I am wondering if it is possible to do a HOF game on Civilization 3 Conquest.

Thanks,
CivGeneral

Well it's not on the drop down list on the submission page, so for the moment, no.

Originally posted by Gainy bo
Well it's not on the drop down list on the submission page, so for the moment, no.

So I am guessing that they wont allow C3Cers to partisipate in the HOF :(

Well you could just play a game, and as soon as the HOF is updated to allow them, then you could send it in. So you probably guess wrong...

Edit: Removal of tongue :mischief:

Originally posted by CivGeneral
So I am guessing that they wont allow C3Cers to partisipate in the HOF :(
It's inevitable that C3C is included into the HOF, but the decision on when is Aeson's. Although to be perfectly frank, until they fix the corruption issues in a patch, C3C would be a substandard platform for a huge milking run anyway. A tiny fast finish, I'm not sure on...

Originally posted by Gainy bo
Well you could just play a game, and as soon as the HOF is updated to allow them, then you could send it in. So you guess wrong :p
I disagree. Right now, be it III or PTW, any submitted games have to be done under the latest patch for each version. If C3C's inclusion into the HOF waits until the first patch, then a current came without a patch would be ineligible. I don't see that it would be worth the risk.

I haven't played C3C enough to make a ruling on whether the gpt and corruption problems cancel each other out, or on how it compares to vanilla and PtW. It may be we'll have a separate listing for C3C games. For right now, better hold off on playing any C3C games specifically for the HOF because of the obvious problems that will hopefully be fixed soon.

@Aeson

I just read something at CivDuelZOne which leads me to believe that incorperating conquests into the HOF will be even more difficult. It's not a big problem, but I thought I'd mention it anyway...

Link:
http://www.danwilliamson.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1113


Because of the addition of the demi-god level the score multiplying factor for deity level is now 7 instead of 6. Which means to combine Vanilla, PTW and C3C in one HoF table the vanilla/PTW Deity results will have to be corrected for the new C3C scoring system...
Sorry to heap even more work on you Aeson, but I thought I'd let you know...

i think the solution is to have each score give what game the score was achieved on. for example, C3, PTW, or C3C. there's still only 10 slots in each difficuly, but there will never be any confusion about what game was played. just add a new column to the table that we currently have, next to the country played. at first the scores will be all C3 and PTW, but as C3C scores get added it will be very easy to see where they are ranking in ... if they are at all!

i really like the addition of the country column, and i think the version column will also add a lot to the hall of fame just so we can compare scores from C3 to C3C at a glance. it could be that the new stuff in C3C is going to be overpowering, or it could be even harder to get high scores because the computer uses the new material better.

and so on and so forth. =]

I don't think that Conquest (C3C) games will be comparable to CivIII/PTW. There are too many fundamental differences.

On difficulty levels up to and including Emperor I think the net result will enable higher C3C HOF scores than CivIII/PTW. The agricultural trait alone should accomplish that, and there are some new wonders which can give an additional boost. Aspects of C3C which have become harder won't offset these gains.

Deity will be able to score higher because of the *7 multiplier, but will also suffer setbacks from some of the other changes. Deity is harder in C3C - If the multiplier had remained at *6 I'd say that Deity games would definitely score lower in C3C. As it is, my guess is that they can score a bit higher because of the multiplier, but I'm not sure.

Then there's the Palace rank bug of course. It won't be useable in C3C, reducing the maximum score possible in that one regard. Even allowing for this, I'll stand by my guess that higher scores will be possible up to Emperor level. At Deity level this, combined with the increased difficulty, will probably push the final result lower than current high scores.

If you want some details I described a number of changes which I think have a large impact on the game a while ago in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68813).

I think there's no point at all in using C3C for HOF games at this time. Either of the corruption bug or the gpt bug alone would be sufficient to make games played now incomparable with games played in a week or two after the first patch. I don't think the two bugs offset each other. For HOF games I think the gpt bug might be exploited to get devastating results. (I'm not sure, haven't tried to do so. Just have a feeling it is highly exploitable :) ) For non-HOF games (or for fastest finish HOF games for many goals), the corruption bugs will be killers, games played after they are fixed should be able to do better.

