Gotm18-Celts Results and Congratulations [Archive]

Txurce

May 11, 2003, 11:27 AM

There has been a lot of discussion in the preceding posts about the need for specific goals from the beginning, in order to excel. This often starts with settling on a victory condition within the first turn or two (or sooner), but it seems to apply to all aspects of the game. What are you going to do once you succeed at what you're just starting, and how does one lead to the other?

One of the hardest parts about constantly looking ahead is the tendency to allow yourself to "catch up." For example, you set a goal like knocking off the Romans in GOTM18, then decide Egypt is next. Rome is knocked off, and now you have to trot all those Swordsmen west. Valuable turns are being lost if you didn't have Egypt in mind already, and mapped out your campaign trail so that your Swordsmen were headed west as soon as possible. On a more subtle basis, it could also apply to researching the tech tree with the help of the AI. Planning ahead also implies flexibility, and this really comes into play when trying to hang in there with the deity tech pace.

Taking early control of your victory path (and moving it along as quickly as possible) is what I think keeps good scores short of the spectacular ones. I always have a flexible plan that takes me through the whole game, but sometimes settle on a strat that doesn't take control right away. In GOTM19, I decided to use the GL to stay in the early tech race. It worked exactly as planned - but guaranteed that I wouldn't be pulling away, since it tied me to the mediocre pace of Rome and Carthage. I also decided on building (or rushing) the FP at an ideal place, which combined with my early peaceful ways to keep me from benefiting from an FP for way too many centuries. These are examples of seeming to plan ahead, but actually letting the game control the plan by setting the pace. As a result, anyone who built an early FP blew me off the road en route to the tech-race midpoint.

On a different topic: it was great to see the Jason system hold up so well when it finally came under assault.

cracker

May 11, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Renata
Renata <-- seems to have picked the right victory condition this month :p
Kudos also to Renata, who played one of her best games yet during this month.
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/images/knot_1.gif

The Gotm18-Celts game was a Pangaea type map so this would cater a bit to certain styles of play and also emphasize conditions where the whole world was known and you could have a fast tech pace plus contact with 10 different entities almost from teh start of the game.

Contrast the character of the Gotm18 game against the extreme separation and isolations of Gotm17-Carthage (an in your non-discussion mode compare these character aspects to Gotm19-Ottomans that is currently in progress).

The Gotm18 results have examples of excellence sprinkled throughout the results list. We have many relative newcomer players who presented very strong game results. We have journeyman players who posted their best finish results ever and also who felt challenged enough to try new and innovative things.

It is most impressive to see a wide variety of strategic victory choices and to have each of these groups evolve into exciting "horse races". If you look at some of the results you will see that there are a number of paired games where one player may have beaten the other player by only a few turns but the game scoring also includes aspects of empire size and power that reflect who may be playing the stronger overall game. The Jason score balances these two factors masterfully. You can look at the results and say "I was faster but you were stronger and just a few steps behind." On any given day and in any given game, order of finish can be changed by how the players choose to focus on winning the game and by how effective they are at implementing the strategy they have chosen.
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/images/knot_1.gif

In the background, I am not 100% sure all of you know how truly fantastic all of YOUR staff volunteers really are. Every member of the team is working for you throughout the month to make sure that you have a reliable and enjoyable gaming experience that can then serve as the central campfire around which you find a number of enjoyable participation opportunities. Each member of the team does critically important tasks and we will be adding a number of additional staff members this month to help us support the game membership as we prepare to break through the magical 200 player milestone.

My personal thanks to all the primary staff members and all of the additional suuport staff for making this such an honorable and exciting place to be. - cracker
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/common/smilies/ole.gif

TedJackson

May 11, 2003, 12:13 PM

Congrats to everyone including Cracker and ALL the team.

Special congrats to Moonsinger for bringing all her cows home first :)

Couldn't get this game finished in time :( but I'm enjoying reading all about it.

regards

Ted

Yndy

May 11, 2003, 01:30 PM

Great game everyone. I'm glad to see new good players emerging due to experience or due to just finding about the game. I must say I'm a little dissapointed with my 32nd place, down from the QSC and from the former month. GOTM 18 also looks bad but I am planning a come back with GOTM 19.
Following on a topic earlier in April I see that the early milked 20K seems to outscore the full milk. That's a good to know strategy. I'm wondering how many will we see in GOTM 18 and on.

CruddyLeper

May 11, 2003, 01:32 PM

Congratulations to Moonsinger, and indeed all the top players. I've learned more in my first GOTM than just about any other place I can think of - and I still have a long way to go.

And MUCH respect to all those who submitted despite losing - without a few breaks of luck I would have joined you, dropping 50 odd places. See you next time.

Oh, I couldn't forget Cracker and the team - my heartfelt thanks for giving me my Civ education and the huge amounts of fun. Keep it up!

LKendter

May 11, 2003, 02:02 PM

I looks like starting with GOTM#20 I have to really look harder at my games. My last 2 game have my rankings falling through the floor.

I though I had a good game, but the score proves otherwise. :(

JonathanValjean

May 11, 2003, 02:56 PM

Moonsinger, you have completely silenced the detractors who thought that, once the Jason system was implemented, you would cease to reign at the top. What they didn't realize was that in order to have such high-scoring milked games, a player must have an incredible amount of skill. You certainly have a tremendous amount of skill, as evidenced by your return to supremacy. In your earlier games, all that you did when you milked was to show painstaking attention to detail and an infinite supply of patience. Congratulations on such a great game!

