SGOTM3 Rome - Maintenance Thread

This thread will be used as the discussion and maintenance thread for this game. Since Alanh has automated much of the process there is not the need for two threads. The thread will be used for discussions about rules, procedures, bugs and anything else that is directly relevent to the game.

No Spoiler information will be tolerated in this thread

Furthermore, this thread will be used by the staff to communicate important information to the teams. Team members should subscribe to this thread.

Useful Links:

Downloads and scores. (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php?game=20003&displayteams=displayteams&submit=Display&include%5B%5D=Kuningas&include%5B%5D=STAFF&include%5B%5D=tao&include%5B%5D=offa&include%5B%5D=akots&include%5B%5D=Ankka&include%5B%5D=Xteam&include%5B%5D=Handy&include%5B%5D=DGIT&include%5B%5D=Peanut&include%5B%5D=Bugsy&include%5B%5D=Alamo&include%5B%5D=scout&graph=graph&startdate=850)
Upload files (http://gotm.civfanatics.net/submit/sgotm.php)

SGOTM3 Rome - Variant Rules

The variant rules are set out in the first post of your individual game threads. However, there have been a number of questions posed, and clarifications requested.
I shall attempt to deal with them here.

1. Contact
This is a definition rather than a rule. It allows you to compile a list of opponents and the order in which contact was established, and therefore the order in which you should go to war with them.

Contact is established when you enter the diplomacy (trading) screen with an opponent. Diplomacy may be initiated by either the human player or the AI.

If during exploration you see opponents cultural borders or units, you are not obliged to open diplomatic relations immediately. You can wait until you are ready, or they contact you.

If you decide to initiate diplomacy with more than one opponent on the same turn, you may choose the order in which you do this. The order should be recorded in the team thread.

If an opponent that you have not made contact with yet tries to extort gold, maps or techs from you, then contact is only made if you give in to the demand. If you do not give in to the demand, then we can assume that diplomatic relations have not been established.

2. The twenty turn rule.
The twenty turn rule is primarily designed to to keep teams honest. Without this rule it would be possible to reduce a civ to a settler on a boat and not go to war with another opponent for the rest of the game.

Once you are at war with an opponent, you must declare war on the next opponent on your contact list before 20 turns have expired since the start of the war.

If you completely destroy opponent 5 on the list then you must declare war on opponent 6 before the end of that same turn. If you are already at war with opponent 6 you ARE NOT required to declare war on opponent 7 UNTIL you have been at war with opponent 6 for 20 turns, or have completely destroyed opponent 6.

There may be a condition where 20 turns have elapsed since the last declaration of war but you have run out of opponents on your list becuase you have not yet met them. If you find yourself in this situation, then when you make your next contact you must declare war on them at the instant contact is made, as described in paragraph 1.

Example

Opponent..........Contact Turn.........DoW date
Persia----------------35----------------------35
Zulu------------------38----------------------55
Germany-------------38----------------------75 Germany Exterminated on turn 82
America--------------80----------------------82
Japan-----------------104---------------------104
China-----------------115--------------------124
Spain-----------------132--------------------144

As for when the initial contact is made IBT then the later of the two dates applies. I allow this, since you are already disadvantaged from havining to trade IBT.

3. Trading Techs
The intent of the restrictions in trading is that the AI will be paid exactly what they ask, and will pay exactly what they want to pay. In general therefore, if you want to buy something from the AI you should ask what they want for it, and pay that amount or reject the deal. If you want to sell something to the AI, then you should ask what they will give for it, and either accept or reject the offer. Therefore, if the AI has a tech that you want, it is not permitted for you to load your side of the table step by step until the point is reached where the AI offer what you want. Instead, you should just ask what they want for it first.

Attempting to find a form of words that nails this down in a legally binding manner is difficult for me. Therefore, it is up to the teams to decide whether or not their behaviour at the trading table is within the spirit of the rules. If I believe a teams behaviour is directed at finding some way to circumvent the rules, or find some :):):):):) in the wording, and that through these actions have gained an advantage over other teams, then I will consider the variant rules broken, and the team will not qualify for the Golden Laurel award.

You may ask an opponent how much he will sell a tech for.
You may ask an opponent how much he will give for a tech or more than one tech.
You may not ask "What will you give me for this tech + gpt (or gold or resources or luxes or maps)".

4. Trading commodities
You may trade commodities. Commodities include Luxuries, Strategic resources, maps and communications. The important difference is that you MAY NOT combine such trades with Tech deals. So you may ask "What will you give me for communications with the Zulu?" You may NOT ask "What will you give me for communications with the Zulu and Feudalism?" The restrictions in Paragraph 3 apply.

5. Trading with gpt
If an opponent asks for a gold per turn payment as part of a trade, you are permitted to accept such a trade even if you know you will be at war with that Civ before the end of the agreement.

6. Embassies and Diplomatic Agreements
You are not permitted to establish an Embassy with an opponent. Therefore it is not usually possible to make MA agreements for instance. The exception is if an opponent establishes an Embassy with you. In this case you will be able to, and are permitted to make diplomatic arrangements with such opponents. Such deals are subject to the restrictions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4.


Tao has offered an alternative explanation of trading rules, which some people may find easier to deal with. His explanation is NOT different to mine in substance, just wording.

Trading
You may trade technologies and you may trade commodities; commodities include luxuries, strategic resources, maps and communications. To prevent haggling, the following restrictions apply:

You may ask for one or more techs.
You may offer one or more techs.

You may ask for one or more commodities.
You may offer one or more commodities.

You must not offer a mix of techs and commodities.

You may pay with a mix of techs and commodities, if the AI asks for it.

Thanks for the clarifications. Tag.

MB - could you sticky this so it is easy to find?

Thanks.

Mad-Bax: entering the diplomacy screen is the definition of contact. Therefore, if the AI civ pops up and demands something from me, this wouldn't count as contact, right?

ummm... sounds more like contact was made, just not intiated by you. Seems that it would begin at that point.

In general, I would agree. However, there is no opportunity for diplomacy (trading), and opening diplomacy (trading) is the current definition for contact. Just wish to clarify, in case it comes up.

To be perfectly honest I hadn't thought about it. But I have now and have amended the definition in post 2.

Further clarification to the rules with respect to trading communications. Post 2 has been amended.

Even more clarification to the trading rules. Post 2 amended.

You may notice a slight change in tone. ;)

mad-bax: I like your interpretation of the "AI demands" scenario! I have this image of one envoy running after another envoy; 1st envoy is yelling "Give us 37 gold and Territory map, or else ... hey, slow down!" and the other has his hands over his ears yelling "La La La ... I can't heeeeaaarrr yoooouuuu ..." :lol:

With regards to the trading rules, I have two assumptions that I believe are in the spirit of the Variant, but could be interpreted otherwise:

1.) I assume that I can ask the AI what they want for 1 Tech, or more than 1 Tech, as a bundle (just as I can offer the AI 1 Tech, or more than 1 Tech, as a bundle)

2.) I assume that the restriction on trading Commodities applies only to offering a trade to the AI; If I ask the AI "What do you want for Modern Armor" and they say "Fission, Spices, Iron and 200 gpt", I can take that offer.

Yes to both. Do not offer techs and commodities for sale in the same deal though.

Got it! Key word being "offer".

I am glad my team isn't playing the variant. I would need my lawyer here just to get through my 10 turns :crazyeye:

MB - Your contact rules fly in the face of conventional practice. Usually, if a civ shows up on your F4 screen, you have contact. A team can avoid contact for quite a long time, and IMHO, that is really against the spirit of the variant.

SirBugsy: we experience the same thing in our game, we can walk past enemy units with no contact being made.

Sir Bugsy, grs. I understand your concern. The system I have adopted was first proposed by Cartouche Bee. If I defined contact as an opponent appearing on F4, then the timeframes for meeting each Civ, and the order in which you meet them would be a product of dumb luck only. In this particular game it makes the difference between winning and losing. By giving the player some minimal control over contact it is possible to reduce the element of luck. This is a competition, and therefore pragmatic decisions must be taken from time to time to create some semblance of a level playing field. I invested over 100 hours of playing time in trying to make this game fair and winnable. ATM it looks like I did half a job.

As it stands, first contact will be the same for every team, and it will be made within 3 or 4 turns of each other. There may be the odd exception where the date differs by more, but I can't circumvent the RNG and peoples choices completely.

So in short I guess I'm saying "trust me".

Tao has offered an alternative description of the trading rules for the variant. They do not differ in substance to the "official" rules, but some people may find the wording easier to cope with.

This explanation is added to post 2

...So in short I guess I'm saying "trust me".

ok, i do :)

Polite Request

Would all the teams playing the variant please provide a list of contacts made, in which order and on what date. Please also provide a log of the date on which war was declared with each opponent.

You can post these in the team threads. I will enquire as to whether the posts can be extracted into another thread so that you will each have a modifiable single source of information. I don't know yet if this is possible.

It is the teams responsibility to abide by the rules of the variant. It is not my responsibility to remind each team on which turn they need to declare war and with who. I cannot do this. There are not enough hours in the day.

Thanks.

One step ahead of you, MB.

See post #2 in our thread. :)

Alanh has updated the downloads page to include the scores and results from SGOTM1 - Persia. Just select SGOTM1 from the drop down menu

:goodjob: Alanh

I think the contact rules work well. It offers many tactics, that it will be interesting to discuss in the spoiler.

If we run into an AI but do not initiate diplo yet, does the 20-turn start counting (if it's not the first AI)? I.e., does it start counting immediately or after the first diplo is initiated?

Take a look at post 2 in this thread, describes it well.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2005617&postcount=2

microbe: yes, please read that post. The twenty turn rule has nothing to do with when you make contact with a civ, except when 20 turns have expired since the last time you declared war on someone.

@Mad-Bax, This question splits hairs:

Civ1 opens the diplomatic screen IBT turn X and turn Y; a trade is executed, and war declared. At some point we make contact with Civ2. Are we obligated to declare war on Civ2 on turn X+20 or Y+20?

The date you declare war has nothing to do with when you make contact with another civ - except in one particular instance. You declare war on the next civ in your list 20 turns or less after you declared war on the previous civ. The only time the date contact is made is important is if you run out of civs to declare on temporarily and more than 20 turns pass since the last war was declared. In this case you declare on the civ before leaving the diplomacy screen for the first time.

Example

Opponent..........Contact Turn.........DoW date
Persia----------------35----------------------35
Zulu------------------38----------------------55
Germany-------------38----------------------75 Germany Exterminated on turn 82
America--------------80----------------------82
Japan-----------------104---------------------104
China-----------------115--------------------124
Spain-----------------132--------------------144

As for when the initial contact is made IBT then the later of the two dates applies. I allow this, since you are already disadvantaged from havining to trade IBT.

Interesting question, Scout, but why ask it? :mischief: I was keeping quiet and assuming Y, since that's the first turn when you can actually do anything about fighting the war. You've now given m-b the opportunity to tell us to use X :(

The date you declare war has nothing to do with when you make contact with another civ - except in one particular instance.The most significant occasion when it's important is the second declaration, which has to happen on or before turn 20 after you contacted the first civ. That's the Zulu date in your example, and Scout is asking whether Pesia's DoW turn is the turn before the IBT when contact was made by Persia or the turn after.

Yeah I edited it already :p

Opponent..........Contact Turn.........DoW date
Persia----------------35----------------------35
Zulu------------------38----------------------55
Germany-------------38----------------------75
America--------------82----------------------82
Japan-----------------85---------------------102
China-----------------115--------------------115
Spain-----------------132--------------------135

I thought I understood the rules but I got confused again.

Why would we have to declare on America at turn 82? Shouldn't it be 95? Same for China (122).

