I have some remarks concerning the difficulty levels of the COTM.

COTM01: regent level
COTM02: monarch level
COTM03: demigod level

So I predict that COTM04 will be at least on deity level. Perhaps that for the experienced players on this forum, this is a fun challenge, but for a regent level player like me, getting my butt kicked by the AI is not my definition of a fun CIV3 game.

Off course their are the conquest entries for the COTM which are supposed to even the odds for the warlord/regent players but those additionnal units and gold don't add up for the increased AI-capabilities.

I believe that creating COTM-games with such a "high" difficulty level, turns players down. Would it not be better to include an addittional class which can be played on regent-level (without the artificial extra's to compensate for the higher difficulty-level).

In any case I have decided to stop playing COTM's since getting beaten by the AI cause more frustration and takes away all the fun out of playing CIV3

Whats wrong with being beaten? Seriously.

You learn a lot more. I was personally stuck in a rut on warlord lvl. I just didn't know what to do. But i decided to try a monarch game. Lost completely. But i learnt incredible amounts doing it.

And right now i am comfortable on emperor, and OK on Demigod if i have a pretty good settler factory at the start. I am nearing the end of this COTM, and i am going to lose. But i don't care. It has been hella fun. I personally enjoy playing on demigod where i am not comfortable, than sitting there for hours playing emperor when i know i am going to win. After 100 turns it is practically a given.

So I predict that COTM04 will be at least on deity level.

If you look at the history of the GOTM games this is wrong, you just can't predict it.


To be true - you don't predict it, you just tell that here to use a very impolite way to ask for a lower difficulty level. Why not simply post: Please make the next Cotm not deity, but regent or monarch? Would be totally acceptable I guess.


In my opinion it has to be a mixture of higher and lower level games like it is. Some are more interesting for the stronger players and other are better suited for occasional players. Splitting the game would be no fun, cause I - personally - like to compare to the stronger AND weaker ones.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. :(

First and foremost, the next COTM game won't be deity!

It is a difficult balance to strike, because for those player that don't want to play because the level is too high; there will also be some who don't want to play because its too easy.

The 'conquest' class isn't supposed to make-up for the bonuses that the AI gets on these higher levels - it is simply designed to give the player a bit of a head-start over what players normally get starting on a given level, and hopefully allow them to get off to a good enough start that they will gain a bit of confidence that they can compete with the AI.

Whilst the over-riding goal of the competition is simply to have fun, what we also try to encourage is for people to move out of their comfort zone a bit, and try more difficult levels. Reading the spoilers and seeing how people played their games, reading the strategy articles and asking the questions is a good way for people to improve.

I don't think you need to win to have an enjoyable game. For example, my first ever deity game was a Game Of The Month, and I was pleased that I lost via space race. Incidentally, my first ever deity win was also a Game Of The Month!

If you don't want to play this month, at least have a read through the spoilers and see how other people fared, and how they went about doing things. And come back next month when we play at a lower level. ;)

It would be nice if one game was high and one low in difficulty each month, but the challenge is also nice.

I'd like it if one of the games was on a smaller map. That would make it easier to play both games each month.

To be true - you don't predict it, you just tell that here to use a very impolite way to ask for a lower difficulty level. Why not simply post: Please make the next Cotm not deity, but regent or monarch? Would be totally acceptable I guess.

I don't think its that impolite - we do have a tendancy to build-up the difficulty levels month by month; its just a matter of where the peak is. This time the peak stopped at 'demigod'.

Remember - I have to play test these games myself, and if I was going to make it deity, I'd have probably given you (me ;)) a better starting location! :D

I'd encourage anybody to try the higher level COTMs; even if you get your butt-kicked by the AI, you will learn how to play at a higher level if you focus on improving your game. I only started at COTM 01 but didn't finish in time to submit. However, just reading people's strategies and advice and seeing how other players modify their game as they move up in difficulty level already has me moving up from Monarch to Emperor in any SP game I play. I just find the challange of knowing I can lose if I don't think about what I'm doing, combined with the belief I might actually win if I do think about things, make the game much more interesting than trying to beat my old high score on a lower level.

It's not whether or not you win or lose. Or even if you have fun playing. I think it is about actually finding time to finish, win or lose. :lol:

@King Albert- would you believe that I felt the same way as you, I just didn't say anything. My first game was gotm 30. I finished it and had fun, although I lost at monarch level. Gotm 31 I finished and actually won at emperor level. Not with a top 10 finish, but I won :) .