Bamspeedy, congratulations on another exceptional performance! As the author of so many fine articles in the War Academy, it is no surprise to see you consistently at the top.

Sirpleb, all victory conditions!? Truly amazing! Great job!

Cracker, Aeson, and Creepster: thanks for all of your efforts. To have gotten both the QSC and these results out so promptly is definitely above and beyond the call of duty. In fact, as volunteers, anything you do is above and beyond. Thanks so much!

mad-bax

May 11, 2003, 04:08 PM

Great job Moonsinger. :goodjob: How did you stop anyone else going for a 20K win?

There were so many amazing games this month, the spoilers were a great place to be.

If your names on the list, congrats. :)

Mark Cutt

May 11, 2003, 04:25 PM

Great experience! 187 submissions is a huge number!

Thanks to all the GOTM staff and congrats to the top player for their unbelievavle performance.

I was 49th! Not bad but I plan to be higher in the rank with GOTM19.

OneFastWarrior

May 11, 2003, 07:29 PM

Congrats to all you outrageously talented players. I thought I was going to be last this month, but I was only next to last.. lol at myself. However, I will keep playing and submitting in hopes of one day winning on a level that is worthy.

And the team that puts so much time into the gotm's is truely awesome... keep up the great work.

Txurce

May 11, 2003, 07:45 PM

Shillen, that was a terrific effort, putting you right up there in the stratosphere. With regard to a comment you made elsewhere... are you sure that "milking" your game to 2050 noticeably increased your score? Once you were done, did you try replaying and seeing if an earlier finish would have been much different?

cracker

May 11, 2003, 08:09 PM

Txurce and Shillen,

I think you need to look at the comparable games around Shillen's game to get a perspective of whether you think any interpretation of score pushing or milking may have helped Shillen's game.

Shillen was at 8th place with 18,335 raw points and 9040 Jason score.

Ronald was just behind at 10th place with 8,012 raw points and 8703 Jason score but finished in 1520AD instead of 2050AD.

Shillen played an additional 246 turns to gain 337 points which does not translate into a great of points per turn investment.

Using the score calculator, we can input the raw score and year for Ronald's game and then move the year forward to see how the Jason score increases if we were able to do things in Ronald's game to spead up the victory date by a few turns. If Ronald could have improved his victory date by 8 turns to get it down to 1460AD then his game would have outscored Shillen's game that was milked to some degree.

Shillen's game is out in the time range where it takes an increase of 25 rawpoints by milking to increase the resulting Jason score by just 1 point. Ronald's game on the other hand is much closer to the optimal victory curve and just requires two additional raw scor poinst to raise his Jason score by 1 point.

Txurce

May 11, 2003, 08:18 PM

Cracker, Ronald's game was the comparison I had in mind as well - and you answered all of my questions. Thanks.

hotrod0823

May 11, 2003, 10:30 PM

I though I had a good game, but the score proves otherwise.

I don't think you can say a game was good or bad just based on score. You set a goal and accomplished it. I also think if you play your games with the same rule set you have in all our LK series you limit your scoring potential. I play by the same set of rules that have been set out in most SG games. This is by choice and I believe that it can effect the scoring. Chosing not to break 20 turn deals, make phony peace, ROP abuse, Free Palace Jump, etc.

I don't know how to have a huge ingame score so to me it isn't important how high the score is. In all the LK games we have played together I don't think Scoring the highest we could was ever the goal. These games should be no different.

Moonsinger

May 11, 2003, 11:43 PM

Great game everyone.:goodjob: Thank you all for your kind words and encouragement and many thanks to the GOTM staffs for hosting another enjoyable month.:)

Bamspeedy and SirPleb had me worried a little bit there around 1020 AD since they were both around 1000 points ahead of me. I had no idea what Bremp and Ribannah was up to until after I submitted my game. I was very fortunate this time because I was the only one going for the 20K Cultural.:) Btw, I posted my final score in the third spoiler thread; so there was really no big secret from me.;)

---

Originally posted by Yndy
Following on a topic earlier in April I see that the early milked 20K seems to outscore the full milk. That's a good to know strategy. I'm wondering how many will we see in GOTM 18 and on.

May be the following statistic from my game that may help you deciding on the best victory condition for your next game. Personally, I think the best Jason Score is mostly based on the map type; that means the 20K and 100K Cultural may be best on a pangaea map, but not for the Archipelago and so on.

cracker

May 12, 2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by LKendter
I though I had a good game, but the score proves otherwise. :(
First of all, if you had fun then you had a good game. If the game was different and in some way memorable, then you had a good game.

I you look at the result in the big picture you have a unique opportunity here. The changes we have made to the scoring system and the increased emphasis on discussion and constructive comparison are beginning to provide you something that you just haven't had full access to in the past.

You have a the good fortune to have participated in a game where you have a number of excellent comparative references that can let you look at you game objectively and say that you did some things very well. You can also look at similar games and say that some players may have pursued the same or similar objectives and perhaps done things a bit differently and perhaps got to the objectives quicker and in a stronger position.

Don't look at the results table and be downtrodden just because you were not in one of the top 10 positions in the game. There are world class players in these games doing some near to perfect and highly precise things.