There is a 20+ turn lapse between contact with Germany and America so war would have to be declared when the Americans made contact with us

I thought I understood the rules but I got confused again.

Why would we have to declare on America at turn 82? Shouldn't it be 95? Same for China (122).


Because you wipped out the other civs before you met the Americans... you were free and clear... it was like you had never made contact with anyone until America on turn 82... therefore it starts over, and you have to declare on the FIRST civ you met... then it's 102, 122, 142... so on, and so forth.

Example

Opponent..........Contact Turn.........DoW date
Persia----------------35----------------------35
Zulu------------------38----------------------55
Germany-------------38----------------------75 Germany Exterminated on turn 82
America--------------80----------------------82
Japan-----------------104---------------------104
China-----------------115--------------------124
Spain-----------------132--------------------144



Sorry, I was so occupied with getting the columns straight I forgot to do the sums :blush:

Why on earth I didn't just go for AWE I really don't know. :shakehead

Why on earth I didn't just go for AWE I really don't know. :shakehead....too simple maybe? :mischief: :p

yeah, although this variant is great fun thus far, I'm sure you'll rethink before you make something like this the sponsored variant again.

Too many loopholes and such. Didn't you say you knew a good lawyer to help clarify all of this? :lol:

It seemed perfectly simple when I played it. I just made a note of the date each war started, and started another one 20 turns later. What could be simpler? Of course, then you lot get hold of it, and you start picking holes in it, instead of just recognising the intent of the rule and implementing it into your gameplay.

And yes, I do know a good lawyer. Unfortunately I can't afford him. :(

The only problem that might be is: How to count turns?

In C3C it is solved but not in PTW or vanilla. We'll get crazy counting the turns manually. For example, I could never remeber is 4000BC turn 1 or turn 0 (zero)...

@mad-bax: Can you please post a turn with date table in a text or Excel spreadsheet format here? Thanks in advance.

@Akots: Be prepared for 4000 BC to be counted as "Turn Zero". :D

@Mad-Bax: if you thought I was looking for a loophole, then you are not the only one who feels his intent has not been understood.

This >>Date Calculator<< (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/date.zip) is by Sir Pleb. I hope you find it useful. :)

These are the turn numbers taken from the save files and reported in the SGOTM upload lists and graphs:

Turn 0 => 4000 BC then 50 years per turn until ...
Turn 25 => 2750 BC then 40 years per turn until ...
Turn 50 => 1750 BC then 25 years per turn until ...
Turn 90 => 750 BC then 20 years per turn until ...
Turn 140 => 250 AD then 10 years per turn until ...
Turn 240 => 1250 AD then 5 years per turn until ...
Turn 340 => 1750 AD then 2 years per turn until ...
Turn 440 => 1950 AD then 1 year per turn until ...
Turn 540 => 2050 AD

SG change-overs:

Turn 0 => 4000 BC
Turn 20 => 3000 BC
Turn 30 => 2550 BC
Turn 40 => 2150 BC
Turn 50 => 1750 BC then every 250 years until ...
Turn 90 => 750 BC then every 200 years until ...
Turn 140 => 250 AD then every 100 years until ...
Turn 240 => 1250 AD then every 50 years until ...
Turn 340 => 1750 AD then every 20 years until ...
Turn 440 => 1950 AD then every 10 years until ...
Turn 540 => 2050 AD

If you want an Excel spreadsheet, simply look in Alan's sig and click on
Utilities: 20K Culture Excel Calc w. Anarchy.

Under the tab, "Turns", there are all the dates with turn numbers. An excellent tool I use it all the time, especially when plotting wonder completion times?? :rolleyes:

MB, what happens if someone declares war on us, do we still declare 20 turns after the last war we started or is it 20 turns after we were declared upon?

Nothing changes. You declare on the next civ in your list 20 turns after you declared on the last one. If the civ that declares IS the next one on the list then it is handled in the same way as if you decided to declare on that civ early.

understood, ta.

edit: another q

what if it's not the next civ our our list and they later offer peace or we want peace? (before the scheduled date that we have to declare on them)

When will the first Spoiler be up MB?
Yes we have hit the MA already :mischief:

understood, ta.

edit: another q

what if it's not the next civ our our list and they later offer peace or we want peace? (before the scheduled date that we have to declare on them)
I'm assuming that once you're at war, you stay at war until one of you is eliminated (so, no peace deals, ever!)

The case where a civ declares war on you, out of sequence, is a bit confusing under these rules. Especially if you've made multiple contacts but are at war with just 1 or 2 of these civs.

For example:
Contact civ1 on Turn 30, Declare War
Contact civ2 on Turn 35, latest DoW date is turn 50
Contact civ3 on Turn 38, latest DoW date is turn 70
Contact civ4 on Turn 43, latest DoW date is turn 90
Contact civ5 on Turn 48, latest DoW data is turn 110
Turn 50 comes, Declare on civ2
Turn 55, civ4 Declares on You!

Do you:
a.) continue on with current status, declaring War on civ3 on Turn 70, and civ5 on Turn 110? (Most lenient and requires least amount of bookkeeping)

b.) switch civ4 and civ3, making civ3's DoW turn be 75, moving civ5's DoW date up to Turn 95? (Middle of the Road in difficulty, maintains 20 turns between DoW's, but requires moving the order around)

c.) keep current order, but move civ5 up to turn 90? (Most difficult, compresses the DoW's)

I think b.) is most in keeping with the spirit of the variant. Basically, keep a list of civs you've contacted but aren't at war with yet; whenever 20 turns has occurred since last DoW, declare on next civ on list.

I'm also assuming that the auto-declare rule applies only if you have contact but aren't at war with someone.

For example: I've contacted civs 1, 2 and 3
Declare War on civ1 right away.
After 20 turns declare War on civ2
After 10 turns, civ2 is destroyed, but I'm still at war with civ1.

I assume I have 10 more turns to declare on civ3, unless I eliminate civ1.
5 more turns pass, and civ1 is destroyed; Now I must declare on civ3.

understood, ta.

edit: another q

what if it's not the next civ our our list and they later offer peace or we want peace? (before the scheduled date that we have to declare on them)

You are Xenophobic. If another Civ has the temerity to declare war, then you stay at war until one of you are dead.

civ-steve. No. This is not the intention.

If you exterminate civ3 on turn 100 afte 7 turns of war, then you must declare war on civ4 immidiately, regardless of how many other civs are alive. It is a moot point in any case since teams.
can just sandbag until the 20 turns is up.

As for your options a-c then a applies.

I'm SO happy my team didn't choose the variant. :wow:

Don't get me wrong; I like this variant idea, and I think it broadens the AW type of game to make it acceptable to many more players.

mad-bax: my recap is as follows; even if a war is started out of sequence, the remaining 'must declare by' dates stay in place (option a., as you stated). Any time a civ you are at war with is eliminated (I assume whether by your hands or another civ's hands - clarification), you must immediately declare on the next civ after that one. (for example, you have contacted 10 civs, are at war with 1 and 2; civ5 declares on you, is taken out (either by you OR someone else), you must declare on civ6, not civ3(?)) The 'must declare by' dates stay in place unless all civs you are at war with are eliminated; in that case the next civ on the list (or contacted if none are on the contact list) is declared against; anybody else on the list maintains their existing 'must declare by' date subject to another elimination

And you are absolutely right - sandbagging avoids most of these types of questions!

Mad-bax/AlanH: Something is very wrong with the submission page. Where the game listing and graph should be, I get this:

Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 103

Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 103

Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 104

Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 104

Warning: MySQL: A link to the server could not be established in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 104

Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 109

Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (111) in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 109

Warning: MySQL: A link to the server could not be established in /home/virtual/site7/fst/var/www/html/submit/sgotm_submission_list.php on line 109
Can\'t find a game

Yes we aware. The SQL process is down. Normal service will be resumed ASAP :)

Meanwhile, please post saves into your game threads for now, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ensure that you remember to upload them when the uploads page is up again.

Ta!

In the variant games are you allowed to open the diplomacy screen with civs you are at war with? I know we can't trade or make peace, but in normal AW games you can do this to keep an eye on their progress.

When will the first Spoiler be up MB?

Ten Character limit

-Oblivion-: I sympathise with your impatience.

However, were I to open a spoiler for you now, you would cast a lonely and forlorn figure within it. Tumbleweed would blow across its' pages and the occaisional lurker would be disturbed only by the sound of a distant bell tolling on a restless wind.

Wait 'till I'm back from my business trip, I'll put it up at the weekend. :)

Alright no problem.
I am probably just completely out of sync with SGOTM2. From languishing about 40 turns behind everyone to being about 60 turns in front of everyone. How strange :hmm:

I believe our team would also qualify for the spoiler.

No rush though mad-bax :)

Spoiler 1 for SGOTM3 is up, and you can find it >>HERE<< (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94882)

I am aware that a couple of teams have lost members. If any of those teams would like a replacement player (emperor level), then please let me know by PM. Tomorrow I will be able to devote some time to housekeeping for this game, and may contact the teams directly through their respective game threads.

To allow teams to compare performance in the score graph at a higher resolution, I have added an upper date limit menu. Choose a lower date limit, and the X and Y axes will scale to display more detail of early game progress.

Good thinking Alanh :goodjob: Much easier on the weary ol'eyes.

That's just awesome AlanH. I bet I'm not the only one that's wished the graph could be viewed in such a way. As always your a little bit ahead of the game. Well, maybe not the SGOTM. :)

.... your a little bit ahead of the game. Well, maybe not the SGOTM. :)Now that you can see the lines in more detail, you'll see that the Xteam is actually doing quite well in comparison with the other variant teams - all but one, that is. You can also see Smackster's abrupt change of gear immdiately after their first leader built the Pyamids.

You can also see Smackster's abrupt change of gear immdiately after their first leader built the Pyamids.

Khmm... Been jelaous again????? :rolleyes:

Khmm... Been jelaous again????? :rolleyes:
No, just trying to demonstrate reasons why the new feature may be useful.

I think everyone is just trying to get a rise out of you Alanh. Don't take any of it personally. When it comes down to it, we all know you are one of the best. Not only at the game, but you are also a top notch mod.

I think everyone is just trying to get a rise out of you Alanh.I know that ;) I'm also here to entertain them [dance]

I hate it, but I guess I have to ask:

What if AI declares on us (earlier than the date we are supposed to declare on it)? Will it change anything in the order of events and their dates?

For example, we know AI in order of A, B, C.

We declare on A in turn X, and thus are supposed to declare on B in turn X+20, on C in turn X+40.

What if in turn X+5, B declares on us?

Do we have to declare on C in turn X+30? Or still turn+40?

What if in turn X+5, C declares on us? Do we have to declare on B in turn 15, 20, or 40?

I hate those rules you know. We probably wouldn't do it "right" no matter what, but I ask anyway.

Microbe - We had to ask this question as well.

This is the answer we were given:

If B declares early (turnY), declare on C on turn Y + 20.
If C declares early, then ignore them in the list and declare on B on turn X+20, and civ D on turn X+40.

HTH :)

If C declares early, then ignore them in the list and declare on B on turn X+20, and civ D on turn X+40.


I thought D still remained at X+60, and no DOW was needed at X+40 (C's turn)because you were already at war with C?

A = X
B = X+20
C = X+40 (already at war, since prior to B)
D = X+60

Hmmm. I hope you're wrong, or we have made things more difficult on ourselves. :rolleyes:

I am also having trouble locating the quote from MB.

Good news all!

Team Sesn has misinterpreted the rules, making things more difficult than they had to be. Of course, this will make our eventual victory all the more impressive .... :lol:

At any rate, in post 48 of this thread, civ_Steve asks this very question, and MB answered in turn 51.