King Albert:

I would add my voice as well as one who has experienced what you're talking about now. Of course, the object of playing a game is to have fun with it. And to have fun with COTM/GOTM, you must bring humility to the table as well as a healthy learning curve. In the current COTM (3-Byz), there is a high probability that I will lose. But by looking through what others have done, I can analyze my game as well and figure out whether or not there was anything I could have done to prevent my loss and actually walk away with a win.

Another thread you may want to look over is Zerksee's thread on winning when behind. It was an inspiration to myself to see that yes, victory can be snatched from the jaws of defeat. And if I can ever experience a game like that, I know that I would be happy for a while to come.

Besides, to apply this to every game... I'm not supposed to spoil on this most recent COTM game, so I'll do my best... anyway, once you hit new eras different things are possible. You may find the right combination of moves in the Industrial Age that worked where those lack of moves in the Middle Ages did not. And always remember that if you manage it right, it is not every AI against you, but it is numerous AIs and you all against each other. As a Civ player, this was the hardest obstacle for me to overcome, and I still have problems reconciling myself to this fact. The Civ that may be attacking you now might be rubbing yet another Civ the wrong way. I had more than a couple games above Monarch where one Civ marched across my territory in order to attack another Civ (instead of me! Yay!). Guess who gets to benefit by being in the middle, offering RoPs and building settlers for depopulated areas.

Point of this whole post... games are never over until they are over, you always have a chance, and win or lose if you enjoy looking through your game and figuring out ways to improve for the next game, COTM/GOTM is where you should do it. If you play more for the thrill of killing others and being king, it is definitely okay to do so as well. Just make sure you know what you want to get out of the game (or even COTM/GOTM), and tailor your activities accordingly.
[/longwindedness until next post...]

I have to agree with Akane and -0blivion-. I estimate myself at being perhaps a Monarch player, maybe Emperor with a little luck. I thought I was competing evenly with the AI for a time in COTM3, until my standard approaches failed - catastrophically. I was inventing whole new curse words to hurl at the AI. But as I sat back and analyzed why happened did, and why I found myself in the bind I was in, I realized I could get out of it with a little creative thinking.

This COTM has, quite honestly, through sheer difficulty, forced me to innovate in my play-style to survive, and has taught me a trick or two in the process. I'd give my odds of winning it maybe a 50-50 chance depending on whether my third great attack goes down in flames as badly as the last two, and if it doesn't work whether I survive or not.

I would like to win, but even if I don't, I've learned a few things I otherwise wouldn't have, and I'm glad that I played.

thx to everybody for their replies and encouragement.

I spend the entire day reflecting on how I tend to play CIV3 and figured out that my current playstyle is to monotome (almost always Greeks, always huge map, always builder strategy...) and that I need to learn A LOT of playing CIV3.

However I feel that by sticking to the G/COTM rules (no reloading etc) I miss valuable lessons. I believe that by reloading after a critical mistake one can learn more then by commiting one mistake and paying for it during the entire game. Hence I decided that whenever a difficulty level is too high for me (as in the case of COTM03) I won't submit the game in order to be free to reload and be more relax on the rules.

I'll be reading the spoilers with much interest and if one month a COTM is on regent level again, I will be able to compete with the better players.

Some of us have been playing here for a long while and still have trouble winning. Besides reading the threads, you might want to play a non-competitive shadow game where you play an age and then read the thread and see how you did by comparison. That is how I started. I could not submit the game, but I could replay portions of it to see what others did to improve my performance.

During this time, we also had the QSC write-ups we could download. These were very helpful in learning and, hopefully, will be back again soon. The QSC's are available through GOTM 20 and there are some great games back in the GOTM 15 to 20 time that are still available for download. You can try them and compare yourself against SirPleb, good luck!!!! ;)

I've been playing here for 18 months and my SGOTM partners can attest to my need to learn a lot more. :blush:

Keep in mind that the GOTM designers are faced with a fairly diverse crowd of excellent players. Sometimes a very difficult GOTM is necessary to spread out the top of the field.

I struggled with the harder GOTMs and was frustrated for the effort about a year ago. I didn't play for several months.

This last GOTM I simply played it on the edge and quit when it clearly wasn't good enough.

For sure there can be benefits to suffering a humiliating defeat, but for my recreation time I prefer to not learn by hard knocks. Any motivated player can push themselves to get better without a hard smack in the face.

I used to struggle at Reagent but now I can almost always win a random Monarch game. Part of that is from the GOTM's, but most of it is just learning to handle the details of the game.

My recommendation for any frustrated GOTM'er is to go ahead and start the game, but don't hesitate to stop playing if you're not enjoying it. Just play your own game or join a sucession game until the next GOTM.