Here are the top 13 games in your peer victory group pulled out of the results table (plus Moonsinger's and Shillen's games):

Player Raw Date Jason QSC U/B+I
1 Moonsinger20k 14736 1758 AD 11879
2 Ribannah 9940 1250 AD 11450
8 Shillen 18335 2050 AD 9040
10 Ronald 8012 1520 AD 8703 715/1802
12 Yurian 8863 1620 AD 8520

18 Karasu 6245 1545 AD 7678 835/2178
20 Mad-Bax 6585 1605 AD 7485 875/1971
26 RufRydyr 8686 1792 AD 7065 660/1568
35 Offa 7418 1764 AD 6865 675/1526
40 civ_steve 4860 1620 AD 6547 710/1631

60 jeffelammar 4844 1768 AD 5534 730/1656
67 LKendter 5042 1794 AD 5238 690/1968
70 Pigumon 4676 1790 AD 5117 660/1804
71 Man of Kent 8007 1926 AD 5080 580/1534
73 Spencer Roff 5684 1830 AD 5048

(Shillen's game is in there as a reference but really does not belong in much of the comparative analysis because it is a significantly different approach)

Recognize this list of a dozen+ games for the true miracle that it is. You have a dozen very good players all pursuing a similar victory condition on the same map circumstances and all by independent choice.

The raw score number that you see in the second column is essentially an oversimplified reflection of the average productive population and territory that the player was able to sustain in the game up to the point of the victory condition.

Your victory date is almost the same as Offa's game but his raw score indicates that he was able to build a civilization that sustained 50% more population and territory than you were able to sustain by the same point in history.

Moonsinger's victory was by a different condition but her date is again almost identical to yours and Offa's and her average population/territory is double Offa's and nearly three times as high as yours.

Civ_Steve, Mad-Bax, and Yurian also provide an excellent comparative cluster because they all finish within the same 3 or 4 turns but again we see some indicators of strong performance differences in average productive population and territory as the measures of civilization strength. Players in this group were pursuing the same strategic objective that you pursued but they finished 50 turns earlier in the game and scored higher.

Ronald and Karasu also played strong culture games and they finished approximately 70 turns ahead of your date with larger average populations and territories.

How did these groups of players consistently get to the objective quicker and with more toys and party guests in a larger hot tub??

I also look over to the Qsc18 Scoring Results (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/qsc/qsc18/index.shtml) and pull out the data that you see in the far right column for Units/Buildings+Infrastructure to see that you were right in the hunt with all the other players at the 1000BC mark. I believe that the difference in your game may reside in expanding too slowly in the mid-game and not slamming down every possible city to grab the cheap early temple and cathedral even when they would not be required just so you could grab more culture, more population, and more territory at an extreme pace.

If we pulled a special set of data for the culture games in the table and just graphed the cumulative data for temples and cathedrals (plus to a secondary extent Libraries and perhaps Universities) we would see that the earlier games are really slamming those improvements onto the map like Jesuit missionaries with a purpose.

In all of this, do not loose sight of the fact that for every player you see in the GOTM results table there are at least 200 other Civ3 players that will fill up lower sections of the results tables in an attempt to play a strong culture game. We know from the public comments and data that only approximately 30% of all the Civ3 players can regularly win Culture victories on Monarch or Emperor level games. So you are in select company and have the luxury of Monday Morning Quarterbacking to pick and choose the pieces of the other games in your peer group that you may wish to incorporate into your future games.

Yndy

May 12, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Maybe the following statistic from my game that may help you deciding on the best victory condition for your next game. Personally, I think the best Jason Score is mostly based on the map type; that means the 20K and 100K Cultural may be best on a pangaea map, but not for the Archipelago and so on.

Looking at the table I am surprised to see that SS is pretty good as well. I have to remember to keep such a table when I go for high score.

SirPleb

May 12, 2003, 01:48 AM

Congratulations Ribannah, Bamspeedy, and Bremp!

And Moonsinger, special congratulations to you for an awesome game!

It is wonderful to see the number of games submitted this month, and so very many victories!

Karasu

May 12, 2003, 03:08 AM

A great GOTM!

I didn't manage to participate in the spoiler threads, so I had no clue on what would happen.

I was amazed by the variety of games and scores. Fewer Space Races, and milked games that reappeared to stand alongside the other victory conditions without any advantage nor penalty.

So, I think our first congratulation should go to Aeson for a really outstanding scoring system.

Moonsinger -your game is really amazing. I have only tried once the 20k victory, but I'll keep this in mind for my next attempt.

And Ribannah. Wow! I tried the same finish as yours, and I really did my best... but took 300 years longer.

SirPleb's game is also one of the ones that impressed me the most. All victory conditions means you can really do whatever you want... :worshp:

Renata! Yes, you did pick the right victory, and you played really well: I really need to speed up the PoH updating now, so you can look at your award!!

Darkness

May 12, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Karasu
So, I think our first congratulation should go to Aeson for a really outstanding scoring system.

I can only echo that sentiment, but I seem to have forgotten to do so in my earlier post in this thread....:blush:

Ribannah

May 12, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by cracker
Shillen played an additional 246 turns to gain 337 points which does not translate into a great of points per turn investment.

Using the score calculator, we can input the raw score and year for Ronald's game and then move the year forward to see how the Jason score increases if we were able to do things in Ronald's game to spead up the victory date by a few turns. If Ronald could have improved his victory date by 8 turns to get it down to 1460AD then his game would have outscored Shillen's game that was milked to some degree.

Gaining 8 turns in a speed game is HUGE.

In my own game, there is absolutely nothing I can think of (but others might, of course), that I could have done after 1000 BC that could have gained me that many turns. Maybe one or two turns, if I had been real lucky and gotten a bunch more Great Leaders, but that's about it.

On the other hand, 337 points gained by milking doesn't seem to be such a big deal, at least at first glance, yet it gets you past someone else's equally excellent game.

This is not to belittle Shillen's peformance, he played a fine game himself and milking is a real art, but to put some perspective on how the scoring formula is working out.

