not so frequent when you start your games randomly. Sharing your game on the forum and reading reports from other players is also nice.
This isn't about imposing views. As you said, if you want to turn imbalanced things back on and play that way, have at it.
However, leaving huts on FORCES them on just as much as taking them out forces them off (clicking "no huts" has no effect in WB scenarios that have huts).
TMIT, for someone who wrote a guide on preparing forum saves, that's a little odd. Preparing saves with and without huts is so easy that it's almost ridiculous. First you prepare a WB save with huts on and save it. Then you open it with your word processor of choice and click Find, type something like IMPROVEMENT=Tribal Village (don't remember its actual name) and click replace all by a blank space. What's so hard about that? If there's such an interest in playing without huts and events, I believe it's the host's duty to do that. That way, everyone can have it the way they like it.
Now, the reason for no huts/events for forum games:
Those are all valid reasons if your objective is to push yourself as much as you can while playing a game and see how well you can fare. It's a valid approach. It is NOT, however, the only approach to playing games. I already said what I play these games for. Now, when it comes to playing MP games, I agree with you. In that case, I'm really competing against the others and don't want randomness getting in my way.
If you don't want to play the same start as other players, why are you downloading a forum game?
Because I like the series. I like playing in isolation. LHCs give me that opportunity.
And here we get a post chastising a rookie host for doing the RIGHT thing and removing fake difficulty/different start noise...claiming that he is IMPOSING HIS BELIEFS.
The RIGHT thing is to accommodate the different playing styles when providing these saves. And I do apologize to Stevoh for using this thread to raise these topics, it's just that this is one of my favorite series in these boards and it's also very frequent when players make up their own minds and can't conceive others having different perspectives, leading to some arrogant posts such as:
Haha! :lol:. Why not just give yourself 50 gold, delete your starting warrior/scout, and place a barb warrior somewhere and call it a day if you want huts so badly? Or play a format that ISN'T meant to have the same starting position?
Which is also the reason I hardly ever play IU games anymore.

I respect people wanting to play without events and huts and I believe TMIT has explained quite well their reasoning. I would just like to have different play-styles respected as well.

But I don't think the point is only comparing the games. My main objective when I start a single-player game is to wind up from work and have a nice time playing a map. LHCs provide a specific situation that is not so frequent when you start your games randomly. Sharing your game on the forum and reading reports from other players is also nice.

? The point is absolutely playing the same map. You're correct that there are some factors beyond control for having a similar map. Then again, what we were really comparing in the games, way back when, was how the other players approached the map. Seeing one guy make astro around 100-200 AD via bulbs? That can be copied. Having one guy make astro 20 turns earlier because he got it from a hut? How am I supposed to replicate THAT?

TMIT, for someone who wrote a guide on preparing forum saves, that's a little odd. Preparing saves with and without huts is so easy that it's almost ridiculous. First you prepare a WB save with huts on and save it. Then you open it with your word processor of choice and click Find, type something like IMPROVEMENT=Tribal Village (don't remember its actual name) and click replace all by a blank space. What's so hard about that? If there's such an interest in playing without huts and events, I believe it's the host's duty to do that. That way, everyone can have it the way they like it.

Of course I know how to do it.

It's the DUTY of the player to make his own changes if he wants to use non-standard settings. You wouldn't expect a host to put up BUG mod every time when the save is always compatible with no mods, would you?

Or are you saying that the option should be left in and PLAYERS can WB remove them? Ridiculous. That would leave almost everyone playing the map doing so with huts on. While find/replace is trivial for current/former hosts, not everyone even knows where to locate this kind of stuff. Or...should hosts be uploading maps with each different option? THAT would certainly get unwiedly.

Those are all valid reasons if your objective is to push yourself as much as you can while playing a game and see how well you can fare. It's a valid approach. It is NOT, however, the only approach to playing games. I already said what I play these games for. Now, when it comes to playing MP games, I agree with you. In that case, I'm really competing against the others and don't want randomness getting in my way.

Is there some reason playing without huts requires one to "push as much as they can"? You can certainly make a case that reduction in fake difficulty as a game factor would make the game more playable even to casual players. Also, if you're not "pushing", why stop at huts? You can then abuse reloads, worldbuilder, etc ad nauseum. What you're really saying is that you DEMAND the opportunity for a RNG to spit some random outcomes at you, largely independent of what you do (and ironically gamed best by people "pushing").

it's also very frequent when players make up their own minds and can't conceive others having different perspectives, leading to some arrogant posts such as:

The RIGHT thing is to accommodate the different playing styles when providing these saves.

Well now, isn't this interesting? Making fun of a setting that objectively qualifies as fake difficulty/sheer chance in a strategy game is arrogant...but telling hosts the "right way" to post forum games (which by the way is done for free and is not limited to said hosts anyway)? Nope, not arrogant :goodjob:.

Which is also the reason I hardly ever play IU games anymore.

Which is a completely ridiculous statement. FWIW, I admit arrogance...but I've hosted exactly one LHC that I can remember. Maybe two, but I think it's one. Unless you felt R_Rolo1 was similarly arrogant?

The real reason you didn't play any LHC games for a long time is that NOBODY posted any. Certainly a valid, if unfortunate reason.