Don't worry, you're not the only group that did that ;)

If only DJMGator could have posted that correction last night right after sesn posted his interpretation... :lol:

Hmmm...did he do it on purpose? muahahahaha....

Hmmm...did he do it on purpose? muahahahaha....

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I believe in the intergrity and honor of people! I refuse to believe one would be capable of something so low! Then again, he is a BoSox fan... :p

ahem

If you'll recall, I also said my team had been doing it wrong as well. It translated to being at full on AW about 60 turns earlier than necessary.

And as for my team, nothing builds integrity like losing...:p

Hmmm...did he do it on purpose? muahahahaha....

Which he????

Sesn for luring other teams to a harder game :evil:

or

Me for taking 24 minutes to respond? :sleep:

Good news all!

Team Sesn has misinterpreted the rules, making things more difficult than they had to be. Of course, this will make our eventual victory all the more impressive .... :lol:

At any rate, in post 48 of this thread, civ_Steve asks this very question, and MB answered in turn 51.

Don't worry that you are alone. Your answer made our team's life more difficult too.

Whatever, I must say in the future PLEASE MAKE THE RULES SIMPLE!

Don't worry that you are alone. Your answer made our team's life more difficult too.

:(

Well, before I just felt like an idiot, now I feel like a jerk too.

If it helps, we screwed up on about three declarations, when you could have only messed up one by now....

:(

Well, before I just felt like an idiot, now I feel like a jerk too.



Don't feel that way. Teams could have waited for MB to answer directly before proceeding.

The variant is interesting, but has actually given all teams a break over a straight AW game.

Sesn, that's fine. I appreciate your help, and as I said, I didn't expect to do it "right" anyway since there is just too much confusion in these rules.

My apology to Mad-bax in advance - I do appreciate very much your effort in setting up these games. SGOTM1 and SGOTM2 were great pleasure to play. But I do feel frustrated in SGOTM3. There are just too many rules - there are 10 items in the official game announcement, and a hell lot of more pages for "clarification", some of them scattered around various threads. This makes it very difficult to focus on the real game play.

In the future, we should have very straightforward rules. If any rules cause confusion, we should have a "rules clarification" thread explicitly designed to clarify these questions, and NOBODY except mad-bax or whoever setup the game could post there. Maybe the question I asked had been asked before, but I didn't know that nor did I want to search all the threads to find out.

Teams could have waited for MB to answer directly before proceeding.


It's a politically corrcect answer, but sorry it missed the point. We are playing for fun, not for pausing the game now and then just to make sure we are getting the rules right.

BTW it's my personal opinion (or rant). I'm not representing the whole team.

I'm getting a bit cheesed off with this. There is absolutely no confusion in the rules. The whole of this discussion wa dealt with very early on in this thread and in team threads where the question was asked. But to reiterate...

1. The twenty turn rule is intended to prevent teams sandbagging, and keeping an opponents settler (or single town) alive in order to delay the next war declaration.

2. War will be declared on the first opponent you make contact with, on the turn you make contact.

3. Thereafter, war will be declared on successive opponents at 20 turn intervals (i.e. twenty turns after the start of the last war) with two exceptions. A. You want to declare on another civ before 20 turns expires. B. Another civ declares war on you before 20 turns expire.

4. If you run out of civs to declare war on, then the you must declare war on the next civ on the turn you make contact as in case 2 (above).

That is the whole rule. There is no more. So, If you declare war on Civ A on turn 20, and then CivB declares war on you in turn 25, tell me... when do you think you should declare war on civC?

I find it incredible that people who can play this game to at least a reasonable standard (which is every single participant BTW) find it difficult to count to twenty.

Perhaps I should do it for you?

Let's see if I've got this straight:

"Grasp thy the Holy Hand Grenade, and pulleth thy the pin of said Holy Hand Grenade." When faced with a new enemy, thou shalt cout to twenty. Thou shalt count to twenty, and the number thou shalt cout shall be twenty."

"If thou shalt delay thine count to twenty-one, thou shalt be heretofore be labelled a sandbagger, and be forever cast amongst the reloaders..."

"If thou shalt chose to lob thy the holy hand grenade at turn nineteen, thou shalt be chastised as a 'dastardly' (but honorable) war-mongering bugger who should have played this as an ....

....AAAAaaaawwwWWWEEEE game".

Seriously gang... just lay off Mad-Bax. Play the freakin' game. Enjoy the slugfest. I won't say "I feel your pain"... but that's because I've got enough of my own to contend with.

There's a cold :beer: waitin' for whoever :hammer: 's .... "CivX" first. :D

I have no comment if you insist "there is absolutely no confusion in the rules". I guess I and all other people who DID get confused were just unable to count. I am sorry to have bothered you guys for not being able to comprehend this simple ruleset.

I must clarify that I didn't mean to accuse anyone. I just wanted to tell my feelings of what I view as a more enjoyable game. So please do not take it personally.

I'm getting a bit cheesed off with this. There is absolutely no confusion in the rules. The whole of this discussion wa dealt with very early on in this thread and in team threads where the question was asked. But to reiterate...

1. The twenty turn rule is intended to prevent teams sandbagging, and keeping an opponents settler (or single town) alive in order to delay the next war declaration.

2. War will be declared on the first opponent you make contact with, on the turn you make contact.

3. Thereafter, war will be declared on successive opponents at 20 turn intervals (i.e. twenty turns after the start of the last war) with two exceptions. A. You want to declare on another civ before 20 turns expires. B. Another civ declares war on you before 20 turns expire.

4. If you run out of civs to declare war on, then the you must declare war on the next civ on the turn you make contact as in case 2 (above).

That is the whole rule. There is no more. So, If you declare war on Civ A on turn 20, and then CivB declares war on you in turn 25, tell me... when do you think you should declare war on civC?

I find it incredible that people who can play this game to at least a reasonable standard (which is every single participant BTW) find it difficult to count to twenty.

Perhaps I should do it for you?

MB: without any need to get emotial my opinion on this:

The ruleset for SGOTM3 is/was/and will be too complicated. We are not idiots, but many things have not been clear from the start and microbe is 100% right that the whole SGOTM misses an anchor, a place where all the general rules are and a second place where all the specific rules (for the variant) are. It is quite hard to navigate through the whole SGOTM as it is - playing this months variant makes it even harder.

The competition still is fun, but in hidsight I wished I would not have chosen the variant this month.

Can I suggest a slight rewording of your Rule 3?

3. Thereafter, war will be declared on successive opponents at 20 turn intervals, in the order in which you make contact. If war with any opponent starts before their scheduled declaration date for any reason then no declaration is required on that opponent's due date and there is no change to the rest of the schedule.

MB ~ I'm having a blast with this variant. I actually hope to see a team or two loose this time. Even If that happens to be Team Mistfit. I've always thought that SG's were missing one big thing...The possibility of loosing. Keep up the good work.

I'll second that Mistfit. The possibility of losing is why I keep moving up in levels. That and what I've managed to pick up by playing the SGOTM. My games are so much more exciting when I'm not guaranteed a win.

Can I suggest a slight rewording of your Rule 3?

3. Thereafter, war will be declared on successive opponents at 20 turn intervals, in the order in which you make contact. If war with any opponent starts before their scheduled declaration date for any reason then no declaration is required on that opponent's due date and there is no change to the rest of the schedule.

Agreed.

Syntactically and otherwise blemish free as usual Alan. ;)

I'll second that Mistfit. The possibility of losing is why I keep moving up in levels. That and what I've managed to pick up by playing the SGOTM. My games are so much more exciting when I'm not guaranteed a win.

Am I that transparent? :hmm:

It is indeed my intention that I basically provide two different games on the same map. One winnable, and one loseable. This game is a test really to gauge the level of expertise within the playing community to enable me to set the difficulty. The next game will hopefully approach my objective of 50% victory rate for the variant.

For this game it would appear that all the teams should find a way to win, though for some it may be touch and go for a while. With hindsight it would have been easy to simplify the rules and to make the game harder, but I based it on my own performance which is just not good enough.

Remember that this is your event and that I only facilitate it, so all feedback is taken extremely seriously. Obviously, I have learned that future variants must be kept very simple, with black and white rules. It's a pity actually, since I had some ideas that might have been fun. Some people have contacted me with variant ideas, and those ideas will be worked into games at the earliest practicable opportunity, although maybe not exactly as proposed.

There is no need to be shy in criticising what I do. I don't take it personally, and I don't need my ego stroked. I do this because I enjoy it, and I enjoy it because it is a challenge and an opportunity for me to express myself in a limited way.

The reason I am disappointed with the discussion about who and when to declare war with is partly disappointment in myself for not forseeing all the possible permutations and variations that could be possible, along with my inability to communicate the intent of the rules clearly, and also disappointment that the clarifications I have had to make due to my shortcomings are not being read by everyone and questioned at the time. So I find myself writing the same thing over and over again in different ways, and thus screwing it up over and over again in different ways.

I'm not perfect, and I'm not cracker - don't want to be. I'm just one of you, no better - no worse. Try to bear that in mind if you can. :)

"If thou shalt delay thine count to twenty-one, thou shalt be heretofore be labelled a sandbagger, and be forever cast amongst the reloaders..."


:lol: I haven't played this variant before. But I've got a feeling that it may prove to be tougher than AWE.

Edited. M.B. :)

Sam. Please edit your post to remove the spoiler information you accidentally included. Thanks :)
(The first paragraph contains tactical information on how you played the AA).

hmm.....permutations...Pull out the Websters....Ok Got it...

A complete change; a transformation.
The act of altering a given set of objects in a groupYou guys always find of making me feel as if I don't know the English language very well. :lol:

Mad-bax:

Please do not give up your ideas just because I or a few players have complaints. We don't have to be in every SGOTM game. :)

Seriously, I have a suggestion in a previous post: have a specific "rules clarification" thread which only you can post. People still ask questions in the maintenance thread, but any new clarification could be added to the clarification thread. At the very least, keep the game announcement updated with such information. This way people won't have to go through the entire maintenance thread to look for the answers they want.

In general, I do think SGOTM should have simpler, less ambigious rules than normal SG, because there are so many different teams playing. The rules should make sure as much as possible that every team has the same understanding. That said, it doesn't mean you can't have sophiscated rules, but it will just need more hard work on your side, and probably scare away lazy players like myself who do not enjoy having pen and paper aside when I play the game.

Thanks again for organizing the games. Now we are at war with everyone anyway, so we can eventually stop worrying about the rules. :)

... 3. Thereafter, war will be declared on successive opponents at 20 turn intervals (i.e. twenty turns after the start of the last war) with two exceptions. A. You want to declare on another civ before 20 turns expires. B. Another civ declares war on you before 20 turns expire.

... That is the whole rule. There is no more. So, If you declare war on Civ A on turn 20, and then CivB declares war on you in turn 25, tell me... when do you think you should declare war on civC?

I find it incredible that people who can play this game to at least a reasonable standard (which is every single participant BTW) find it difficult to count to twenty.

Looks like we have to declare to Civ C on turn 40. Or am I wrong here?

Timing of war declaration in this game really matters. And luck with MGL matters even more. Consider this a spoiler or whatever. Overall the game + the rules is not the best choice for GOTM or SGOTM but still we agreed to play and should play. On the other hand, if it is a couple of lost workers or 21 or even 22 turns instead of 20... does it really matter? IMvHO not much. Especially considering that some of our team have not read the rules or discussion at all. Just turn on PC and play the game. So what? It is fun after all and should be considered as this and only this. Score and other awards are there just to stimulate the competition. It is an SGOTM after all. Well, if it does matter what is supposed to be done in this case? Take away the variant bonus? With being at war with half of the world for centuries? And trying to compete with other teams who remained at peace from the start? That is even more unfair either.