Milking still pays off, it can gain you places 'coming from behind' others who didn't postpone their victory.

The question is, as I asked last month with little response, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Skyfish

May 12, 2003, 03:51 AM

Posted by cracker :
We have journeyman players who posted their best finish results ever and also who felt challenged enough to try new and innovative things.

:mischief:
Hum...that could be me :D

I did play a totally different way than I normally play and for once forgot to play under Honourable rules and tried to replicate GOTM tactics of players like Bamspeedy or Cartouche Bee. It was a one-off for me I think but I thoroughly enjoyed this game.
What a great result it was and what an honour to be eleventh with all those great players in front of me :)

Of course my biggest thank goes to Aeson and cracker for implementing the Jason score which I think allows player of my style to participate more interestingly to the GOTM. The results show a great array of different styles at the top of the table and that is really great.
The Jason score is a HUGE success ! :thumbsup:

Capt Buttkick

May 12, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Ribannah

Milking still pays off, it can gain you places 'coming from behind' others who didn't postpone their victory.

The question is, as I asked last month with little response, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

I think I saw some discussion on this. I for one think it works out amazingly well as is. The milkers can have their fix and the rest of us only have to play marginally better games to be competitive.

Now, how do I improve 40 placings in the gotm? :cool:

Bamspeedy

May 12, 2003, 04:39 AM

Also, keep in mind all these scores were using the old curve. Remember the 'changing the curve' thread? Unless they've changed their plans, there will be a slightly better curve for future games, and that may eliminate some of these small % of score differences that some people are worried about.

Aeson

May 12, 2003, 06:26 AM

Thanks for reminding me Bamspeedy. I'll have a comparison out shortly showing how the new curve would have affected this month's results. Probably better that I forgot about it, as the spotlight definitely should have been on the actual results rather than the changes. :)

Shillen

May 12, 2003, 10:18 AM

Well my game seems to have brought up some debate here.

Originally in the scoring system thread I did state that I thought I was getting an unfair advantage by milking. If I had finished as soon as I was able to get conquest I would have scored 7500 on the Jason scoring system. But by milking the last 300+ turns I was able to increase my score by 1540 points.

But Aeson brought to light another point that I hadn't thought about. That was the speed I had forgone in order to set up my milk. I definitely could have reached conquest much sooner had I not planned to milk the game. I went for the Pyramids first, and they were built by the Aztecs, which were one of the hardest civ's to get to from our starting position. This caused me to go in a wild conquest pattern which involved shipping my troops between the western and eastern fronts a couple times during the game. Had I gone for straight conquest I wouldn't have done this and would have acquired territory quicker (gotten more early score) and achieved victory quicker. So had I not planned to milk all along I would have scored much higher than 7500.

Do I think I played well enough to get 8th place? Not really. There were several mistakes I made and I feel going for the Pyramids at all costs was a bad decision. I feel I did make up for it in the milking phase though. As Aeson said the score reflects how you're doing at that point. Since my Jason score was rising as I milked, that means I was playing better during the milking period than I did during the conquest period. Should that count for increasing my standing? I don't know, I guess so.

I originally posted in the ethics of milking thread that I didn't think milking took any skill and was only useful for an artificial increase in score. Well I don't really think that anymore. After a discussion in the HoF thread a lot of different strategies came to light that I hadn't thought of. If I compare my GOTM18 to my regent game that I was milking for the HoF there's a huge difference in how I did it. And my GOTM18 game is just so much better it isn't funny. So obviously I improved my strategy which means there must be some skill to it. But I still think milking isn't enjoyable. And based on that I don't feel that I deserved my score increase just because I milked better than I conquered.

Also, comparing my game to Ronald's game doesn't make much sense. His game was a completely different type of game. My game was recorded as a cultural victory but it was really a multi victory. I could get conquest, domination, or cultural victory depending on what you did in 2049. I gradually gained cultural throughout the 540 turns and didn't hit the limit until 2050. You'd be better off comparing my game to a domination or conquest game because I reached both of those much earlier in the game before I started milking.

Zwingli

May 12, 2003, 12:10 PM

Congratulations to everyone who participated. Especially those who resisted the pangea induced urge to destroy the world. :goodjob:

As for my #155 placement and low scoring victory award, I can only hope to be the most improved player next month. :)

col

May 12, 2003, 12:16 PM

Hey lowest scoring win has a long and honourable history - and it aint that easy to get that award either!

Moonsinger

May 12, 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by col
Hey lowest scoring win has a long and honourable history - and it aint that easy to get that award either!

I think it's very doable. Just find a good spot and fortify your first settler until 1000BC or for as long as you can before founding your capital.;)

PS: Originally, it was Ribannah's idea; I'm just adding just a little bit of stuffings onto it.

hotrod0823

May 12, 2003, 01:30 PM

Just a quick thing I noticed when reviewing the results. I don't know what to make of it but I think it is important enough to share what I've found.

In Game Jason
Cultural 100K 7022 6411

Domination 6230 6076

Conquest 8781 6405

Diplo 3765 4272

Space 3224 3987

These are some data points I pulled when I just looked at the Victory types and noticed a trend in the scoring.

The above are scoring averages from GOTM18 with all victories included except for Zwingli (2CC conquest). And of course Moonsinger's stand alone 20K cultural win. ;)! And I didn't know where to put SirPleb or Bamspeedy's multi win games.

The question I have is a Diplo or Space victory less valuable than a Domination, cultural or Conquest Win. I am not sure why but this would appear to mean that for this game setup a Diplo/Space win was a loser from the get go.

