Have tutorial games already been tried and failed? Would they be okay to have? Is anyone besides me interested?

My vision would be someone (me or whoever) generates a vanilla Civ III map, say on Warlord with 4 or 5 civs, saves the game at 4000 BC without making a move, and everyone who is interested in either learning or teaching downloads the map and plays 20 or 30 turns. Then we can post turn synopsis and compare outcomes. Then maybe post the best and the worst, or just the best, and everybody download and play another set of turns and compare notes.

Then maybe some of us chieftain idiots would be able to SEE what we are doing wrong, or see how to do things better, and stop pestering all of you experts daily with questions?:hmm: I see a lot of frustration in the threads because the pros think they are explaining very clearly but the newbies are still scratching their heads going "now what did he mean by that?" but feel stupid asking for further explanation. I learned a lot from downloading the save game to an OSG and comparing my turns to those of the next player, but they are playing so far above my level that I didn't learn as much as I could, and besides they didn't really explain some of what they did because their intent was not education but victory. :king:

As for the volunteer "teachers," either you are just wonderful people or you relish a chance to show off your skills and strategies? :thumbsup:

Heike

I think it's a good idea, and I'd be happy to help out, when I can. I would suggest playing with a standard number of civs, as using less skews the game (and its lessons). Pausing every 20 turns is a good pace, and people could play as slowly or quickly as they want, then getting reactions to posting their 20-turn records and game saves. One suggestion: due to the relative importance of the first 20 turns, I would strongly encourage everyone who intends to participate to first read Cracker's "Civ3 Opening Plays Site," available at the War Academy. It is a very thorough guide on how to get an optimal start.

Heike, good idea. I suggest making it an OSG, and place "trainer" somewhere it the name. Also, it really, really helps to know the goal from the start. This will affect build orders and diplomacy. There are basically two: (1) domination/conquest and (2) s/r,un, and culture. And, there are differences within all five. Go Heike!

It's the same as a "TDG" (Training Day Game) in the succession game forum (Stories & Tales).

Hi Chieftess!

Several points I would like to make:
1) What I have in mind is NOT exactly a succession game. My idea is, EVERY player downloads the map and plays the turns, then we compare notes. Not one after the other.
2) I wanted it to be all Mac players. You may disagree, but *I* think the Mac port is a tad different. The more I see screen shots and read threads in the regular CivIII forum, the more convinced I am that this is true.
3) I did not find an ongoing TDG - last one ended in Dec? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Certainly I wouldn't have looked for training games under Stories & Tales ... ??
4) I would like to be able to get input from whoever drops by as some do from time to time - dojoboy, diamondzandgunz, tao, Txurce, just to mention a few who have been helpful to me. I thought if it were open-ended we wouldn't stall out if one "teacher" got too busy or forgot, and perhaps even us comparing notes with each other (the newbies) would be somewhat helpful. Also with my idea, as I see it, we wouldn't have to wait on any one person before proceeding at any time...

So do you have a problem with me trying it? :hmm:

Thanks

Originally posted by dojoboy
Heike, good idea. I suggest making it an OSG, and place "trainer" somewhere it the name. Also, it really, really helps to know the goal from the start. This will affect build orders and diplomacy. There are basically two: (1) domination/conquest and (2) s/r,un, and culture. And, there are differences within all five. Go Heike!

Hrrm. Dojoboy, I am really getting to like you!

but... if there are other newbies out there like me, the goal is just to win ANY way! And maybe there are people who have found some way to win (I can sometimes win cultural) but would like to learn other techniques. For example, I have never ever managed to win a war but the AI keeps dragging me into them, so I think I need to learn warfare just to keep the AIs off my back. For example if I am in what could be a really good game except the #@$) Zulus declare war on me, it would be nice to be able to win the war and continue my game...

I was thinking if several different people were playing the "same" game (not in succession but sort of together) we might all learn a lot from each other about different styles of play and techniques. I could get really excited about comparing the 20 turns I played with 20 turns played by several other people from the same starting point and see how the outcomes vary ... :jump:

Heike, the Mac version isn't noticeably different than the PC1.21 version but PCers are now playing either the 1.29 version or the PTW version; this may be why you see a difference. The point is the same: this game will be Mac-only because we're incompatible with PCers.

I think everyone's learning curves would rise more quickly if the first game had a space-race victory condition. It requires a balanced approach and covers the most ground - and if everyone's pursuing the same goal, then comments are more likely to be universally helpful (certainly comments from the "teacher's" own games). A particular pursuit would have nothing to do with you focusing on warfare more than someone else.

Of course, it wouldn't be that much more difficult to comment on a player's game, regardless of its victory goal, as long as the player states what it is. My only advice as to what not to focus on from the beginning is a diplomatic victory, because it's more of a fall-back approach to winning, and doesn't bred good playing skills. (There is a strategy thread on diplomatic victory that makes for a tougher game, but most low-level players don't play it like that.)