... The reason I am disappointed with the discussion about who and when to declare war with is partly disappointment in myself for not forseeing all the possible permutations and variations that could be possible, along with my inability to communicate the intent of the rules clearly, and also disappointment that the clarifications I have had to make due to my shortcomings are not being read by everyone and questioned at the time. So I find myself writing the same thing over and over again in different ways, and thus screwing it up over and over again in different ways. ...

:lol:

But the variant indeed has confusing rules and you have chosen them as well as the game to replay. So, don't be that disappointed by some things that really don't matter much. I'm more disappointed by low activity of our team members in discussion and playing. :)

For next SGOTM it might be possible also to look at the average post count per day of anticipated team members not only at their strength of play. Some may be play well but never discuss and skip and skip forever. Others discuss and discuss and when it comes to the game, they screw it up all over. The result is all the same. Hence, if I may suggest to choose team members first on their own preferences (this way you have less trouble managing the rosters) and second, on their strength and forum activity as equaly weighting factors. At least, in our case the thread won't look too embarassing which it is now. I have not had such low activity of the team members in any other SG. :sad:

:lol: I haven't played this variant before. But I've got a feeling that it may prove to be tougher than AWE.

Yep, it might be if you are going for Domination or UN. But for Conquest not much, apparently the same as AWE. Spaceship is always and option as well.

It is indeed my intention that I basically provide two different games on the same map. One winnable, and one loseable. This game is a test really to gauge the level of expertise within the playing community to enable me to set the difficulty. The next game will hopefully approach my objective of 50% victory rate for the variant.

For this game it would appear that all the teams should find a way to win, though for some it may be touch and go for a while.IMHO we will have 4 groups of teams:
the non-variant teams should all be able to win
the xenophobic teams with both Pyramids and Great Library will win easily and be the top scorers
the xenophobic teams with the Great Library will win moderately easy
the xenophobic teams with the Pyramids will have a hard time winning
the xenophobic teams with neither Pyramids nor Great Library will not have an at all easy life
Missing the Great Library will result in a tech lag and may lead to missing some of the important Middle Age wonders, further increasing the gap to the AIs. The Pyramids will partly offset this handicap because of the increased growth rate. Having neither will result in being half an age behind in techs, and that is no fun in AW, and even less so without captured cities and slaves.

Tao, greetings from group five. :)

IMHO we will have 4 groups of teams:

:hmm:

For next SGOTM it might be possible also to look at the average post count per day of anticipated team members not only at their strength of play.

This is a good point. Priority 1 is to make teams of acceptably equal strength. It is important IMO that any team is capable of winning the competition they choose to play. If I can do this and still have scope to sort the teams by a second parameter then I will try to do this in future. I agree that when tumbleweed begins to drift across the game thread and you hear the sound of the distant church bells that is can be both disconcerting and frustrating. Hopefully the team captains can find some way to draw these people out of their shells. ;)

There are lots of reasons for low post counts.

In fact the rate at which a game is played, and the rate of posting is usually inversely proportional to the trouble the team are in. :)

There are lots of reasons for low post counts.

In fact the rate at which a game is played, and the rate of posting is usually inversely proportional to the trouble the team are in. :)

:lol:

That's probably true.

However, I like to think that our team is the exception that proves the rule. We have a fairly decent postcount, but are in a whole heap of trouble :)

... However, I like to think that our team is the exception that proves the rule. ...

Well, our team might be another exception. No major trouble so far. This makes the rule even stronger. :lol:

And what is this talk about Pyramids, Great Library... We just have to survive somehow. :)

For next SGOTM it might be possible also to look at the average post count per day of anticipated team members not only at their strength of play. /sarcasm on/ Yes and on the number of lines per post. And the number of typos per post. And the ratio of typos per line. And the average time gap between posts. And the ratio of quoted text to new text./sarcasm off/

I hope I will be pardoned for the above, but IMHO this is not a valid criteria. Just tell me how many posts you except me to do per day, and I can meet this criteria. But does it any good?

IMHO it will be very hard to separate necessary and meaningful discussion from idle chatter and rambling, which some people nonetheless need and enjoy. And there is nothing wrong with this. How about a rule: "After each turn, each team member has to congratulate the player. And then - in a second posting - has to comment on the other congratulations. And in a third posting has to give some mild criticism. And in a forurth posting has to comment on the criticisms of the other team members. And in a fifth posting .....

I think I should stop before getting carried away even further. ;)

:lol:

Good point but still it is a measure of activity. Hows about not showing up in the thread for 3 days? When you're UP? Then, advise what to do? Skip? Drop? What if the whole team is like this? With a few exceptions since we are still moving somehow... :)

I have not had such low activity of the team members in any other SG.

Our team consists of strong silent types :) I'm not contributing much because a) its your team and b) the last time it happened I got annoyed and tried ranting and provoking people into contributing. By not contributing I guess they may learn the hard way it is a team game ie . we get our heads handed to us.
I'm not going to get too bothered by it. If they don't step up and try following whats going on then we will lose. Mind you i don't understand the variant really myself - I was the yo-yo who was out hunting for slaves in a an xenophobic game after all :)
As far as the player who skipped out, I think he was just embarrassed about the RCP mistake in his first turn. Not that it was a big deal- we can disband that city once we start working on our second ring.

I was the yo-yo who was out hunting for slaves in a an xenophobic game after all :) Oh man - I'm right there with you. I whacked a settler pair on a mountain during my second turnset when I realized I didn't really need to do that...

...and then I remembered doing something with some slave workers that someone forgot to execute...

...and then the next better player found a couple more slave workers that I hadn't caught...

...so here we are, running around our own territory, pilliaging our own terrain improvements to stay within the rules... :crazyeye:

I'm just glad we're not playing this variant as the Maya. (This is NOT a suggestion MB.)

@Akots: I feel any team leader's pain on the MIA player issue. IMHO, the only really good predictor of a player's participation is past participation in SGs. If SGOTM is a player's first SG, that player is simply a dark horse. In SGOTM2 I had 3 low post count players to start, and had to make 2 substitutions (1 went MIA, 1 got called for military service). Karasu later handed me a strong player, and I recruited another low-post count guy.

In all, team scout had 4 players come through that game that had low post counts and no completed SGs under their belts. Two of those have not been heard from since, and two are in the current game (one as a team leader).

If SGOTM is a player's first SG, that player is simply a dark horse.

It's nice to be labled as something around here :D There are by far worse labels out there.

It's nice to be labled as something around here :D There are by far worse labels out there.

I like the term NOOB myself :mischief: Scoutsout is far too diplomatic :)
In Team Akots you would be a NOOB - no grand titles such as "dark horse".
Whenever a NOOB makes a mistake Akots tasers them and I beat them with a rubber hose. You may think this is harsh but unproductive X-TEAM players have found themselves in GITMO.....Alans got connections at the highest levels. :)

* Cough Cough * Ahem....




I AM NOOB HEAR ME ROAR!


:D


EDIT: And of course, the bloody noob decides to misspell HEAR as HERE, :lol:

:lol:

Good point but still it is a measure of activity. Hows about not showing up in the thread for 3 days? When you're UP? Then, advise what to do? Skip? Drop? What if the whole team is like this? With a few exceptions since we are still moving somehow... :)
We've had dry spells from time to time; everybody has RL responsibilities, too. It's a very good idea to stick to a 24 hour 'got it' post requirement. After 24 hours, we'll open it up to the next two players, first to post a 'got it'. And so on until a MIA shows up, or one of the active players takes it. Occasionally we switch positions. With this understanding in place, there's no hard feelings and we keep the game moving.

:lol:

Sam, you are always such a fun! I like your ranting so much! (Petting the dog at the ears; smell; what is this smell?; got to wash his socks!) :lol:

IIRC, Cuivienen left to Bolivia, Sir_Ortin just cannot get through with the lousy modem dial-up as it is in all countries of the former Soviet Union, and jhingham might be busy with something else in the world besides Civ3 which is so-called RL. Since you are posting here, I'm forced to move a part of discussion as well. :)

Seriously, we cannot finish this game in time unless we lose badly and soon. :)

... After 24 hours, we'll open it up to the next two players, first to post a 'got it'. And so on until a MIA shows up, or one of the active players takes it. ...

That would have been a single player game with occasional contributions from Sam. Have not played that GOTM so may be fun but it is SG after all. :)

EDIT: And of course, the bloody noob decides to misspell HEAR as HERE, :lol:
We saw you were from the land of the GOVERNATOR and we automatically understood. :D

One team has reported that they cannot pillage using armies. This issue is under investigation, and no action will be taken until I can determine whether there is a problem with the bic, the bix or an individual save.

One team has reported that they cannot pillage using armies. This issue is under investigation, and no action will be taken until I can determine whether there is a problem with the bic, the bix or an individual save.This is not new. IIRC the pillage capability was removed for GOTM (bic?) because it was considered exploitive,since the AI nearly never attacks armies.

Yes. The original GOTM16 bic and all the SGOTM3 Bics and Bix have the army pillage flag un-checked. Armies cannot pillage within the GOTM mod, which is news to me. I'm sure this nugget is buried somewhere in the spec. :mischief:

and I recruited another low-post count guy.

Keep in mind I'm spamming my butt off trying to loose this moniker.

For example this post

Just wondering, what is the official submission date?

This is not new. IIRC the pillage capability was removed for GOTM (bic?) because it was considered exploitive,since the AI nearly never attacks armies.

My contribution to the discussion: The no pillage is annoying with the armies, especially as they're weak compared to what we're used to from C3C.

I can state unequivocally that the ai had no problem attacking a healthy legion army of ours with knights and LB's. (yes we finally got a leader)

@Mistfit - I think you've spammed beyond that perticular moniker, you can slow down now. :lol:

@Mauer - I have seen MB mention two timeframes to try and get everything completed in: eight weeks and ten weeks. Though I have also seen him post that there is technically no problem with two games going at once.

Just wondering, what is the official submission date?

There is no submission date for SGOTM. The plan is to provide a new game every two months and for the games to be completed within 10 weeks, but this is not hard and fast.

There is no submission date for SGOTM. The plan is to provide a new game every two months and for the games to be completed within 10 weeks, but this is not hard and fast.

What if one or several team don't finish game in 10 weeks and keep dragging it for months. Shouldn't be there a hard limit like in chess game on how much time you give from start until finish??
Apologize in advance if i asked something stupid, this is my 1st SGOTM.

This came up last time around and finished up being a redundant question. We're less than a month into this one. I suggest we deal with it if and when it happens?

This came up last time around and finished up being a redundant question. We're less than a month into this one. I suggest we deal with it if and when it happens?

Agreed, it is not right to come up with new rules in the middle of the game and for the current game we just have to keep going the way it is.
But i was Mad-Bax, I would set up some time restrictions for the next SGOTM. When team knows they have time limit it will have more discipline and play it faster. It obviously does not apply to X-Team. But some teams (and particularly staff team ;) ) are still in BCs.

I don't see that it matters. Even us lot have played 120 turns, another 120 turns and we may have a domination or conquest victory (although I doubt it :) ).

One team has already finished in around 1300 AD. Thats only 140 turns from where we are. I don't think it is our intention to milk it for all 540 turns :p

Lat time around it was the same. Players are on vacations and have other real life commitments. The biggest incentive last time was that the next game was appearing on the horizon. It concentrates minds wonderfully when they realise they either have to abandon the current game, or try to play two at once, or get this one finished :mischief:

I don't see that it matters. Even us lot have played 120 turns, another 120 turns and we may have a domination or conquest victory (although I doubt it :) ). Oh, ye of little faith! Your only question is which AI civ will have the conquest victory :mischief:

One team has already finished in around 1300 AD. Thats only 140 turns from where we are. I don't think it is our intention to milk it for all 540 turns :pSince you're playing the variant I don't think a milk run is an option. A fastest victory prize is rarely won in 2050 AD :D

There is an option open to me, which is to use a guillotine. In effect I will advertise a date at which all the results will be set in stone. Teams that have not finished by this date would have their latest save recorded as a conquest loss.