Why is that ?

Hotrod

Aeson

May 12, 2003, 01:44 PM

Using averages like that will lead to faulty conclusions. Not all the victory conditions are as difficult (by skill and/or time necessary to complete a victory) as the others on a map. On some maps Conquest/Domination are very quick and easy. On others they are much more difficult and time consuming.

Because this map had a 'Large' landmass setting, Spaceship/Diplomatic were probably the two quickest victory conditions, other than a small empire 20k type game. Conquest and Domination were going to take a while because so many units had to be moved around. Cultural 100k was probably somewhere inbetween. Because of that, the 'easy' victories were Spaceship/Diplomatic, and so the players struggling to win gravitate to those victory conditions, while the players having an easier time of things could go for whatever victory condition they wanted to. On most maps this is going to be the case, and I'd expect the average Jason and in-game scores to be lower for Spaceship/Diplomatic because of it. Even if the map favored Spaceship/Diplomatic through the scoring system (this one actually favored any game played to ~14-1800AD).

Bamspeedy

May 12, 2003, 01:47 PM

The question I have is a Diplo or Space victory less valuable than a Domination, cultural or Conquest Win. I am not sure why but this would appear to mean that for this game setup a Diplo/Space win was a loser from the get go.

Not necessarily. Since you are including the average of all scores, this can skew things. For some of the players that are newer to Civ3, they may be more tend to finish with a late victory (space, diplo), because they may lack the skills at this point to militarily decimate their opponents, or have the ability to freely choose which victory to take, so they just hold on for the wild ride and may squeek away with a victory when the AI falls apart in the very late game. These newer players would then be bringing down the average of the top players who chose diplo or space and played extremely well.

The same can be said for milkers. If 3 top players all happen to milk and score well, that doesn't mean that the scoring curve favored milking for that game, or that those 3 wouldn't have scored just as high if they finished in some other way.

hotrod0823

May 12, 2003, 02:11 PM

So it is implied that it doesn't take any skill to launch or win a diplo vote? I understand that is not what you are saying but the implication is that a diplo victory or space victory is easier and deserves a lower score. That shouldn't mean that there game is any less valueable. I didn't find myself "struggling" at all I knew I was going to win.

In GOTM 19 I chose a more balanced approach but still had space as a goal. This is not to say I didn't have the skill to win by domination or conquest. In 18 I made a choice to play a peaceful builder/trading game and had no designs on conquest or domination. I like the variety and found both games enjoyable.

It just appears that the Scoring is schewed to benefit the warmongers. That is just the way it is.

As far as the milkers go they are in a class by themselves and I make no attempt to even compare my games to those.

Bamspeedy

May 12, 2003, 02:28 PM

You are right, in that is NOT what I meant. Of course they don't deserve a lower score. I'm just saying that there may be some players who let's say normally play regent or warlord. They come into this game on monarch and are overwhelmed and need much of the game to catch up. By the time they catch up, then diplo/space is already available, or available pretty soon, so they go for that method instead of tediously moving MA all over the map.

I'm talking about late victories in the 1900-2000 A.D. or later(ranks of #110 and below, for example)., and you will see many of the victories that late in the game are spaceship, so they bring down the average of other spaceship/diplo victors who finished much faster, such as yourself.

hotrod0823

May 12, 2003, 02:34 PM

I think what I am trying to get at is there is no way to "equalize" the difference in scoring that is built into the difference of victory condition. Because score is heavily weighted on population, territory and power it is always going to favor the war monger.

The Jason scoring balances the milked domination win with the non-milked win but I doubt there is any way to compare a peaceful 1640 AD diplo/space victory of a small technically advanced civ with a military powerhouse that dominated the world in 1000 AD.

My sole purpose was to point out that there is a difference in how the scores relate and it may never be overcome due to built in Game score calculations that favor the military heavily.

I am sorry I got a bit defensive but I realize that I made the choice to go the tech route in 18 and 19 and I may have to pull out the warmonger in me for GOTM20.

Hotrod

a space oddity

May 12, 2003, 02:41 PM

@Bamspeedy: Talking about me? ;) (111th)

I guess you're right, the later in the game the bigger the human advantage gets. For one new to the level, like myself, you are trying to stay alive in the game, and at some point you realize you can win it. But time is running out at that point so, like Aeson says, you're gravitating towards spaceship. My personal opinion is that a diplo win is harder and takes more planning. People that find diplo too easy, will mostly not hold the vote to find out how unpredictable the AI can be. (There are some good articles about AI moods towards you, but you have to have good memory to know how they feel about each other :) )

Aeson

May 12, 2003, 02:44 PM

The Jason scoring balances the milked domination win with the non-milked win but I doubt there is any way to compare a peaceful 1640 AD diplo/space victory of a small technically advanced civ with a military powerhouse that dominated the world in 1000 AD.

The problem arises because a 1640AD (or earlier) Diplo/Space win is not mutually exclusive with a 1000AD (or earlier) Domination. The player can conquer out to the Domination limit while keeping a pretty good tech rate, and then launch/hold the vote at a decent date still. So if you're comparing 2 games which both launch at or near the same date, why shouldn't the one that controls most of the world score more than one that controls only a small part of it?

hotrod0823

May 12, 2003, 02:59 PM

I see your point. You have to make a distinction between the two and score is the only way to do it.