I've played a lot of C3C the last couple weeks, and I think it's going to be alright to allow C3C submissions to the HOF. 'Excessive diplomatic management of the gpt bug' still falls short of the economic disability caused by the FP and city rank problems. Once these are fixed, the RNG change sounds like it will make blitzes (and conquests in general other than massive bombardment) much more difficult. My estimation is that scoring (non-Agricultural) in C3C will be slightly lower than possible in Civ3 and PtW, but not too much so. The Agricultural trait will allow for more food on the map, but the variation should stay around 200 pop overall (claiming deserts is no better than claiming coast still, and ~400 cities giving an extra food). This is much less than the variation of a Domination limit of 3500 and 3900, so I think is within reason to allow. At least now there will be other civs to choose besides just the Ottomans for maxing score! ;)

C3C Deity now uses the modifier 7, instead of 6, to make room for Demi-god at 6. My initial feeling is that C3C Demi-god is roughly equivalent to the Deity of past versions in 'ease of conquest' in most situations (probably smaller map fastest conquest type games aside), and so the modifier of 6 is justified. I will be switching things around to make the 'difficulty' categories access the numerical value of the score modifier and rank games accordingly.

This will mean that C3C Deity games will be in a new difficulty category, with Civ/PtW Deity games being ranked against C3C Demi-god games. Sid will introduce a new difficulty category of 8. (At this point, it's hard to see Sid scoring more than C3C Deity in most comparably played games though)

So you may start playing (or saving) C3C games for submission to the HOF. C3C 1.00, C3C 1.02 (is basically the same), C3C Beta (has been announced), and the future C3C patches will all be allowable for submission. Please play your game entirely in one patch though!

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

These changes should keep the ability to play and score/finish well in all three versions of the game relatively balanced. I'll announce when the we are ready for the C3C submissions.

Cross posted with you SirPleb (yes, it takes me that long to type ;) ).

You raise a lot of good points. I agree that there will be variation between equally well played games of Civ/PtW and C3C. In some cases favoring one or the other. I don't think it's out of hand, especially considering that most avid HOF'ers will have access to all 3 versions, and can choose to play their desired gamestyle in the version which suits it best.

If we start seeing an undeniably best combination emerging, then seperations of categories can be made.

You're right (of course :) ) Aeson - since they can be separated later, no need to do it until it is clear whether it matters.

Your plan to group the games by multiplier makes sense to me. Demi-god C3C should compare reasonably well to CivIII/PTW Deity with Palace rank bug :)

We'll see in a while but I do think the difficulties up to Emperor can come out a bit higher with C3C, so combining them probably works fine - over time C3C scores could take over the high slots. Your use of rank number should keep level 6 viable, and 7 and 8 are new so no problem there.

I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to start a HOF run with pre-patch C3C. (Unless the patch is US only or some such problem.) The patch should be out next week which isn't long to wait. Playing pre-patch, a player will either shoot themselves in the foot badly due to the corruption problems, or will have to find a way to abuse the gpt bug to compensate and that's an approach which should be meaningless in just a week. I've wondered just how exploitable it might be - suppose one starts paying gpt to other Civs as much and as early as possible in the game? Just keep paying every possible bit of gold to some rival. The rivals should end up building up large treasuries, and then those can be accessed when leaving Despotism to buy a whack of stuff! Throughout most of the game, just keep paying a fortune to the other Civs ("here's another 100gpt for your maps" :lol: ) and then trade to get the multiplied money back again... Perhaps money does grow on trees. Anyway, not one I'm actually inclined to try, I'll wait for the patch :)

One other thing, did you see the news that the combat calculator change will NOT be in the patch after all? [party]

I played two games trying fully to exploit the gpt bug so far. Both of them were on the Age of Discovery Conquest. Not a very good scenario to understand the full impact of the bug, but it gives a very quick platform to at least get a feel for it in general. On one hand you have lessened corruption, on the other, not very much room for any of the AI's cores. One game was on Sid as the Inca (dumb idea!), the other on Demi-god, as the English.