In GOTM1 I advertised such a date since the game was trivial, and it may have been tempting for some to milk the game which would have been excruciating.

I have decided, that in general I will not advertise such a date, since I do not want to put teams under pressure, and because I simply don't know how long each game (and particularly the variant) will play. I try to fiddle with the variant until I *think* that most teams will finish within 10 weeks, but I cannot be sure. I'd look pretty silly if I set a date that no team could meet wouldn't I?

So... no dates unless I feel it's necessary.

BTW: The staff have only 3 players, and a fairly heavy schedule, but we are trying to pick up the pace a bit. Space is back :worship: so things are looking up.

The biggest incentive last time was that the next game was appearing on the horizon.

That will probably do the job. :)

I try to fiddle with the variant until I *think* that most teams will finish within 10 weeks, but I cannot be sure. I'd look pretty silly if I set a date that no team could meet wouldn't I?


We are only 4 weeks into it. Even the slowest team, that would be us :) , are getting through 30 turns per week. That would take us up to 1500 AD one way or the other the game should be over by then.

If it begins to look like we are going too slow, then I suppose we could up the turns that each member has to play to 15.

If it begins to look like we are going too slow, then I suppose we could up the turns that each member has to play to 15.
In SGOTM2, when we (team scout) started lagging, we went to 12-turn sets.

So armies cannot pillage at all? I'm not talking about free pillaging but about non-free pillaging.

Armies cannot pillage in the GOTM mod at all. If you want to pillage you will have to stack another unit with the army. Because the solution is so trivial it seems to me (without really thinking about it) that it is pointless to make this change to armies. It is likely therefore that I will change this back to standard in future game.

The second and final spoiler for this game has been posted>>here.<< (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96510)

The second and final spoiler for this game has been posted>>here.<< (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96510)
Great. We haven't even qualified for the first one :crazyeye:

Nor I... but it looks like a few games will finish soon - one way or the other. :D

Back on page 6 Tao, broke the probable results based at 4 levels and the more I think about it he's right, which is kind of sad. It seems like if you were playing the variant and did not get your first Great Leader in time for either of the Pyramids (extra growth) or Great Library (tech parity) you were destined to have to climb a very big mountain. That kind of means if you are lucky you win and unlucky you lose. That's one thing that the GOTM normally strives to avoid (example: the popping of a nearby hut for a settler).

Also a request: How about an SGOTM for us builders. Having each game played for the warmongers is a little limited in strategy options. It kind of reduces the game to a see enemy, kill enemy mentality.

That's one thing that the GOTM normally strives to avoid (example: the popping of a nearby hut for a settler).


I agree. That's why I like the change that MGL cannot rush great wonders in C3C. It certainly makes the game more challenging. On the other hand SGLs should be disabled too. :)

Is it possible to move SGOTM to C3C?

It kind of reduces the game to a see enemy, kill enemy mentality.

Tree Hugging Hippy! :)

It seems like if you were playing the variant and did not get your first Great Leader in time for either of the Pyramids (extra growth) or Great Library (tech parity) you were destined to have to climb a very big mountain.
We at XTEAM have neither Pyramids nor Great Library. We were also at war with everybody on our continent earlier than everybody else.
Still we hope to beat the result of Team Smackster with hard work and superior strategy.

We were also at war with everybody on our continent earlier than everybody else. How do you know this?

How do you know this?
Edited out. Forgot that's not the spoiler thread.
But Scout, this was only based on the posts in the spoiler so far.

I haven't read the spoiler thread yet... we haven't entered the MA yet... I think a few teams are still chugging along back there. Don't take offense, but you may want to keep anything that's relayed in the spoiler thread to that thread.

@Alerum
I noted my blunder and edited my post. And I apologize.
But I also think the events were so early that all teams are already over these dates.
I originally just wanted to make clear that AA wonders are not as important as many people think.
Even in the variant you can catch up and the important point is how you play the MA.

Even in the variant you can catch up and the important point is how you play the MA.
Agreed, which is why we are in the lead :)

But seriously without giving away any spoiler information, I would like to state for the record that our teams score is not purely based on luck and that there probably was a certain amount of skill involved. Consider also that we played on average two sets of turns per day (real time) for much of the game with no skips.

smackster (getting a little bored of the constant thread that team smackster was simply lucky)

smackster (getting a little bored of the constant thread that team smackster was simply lucky)
I think the communication level of your team played a major role as well. Almost double all of the other teams, including the teams that are near or beyond your finish date.

Team smackster
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 666
User Name Posts
smackster 241
dmanakho 156
Wotan 139
Tarkeel 98
DeceasedHorse 24
mad-bax 8

The Gold Laurel will be awarded to the team that win by the victory condition of their choice in the fewest turns relative to the Jason best date for that condition.


I just want to mention this again.

There is no need for variant Teams to give up, even if they wont reach smackster's Jason score.

I just want to mention this again.

There is no need for variant Teams to give up, even if they wont reach smackster's Jason score.
What makes you think any of us would give up?

[patriotic voice]We play for the love of the game![/patriotic voice]

Team smackster
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 666
User Name Posts
smackster 241
dmanakho 156

:blush: I was going to blame dmanakho for the amount of posts we had, but looks like it was me all along. I actually have more posts than a number of teams combined, double :blush:

What makes you think any of us would give up?

[patriotic voice]We play for the love of the game![/patriotic voice]
I didn't mean give up in the sense of not playing any more, but in the sense of the gold laurel would be impossible and just drag along. :)
I'm pretty sure every variant team has still the chance to get a better date than smackster's team.
The date does not impress me at all, while the score is very high for the variant.

:blush: I was going to blame dmanakho for the amount of posts we had, but looks like it was me all along. I actually have more posts than a number of teams combined, double :blush:

May be you were a little fast with assigning me with a title of Chief Blabber Mouth.
How about you will be the Chief and i will be an ordinary blabber mouth :rolleyes:.
But nobody can compete with ForTheEmpire for the number of posts per given time interval. Although i must admit he (or she) is a fun person...
I usually read Microbe team thread for the entertainment purposes.

And as I said already, we are NOT free entertainment! :aargh:

And yes, FTE is of the male variety :love:

For the record, and because I can read all the threads team Smackster have not been lucky. Over the course of their game their luck has evened out IMO. They played extremely well in fact and fully deserve the result they achieved. They may have made one fatal error however, which now leaves them hanging on the edge of their seats for a while.

The team where luck has played an unnacceptably large part is teamX, who had around 50 elite wins to get their first leader. In the end though this may in fact have helped them in an obtuse way, since they were forced to re-evaluate the way they played the game, and thus avoided the mistake made by team Smackster.

All the other teams are getting pretty much what they deserve IMO.

As for changing the way leaders work... well no. The same element of luck is embedded in the single player GOTM games. The effect is just less apparent because you don't get the blow by blow accounts. In the last GOTM I got a settler from a hut, a leader with my first elite victory and my first suicide galley succeeded, oh and my immediate neighbour built the pyramids. I didn't submit the game.

Denyd made a comment about having a SGOTM for builders. Well, each game gives the choice of variant or non-variant. And last month the variant was a diplo win game. I am trying to alternate between war/builder variants, though it has to be said there are many more warmongering options, and trying to invent non-cheesy builder variants is a challenge, as akots was only too quick to point out. But I will try.

SGOTM will not migrate to C3C. However... A seperate SCOTM could be possible if there was enough interest. As long as I am involved with this event I will provide a game that the mac community can share in, but a seperate event for C3C is not outside the bounds of possibility.

The Staff team is still going to win BTW. :)

... The team where luck has played an unnacceptably large part is teamX, who had around 50 elite wins to get their first leader. ...

Cannot say that about us for the first leader, probably around 35-40 or so including defensive wins with elite spears but the second leader took ... (checking the record keeping book) ... about 52 then I stopped counting and there were around a dozen more at least before the guy finally emerged.

So, what is the story behind your GOTM which you did not submit? You lost it or what? Just curious.

And don't tell please that building the Pyramids with a leader in this game is not a good luck. It is a good luck. Is it possible to beat their finish date? Certainly possible! But very unlikely. Especially considering the xenophobic nature of the variant. That is actually the problem with this game. You cannot capture the Pyramids or Great Library. The only way to own a wonder is to build it. Time is running very short in this game and you have probably about 10-15 maximum 20 elite wins to generate a leader for Pyramids and may be 25 maximum counting from zero to generate a leader for Great Library. Both wonders are crucial for this particular variant. Especially brutal is the fact that decent kill ratio enough for survival comes only with legions and this means spending the Golden Age in Despotism. This put pRNG on the first place in this game. And vanilla as well as PTW are know for horrendous MGL streaks. The reason is that MGL generation is not determined directly by a number of elite wins but is hardcoded by the random seed and is weighted independently after each combat. This was fixed in C3C and works very well.

IMHO, AWE would be easier to play to a certain extent than this xenophobic variant. This makes the game even more interesting though I have little doubt all teams would be able to win it. :)

We mostly do it for fun, but team tao keeps a tally that currently says

- Great Leaders: 14
- Slaves disbanded: 192
- Cities razed: 68

I don't know if other teams do likewise, but it might be interesting to compare in the final spoiler.

I like especially when they appear a couple of turns before the finish every other elite win. :lol:

We did not keep track of these numbers, I'm afraid.

But in GOTM it is also a great factor especially considering the Palace jump. Sometimes even probably decisive. Leader farming technique though often helped to overcome that. But proper leader farming in this game was barely possible.

I wouldn't comment on which team had the most luck, since I couldn't looked at their game thread. But at least in our game, if we could have got a leader for the Great Library, or even Pyramids, things could have been very different. Or if AI didn't start GL in ~450BC. This IS luck. We didn't need to change our strategy and the outcome would have been very different.

That said, luck is fair game and I don't want to whine about it. There is still a more lot to do which doesn't depend on pure luck. I also don't believe that by luck only a team could do very well. So I congratulate all the players who have higher score than us (which is most of them). All I want to say is luck does exist and sometimes plays a significant role.

So basically, some of my friends think luck is significant, some of my friends don't. Personally, I agree with my friends :lol: .

I thought D still remained at X+60, and no DOW was needed at X+40 (C's turn)because you were already at war with C?

A = X
B = X+20
C = X+40 (already at war, since prior to B)
D = X+60

DJMGator, unfortunately, your interpretation seems to be totally wrong.

Assume C declares on you in turn X+15, then what happens is:

A = X
C = X+15
B = X+35
D = X+55

I hope I get this right this time. mad-bax please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, let's get a poll here. Who really think he understands the rules here? I can come up with a quiz to test. Not that I know the correct answers.

Ok lets get a MB ruling on that one

Now, let's get a poll here. Who really think he understands the rules here?
I thought I did until I read this post

Here is mad-bax's latest rule clarification in our thread. Note the bold font.
=================================================

This is the rule.

1. You must declare war on the first civ you make contact with on the turn you make contact.

2. You must declare war on the second civ you make contact with 20 turns or less after you declared war on the first civ.

3. You must declare war on the third civ you make contact with 20 turns or less after the turn you declared war on the second civ.

4. You must declare war on the fourth civ you make contact with 20 turns or less after the turn you declared war on the third civ.

5. yada yada yada ad nauseum.

Things that can change this.

a) A civ declares war on you. This is the same as you declaring war on a civ early. So the next civ in the list has a DoW date twenty turns from this time.

b) You declare war on a civ that is not next on the list. Fine. Then the DoW date for the next Civ is in twenty turns time.