Hotrod

Mazarin

May 12, 2003, 03:30 PM

congratulations to Moonsinger, Ribannah, Bamspeedy and all the others who have shown their great skills in civ. I'm quite new to the GOTM (didn't play gotm18, gotm19 will be my second) and I'm really impressed with your games. Hopefully, one day I'll have learned enough to be able to compare with all these great players.

civ_steve

May 12, 2003, 09:23 PM

Congratulations to the GOTM staff for another great month!! I and many others really appreciate the work you do to turn out this quality product. :goodjob: I gained considerable additional insight with Cracker's discussion of the cultural victories - I knew the manner in which I played the game, and to have the master compare the different results and bring in the QSC inputs of the games ... that was really impressive analysis. Thanks!!

Originally posted by hotrod0823

The question I have is a Diplo or Space victory less valuable than a Domination, cultural or Conquest Win. I am not sure why but this would appear to mean that for this game setup a Diplo/Space win was a loser from the get go.

Why is that ?

Hotrod [/B]

I know (and have noticed) what you're referring to, Hotrod, and I wanted to expand a little on Bamspeedy's and Aeson's replies. Because the majority of the Spaceship and Diplo victories occur later in the game (if for no other reason, because of the technology requirements), these games have to be 'milked' to score highly. The vast majority of players are not going to do this, so the averages of these types of Victories are reduced in comparison to games where active milking does occur, or games where an early victory is achieved. I don't think this means that these victories are less valuable; this is just a consequence of the balancing act that the Jason scoring system follows.

Yndy

May 13, 2003, 01:16 AM

It seems that everyone has a different view of why diplo/space score lower.
I think it is due to the fact that those victories can be obtained very quickly if you get the skill to play them. But the skill to play a very fast diplo or space seems to be one of the hardest skills IMO. You have to conquer early, and develop the empire while in the same time increase research. The victories of DaveMcW and Ribbanah in the former GOTMs show that and the score system has to keep that in mind. In GOTM 18 I went for an early SS victory and ended up with a diplo one but I consider it a failed attempt and my score shows that.

Karasu

May 13, 2003, 01:55 AM

Yndy -call it "a failed attempt". I think you came up with the second fastest Diplo!!!

Skyfish

May 13, 2003, 03:24 AM

The difference in score is firmly related to the way the Firaxis scores on Territory and Population.
When going for a Domination, 100K culture or Conquest you WILL necessarily have a larger territory, while going for a diplo or spaceship you do not NEED to have a large territory, this is the main reason why the scores are different.

Renata

May 13, 2003, 07:12 AM

Which I think stinks, by the way. I probably could've won my spaceship launch in no more than a few extra turns (maybe 50 pts worth?) with no more than my original and the Roman territory. (And maybe the four Greek/Carthaginian towns close to my capitol.) The extra conquering beyond that was fun, but time-consuming and unlikely to be make a significant difference to my launch date. And if you'll note, even with that, my in-game score was significantly lower than anyone who finished around me -- all of whom had been out conquering from the get-go.

I really wish Firaxis would come up with a more balanced scoring system. Technology is power in and of itself in most cases; so is culture; and these should both be included in the scoring, IMO.

Given the limitations of what the GOTM staff have to work with, though, I think the modified Jason score is about as good as could be expected.

Renata

a space oddity

May 13, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Renata
I really wish Firaxis would come up with a more balanced scoring system. Technology is power in and of itself in most cases; so is culture; and these should both be included in the scoring.

I concur

Darkness

May 13, 2003, 07:48 AM

hotrod0823

May 13, 2003, 08:08 AM

I wonder how far in tech those large domination/conquest type games got. I am not sure if Tech or Cuture is given any scoring consideration at all apart from Sanitation and that is only necessary to allow a larger population. I think even the future tech score is very limited.

Small and tech savy is not given the same scoring consideration as a large military powerhouse.

LeSphinx

May 13, 2003, 08:29 AM

More than 180 submission and 160 in the timesheet score!
Waouh!

For me, I made my best civ3 score : 6403 and also my best jason score : 5234! But I'm only 68th. Snif!

So I'm happy!

Good playing in GOTM19...

LeSphinx

Skyfish

May 13, 2003, 08:44 AM

@hotrod : To give you an idea, I had the third fastest Domination win. I never researched, slowed the pace down dramatically (as SirPleb so beautifully described) and the last tech I ever had was Chivalry...far, far away from Sanitation. :D Never even tried to get high population.
I stayed the whole time in Despotism ! :lol:

EDIT : taking into account Maximus' fast victory.

hotrod0823

May 13, 2003, 09:06 AM

I guess that goes to show you that all it takes is a few knights and knowing how to use them. :lol:

Skyfish

May 13, 2003, 09:29 AM

Yes indeed...a few... I think I had 150 or so when I hit the domination limit...

Bamspeedy

May 13, 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by hotrod0823
I think even the future tech score is very limited.

I had like 15 future techs and only scored 4.4 points. So they aren't worth researching.

OneFastWarrior

May 13, 2003, 11:00 AM

well, I have been having a hard time in the harder levels, and I am now reading QSC's (wish I had read them B4 I had started gotm19) I read Sirpleb's and plan on reading quite a few more. I also will not start gotm 20 until I read some of the qsc19's.

As I have read Cracker say for anyone that needs help or is having a hard time, Wait and read some QSC's, They really do help".
I still think that I will probably not do great this month(gotm19) but I have a much better idea of what I am doing.

Thanks to sirpleb and all the others for great timelines. I also thank everyone who gives good advice in the pregame talk.