However I feel that by sticking to the G/COTM rules (no reloading etc) I miss valuable lessons. I believe that by reloading after a critical mistake one can learn more then by commiting one mistake and paying for it during the entire game. Hence I decided that whenever a difficulty level is too high for me (as in the case of COTM03) I won't submit the game in order to be free to reload and be more relax on the rules.

I'll be reading the spoilers with much interest and if one month a COTM is on regent level again, I will be able to compete with the better players.
Well, I'm glad you're going to try it anyway and keep within the spirit of the competition. Look forward to seeing a submission from you next COTM. :)

Remember - I have to play test these games myself, and if I was going to make it deity, I'd have probably given you (me ;)) a better starting location! :D
Do you really think that Deity is that much harder than Demigod? Personally, as someone who has only recently started trying solo games at Demigod/Deity level, I don't think there is that much difference. This is mainly because with the same settler/worker bonus at the start, you have a similar exponential growth curve from both to contend with. Whilst Deity is harder, if given the choice of Demigod with a crappy start, or Deity with a great start, I would opt for the Deity game. (I haven't actually looked at COTM03 yet to know just how 'crappy' the start really is).

Well, I have to add that demi is a tad bit out of my league considering the results I have achieved so far. I'm not complaining, guess I have to wait untill next month or gotm34 to get my GPR up :) . I'm not exactly sure what lesson I learned from this demi foray, other than I will feel more comfortable at emperor even.
EDIT:I have a suggestion, not for democratic reasons, but rather out of curiosity. Maybe we could have a poll, and ask what is the highest level of play you have won at. Just an idea.

I would never have become a Deity level player without the GOTM. I would not have pushed myself out of my comfort zone. The only way to learn this game is to accept the challenge and play Deity. If you play by yourself and are losing, the tendency is to quit. The beauty of the GOTM is that you get lots of feedback from other players who can show you ways you never would have thought of to beat the AI.

Well, I play sgotm with Leif and I can attest that he's not such a bad player that he seems to think :cool:

I enjoy a stab at the higher difficulties. I seldom submit on higher difficulties, but that's because I've found that I, personally, learn a lot more from trying again and again on the same map until I get the opening moves right (I like to 'pretend' that I don't have prior knowledge). That makes me ineligable to submit the months that I do this, but it's moved me from a sub-regent player to an emperor player.
We all have our ways to learn, so try to play and submit, or try my approach. But you'll never find a better, friendlier environment to learn civ than the gotm (oh, forgot the sgotms :p).

Hi, the Conquest class easily offsets difficulty.

Please take the current GOTM as an Example:
Archipelago. Demigod. Conquest class bonus extra worker, extra settler.

I do not want to spoil, but considering some facts I did not mention, it is NO PROBLEM to win for a Monarch class player!

Ainwood gave a good starting position and made sure the AI does not have the chance to overrun you if you play REALLY bad!

Really, I tested it - will not participate in this GOTM as I scouted, was my first venture into GOTM.

But I will participate next month, and I say:

Perhaps even a Regent level player could win this - or at least finish off by histograph or play quite a long time.

So the Demigod in this game was tuned down quite a lot in the Conquest class. The AI advantage of a starting settler is offset by the extra settler.


I favor games around Emperor level for normal, Monarch level for Conquest class. The Byzantine GOTM is Demigod, but really... in Conquest class, it is perhaps Monarch-Emperor.

Monarch-Emperor is a reasonable level IMO. Below - uninteresting for experts, higher... many players will lose in frustration.

It is difficult to please everyone, but I appreciate the Conquest class, it really helps and addresses these problems IMO.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. :(
First and foremost, the next COTM game won't be deity!

It is a difficult balance to strike, because for those player that don't want to play because the level is too high; there will also be some who don't want to play because its too easy.

Not me! I'm still playing Chieftain from time to time.:) My goal is to take out Darkness's top Chieftain score some day.

Not me! I'm still playing Chieftain from time to time.:)

Just stick with it and one day you'll be able to win occassionally on warlord.... just like me :mischief:

Not me! I'm still playing Chieftain from time to time.:) My goal is to take out Darkness's top Chieftain score some day.

^^ That's the important bit! Gonna come play with us someday? :D

^^ That's the important bit! Gonna come play with us someday? :D

Sure, I love to try again someday.:)

Hi, the Conquest class easily offsets difficulty.

Please take the current GOTM as an Example:
Archipelago. Demigod. Conquest class bonus extra worker, extra settler.

I do not want to spoil, but considering some facts I did not mention, it is NO PROBLEM to win for a Monarch class player!

Ainwood gave a good starting position and made sure the AI does not have the chance to overrun you if you play REALLY bad!