I was giving the AI's all my gold/maps/whatever for gpt, then paying the AI's gpt for my stuff (most of it) back, and over and over again. Call it a research into inflation. With England, this resulted in being able to keep 100% research for the full game, and generally making ~500 gpt by the 20th turn. At that point, I was buying pretty much everything I needed to buy and still making money. The AI's were also noticeably enhanced, as they were taking ~15% on every transaction.

With the Inca, it helped me blast through the European tech tree, but did nothing helping through the Native American tech tree. It also didn't help me grab more than 6 good city sites before the Europeans overwhelmed the continent.

My overall view of it though is that it helps the AI quite a bit too much to be viable on higher difficulty levels. I wouldn't recommend playing a HOF game on this patch level either, but the HOF submissions have died since C3C was released... so if you're playing them, they are welcome. :)

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

The news on the combat calculator change not being included is new to me. Very welcomed too! Horses, Knights, and even Cavalry were pretty close to being made obsolete in their own timeframes.

Originally posted by Aeson
I played two games trying fully to exploit the gpt bug so far.

Is this the same as buying tech/map/gold from the AIs and paying them gpt, then lure them into declaring war on us so that we don't have to pay them anything? Then sue for peace and repeat the process - it's a good way to catch up in tech, especially at the Sid level.

Originally posted by Moonsinger


Is this the same as buying tech/map/gold from the AIs and paying them gpt, then lure them into declaring war on us so that we don't have to pay them anything? Then sue for peace and repeat the process - it's a good way to catch up in tech, especially at the Sid level.

No, I don't think it is the same: whenever a gpt-deal is made, the civ that is receiving the gpt gets twice as much as it should be (this isn't shown at the domestic advisor screen, your treasury is growing much more, however).

Exploiting this bug can lead to a huge increase in overall tech development. You could loan all you cash to some civs for gpt and receive twice of what you should have got back.

okay i guess i understand the 2x gpt bug but how bad is the problem with corruption and damage calculation? i have played 2 conquest games to feudalism and haven't seen any problems yet, but as germany i'm always going swords & mace, so if it's a horseman issue i haven't seen it so far.

and why cant we start a game, then patch it, and keep playing? will that break the game?

Originally posted by Mazarin
Exploiting this bug can lead to a huge increase in overall tech development. You could loan all you cash to some civs for gpt and receive twice of what you should have got back.

Thanks!:) I didn't know about that one.

Originally posted by nihil8r
how bad is the problem with corruption and ...
About the corruption part - you can pretty much treat it as best to not build a Forbidden Palace at all. So you'll be limited to about 1/2 as strong an empire as what should be possible after the patch next week.

Is the double GPT really something that could be exploited given that unit support under Republic is 2 now? IMHO, C3C is going to prove harder even on the levels we know, much less 7 and 8...

thanks sir pleb. but if i have a game now, do you think the new beta patch will fix the problems? i have a totally kick ass C3C game going with like 500 points ... w0000!!! ;)

So you may start playing (or saving) C3C games for submission to the HOF. C3C 1.00, C3C 1.02

Aeson, you might be underestimating the exploitability of the gpt-bug, I'm afraid.
Imagine this scenario: you reduce a civ to OCC and gift it gpt, just to buy it back with gold. Repeat this as often as you can (you won't be able to do this infinitely, because there is a range between what a civ will be willing to pay for a certain sum and what it is willing to accept for the same), you can however blow up your (and the other civs) incomes artificially to the extreme.

Compare these screenshots:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/gpt-exploit(460ad).jpg
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/gpt-exploit(470ad).jpg

within just one turn, I could raise my income by over 200% (and the trading partner wasn't optimal, i.e. had a aggression level bigger than one and was not gracious towards me); If repeated during the next couple of turns, I could literally generate an income of tens of thousands of gold and just rushbuy all the military needed on my way. The other civ would become even richer...but if one selected a weak foe without ressources, all that money would just be waiting to be picked up.
edit: in the screenshot there is still the potential of ~1k gpt to be gained the next turn. I have made another quick test where I could increase my income from 170gpt up to over 5k gpt within 20 turns with my furious OCC-trading partner collecting over 30k in the process. If performed continuously this exploit is equivalent to using some cheat program -IMHO.

Nice example Mazarin. The gpt bug is an all or nothing type problem, and I don't want to disallow submissions due to it. Much like the Palace rank exploit. I would actually be interested in seeing a game which showed just how far this can go, and how much it would affect tech rate or score.