Gen. Maximus

May 13, 2003, 11:02 AM

Quoted from hotrod0823
"I wonder how far in tech those large domination/conquest type games got."
When going for domination, only research necessary tech to give u strong defensive/offensive units. You don't research much, you only extort it out from your losing rivals when they are down on to their knees. I played till 950AD before domination ending with the tech of Chemistry (aiming for Calvary), and was still among the most advance in terms of science and strongest culture in. Was under evil Despotism rule all the way!
Again Adel beat me as always, last GOTM was by 1 turn for fastest dom vivtory, now he beat me handsomely by 150 years!

cracker

May 13, 2003, 11:14 AM

Quoted from hotrod0823(and Gen. Maximus)
"I wonder how far in tech those large domination/conquest type games got."
Culture games can also see some fairly severe research shutdown depending on map conditions. One of my fastest culture games on record was basically shut down for all research after "steam power" and I only beelined straight up to "Replaceable Parts" so I could get the worker productivity up a notch to help milk for more food from irrigation and rails. I was driving almost 1000 culture points per turn at that point and disbanding empty armies plus using elite cavalry in semi-defense to fish for more leaders to help rush universities in every city on the planet.

Shutting down research at the right time can give you lots of cash to do amazing things if you combine the cash with short rushing and unit/shield shuttling.

Ribannah

May 13, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by hotrod0823
I wonder how far in tech those large domination/conquest type games got. I am not sure if Tech or Cuture is given any scoring consideration at all apart from Sanitation and that is only necessary to allow a larger population. I think even the future tech score is very limited.In my GOTM#18 I didn't even make it into the Industrial Ages, and I was playing for 100 K culture, gaining over 2000 culture points in the last year. :)

If you know beforehand that you'll never get to Sanitation, but you still want a good number of citizens, don't reserve 20 tiles per city!

Gen. Maximus

May 13, 2003, 11:57 AM

Talking about domination, I was nearly wiped out of the map by Romans in 2470BC(32nd turn) when undefended Entremont was captured by lurking "polite" Roman warriors and my capital 'transfered' to Alecia. Cracker, that's to explain"palace??" remark for my details in QSC result. The QSC went badly for me. At the start, my settler move south then north back again, losing two turns. So not a surprise to get #9 from BEHIND in the 91 submission list in QSC. Luckily managed to rebound back to finish #13 for the final game.

Skyfish

May 13, 2003, 12:37 PM

I apologize Maximus your victory was faster than mine, sorry.
My previous post was wrong I will correct it. Sorry.
I was third fastest not, second fastest.

Gen. Maximus

May 13, 2003, 01:12 PM

Oh, Skyfish. I did not realise you wrote that even though I did read your post earlier. No apology necessary, we're on the same boat, i.e. we're not in the same league as that top few who can always seems to finish a few hundred years ahead of us. :)
I normally play dom or conquest as to minimise my time playing Civ3, IT"S TAKING TOO MUCH OF MY TIME!! Kind of an addiction!

Smirk

May 13, 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Gen. Maximus
Talking about domination, I was nearly wiped out of the map by Romans in 2470BC(32nd turn) when undefended Entremont was captured

Your kidding? Hah! I went thru the replay of your game and noticed this but I thought you gave it to Rome to purposely move your capital to Alesia (for the fish). IIRC you took it back shortly thereafter?

Skyfish

May 13, 2003, 03:10 PM

Some people actually watch the replays of the games ? WOW !
Nice !

For any of you out there, there is something interesting about my game : even though I was in war non stop the whole game after 1000BC (so 2000 years) : I only got 3 Great Leaders (FP, Sun Tzu and Leo's) in the whole game, that was about 1 GL every 60 elite wins ! UNBELIEVABLE ! :wallbash:
Talk about a bad RNG luck :D
I actually thought my game would never be a good one because of this :crazyeye: :lol:
Only at the very end of the game did I get 2 more leaders, I built an army, handbuilt the Epic and of course immediately after I got one more leader...but then the game was over :)

Vlad Dracula

May 14, 2003, 07:28 AM

it's true the future tech is not worth it i just turn off the science and use the cash to rush build imrovements of course i've never hit future tech in a gotm.

Gen. Maximus

May 14, 2003, 10:04 AM

Smirk,

Quote:
"I went thru the replay of your game and noticed this but I thought you gave it to Rome to purposely move your capital to Alesia (for the fish). IIRC you took it back shortly thereafter?"

Yep, my warrior from Alecia took the city back in the next turn. I didn't not expect Romans to attack as they were "polite". But when they step inside to my borders, I know I'm in hot soup!!! I sort of undersetimated the AI intentions as I was taking it easy as it was only Monarch level.

Renata

May 14, 2003, 10:23 AM

I've been sneak-attacked like that as low as warlord level -- part of the reason I can't ever bring myself to run a pure farmers' gambit. I *hate* losing cities! :) Kudos to Gen Maximum for such an excellent recovery.

Renata

drewshark

May 14, 2003, 12:58 PM

Great job everyone especially Moonsinger with 20K so early. I am especially dissappointed to not get my submission in on time. My domination victory in 1255 would have put me in 16th place, but I need to get to work and finish my game in time!!! I guess too many hours with my son instead of what's really important ;) No, but seriously, I can't explain it, but I feel as though I let myself and everyone down for not submitting a game for the first time in 6 or 7 months, is that a really weird thing to feel?

Timbo Nutski

May 14, 2003, 01:58 PM

Have found that my game doesn't appear on the results table (like Emperor Dodone) and have resubmitted. Can someone let me know that it has actually been received?

Thanks

Congrats to everyone who won, sympathies for those who lost

JonathanValjean

May 14, 2003, 04:26 PM

Gen. Maximus: great job in placing 13th in the final game after having had such an atrocity occur early on!