I'm not sure I would agree with that. I am comfortable on Monarch. I had a good scores in the last two monarch games. I have been playing Open. (I don't qualify for conquest.) I seem to be consistantly falling behind in the MA. I don't think the extra units would have made a difference. I had ~10 cities plus a couple of settlers by 1000BC, which is better than any of my previous games. I must be playing REALLY, REALLY bad as I just got seriously overrun. :( Unless there is something different about the conquest class game beyond the extra units. I guess I am going to have to check it out. :)

I like the harder levels sometimes, for my non GOTM/COTM I play all levels depending on what I'm trying to do. So I would keep it the same as is, if you look in the history there are some easy level so we will probly see easy levels again.

dvandenderg: Your game sounds like mine did about a year ago. I learned (the hard way) that lots of trading, workers and focused military usage helped me stay even through the middle age and then used the TOE slingshot to move to the front and never look back. What I need to learn to do now, is to develop a viable military earlier while keeping up the city growth, so that I can reach the domination limit much earlier. A lot of the top players have reached that point by 500 AD and I'm 500-1000 years later than that.

dvandenderg: Your game sounds like mine did about a year ago. I learned (the hard way) that lots of trading, workers and focused military usage helped me stay even through the middle age and then used the TOE slingshot to move to the front and never look back. What I need to learn to do now, is to develop a viable military earlier while keeping up the city growth, so that I can reach the domination limit much earlier. A lot of the top players have reached that point by 500 AD and I'm 500-1000 years later than that.

It's always encouraging to hear you're on the right path. Thanks :)

I have been concentrating on the start and I am seeing the improvement. My current analysis is showing my problem to be Government and City Management. Too many improvements but not enough to keep up with research. Too many troops but not enough to do much without better tech. Not enough gold to buy the tech I need fast enough. In GOTM33 and COTM03, the AI trade the tech so fast it is tough to leverage the trades before they all have it. I usually go to Monarchy and then switch to republic later after I have already started to fall behind. The 2gpt support eats me up. I am going to have to put my empires on a diet. I guess the trick is figuring out what I need to do and only do that.

I think getting to the domination limit early requires better focus on military then on cuture and research. That and not getting killed. :) I am goiing to have to practice that a bit more.

dvandenberg, I must admit that you convinced me. I must have gotten some more experience in spite of having only finished 2 games in the last 6 month. Now I am comfortable at Demigod and do things very differently than before.

Who knows, perhaps after some COTMs I will be ready for Deity level? I doubt I ever will, I do not like some tactics and methods necessary at higher levels and the changed playstyle at times at all.


But you are right... maybe Demigod is too difficult. The problem is that all players that set up the COTM are real cracks and experts. I am not thus good and see how I underestimated the problems of a Monarch level player with this COTM.

Perhaps the GOTM-Team should hire an expert Monarch level player? :) This is problematic, I know... but too difficult kills the fun, as it is overtaxing and the learning effect small compared to the frustration.

Longasc, it might the amount of time for the lessions to sink in, too. I've only been play GOTM for a short while. Before that, I would play Regent for fun and Monarch for challenge. I would pick the victory conditions I liked and only play good civs and postions. Lots of reloads, too. Too many years of bad habits to overcome quickly. Everyone says the jump to Emperor is the toughest. And that ain't no lie. True be told, I am playing badly compared you guys who are able to beat the AI on higher levels. But I'm catching up. :)

Yep, I hate Deity or Sid games. It is somewhat masochistic to play and quite possible to lose even with small mistakes. But you need to play them from time to time just to stay in shape and not to relax. Good idea to get comfortable with it is to participate in some Succession Games which are running aplenty in the SG forum. If a player can win Emperor on his own, usually a Deity SG is a no problem unless it is Always War. :)

Perhaps I have a possible solution to the players who are not ready for the higher levels, start a GOTM jr competition. This level of play would be for those players who find Regent level or below a real challenge. Of course, some research would need to be done to see if there was enough interest in such a league. I do not think it would affect GOTM competition because the experienced players would not want to play at the lower difficulties. IN fact it might possibly even increase interest in GOTM by drawing in more low level players.

The basic idea is that GOTM seems to fluctuate from Regent difficulty and above. GOTM jr could fluctuate from chieftain level to Regent with maybe an occassional Monarch. Just as the Conquest class in GOTM has certain requirements in order to be able to play it and if you do too well you are required to move up to the OPEN level, so too could the GOTM jr have a requirement and players who consistently did too well would be ineligible to compete and be required to move up to GOTM.