Then again, if you're so critical of hosts picking settings as they see fit, there's one final thing to point out:

Nobody owns the series

Nobody ever did. If you think the RIGHT THING to do is provide saves with a myriad of options available to the player...or you want crazy maps...or you want fair maps...whatever...there's one thing that guarantees it happening. Host maps on the forum yourself.

If the purpose is really comparing games, initial saves with random assets locked should be provided.


I'd be perfectly OK with that.

In any case, I put "the same" in inverted commas for a reason. Obviously, no two games will be exactly the same. But as TMIT says - "I got Astro from a hut" doesn't teach anything (except possibly "in an isolated start, don't pop huts until you absolutely have to").

As I said in my last post, I'm perfectly happy to delete the huts for myself, if the game comes with them in. I do so for Noble's Club already. On the other hand, if playing with huts is a big deal for you, why not host your own forum game, or play a non-forum game, or play an Noble's Club game, where huts are on? No-one is forcing you to play this map :)

My ears are burning :D

Well, as people are arguing about what were my intentions, I think I have a dent in that talk , so I'll barge in.

First of all, I agree with TMIT point. Huts are unbalanced and relying on them does not teach you a dime ( barring that you can be a SGOTM winner just because of that ... SGOTM 9 winning team only won because it decided to gamble on a astro pop and lucked out ) and I only play with them in my offline games if I forget to tick the option in game gen.

The issue with huts, though , and the thing that diferentiates them from other option related stuff that you can manage well in WB saves simply by loading via Single player->Custom Scenario ( if you can stomach the spoilering of the other civs that this screen forces you upon ) is that huts are terrain "features", so they have to be on the map if you want them

In other words, if you want a game with huts, your WB save must have huts ( the oposite is also true ). Ticking the huts option when there are no huts in the map in here will not magically make them appear and ticking the no huts option will not make them go away.

Seeing things in this angle, I decided that having huts in the maps was a better compromise: not only less people would be pissed, but it is far easier for a end user of a WB map to erase huts from one with them ( as pointed, search for "Goody" after opening with a text editor and erase all the occurences . Not as clean as searching and deleting the whole line (ImprovementType=IMPROVEMENT_GOODY_HUT) , but it will work ) than putting huts in a WB map that does not have them.

About the series philosophy under my hand: well, I never intended to make the starts balanced, fair or whatever. Some were hard as hell, some were extremely easy ... IMHO my main philo was always to make maps that were winnable, fun and from where people could learn a thing or two about the game from their own games of from the other players, a thing that a common start allows with some ease. Not a competition arena ... not that I dislike the competions , but there are a lot of them around, starting by the GOTM and related, where you are actually playing golf in a civ map ( the oponent is not the ball, but the other guys playing ) , a far diferent thing from what I tried to pull out with the LHC

But again I'm not the owner or the man in charge :D

@stevoh

WB editing is not hard, but it can take some time to take a good grasp on. Some resources I suggest:

Reading:

In depth look at the WBS (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135669) file by Dale, the guy that actually wrote the Civ IV in-game World Builder Manual (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132800) for internal use of Firaxis back in the Civ IV development days. In spite of being outdated ( some BtS and warlords related tags are absent ) it is still a cornerstone for understanding the logic used in a WB save and a good database if you want to spiff things out ( like making a map where Rome uses the American building style, have Asian looking units, black borders and black and white flags :devil: )

TMIT's Guide to Strategy & Tips Series Map Creation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322396). It has the enough WB file editing for put you running and has some serious insights of the author in how to make a enjoyable map ( I concur with almost all of it )

Utilities ( if you feel lazy )

WBCleaner (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270443) - unfortunately abandoned and still in a very precocious state. It will not make everything you need for a LHC ( so you will have to go to the text editor anyway ), but IMHO it helps a lot ( TMIT disagrees :D ) especially when you are doing your baby steps in this

Wow, that start smells like garbage island! Gonna try it tomorrow and probably force a culture win like always :-)

edit: OK, that didn't work out well.


Got found by Bismarck. All had Astro before I had Optics.
Lost Lib that went in 1000 AD.
Lost Music, Lost Sistine.
Only founded 2 religions (Christianity, Islam). Went Christian and built the AP.

When I found Ragnar he had TWO cities and no religion and was in war mode, He went for Churchill who settled on his island. The big continent was all Buddhists, except for SB, who was Tao. That explains the fast Lib. There were no wars pre Astro. Charlie took out Capac (Hindu) and then me.
I didnt bother building any military or anything. I just hit enter all the time. Without sistine it takes years to win culture. I could have called declare war on Charlie in AP ( the only non-christian), but I didn't see a chance to take back my city #2 that he captured so I didn't care.

Games like these where all AIs love each other and you can't do anything are just a waste of time. At least in isolation you don't have to watch all game long how they share every tech every turn.
At least the land wasn't as insulting as in that Saladin Oasis game

Thanks for the linkis r-rolo, they will be helpfull. Hopefully i can learn from the mistakes i made in uploading this game....
As for huts, im kinda torn, i agree with both arguments, they are fake difficulty but at the same time, as a host i do want to allow different playing styles. I could upload a monarch save with huts from now on and have the other saves without them. Or mabey i should follow what rolo did and just keep them on, to stop this whining, and ranting.... what do ye think?

Upload all the maps the same way - with or without huts.

If you upload with huts, I'm happy to strip them out and share the 'no huts' versions here.