Hi Heike

Like the idea, in fact I have been doing that with the current OSG (Xerxes) as I have shaddowed other players turns and learned a lot from 'expert' comments - like how and what to trade with the AIs.

Ideas on the early part would be helpfull, I am never sure whether to keep building new settlers, keeping initial city(ies) small - seems to be the AI approach, or build up some improvements to speed building slightly later.

MacBaldrick, I'm assuming you've reviewed Cracker's early-movement strategies. Now, the simple answer to your question about the early part is a balanced approach is best - certainly as you're developing your skills. I tend to build settlers as quickly as possible for as long as there's room to expand. The settlers can come from everywhere, or a dedicated city (factory) that typically produces a lot of food; sometimes adding a granary in this city makes a big difference. It is very important to mine and build roads from the start, which means that the number of workers should be steadily increased. Build at least one barracks, to pump out vet units (I go with one defensive unit per city, and the rest offensive). Early temples are cultural goldmines, and unify your early borders, so give them a high priority, even if they're not necessary for happiness at the start playing less than monarch. A simple approach to all this is dedicating as many of your cities as possible: a fertile one for settlers, a stuck-at-size-two for workers, and one or two for units. (Build temples everywhere fairly soon.) The workers are mining plains and grasslands, and building roads to link your cities to resources and each other, as well as toward your neighbors. Keep an eye on the research slider to maximize research (and minimize expenses), as population shifts at this early stage have a dramatic effect on the research rate. By now you can begin to think about whether you want to start a palace prebuild in what will be a wonder city, and how you wish to deal with your neighbors, from a position of strength.

I think something like this would be great. We all could learn something, since just "reading" strategies might not be as useful as actually seeing them applied. We should definately agree on a goal early on, so we can gear our empire towards it. If we plan on Diplomacy, we don't want to go around razing every civ that gets too close. If we want culture, we should prepare for that as well, etc.

We have a green light from Chieftess (I spoke to her in chat) and obviously some interest. Oooo, I love it when a plan comes together!! :D

Can anyone make an announcement .. one of those sticky things.. ? in the mac forum, or does a MOD have to do it? I think we should make an announcement so more people will see it. The more the merrier, right, since everyone is playing along and it isn't really an SG... ?

Next I think it would be nice to have one of the "expert" players generate the initial .sav as they might have a better idea of what will make a good training game (pick the civs, etc.). For this first one I think I would prefer not to have much barbarians. From all I've read they aren't that important to strategy - just an extra nuisance.

Also I don't think we need a registry or anything for the "students." Anyone who wants to can download the save and play along? It might be nice to know who our "teachers" are, though.
;)

Is it fair to give everyone 48 hours to play their 20 turns before anyone starts posting their results?

And how about after the results we could have a poll or a consensus to choose whose game to continue from? It would become total chaos very quickly if everyone played on with their own game, so I think after each 20 turns we need a way to pick ONE game that all who are participating continue on with. Does that make sense to everyone?

How about if if we call this the Macintosh Training Games or MTG (I am sure it will acquire an acronym if we don't give it one) and we can number them if it's a success and we have more than one. Other suggestions are welcome as long as the result is not something insulting.. :rolleyes:

Perhaps we should post it in the newbies thread too, what do you think? Some of them might be Mac players. Also, if anyone really wants to participate here on a PC, they could if they are only patched to 1.21, right?

Well, I am excited! I hope some of you are, too. Maybe by the weekend we will actually have a save to download and start with. :jump:

Thank you everyone for your interest and your willingness to help!:goodjob:

Also I don't think we need a registry or anything for the "students." Anyone who wants to can download the save and play along? It might be nice to know who our "teachers" are, though.

Sure, we most likely won't need to keep a list of people. But, I'd recommend that those who participate should at least consistently try to play. I could volunteer my services and be a teacher. :)

Is it fair to give everyone 48 hours to play their 20 turns before anyone starts posting their results?

Sounds good.

And how about after the results we could have a poll or a consensus to choose whose game to continue from? It would become total chaos very quickly if everyone played on with their own game, so I think after each 20 turns we need a way to pick ONE game that all who are participating continue on with. Does that make sense to everyone?

Yeah, we should definately think of a way to determine which game was the "best."

Perhaps we should post it in the newbies thread too, what do you think? Some of them might be Mac players. Also, if anyone really wants to participate here on a PC, they could if they are only patched to 1.21, right?

I'm not sure about posting it in the newbie thread, but posting it somewhere where people could see is a good idea. Yes, I believe that PC users patched to 1.21 could, but I believe I saw they had their own training games, somewhere...

How about if if we call this the Macintosh Training Games or MTG (I am sure it will acquire an acronym if we don't give it one) and we can number them if it's a success and we have more than one.