Ribannah: 2000 cultural points per turn....WOW!!!

Yndy

May 15, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by drewshark
I am especially dissappointed to not get my submission in on time. My domination victory in 1255 would have put me in 16th place, but I need to get to work and finish my game in time!!! I guess too many hours with my son instead of what's really important ;) No, but seriously, I can't explain it, but I feel as though I let myself and everyone down for not submitting a game for the first time in 6 or 7 months, is that a really weird thing to feel?

I know how you must feel (save for the little boy that I don't have yet). I am foreseeing troubles in finishing GOTM 19 in time but I vowed to surrender all my cities and lose the game on May 31st if I don't manage to win.

Dianthus

May 15, 2003, 06:46 AM

I've just been replaying this game with my CIVReplayViewer (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52902) (is advertising allowed here?:D ).

I had the audacity to compare my game with Moonsingers. Maybe it's just not visible in the stats presented, but it looks like Moonsinger starts quite slowly. If this is really the case (of course, there may be things she's doing which don't show up on the Score/Power/Culture/CityCount stats) then its frightening to think what she could do if she started quicker!

Yndy

May 15, 2003, 10:19 AM

She should answer about that but I'll give it a try.
Now I have not taken a look to Moonsinger’s games for a while but I remember she uses a dense ICS build that focuses on increasing the number of towns and building warriors for a mass upgrade. She attacks the first civ around 1000BC or later and never stops from then until they all bite the dust. She is doing 40 turn research and saves the money (she may have up to 1000 gold by 1000BC !!!)
This would explain her relatively ‘poor’ QSC score on the old QSC scoring and the civ score as well. On the new QSC score she ranks top ten.

Moonsinger

May 16, 2003, 12:40 AM

Thanks Yndy.:) In the GOTM18, I was too busy with building the temple and the Pyramid at the begining. Since there was no food bonus near the starting location (except that one fish which wasn't enough to feed my Culture Center), that would explain why I was moving slower than the turtle. By 1020 AD, I was falling behide Bamspeedy, SirPleb, and Bremp by about 1000 points; however, the 20K Culture bonus and the early push in massive hospital construction project did help boost my final score. Through out the entire game, I tried to slow down the tech pace by constantly giving the AIs some thing to do (just as long as they were at war all the time, they couldn't focus too much on research). The slower the tech pace, the better chance for me to beat them to the Great Wonder. Even when I was capable of ending the war quickly, I intentionally delayed the war for as long as I could. Fishing for great leader was actually the most fun part of the game. Basically, I targeted their horses and irons first, then lured all of their best units into the killing field. After that, it wasn't hard for my elite units to generate great leader by slaugtering their weak defenders (mostly against their spearmans after that - no problem there).

Dianthus

May 16, 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Even when I was capable of ending the war quickly, I intentionally delayed the war for as long as I could.

Moonsinger, you're too modest :). In a 12 turn period from 370AD to 480AD you wiped out the Carthaginians, capturing 18 cities. In my (admittedly small and inferior) book that isn't delaying! Not only that, but during that same period you also capture 6 Chinese cities, 1 Roman, settled 13 cities, and built the Sistine Chapel and JS Bachs Cathedral!

This was just after an 11 turn period from 260AD to 360AD in which you finished off the Iroquois (4 cities) and the Greeks (7 cities), captured 1 Chinese city, settled 4 cities and built Sun Tzu's are of war!

In my opinion this aggressive period is one of the parts missing from my game. One of my failings is that I was too scared to do much warring. I tended to only attack one Civ at a time, and then only in short bursts, not making any real impact. It's interesting to note the shape of your territory at this point is quite a nice square/circular shape, so helping movement/corruption/cultural security.

Hurricane

May 16, 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Dianthus
I've just been replaying this game with my CIVReplayViewer (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52902) (is advertising allowed here?:D ).

Great tool! :goodjob:

Moonsinger

May 16, 2003, 09:27 AM

Dianthus,

Yes, I did try to expand as much as I could right around the time the AIs were about to understand the secret of Feudalism and shortly after they discover Feudalism simply because I didn't want to give them enough time to build pikemans or to upgrade their spearmans. Overall, there were a lot of delays in my game. For example, I could have gone all the way to invade China after I had draw out and slaughtered all of their fast units, but I decided to give them a break. I also gave England and France a break too. I attacked France just enough to gain passage to the Aztecs' homeland; it was the luxuries that I was really after. In any of my game, taking control of luxuries had the highest prioprity than anything else. I like to keep my citizens happy.:)

Phillip_martin

May 21, 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Skyfish
@hotrod : To give you an idea, I had the third fastest Domination win. I never researched, slowed the pace down dramatically (as SirPleb so beautifully described) and the last tech I ever had was Chivalry...far, far away from Sanitation. :D Never even tried to get high population.
I stayed the whole time in Despotism ! :lol:

With the eighth highest domination score (22nd overall) you can use my game as another benchmark. Like Ribannah I did not get out of the industrial age and never got into that next spoiler :).

I used Archers very early on to restrict my Carthigan and Roman neighbours while growing and getting a stack of warriors. Research was a 10% and my early techs were from peace deals.

With my money stash and Iron working - Celtic Warriors :hammer:

The difference between my game and the elite players is what Cracker alluded to with the short rushing and unit shuttling. I considered this to be one of my best games but still had to progress down the Knights to Cavalry path to finish the job as I had started with goal to have a 100k victory (cash went into infastructure not just units).

Still I never got out of Monarchy and didn't actively slow down the AI research.