There would be two ways to implement this:

1) make a lower level version of each GOTM / COTM, for example Monarch GOTM wouild be Warlord GOTM jr, Diety GOTM would be Monarch GOTM jr.

2) have someone independently set up the GOTM jr games.

If this seems like a good idea and there is the possibility of it being pursued I would happily volunteer to help set up the jr level competition, such as make the games each month, provided it did not prohibit me from participating in the regular GOTM (actually COTM, I only started GOTM when it started the conquest game)

Wow :eek: , Guess this thread isn't challenging enough :lol: . It sounds like a lovely idea if the interest is up. I almost didn't even try my first GOTM, because I thought Monarch was too rough. I can see people trying a regent gotm and never moving on, just getting too comfortable. But....... what do I know :lol:

I think the player community could probably stand a warlord/chieftain COTM given that there are two tournaments now. See what sort of interest it generates.

I had a look in the DoMs forum and he had organised a players choice game. Where the players voted on the level (and various other stuff) of what an upcoming GOTM should be played at. Perhaps a public poll is in order here to shake the lurker tree and see if people would be interested in playing a COTM at a lower level.

Cotm/Gotm are the only civ games I'm currently playing due to RL time constraints. I would like to play the occasional chieftain or warlord game once in a while.

Ronald

Let the games as they are.
Ok, ok, sometimes they are very hard to play. But to try it out is better then to stay away. Join some SG's and learn the skill to play a higher level GOTM or COTM.

Why not, the idea of the junior league sounds interesting. Perhaps worth a try?

But it interferes a bit with the Conquests-mode of the COTM/GOTMs.

GOTM at Emperor level are probably really scaring away people. They say, I never managed to do it on my own up to now, why sign up for such a game? Learning by frustration? I think not many players will do that.

A Warlord-Monarch game would attract players of these classes.

But there is the "Training Day", and I fear if only low-level players compete in a GOTM, the learning effect would be less, because the experienced players will not play at this level and their ideas will be missed in the discussion.

Why not, the idea of the junior league sounds interesting. Perhaps worth a try?

But it interferes a bit with the Conquests-mode of the COTM/GOTMs.


i'm going out on a limb here as i've had limited experience with map modding but might as well try to stick my foot in my mouth again :) (and give ainwood more stuff to worry about :mischief: )

since cotm doesn't have to worry about 3 versions like gotm(mac, civiii, and ptw), it should be possible to make the C3C game from the same map at a lower difficulty. for this month, say open and preditor@DG, then conquest would be 1 level below @ emporer or monarch (edit). this would eliminate a cotm or gotm jr setup, with seperate scoring, tracking, checking, awards, etc, etc. lower difficulty levels automatically produce lower firaxis scores, and jason could account for it as well.
this would take some work, however, since these are modified maps. if they were random, then it would just be a matter of using ainwood's seedbeast utility.
however, thinking further, this may not be true. i believe you can make a mod'ed map without assigning a difficulty level to via a .bix (or is it bic or biq)file. then, when you first open the scenerio via the conquest screen, you can then set the difficulty level and opponents. maybe someone from the mod community could weigh in?

I really think it would take much fun out of the competition to play virtually uncomparable games; i.e. games with diffenrent difficulty levels.

The current C/GOTM provides a robust competition supporting C3C and PTW/Civ3, and promotes improving the Civ skills of the participants/lurkers. I think running a parallel GOTMjr adds additional task work to the Staff, while undermining the 2nd function of improving the general skill level of the community. It creates a comfort zone for less experienced players, and allows them to continue using poor strategies in a successful manner. Holding a GOTMjr would be a disservice to these players.

Considering that at Regent Level the AI gets no benefit in production or research compared to the player, and is encumbered with all the poor logic choices its programming forces on it, there is no reason why a human player with a little experience should not consistently trounce the AI. (Other than using poor strategies, which they should change.) The Conquest level bonuses should allow a modestly competent Regent level player to hold their own at Monarch level. Emperor and above require considerable skill, but that's one of the points of C/Gotm, to improve the skill level so that more players are capable at this level. There are lots of resources to assist the players to compete at higher levels, especially the Spoiler threads. Rather than consistently winning at Warlord (or Chieften), wouldn't it be a far better goal to win more often than not at Monarch and be competitive at Emperor?

I agree with you, civ steve. It would be additional work.

Between Monarch and Emperor is a big leap, I would also say between Emperor and Demigod because of AI's extra settler.

What level should GOTM's be? Where will it end -> DEITY? Sid is probably out of discussion.

I would say: Emperor. Newbies should hone their skills and read the fora until they have Monarch level. Everyone not comfortable at Emperor level can play in the Conquest class.