There are differences in every patch. Some of them are extreme (mapsize) and games which benefitted from them need to be removed from the rankings to keep the rankings balanced and accessable to new submissions. The lifespan of this exploit is going to be very short, and so probably will be submissions that take advantage of it if they no longer are comparable to games played in other patches.

On this issue specifically, if you don't feel like putting a couple hundred hours into a guinea-pig game that may or may not be allowed, or will be removed from the lists shortly, just wait a couple weeks (hopefully) for a patch. Games which aren't played specifically to take advantage of this bug should be ok still. You have to really put some effort into it for it to become exploitive IMO. Normal trading practices, and even always maxing out gpt sides of trades, isn't a problem. It's when you get to gpt for gold trades (trades you'd never make without the gpt bug due to the AI's profit sharing) that it becomes a potential problem.

Mazarin,

I still don't get it!:( In your example, you are giving out 3241 gold to other civs and collecting back 2509 gold from other civ. Basically, your outcome is more than your income, how is this an exploit? Sorry, but I still couldn't figure this out. Would you please be kind and explain how this exploit work in a simple step by step so that a dummy like me can understand. Thanks!

Moonsinger, the income from other civs is doubled due to the gpt-bug (but not shown on the F1 screen), meaning that 2509g will be added to my treasury next turn though I have a balanced income.

Here's a step by step explanation:

(Turn1)
1.Search a weak and easy to kill civ that cannot do much with the tons of gold it will be getting.
2. gift it a lump sum
3. buy his money with gpt, making sure he will have the gpt available to trade.
4.sell him gold (lump sum) for the gpt you just sold him.
5. repeat step 3

You can repeat this during one turn up to the point where you have no more g and gpt. In the example above I stopped delibarately too early.

(turn2)
You'll now receive much more gold than you should, take this gold
to perform steps 3-5 again.
In the example above, I'd use the extra 2.5k gold to generate an additional income of about 700-800gpt, meaning that I'll get ~3.3k gpt on turn3; investing that should give me 900-1k gpt, insuring an income of ~4.3k gpt on turn4...

Originally posted by Mazarin
(Turn1)
1.Search a weak and easy to kill civ that cannot do much with the tons of gold it will be getting.
2. gift it a lump sum
3. buy his money with gpt, making sure he will have the gpt available to trade.
4.sell him gold (lump sum) for the gpt you just sold him.
5. repeat step 3

Thanks!:) I will dig out my old game to see if I can repeat this.

Originally posted by nihil8r
if i have a game now, do you think the new beta patch will fix the problems? i have a totally kick ass C3C game going with like 500 points ... w0000!!! ;)
Aeson said earlier in this thread "Please play your game entirely in one patch though!"

So, you should not install the beta patch and then continue any HOF game you started before the patch. If you want to finish a HOF game you've already started, don't apply the patch till you are done.

I don't know what Aeson's reason(s) for making this rule are but I can think of a couple of important ones:

1) If a game is played partly in one version and partly in another, how should it be labelled in the HOF, and which other HOF games can it be compared with? It can't really be compared at all, it was played in a unique combination of versions.

2) It seems generally unsafe to continue a CivIII game in a different patch than it was started with. The developers have probably spent little time ensuring backward compatibility and unexpected side-effects (perhaps giving the player a boost, perhaps devasting to the player, or perhaps just rendering the game unplayable) are possible.

Mazarin,

Just one more question: For example, I'm currently have 1000 gold in treasury. Now, if I can find someone who I can trust and loan them 1000 gold and they agree to pay me back 55 gpt, does this mean that I'm actually going to get back 110 gold (55 gpt x2) every turn for the next 20 turns. Will I get 2200 gold (55 gpt x2 x20 turns) back in the end for my 1000 gold investment?

Thank you in advance for your answer!:)

Yes, that's exactly what it means:)

Originally posted by Mazarin
Yes, that's exactly what it means:)

Great!:) Thanks! Hopefully, I can use this 2x gpt bug in my current Sid game to help bring some balance into the game. Because of the corruption bug, my empire is currently running at half strenght, this 2x gpt may help made up for that lost income.