I called it the twenty turn rule because it is exactly that. Every twenty tuns you are at war with a new civ. If you want to declare war earlier, or out of turn then that's up to you. If a civ declares war on you then hard luck.

I mentioned it on our team thread...

M-B needs to hire an attorney for 2 reasons....
1. Polish all the rules and statements prior to the start of the game.
2. to defend himself from SGOTM players after game is started...
:)

@MIcrobe: I still don't understand completely the rules.. and i was the one who made a mistake playing for our team... I declared war way earlier than i should have.

@M-B: I am not picking at you. It's just 1st time everyone plays such a variant, I think it was almost impossible to predict all the possible combinations and game twists until it has actually started. If we have the same variant game next time it will run much more smoothly.

In overall it was lots of fun to play this game, and it's kind of shame we finished it so early, it's been somewhat boring lately.
:mischief:

I decided to go through the whole maintenance thread because I want to see where all the confusion comes from. And now my suspicion is kind of true: mad-bax confused everybody and himself.

Assuming civ ABCD met in order, and we declare on A at turn X. Then C declares on us at turn X+15. So what should we do?

TheNamesis666 asked this question (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2018623&postcount=44):

MB, what happens if someone declares war on us, do we still declare 20 turns after the last war we started or is it 20 turns after we were declared upon?

mad-bax answered (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2018647&postcount=45):

Nothing changes. You declare on the next civ in your list 20 turns after you declared on the last one. If the civ that declares IS the next one on the list then it is handled in the same way as if you decided to declare on that civ early.


IOW, nothing changes if an AI NOT next in the list decided to declare on you early. (btw, it's rather weird that things do change when the next AI declares on us)

So:

A = X
C = X+15
B = X+20
D = X+60

Compare it to the latest interpretation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092776&postcount=329):

b) You declare war on a civ that is not next on the list. Fine. Then the DoW date for the next Civ is in twenty turns time.

Now could it be there is a difference between you declare on AI and AI declares on you? Nope:


a) A civ declares war on you. This is the same as you declaring war on a civ early. So the next civ in the list has a DoW date twenty turns from this time.


So:

A = X
C = X+15
B = X+35
D = X+55

Now tell me how to interpret these inconsistent rules.

The whole thing is a joke now.

Well... you have me of course. The rule as clarified by me and linked first in your post (#167) is correct, and is the clarification by which all the teams have abided by, except yours.

Having read right through your thread, and turnlogs, and opened three of your teams saves I was put in a difficult position. You have declared war late, you have signed peace with an opponent, and you have failed to record the date at which an opponent declared war on you, and can only narrow it down to within twenty turns.

This competition (I had rather hoped) would be a friendly affair. A bit of light relief from playing GOTM. To my mind it's a bit like the difference between playing singles tennis and doubles. The singles is all very serious and every line call scrutinised, wheras in doubles you play to win sure, but you have a laugh doing it.

With this in the back of my mind, and confronted with the stark choice of excluding a whole team because of the actions of one person, or finding a way to allow the team to continue, I chose the latter, and softened the rules for you. The intent of the rule was only ever to prevent teams from sandbagging. So long as teams made a genuine attempt to keep to the spirit of this, then declaring war a little late, or forgetting to disband a few slaves here and there would be overlooked. Had it been GOTM, then your game would have been excluded without question. But I'd rather hoped I'd never be forced into doing this in SGOTM.

So yes, the rule as described by me to your team in your thread IS inconsistent with what everyone else has been playing to. I surrender.

So now you have me painted into a corner, what next?

As for this game being a joke, then perhaps you are right. I never thought of myself as capable of running these games anyway, but nobody else would step up to the plate. So I did it, because I thought that some people would get some pleasure from the format. The hours I spend fiddling with maps and playtesting them to try to get them kind of OK means I have no time to play GOTM or any SG's now. All I can do is lurk in other peoples games at work whilst looking over my shoulder for my boss. I'm not sure that is what I want anymore. So if you know anyone that has the technical competence, the time and the ability to put up with this kind of response, then please let me know. If you and I agree on one thing it's that I am not good enough to run this event. So let's find someone who is.

I respect you as a player microbe, but I want you to know that you have taken all of the joy out of this event for me.
If you would like to continue this discussion, may I respectfully suggest we do it by PM.

Thanks.

:sad: that's all i can say :sad:
M-B please don't give up on us....
This game is a joy, and I bet everybody will sign under this...

You've been great

I must be truly into S&M :whipped: because I too am very much enjoying this slugfest. Rarely have I felt the need to continue playing a game that I thought I might lose, yet this one has captivated me.

Please don't feel frustrated by the constant questioning over this new variant and continue to suppy us with new and challenging ideas.

We're hanging on by a thread. It isn't so much about winning or losing, it is about the journey. You've created a very interesting journey for us, MB. Please keep up the good work :goodjob:

MB. Please don't let one player who has a specific problem ruin this for you and the other 77 players who are registered for, and enjoying, this game. Sure it's a learning experience and we can refine the variant rule set better next time around by prior discussion. But you are quite right, this should be a relaxing 'doubles', not a vehicle for individual blood letting.

Let me add my voice to the discussion: the variants where only invented to make the game more interesting. Interesting as in fun, not as in difficult and worrisome. It's a game remember, to be shared by friends.

Let's give MB a big :thanx: instead of harassment. I for one am very glad that he went ahead and started this, knowing how much work it was. And I am all the more glad that I managed to persuade him to play with us in this game. :love:

Mad-bax, so you are accusing us of doing things LATE instead of early.

Let me go through my summary in the spolier thread:

The order of AI contact:
Greece, England, France/America, Russia/Babylon, Ottoman, Germany.

France/America make contact with us at the same turn, Russia/Babylon at the same turn.

I'm skipping other AIs to avoid spoiler information. We can discuss this once the game is over.

The declaration of wars:

2510BC (turn 32): Greece.
1700BC (turn 52): England.
1250BC (turn 71): America - here barbslinger probably did make a mistake I think we should declare on France first instead of America, as we bought contact with America from France and met it the same turn. But hardly a big deal IMO.
925BC (turn 84) : France declares on us.
825BC (turn 88): Babylon declares on us.
350BC (turn 111): Russia declares on us. We declare on Ottomans and Germany at the same turn too.

Now what should be the correct one? Assuming no AI declaration, it should be:

turn 32: Greece
turn 52: England
turn 72: America
turn 92: France
turn 112: Babylon
turn 132: Russia
turn 152: Ottoman
turn 172: Germany

If we use the "nothing changes" rule, then it should be like this:

turn 32: Greece
turn 52: England
turn 72: America
turn 84: France declares on us
turn 88: Babylon declares on us
turn 108: Russia
turn 128: Ottoman
turn 148: Germany

Now we probably delayed 3-turn on declaring Russia, but we also needlessly declared on Ottoman and Germany. All in all we declared EARLY, instead of LATE.

Having read right through your thread, and turnlogs, and opened three of your teams saves I was put in a difficult position. You have declared war late, you have signed peace with an opponent, and you have failed to record the date at which an opponent declared war on you, and can only narrow it down to within twenty turns.

Nonsense. I may not remember the exact date on top of my head, but everything is in the turnlogs. Tell me which date isn't clear to you, and I'll dig it out for you.

As of making peace - there is NOTHING in the game rules that says we cannot make peace, if we are not supposed to declare on that AI for like 40 turns. Where is it?

Well... you have me of course. The rule as clarified by me and linked first in your post (#167) is correct, and is the clarification by which all the teams have abided by, except yours.

Really? I would be surprised if anyone else followed the same rules exactly.

I chose the latter, and softened the rules for you.

Sorry, the "special" rule you gave to our team is MORE STRICT than your "nothing changes" rule! Do you really understand the differences? Go read my previous post again.

At last, if you want to give a special rule to a team, please state it explicitly, not after you are challenged. In this case, I don't buy it at all, as you said this in our thread:

I called it the twenty turn rule because it is exactly that. Every twenty tuns you are at war with a new civ. If you want to declare war earlier, or out of turn then that's up to you. If a civ declares war on you then hard luck.

Clearly this has been your original intention, not some softened (hardened?) variation.

Microbe, your comments are getting dangerously near to flames. Please take this debate to Private mail as requested by MB.

Here is an Idea microbe: If this Game is such a chore for you any you are so unhappy about the way it has been run QUIT

As of making peace - there is NOTHING in the game rules that says we cannot make peace, if we are not supposed to declare on that AI for like 40 turns. Where is it?


Rule 3 of the first post in our team's thread is:

"3. You must stay at war with that Civ until one of you have been eliminated."

I assume it is the same for your team's thread.

Here is an Idea microbe: If this Game is such a chore for you any you are so unhappy about the way it has been run QUIT

Yes I consider quitting, and I would have if it were just a single player game. But I have team members and they want to continue the game.

Does it mean that if I have problems with the rules, I cannot post it in this thread and get it cleared out?

All my posts are backed by facts and reasoning. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. And I think it's relevant to everyone else.

I apologize to have commented that "this game is a joke". It may make people unhappy. But frankly, I think it is a failure on mad-bax's part. I don't mean to discredit his hard work of orginazing the games. I am only commenting on this game.

Everyone wants SGOTM to be a success. Just admit the mistake and do it better next time. There is no need to bash someone who just asks questions. Let's be honest, the rule sucks.

Rule 3 of the first post in our team's thread is:

"3. You must stay at war with that Civ until one of you have been eliminated."

I assume it is the same for your team's thread.

I responded to this point here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2089688&postcount=291).

Rule 3 of the first post in our team's thread is:

"3. You must stay at war with that Civ until one of you have been eliminated."

I assume it is the same for your team's thread.

I guess the word Microbe read more into than was intended was "that" in reference to rule 2. about first contact war...

OTOH, all other teams/players caught the meaning of this to apply to all wars not just the first civ we met. Especially since it is an AW variant making peace would be rather farfetched.

I hope Mad-Bax will not drop out of the SGOTM's due to one bad apple... ;)

I guess the word Microbe read more into than was intended was "that" in reference to rule 2. about first contact war...

This is not true. It literally means that but we didn't interpret it that way.

Let's me quote what I said:

So my understanding is that once you declare on any civ according to the 20-turn rule, you cannot make peace.

But it's very reasonable to say we can make peace (20 turns) before the due declaration day, as long as we still declare according to the agenda.

Remember "nothing changes (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2018647&postcount=45)"? Nothing changes, even for the CIV that declared on us. We still declare on it according to plan.

NOW doesn't mean "no peace". See this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2089869&postcount=304).

I hope Mad-Bax will not drop out of the SGOTM's due to one bad apple... ;)

That's not my intent, and I hope SGOTM could continue. And if you learn to listen to bad apple, you may do it better next time.

This discussion is now closed in this thread.

Microbe, I have responded to your latest posts by PM. I will continue this discussion in private for as long as you wish it, but I will not permit this discussion to disrupt this thread any longer.

... I will not permit this discussion to disrupt this thread any longer.

:lol: Poor Microbe. Poor mad-bax. Poor us. :lol:

Seriously, is this that important? IMHO, not important, absolutely. I was also going to make peace with Greece but mad-bax came and warned not to do so. But what if he did not come?

Edited: Forgot poor AI. It is being hammered and hammered and hammered. :lol:

mad-bax: I and many others really, REALLY appreciate the work you put into SGOTM!! I agree with the "doubles" concept for this competition; the point is to have a good time, build the community and share your ideas, discussion and game play. SGOTM does this all the way around.