Still, there are some players that can win on Deity. But where is the large majority?

There is perhaps really no sense in Warlord or Regent because you can do many things wrong and still win.

If you want to see how many people won or lost a GOTM, AlanH put up some charts to show you.

- Go to gotm.civfanatics.net
- Click on 'Statistics' in upper left section (BTW Staff, Statistics button doesn't show up when looking at a particular Game description)
- Choose 'Victory Conditions' for display type, and select Display

You should see a bar graph displaying the relative size of submitted Victories by type and of submitted losses. (up to GOTM32)

Deity games were 7, 14, 20, 26. 25 was a Demi-God level. GOTM7 and 14 were randomly generated Deity maps, and 85-90% of submitted games were losses. GOTM20 and 26 were modded maps, with very strong opening positions, and submitted losses were less than 50% for GOTM20, and looks like less than 30% for GOTM26.

Once the GOTM began using modded games, the Emperor, DemiGod and Deity level games have provided strong opening positions for the human player, giving a benefit to all the participants. In that respect they're not true Deity level games, etc, but a 90% loss rate is kind of harsh, and doing this allows the players to experience the higher levels. (So how about Sid level with a HOF type opening position?!?)

Regarding the DemiGod extra Settler - many people feel that the Predator level, which often has an extra Settler for the AI, has an advantage. The AI gets more early cities, so it researches faster; properly used, this allows a faster research game, so Diplo and Spaceship victories are reached earlier. Also, the AI seems to start building Wonders at a given # of cities; the extra Settler means they start Wonder building a bit earlier so that city is not adding shields to the general empire, and this creates more opportunities for Wonder poaching later. (In other words, the extra Settler can be seen as an opportunity, not an impediment.)

I relish the challenge of a Demigod COTM. However, I normally play Emporer, sometimes Demigod anyway, so it wasn't that daunting for me. But, I never play Archipeligo maps - I like to conquer but I don't like all of the extra micro-management of all those transports and support ships, so the Archi map had me a little worried.

I will say one thing - the advent of the Currough has changed the strategy of Archi maps - big time! The AI does not use them - Humans do (or SHOULD). Before the middle of the AA, I knew all 7 other civs, but they only knew 1 or 2 others each. This is a HUGE advantage for the human. Nearing the end of the AA, I am Technologically Advanced. I don't expect to stay this way, and it will take alot of work to keep abreast of the AI once they have all met, but by then I hope to have secured a formidable empire which will give me other options to stay in the race.

I guess what I'm saying in regards to the difficulty level of the COTM/GOTM, is that there is always SOME advantage (in this case the Archi map combined with the AI's non-usage of curroughs) that can be exploited by the player. Add in the advantage of the human mind and a little experience with the AI's tendancies, and it's not all that bad to play at Demigod.

I assume you agree that 90% loss percentage is too high? :) The developement of modded maps with strong opening positions is really a step forward and decreases difficulty and maybe even enhances the gaming experience. I think the general developement is right!

I did not check the statistics, should look up the number of players.

But I am nearly sure: DEITY level will make a lot of players quit even trying right at the moment they read DEITY. Even if the starting position is superior for the player and whatever.

I agree with you, al thor, the Byzantine GOTM is really doable, but i do not want to spoil anything more.

But you and I cannot speak for those who play Monarch, I know you play Emperor and Demigod really well, I downloaded one of your games some time ago, it was the one where a Galley cut your iron supply... ;)

civ_steve - good post. I did not know about those historical numbers.

Longasc & civ_steve - yeah, 90% loss is a little high. Must have been some fun reading the feedbacks on the forums for that GOTM!
Still, I 'll bet alot of the participants learned at least SOMETHING, and some learned a great deal.
I have to agree that the starting position plays a huge part in the 'playability' of the higher level games. Put me on a river with 2 cows, some BG and a couple of hills, and I'll try any level!

Longasc - yeah, I remember that game - I was Netherlands at Demigod level. I finally ended up winning that with a Space Race victory. It was a great game - 4 or 5 nukes per turn were flying between other rival civs while I was peacfully building my ship, supplying others with Alum/Plutonium to build their war machines.

Yeah, I only mentioned the Curroughs on the Archi map because that's common knowledge from the Announcement thread. I'm not trying to spoil anyone's COTM03.

Longasc & civ_steve - yeah, 90% loss is a little high. Must have been some fun reading the feedbacks on the forums for that GOTM!
Still, I 'll bet alot of the participants learned at least SOMETHING, and some learned a great deal.