Yeah, we could progress up a difficulty, or change the map in some way with every game, so that each is more challenging than the last. I'd certainly like to see these go up to emperor or deity, eventually. ;)

Well, I am hoping that maybe at some point we can get some of the better players to design games for us that will force learning different strategies and techniques to win. I, for example, am a peaceful builder and every game just can't be won like that. You could pick some parameters and set up a map that would force me to practice warfare, couldn't you? And perhaps another game could be set up with a lack of resources at the human player starting location, forcing us all to hone our trading skills, and so on. I venture to say that every player here has a weakness that can be improved upon - no one is perfect. In the future maybe even some of the better players will get interested if games are set up to "teach" particular strategies, techniques, etc. After a few games are done and we are all generally better players, anyone participating could make a request for what they feel like they need to learn, and someone who feels like they have expertise in that area could design a game and tutor us through it...??

Heike, a large part of experiencing success is learning how the AI behaves and then trusting in that behavior. The difficulty level doesn't matter, its the same AI. Its very predictable. For example, you can station a few workers just beyond the reach of an enemy SOD to draw it away from a city or leave a city empty deep within your civ to lure the SOD in, then open up w/ artillery, and pick off the wounded units as they try and return home to heal. Also, if you feint into the enemy's territory, the AI will withdraw a large portion of its units to oppose your offensive. Well, there is more and not just in regards to military manuevers. Anything that baits the AI is considered an "exploit." Some are ethically acceptable, others are not.

At this point, maps can't be easily designed. I also don't see the point of setting up limiting conditions for a warlord-level game - if the regular game's too easy, then go up a level. Given all this, anyone can generate a saved game. I would suggest standard everything - including barbarians - because that's how you learn to develop a balanced civ. I would also suggest choosing a civ that doesn't give you an early military powerhouse, as this will make you work harder at establishing a viable ancient-era empire.

I would definitely be interested in joining in the learning. I'm trying my first Regent level game and am trying to stay focused on cultural victory. I have stacked the deck a little by selecting to play Egypt.

I'm still trying to get the feel of the AI -- for example I find that when the AI demands a tribute (even if the other Civ is Polite towards me), if I ignore them or tell them to "sod off" they seem to invariably declare war on me. I expected this from the Zulu, but not from Persia. Is this a factor of the ratio of military might between my civ and that of the AI?

I think it would be interesting to try to play a game where there was a target for victory (it seems that the GOTM games tend to that direction -- or at least to exclude options).

A unique challenge would be to try a victory condition that may not play to the strength of the civ (ie -- domination victory for India).

Alternatively, we could play to the strength of a civ, but in a situation where the AI will play to a different strength (like my current game where I am Egypt, going for a cultural win against Zulu, Rome, and Germany -- all of whom seem bent on warring with me).

A third proposition is to select a civ, select several for the AI and try to play two games on random maps with the same "tribes" and shoot for different winning conditions.

I eagerly await my first "lesson"

JP, good luck on your cultural quest. I agree that the training games should have a specific goal, as they're much easier to critique (and learn from) as a result. Now as to your question: the AI has declared war on you because they feel they're stronger than you. They're not always right, by the way.

Originally posted by jpalcino
I'm still trying to get the feel of the AI -- for example I find that when the AI demands a tribute (even if the other Civ is Polite towards me), if I ignore them or tell them to "sod off" they seem to invariably declare war on me. I expected this from the Zulu, but not from Persia. Is this a factor of the ratio of military might between my civ and that of the AI?

I think the AI only judges units you currently have as your power. They don't calculate your potential, which is a strategy in itself. You could have many cities w/factories and dams and change normalcy to war time and draft, etc. and kick their butt, always satisfying. Plus it depends on if they have allies and if you don't, or you could be too strong and they want everyone else to take you out so you don't win.

[I]Originally posted by dojoboy[I]
Heike, a large part of experiencing success is learning how the AI behaves and then trusting in that behavior. The difficulty level doesn't matter, its the same AI. Its very predictable.

Interesting... PTW...Humans enter the picture...No more predictions..."Lets both ally against the AI in this one. HEY! you can't declare war on me! aaahhhhhh!"

"It will be mine. Oh, yes, it will be mine." - Waynes World

In our version (1.21g), the military advisor determines strength through total number of units, which is very misleading. However, in the PC 1.29f version, Firaxis programmed the AI to consider military units only (I believe offensive units are weighed more). So, the military advisor under 1.29f shoud be more accurate in its determination of power.

You may consider it overengineering, but let me suggest that we use different colours for the posts of the different players (and the same colour for the comments, of course).

How does the whole thing start?

I'm sure the process will refine and develop as we go along. Right now, I think all we need is for someone to generate a suitable map and upload it. I apologize for starting this and then being MIA, but my husband is having a serious health problem that started yesterday and it may be a few days before I'm able to be here much. By all means, though, start without me. I'd hate to lose the momentum and have to try to get this ball rolling all over again.

If you are interested in a Macintosh tutorial/training game, we have started them. To join in or follow along,

Go Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42924)