I pick my wars pretty carefully in GOTM, so SGOTM3 is a real departure for me. It's been nervewracking at times, but a real blast none-the-less. And not being the AW type, I appreciated the more complicated version here; at least we had some breathing room between DoW's.

I'd recommend that, similar to the GOTM Reference thread ( :) ), there be a post (probably the 2nd one) with descriptions and links to any and all pertinent discussions and decisions regarding the current SGOTM. That way there is one spot to refer to for final decisions, and it can be updated during the competition. Odd as it may sound, I suspect that many players and perhaps all those on some teams, don't monitor the maintenance thread daily, and miss a lot of discussion that goes on. This way they only have to look at one post, not all the posts. I think this general concept has been mentioned earlier, but this is my take on it.

Again, :thanx: and :goodjob:

Since I cannot sleep tonight, crazy ideas are coming to my poor head. What if we select a judge? To judge these issues? Certainly, Demo game experience hurts in this case. The judge can be voted in the poll by all players prior to the game and should not be a part of any team. The judge should be also a qualified and respectable player who understands the rules. The judge can also have a deputy to help him wage through a set of turnlogs. May be even 2 deputies. His job can be rather difficult. He has to browse through all the threads and see an evidence whether a certain team has violated the rules. Not only the variant rules but GOTM-SGOTM general rules as well. And determine the penalty. For example, 10% Jason score taken off or +20 turns added to finish date. There should be also some limits to the punishments known to the players before the game begins.

Since mad-bax is affiliated with the staff team, it would be unfair to leave all the issues arising during these games to his discretion only. Not that I doubt mad-bax can make an honest unobscured ruling. But nevertheless, there would be always somebody who may doubt this. And they have a right to do so. It is still not too late to vote for a judge even in this SGOTM.

There is also an option to appoint a judge. But it is a hard job and I would think that very few people would actually agree to become a judge. Hence, candidates (at least 2) can be suggested by mad-bax and then voted by all players. This would make their appointments even more legitimate. Nobody would even try to question a ruling in this case.

There can be a separate thread to discuss the rulings or ask questions but most of problems can be decided in the actual team's thread and become public only after the game is finished. This would avoid a spoiler problems for these discussion which might contain some important information. However, final ruling would have to be posted in the Maintenance Thread for the game so that the other teams know what is going on with the final score or whether a team has been disqualified.

There should be no appeal court IMO. Ruling are final and in effect for that particular GOTM. If a judge mades unfair decisions too often, he would not be elected for the next SGOTM.

@mad-bax. To ease the pain of playtesting and editing, I suggest you do not playtest or edit. This thing apparently may take a horrendous amount of time. And if all teams lose... this just means we play not so well, need to learn more about this game. But if AWS can be won, well, virtually any variant can be potentially won. :)

There is so much hassle just to organize this whole SGOTM and I'm sure it is enough committment by itself. IMO, we reall should appreciate this. :)

Prudent, but it sounds as complicated as the variant rules! :lol:

I think this gets away from the concept of SGOTM. I'd prefer this competition to be considered more like a common SG than a GOTM; all teams are playing from the same start position, posting their progress and interactions. At the end, some laurels and spoons are awarded. Anybody and everybody can review the threads, especially those of the award recipients, and if you have an issue with the play for the variant, you can post it. I'm content with an ad-hoc decision (and due to different interpretations of statements I think the guideline must be intent to play in the spirit of the variant with some common sense applied), but others may not be (which is the unfortunate reality of any endeavor pursued by a decent number of people.)

I prefer an informal SGOTM, but I'm afraid that there will always be nit-picky issues.

<snip> I'd prefer this competition to be considered more like a common SG than a GOTM; all teams are playing from the same start position, posting their progress and interactions. At the end, some laurels and spoons are awarded. Anybody and everybody can review the threads, especially those of the award recipients, and if you have an issue with the play for the variant, you can post it. <snip>

I prefer an informal SGOTM, but I'm afraid that there will always be nit-picky issues.

i generally agree with steve. unfortunately, there will always be someone who treats this too serious, like they are gonna miss a mortgage payment or fail an exam if things don't go 100% thier way or they miss something in the game's rules. we've made mistakes in our game too, very big ones, due to misinterpreting the rules. but it's ok, we're having fun playing the game, as that was the intent from the beginning. seeing how others react or getting dumped into totally chaotic situations makes sg's really fun for me. we might get run over by the AI, but that's ok, as there's always something to learn from losing.

the one thing i disagree with steve is in regards to reviewing other's threads... i actually like it that they are closed from the beginning as this makes it harder to play while also forcing everyone to focus on thier own game, rather than checking out to see what the Ateam is doing, and then trying to replicate it. i know we would have players from our team constantly checking the other threads if this was allowed and it would be too distracting. plus, it was really interesting to see all the different tactics in sgotm2 after the game was done. i could see where we did better and worse than others. very good learning experience imho.

thanks mb :goodjob:

...in regards to reviewing other's threads... i actually like it that they are closed from the beginningI agree with you 110% on those thoughts, Grahamiam. The unexpected/unexplored is a big part of the fun of this game.

Whether or not any individual stays in the game is their choice. MY choice would be to see everyone stay in the game(s). I respect Microbe greatly as a player, and give much credit to M-B bot only for his hard work, but also for getting me interested in trying SGs. Thanks to both.

RE: the closed threads, I very much agree that they add to the game.

Incidentally, we're in a very strong 3-way race for the spoons, so we may pull out our second award yet!

Just in defense of microbe and the rest of team microbe, the only reason we are paying so much attention to the details of the rules is that we just simply want to make sure that we are following it properly. What good are rules if they are not followed, right? We were not trying to look for loopholes in wording, we were simply confused with the explanations and just wanted consistency, that's all. If we choose to play a variant, we want to follow it properly. We are really good citizens in a sense in that we only questioned so much so we can play the variant. Otherwise, we would simply play AWE and that would NOT be the variant. But as M-B has said, done is done, and let's all move on.

i generally agree with steve. unfortunately, there will always be someone who treats this too serious, like they are gonna miss a mortgage payment or fail an exam if things don't go 100% thier way or they miss something in the game's rules.

Grahamiam, I agree with you and I want fun, not winning any competition (not that we are playing well enough to win, there are many more talented teams). The best way to achieve this is to have simpler (or at least more casual) rules, not to have complicated rules and let people keep wondering if they've got it right. We delayed one declaration for 3 turns and got accused, this is just an extreme example of that.

I think both Mad-bax and I were frustrated. I've tried my best to follow the rules as respect to mad-bax's hard work, but we keep missing things here and there. I would not have posted in this thread to make such a big noise and displease mad-bax if he hadn't posted in our thread "you do whatever you like, but I'll disqualify you if I think you are wrong". I guess everybody was just tired, including himself. This is a lesson to be learned to make future games more successful and enjoyable.

At the end, I agree with a more casual way of playing games. Unfurtunately, as long as SGOTM is about competition, it's not likely to change. I've always thought SG is about cooperation, not competition, by the way, so I'd like to see that happen.

Just in defense of microbe and the rest of team microbe, the only reason we are paying so much attention to the details of the rules is that we just simply want to make sure that we are following it properly. What good are rules if they are not followed, right?

I think it's certainly true that we have to pay attention to the rules. Is our team just more stupid than other teams? I couldn't view other threads yet, but from what I gathered, we are not alone. Are we just more serious than others? Maybe. But if there is an official announcement saying: these rules are casual, you can play according to your understanding and if that's wrong, no big deal, we'd stop worrying about it immediately. :)

... At the end, some laurels and spoons are awarded. Anybody and everybody can review the threads, especially those of the award recipients, and if you have an issue with the play for the variant, you can post it. ...
Here's a good example of misinterpretation of one's statements :lol: My intent was, after the game is over, stuff is awarded and THEN anybody and everybody can review the threads. (Actually, as soon as their team has finished their game.) I am not advocating for open threads, which several people interpreted I was; closed threads for the participants is much better.

This is intended to be a general note, not directed at anyone in particular:

Though this should be obvious, it occurs to me that sometimes we don't always consider that our electronically written words can take on a tone that is not intended. I've been guilty of this on a number of occasions, since I tend to write in a style that sometimes appears serious... I've been accused of 'raking over the coals' when attempting to engage in what I intended as polite, thoughtful dialog.

Couple this medium with a little frustration, or maybe a post that is more of a reaction than a considered thought...and it's easy to offend when no offense was really intended. Toss a little language factor into the game, and there's plenty of room for misinterpretation... (Mad-Bax and I do not speak quite the same version "English", I gua-ron-tee...)

...so... next time you get P.O.'d at someone on these boards (and I've been known to do it too...) it sometimes helps to remember that there's another human being at the other end of all this.

If you must rant, PM your thoughts to a friend. I've done this...(and my friends have my thanks for putting up with my B.S.) Not only does it help vent, but it keeps frustration from becoming anger.

To any I've ever offended and failed in an apology, just PM me and I'll personalize one for you. I'll go flush my PM box now. :p

Important. Please do not ignore.

I will ask a moderator to ban the next person to post on the subject of team Microbes issues with the variant rules. I've asked nicely, and then I told everyone to stop. Please don't ignore me again.

This post is NOT directed at any one particular individual.

Mad-bax, what the heck is your avatar of?! It reminds me of this massage buddy thing my girlfriend has.

rolie polie olie

rolie polie olie it is..
My son's favorite disney show :)

Important. Please do not ignore.

I will ask a moderator to ban the next person to post on the subject of team Microbes issues with the variant rules. I've asked nicely, and then I told everyone to stop. Please don't ignore me again.

This post is NOT directed at any one particular individual.

Ban from where?

hehehe... you can tell who has the kids.;)

Um kids.... yes, the kids watch it :mischief: .

MB 3000 post :eek:

Yes, Rolie Polie Olie. My childrens favourite tv show this week, and mine for over a year. It's great. :)

I really should get a proper Avatar.... just too lazy.

How about a photo of an olllllld style map to reflect all the maps you've created... The one for Gangis's training day game should be a required play for all users of CFC.;)

Ban from where?
I'd be interested in that too.

Anyone else having problems getting the downloads from the server? If your not could you get my teams last save and P.M. it for me? TY

How about a photo of an olllllld style map to reflect all the maps you've created... The one for Gangis's training day game should be a required play for all users of CFC.;)Alerum's right - that's a pretty cool map...and for those fans of the GOTM hacked-up versions of Vanilla Civ... MB also created a map for Cracker's (?) Mongols... you'll find that in SGs as "Jumpmasters 1B". I have deliberately not surfed that thread because I plan to play that map one day as a personal epic game. (These are NOT the Mongols that have the Keshiks...)

Hmmm... I just had an idea...

...are Cracker's mongols playable in PTW? Or did that GOTM precede PTW? :mischief:

It is are available in PTW. I think the current SGOTM was the first to allow PTW (as GOTM 16). The Mongols were GOTM 25. The challenges presented by the new & improved Mongols made for a truly interesting game.

We are sure having fun with them in Scout's Jump Master's... That ability to Attack 2 times or Bombard twice is quite fun.

I can make a bic/bix available from the Mongols game which would allow you to generate your own maps, so long as you have the GOTM mod installed.

m-b

No need to bother. There is already a full GOTM mod available that allows you to play any of the GOTM civs.
bluebox put the pieces together. Anyone who wants to play the mongols can. There is one tiny almost irrelevant bug in that mongols don't get pikemen at feudalism. bluebox may have fixed that, though.

Here is the link:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89384

Adrian

BTW - The atlantis civ from GOTM 21 might make an interesting choice for a SGOTM. Noone will have ever played them before.

There is one tiny almost irrelevant bug in that mongols don't get pikemen at feudalism. Mongols without Pikemen?!? :eek: :wow: :dubious: That's even worse than going to war without your accordion!