I believe the whole community has taken several steps up the learning curve since those games were first played. Techniques that were novel or unheard of then are common knowledge now. A bunch of teams recently replayed GOTM 14 as a SG, and as a result of the pioneering work of people like Bamspeedy and others, the SG teams were routinely using settler pumps, rings, and active defence, and were largely able to complete the game successfully. Sure, there was probably some prior knowledge bing deployed as well, but I think if a comparable game were set now as an unknown map, there would be a higher success rate than 10%.

I would keep things as they are. There is so much information to help someone to improve their game that just trying to use some of them should allow a player to reach monarch level fairly quickly. Getting to emperor is more of a challenge and requires dedication. It is supposed to be a competition, after all. As long as I think I can do better I will keep trying. I would imagine if I was getting 10,000+ points every time, I would start to lose interest. I think that's why we see some of the best player trying varients in GOTM games.

Al_Thor: You can read about the GOTM 14 game in Bamspeedy's Babylon Settlers in the War Academy and as AlanH mentioned the recent SG replay. Teams A & B played very well and won a very difficult with relative ease. However team C pulled a rabbit out of a hat for marvelous come from behind victory (cavalry & cannon against infantry & tanks to take the Great Library and move to the modern age for a spaceship win)

Well, I am taking this all on board, and it seems there are a wide variety of opinions.

What I think might be the 'best' option is to keep things loosely as they are in terms of difficulty ranging. This basically means we will mainly run between regent to emperor, with the odd-game on warlord and the odd game on deity / demigod. At this stage, Sid won't be played.

Because there are some player who may not want to try the tough games, it might be best to keep the Classic & Conquests game out-of-sync, so that there is always at least one lesser-difficulty game going each month. Doesn't really help Civ/PTW/Mac-only players, but from the feedback from them in this thread, I think they are reasonably happy. :)

I'm not really keen on starting separate competitions, because it just makes too many games each month to have a 'comparable' global ranking etc, because then it starts becoming a case of who has the most time on their hands. whilst a game where the 'conquest' class is at an actual lower difficulty might be possible, I'm not overly keen on it, but may consider it. As for making the predator game at a higher level, I am against this because there will be some cases where this will actually disadvantage the open players (tech speed, ai expansion etc) - it becomes too difficult to fdraw meaningful comparisons.

I think the "off-synch" idea is good for those of us who have Conquests. Keeping the average of the games somewhere in the Monarch range will be helpful to players like me without, I hope, boring the better players. (Without going into the gory details, let's just say I will have time enough for two games this month...)

To those who aren't quite ready for the challenge of the higher level GOTM/COTMs, I urge patience and perserverance. You soon will be.

I joined in July, 2003, when I first was introduced to Civ. I still didn't know that you could load troops in galleys and was trying to figure out what those little boxes were all over the AI's terrain. Through reading and re-reading articles, and following the GOTM competition, I gradually grasped some of the fundamental aspects of gameplay and worked myself up to monarch level. By July, 2004 I had managed to accomplish the unthinkable a year ago, I was now enjoying the challenges offered at emporer level for random games. Playing the SGOTM has allowed me to grasp some of the finer aspects of the game and I posted my highest finish in GOTM32 at 14. Probably a bit of a fluke in that some players who are undoubtably my betters ranked below me, but never-the-less, major improvement in a little over a year. Thank you GOTM staff, my SGOTM team and all those who participate.

I think my drive to get better is in large part due to the fact that the GOTM games are a mixed bag of difficulty levels. That and my desire to actually compete in a GOTM. I never would have improved as much as I have if not for the challenges offered and the high level of play in the GOTM competition. I don't believe Ainwood has given us a deity in the GOTM yet, but I look forward to the challenge of being pushed beyond my comfort level. After all, that's how I got to where I am today. By keeping all the GOTM/COTMs at say monarch or below for example, the staff would effectively be stifling the growth of the entire community instead of nurturing it as they do now.

Demiurge: I agree with you 100%.

To clarify what I meant--I think it would be good if the average of each month's COTM/GOTM pair was in the Monarch range--i.e., one game at Demigod and the other at Monarch (or Regent). Truthfully, I wouldn't complain if games never went below Monarch.

Doesn't really help Civ/PTW/Mac-only players, but from the feedback from them in this thread, I think they are reasonably happy. :)

Considering the insignificance of Mac-players in the eyes of the software companies, I've learned to not look a gift horse in the mouth. We're easy to please. ;)

Perhaps I have a possible solution to the players who are not ready for the higher levels, start a GOTM jr competition. This level of play would be for those players who find Regent level or below a real challenge.


I'd be up for this . I played the first Conquests GOTM and finished plum last. I struggle at Monarch and above and so have no interest in playing anything above at the moment. It's all very well people saying that you learn more playing at higher levels, but I would like to take things gradually. That's why I started my first ever SG (from which I am learning a hell of a lot) recently at Monarch .

I will read the posts from Emperor / Demigid / Deity / Sid games with interest since they may be educational but for the moment there is no point in me taking part in any of them since I will probably be toast before we even hit 0 AD :(

Not me! I'm still playing Chieftain from time to time.:) My goal is to take out Darkness's top Chieftain score some day.

I didn't score that high, Moonsinger, so I think that 'some day' you're talking about will actually be rather soon... ;)

This is my first post on this forum, so 'Hi all' :)

When I first saw the difficult-level this round of COTM my heart stopped, for a while. Even though I'm only comfortable playing versus Monarch AI, I managed to enjoy this round quite a lot. I learned a lot, and the most important thing was that I didn't just play, I actually had to think what my next move should to be. Without saying to much, I lost this round... but it encouraged me to try another round against Monarch AI and slaughter them... with the new skills that I had achieved during this round. For the first time I was actually superior.

I'm looking forward to next round of COTM and wish to give my thanks to Ainwood. Great games! Though, let me slaughter them next time please :P

Welcome to the forum!

Sounds like you're the poster child for the GOTM, except you're already at Monarch? :eek:

It took me a few hundred games to get to an almost-surely win on Monarch. Nothing like a certain other players who declare victory at the opening screen, though.

Nobody will complain about a good challenge, but having several thrashings in a row is not fun. I get attention-challenged after 12 hours. A 24 hour loss is a major bummer.

BTW, how did you got a join date of Dec 2001 :hmm:

I managed to enjoy this round quite a lot...
...I'm looking forward to next round of COTM and which to give my thanks to Ainwood. Great games! Though, let me slaughter them next time please :P

I just want to say that I agree with this.. I do not understand the point of this thread.. I will loose my last cities in COTM3 in a few turns in the middle of MA. Despite of that I think the game was very enjoyable and full of surprises both pleasant and unpleasant. No complaints.

Welcome to the forum!

Sounds like you're the poster child for the GOTM, except you're already at Monarch? :eek:

It took me a few hundred games to get to an almost-surely win on Monarch. Nothing like a certain other players who declare victory at the opening screen, though.

Nobody will complain about a good challenge, but having several thrashings in a row is not fun. I get attention-challenged after 12 hours. A 24 hour loss is a major bummer.

BTW, how did you got a join date of Dec 2001 :hmm:

Thanks! Well, I haven't been visiting this site activly until the new COTM series. I don't know why... but when the new game of the month appeared I decided to give it a go. Not sorry that I did :D

I do agree that it isn't funny to get overruned by the enemy, but that didn't happen this time for me. I placed my town closest to the indian border very carefully. I think I generated 7 leaders throughout the game there. I even learned that you can get a leader from a unit that already has generated a leader. I didn't think that was possible, don't ask me why.
Though I don't like to be sooo diplomatic as I had to be in this game. I really had to attack the target that already was targeted by the major civilizations. Normally, when I play myself... I find it funny to side with the little guy and help him from getting eradicated :goodjob:

Cheers...

I probably never would have played a deity game as early as I did if not for the GOTM. I actually won my first deity game (GOTM ? Spanish). I still lose far more upper level games than I win but I find the challenge quite motivating. I have greatly improved my game by playing the harder levels and by reading the posts of others here in the forum. Enjoy the challenge!

I like the range of difficulties of the COTM/GOTM. I usually play Monarch/Emperor but was lucky enough to chalk up a Demi-God victory this month. Had it not been a COTM but just a regular game, I think I would have given up during MA or so. It being a COTM, however, made me persevere and -to my huge surprise- win in the end thanks to what I learned through the previous GOTM's (e.g. it was the first time that I tried to steal a technology...)

In short: The GOTM/COTM difficulties should stay as varied as they presently are.

Sorry, this thread is too long to completely read through it.

Anyway, as an experienced Civ player, I must agree with KingAlbert. Playing on Demigod level is not fun for me neither. The advantages the AI gets are too significant to give you a fair chance to win or even learn a lot. How much is the production advantage factor on Demigod for the AI? 25%? At least this could explain, why the other cicilizations rush off so fast at the start of the game.

Again, this was my last GOTM I ever played in Demigod. Neither fun nor learning effect for me like playing in Emperor. :(

I hope y'all played Classic GOMT34 - a regent game.

It was a bit challenging, but not nearly as bad as the last one (emperor).

Overall it was an interesting game, and should have a variety of victories.