Actually there is more than one problem with blueboxes mod, great though it is. I have been working with it a little and have been sorting out some issues.

For instance, oriental civs get the ability to build junks with alphabet with a cost of 20g. They have the same stats as galleys, but get an extra movement point. Also it is only available for 1.29f, not PTW IIRC. I have a list anyway, and have begun to compile several versions of my own, mainly to allow vanilla players to play the GOTM mod or unmodded, with the same pediaicons and resource files whilst retaining those features, and allowing the same game to be played on unmodded PTW. Couple that with the need to also allow PTW players to play with the asian units (including the Mongol set) and it starts getting complicated.

I may aswell announce here that the next SGOTM will require people who play 1.29f to patch up to GOTM25, but PTW players will be able to play unmodded.

Looks like I'm sticking with PTW.;) MB, I'm sure others have asked, but how difficult would it be to make the SGOTM Conquest style? I don't remembre seeing an answer. And I think it's going to be a seafaring civ for the next one, (JMHO), so C3C would really be good for it.;) Just a thought...

c3c would be nice, but I dont think we want to exclude the mac players!

C3C can't be played on Mac? Did not know that. I think it's time for them to upgrade to PCs.:p

C3C can't be played on Mac? Did not know that. I think it's time for them to upgrade to PCs.:pQuick! Run for cover! Unsubscribe before the Macs attack!

hehehehe... I'm just picturing these apples with bites out of them chopping after me now. BUT YOU CAN MAKE BETTER MOVIES ON MACs! Yeah, okay... I need to read e-mails and messages, pay my bills, and play this one game I can't seem to kick the addiction for....

(This should really get the ball rolling)

Not that I said that, I should remind everyone to keep things on topic.:)

Troublemaker.... ;)

Not everyone has or can play C3C. And more importantly not everyone likes C3C ...me for instance. :p I dislike the agricultural trait, the F.P. the ToA, the spartan resources and the increased unit upgrade costs. The campaigns are fun though...what about SGOTM using one of the conquests campaigns? That might generate some interest.

C3C 1.22 is great for multiplayer unlike PTW. And it is more balanced in certain aspects. Especially corruption becomes very balanced. And these conquest scenarios are great fun for SP and MP. I like C3C more but this is a personal opinion. However, with Cracker's GOTM mods, vanilla or PTW became very similar to C3C. As close as it can probably be.

As I have said before, SGOTM will continue to support 1.29f and PTW. I can't make them play in the same way as conquests because the game engine is different, and therefore I can't include a conquests version since the games would not be comparable from a competetive perspective.

It could be possible however to have a SCOTM. It would even be possible to arrange this for the next game, if we use the same map and the same uploads page. Actually, I am interested in doing this, as an experiment to see how scores differ, and why they differ between the different versions. SG format gives enough information to do this. I have not discussed this with the staff however, and there may be reasons of which I am unaware that would prevent this.

Alerum68: I am aware that some people are not keen to install the GOTM mod. I am also aware that PTW with the additional Civs, wonders and buildings etc. allows for more variety in game play. It is for these reasons that the staff are developing in the background a consolidated mod for 1.29f that is our idea of a "PTW equivalency" mod. I hope I don't get into trouble for letting that particular cat out of the bag. We feel that this is the best compromise we can acheive, and it allows you to make the choice you have made to play a pseudo-unmodded game.

I can't make them play in the same way as conquests because the game engine is different...C3C is a different game. Not only that, but there are distinct differences between C3C 1.15b and 1.22f. I personally like C3C a lot... but it is a different game. Some might like it less... doesn't matter. It is a different game.

It could be possible however to have a SCOTM....I don't own a Mac, but I'm not sure I like this. There is something to be said for ... standardizing things... and the version of this game that has the broadest playability is Play the World. For the Mac addicts and hard-core Vanilla players, the GOTM mods can make the game come awfully close to PTW...

...but to make C3C even roughly equivalent to ... wait a dadgum minute... lemme see if I can put this a different way.

Here's what can happen if you mod a C3C game, and fail to account for the Statue of Zeus:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Wonsan_SoZ.jpg

...as an experiment to see how scores differ, and why they differ between the different versions. SG format gives enough information to do this.... Friendly suggestion: If you want to do some comparative stuff... do a test-bed SG. I haven't been in this SG stuff all that long, and I've already been in more than one SG that spawned parallel games (Bugs1 and 2 and Gram1 come to mind...) Though you wouldn't have the same amount of data with 2-4 parallel SGs that you would in a 12 team SGOTM... taking the competitive element out of it may be healthy for testing the waters...

As for the people who won't download the GOTM mods... they're missing out. We can explain it for them, but we can't understand it for them.

Wonderful screenshot, Scout. :lol:

Wonderful screenshot, Scout. :lol:NotmyfaultIdidn'tdoit. It was somebody else's mod, I swear. All I did was play it for a bit. Names have been withheld to protect the guilty. :p One of these days I'll actually open up the game editor thingy... I've actually never tried to edit a map. So many SGs... so little time. :crazyeye:

C3C can't be played on Mac? Did not know that. I think it's time for them to upgrade to PCs.:p
The software pack said "Compatible with Windows XP or better" so I bought a Mac... :p

NotmyfaultIdidn'tdoit. It was somebody else's mod, I swear. i can attest to that as it was mine :D yes, i'm a complete hack :lol:

mad bax, please empty your PM inbox a little.
Thanks,

Pardon the ignorance. I don't yet own C3C, so what does the ToZ have to do with the land-locked carrack?

Pardon the ignorance. I don't yet own C3C, so what does the ToZ have to do with the land-locked carrack? it doesn't, i screwed up a .bic file via the C3C editor :)

Pardon the ignorance. I don't yet own C3C, so what does the ToZ have to do with the land-locked carrack?The Statue of Zeus gives its owner a free "Ancient Cavalry" every 5 turns until Metallurgy. The AC is a 3/2/2 mounted unit with an extra hit point. You need Mathematics and Ivory to to build SoZ, and you need Ivory to continue to build the AC units. Some think this is a game imbalancing wonder, but when you see the scarcity of resources on a C3C map... digression potential there...

I posted that screenshot to hint at how easy it might be to mess up a game trying to make C3C comparable to PTW/Vanilla. The Carrack is actually the Portugese UU, available with Astronomy. I guess Grahamiam didn't assign a unit to the Statue of Zeus when he modified that .biq, and somehow the Carrack got associated with the wonder... hence, a landlocked Portugese UU under the Korean Flag...

Back to comparing C3C to PTW/Vanilla: The gameplay is very similar, but these siblings are not twins.

There are Civs and Civ Traits, wonders, units, and UUs in C3C that simply don't exist in PTW/Vanilla. None of these is the most problematic difference, from the standpoint of being able to compare a C3C game to a PTW game.

If you look in the lower right hand corner of a [c3c]1.22f Industrial Age tech tree, you will see a subtle (yet profound) difference. Radio is gone, and Electronics is no longer a required tech for Motorized Transportation. Stop and think about it... Tanks (and Panzers) can come into play much earlier than in other games.

Note that I specified 1.22f. The tech tree in 1.15b does not have this change - so games cannot be shared between 1.15b and 1.22f...

IMO, in order to make C3C comparable to PTW/Vanilla, one would need to start with the 1.15b version, and modify it extensively... maybe not as extensively as the Apolyton University mod... but close. Extensive enough to require an additional installation; in the same manner that some of us can choose between 1.15b and 1.22f. When I looked at the AU mod, I decided that four versions of this game (plus the Conquests Scenarios) should be enough to hold my interest for a while longer.

The software pack said "Compatible with Windows XP or better" so I bought a Mac... :p

hehehehe... That's how come AlanH was so willing to do all that thankless work with the score server... to enure his "mac" version of Civ was played! CONSIPERICY!!!! Shannanagains! I claim Shannanagains on this game!

Damn! I've been sussed! :suicide:

"Heck, everyone knows that mac's are just for those artsy graphic designer types and to do real number crunching you need a PC, a real man's machine" says Deny (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) :mischief:

And to keep this post somewhat on topic, Hey MB, just so I can do a little calendar planning, any idea on when SGOTM4 is scheduled to start?

@mad-bax. You have recently ask not to discuss certain issues in this particular thread and transfer all relevant correspondence to pm. Unfortunately, your request cannot be honored because your pm box is full. Please clean it up ASAP, there are a few issues of importance and people are awaiting your verdicts. :lol:

"Heck, everyone knows that mac's are just for those artsy graphic designer types and to do real number crunching you need a PC, a real man's machine" says Deny (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) :mischief:?

From one of those artsy designer types, the only numbers my Mac crunches are the 700 mb+ photoshop files I frequently work on. It handles those quite well. ;)

Delay to the start of SGOTM4

Due to the difficulty of the variant in SGOTM3 I have decided to delay the start of SGOTM4 by about a week. I will make the announcement for SGOTM4 on 13th September and the game will start on 20th September.

Please feel under no pressure to complete your current games by the 20th. I am prepared to delay the results a little.

Please be aware that the 1.29f (vanilla) version of SGOTM4 will require your game patched with the GOTM modification up to and including GOTM25. If anyone is unsure how to go about this, then please let me know, and I will help you.

People who will play the PTW version, will NOT require ANY of the GOTM mods.

Hey! That means the staff team will have more time on their hands while we had to rush through it :mad:
Well, if you really want to win by cheating... :shakehead

:joke: :lol:

You're doing great anyhoo. Keep it up :thumbsup:

@mad-bax
I know you want to keep the suspense ;) , but I would recommend that you start the discussion of the variant rules even before you post the signup thread.
As it worked out in SGOTM3, a lot of important information was buried in hundreds of posts in the signup thread.
And it also showed that even though the variant was crystal clear in your mind, it needed a lot of clarification until the teams understood what you wanted. :crazyeye: :confused:

The problem with that is that most of the issues do not arise until they are met in the game. For the next game I will keep all the rules in a single post and link that post in my sig and the maintenance thread.

FWIW I have been playtesting 5CC, Zero Research and One Built City. IMO one of these is too easy and one pretty much impossible, and I want to keep the third one for another game. So you can make out of that what you will. :)

Both 5CC and No research are pretty easy once you know what you're doing :) No research is hardly a variant above emperor, apart from the starting techs... OBC on the other hand is pretty hard, even on emperor.

Hey! That means the staff team will have more time on their hands while we had to rush through it :mad:
Well, if you really want to win by cheating... :shakehead

:joke: :lol:

You're doing great anyhoo. Keep it up :thumbsup:Well, we probably won't win, but we're not that far off finishing.... ;)

Team microbe abstains the game as we are short of players and energy. Sorry for not being able to complete the game.

It's a pity microbe. :(

The last submitted save for your team will be recorded as a conquest loss at the cut-off date.

It's a pity microbe. :(

The last submitted save for your team will be recorded as a conquest loss at the cut-off date.
Record so amended.

HEY!!! Where'd the links for the scoring page go?!?!?

You can get to it from the second post on page 1.

... or in my sig

This is just a shameless plug for SGOTM4. I will post a front page announcement today sometime, but for now the link to the sign up thread is in my signature. :)

MB: Have you set a completion deadline for SGOTM 3 yet?

We're still going, slowly, but surely. I doubt we'll win an award, but we're still in the race for the middle :D

If you've ever built a sand castle a little to close to the water with the tide coming in, you've got a pretty good feel for our game. We are the largest nation on the planet but fighting with cannons, muskets and knights against cavalry & infantry and someday soon tanks, it's just a matter of what comes first a UN Vote, an AI Spaceship Launch or getting run by a stampede of rampaging AI units.

No, I have not set a completion deadline yet. I am reluctant to, but I may have to, if you see what I mean.