Would the GOTM / COTM community prefer to know months in advance what the civilization and / or difficulty for each game is going to be?

I think that I am not getting this right at the moment - I am trying to move towards the GOTM / COTM difficulties being out-of-phase and I was thinking it might be easier to just set a timetable now, and work to it.

For example, we could take it to a very structured approach, with oscillations from (warlord) to regent to monarch to emperor to deity / demigod then back down again, and set the civs in an order as well - the Classic and C3C and COTM could be truly out-of-phase like this.

I've slapped a few options into a poll, along with the "other" option. Please use that if you have other ideas. :)

Because its not really practical to add COTM / GOTM variants into the poll, please tell me if you want the two comps. in-phase (a similar difficulty in both games each month), out-of-phase (generally different difficulties), or purely independent / random.

purely independent / random is best for me. I'm a Monarch/Emperor-player but wouldn't mind a rare deity/demi-god and also an infrequent regent game thrown in for a change...

anyway, keep up the great work, ainwood! I really enjoy the games (my family already knows not to bother me too much around the 1st and the 15th of the month!!)

I voted for the option in which you tell us everything in advance. Perhaps you could even play the games for us as well. ;)

I think in phase is good for cotm & gotm: otherwise lazy plyers like me can just play the easier game all the time.

Ehm... I voted for 'status quo'... let Ainwood do all the work :mischief:

Acutally, I like a lot the surprise -and having everything planned long in advance would make it feel a bit too much like work to me.
If there was really the need for a change, then I would vote for knowing both civ and level in advance, but I would suggest the planning to span only one or two months.

I voted for Status Quo, though ainwood doesn't really annoy me ;). I'm happy not to know anything about the game until I play it, so ainwood's drip feeding of information in the Pre-Game discussions doesn't bother me. Having said that, it's nice to have the start image available in the pregame discussion so that the fog-gazers out there can tell me what's around the start (I can never see those resources under the fog!).

With regards to difficulty, deliberately making COTM/GOTM different difficulties seems like it could influence the global rankings a little. I.e. players can choose to play the easier game and so get a higher ranking. I think making sure there is an easier game for those not yet used to the higher difficulty levels is more important though.

Hmmm..I'm not sure whether choosing to play the easier game (if the COTM/GOTM are out of phase) will have much impact on veteran players GPR. On a regent level game elite players will be turning in sub 500 AD and BC conquests and the rest of us will be judged accordingly. So say you got a 10K game at regent then Sir Pleb clocks in with a 12-13k game its no different from a diety or emperor game where you get 8K and he gets 10k - you will still get the roughly the same GPR points.
Fundamentally, this is the same argument that takes place in the HOF over which is the strongest game over all the levels. People make the assumption that Moonsingers Sid game is best played game because of the level it was played at. IMO you would have to look down at chieftain level for the best played HoF game.
Elite players will play elite games regardless of the level. Regent/Monarch level games give junior players a better chance to score a win and hence get more GPR points. But for the rest of us it doesn't make a difference as our games are still going to be compared to that of an elite players.
I think we should keep the COTM/GOTM out of phase for the moment with a harder and an easier game as we seem to have a lot of new players who are not yet comfortable on the higher levels. If we threw two diety games at them in the same month then they might get hacked off and stop playing altogether.

Status Quo - Surprise me!

What could I do with prior information? Play practice games? I don't have time for the games as it is, let alone trying to play more. And I just :love: the suspense every couple of weeks, waiting to see if the submissions and scoring systems will hold together under each new set of game parameters :rolleyes:

I voted Status Que. But upon consideration I might change it to know difficulty. I do like the oscillations. I think of more like waves. Low to high, low to high. I think people trying to improve their game benefit from the steadilly increasing difficulty. I think I do/did/will. If you don't catch this wave maybe you will be ready for the next one. The low levels give you a chance to reqroup and try new things.

Status Quo - Surprise me!

What could I do with prior information? Play practice games? I don't have time for the games as it is, let alone trying to play more.

I totally agree - I enjoy watching the mind games that Ainwood plays with us and seeing how they pan out. A lot of the fun would be taken away from the GOTMs/COTMs if we knew in advance who/what/where we were.

:goodjob: Keep it as it is, please! You do an excellent job as it is, already.

AlanH - I agree about the time constraints as well. Although I wouldn't want to change the present set-up, as I can easily fit the two games in each month. But I do need time for other things in my life, and practice games are a non-starter for me just now. More's the pity... :)

Status Quo, please. The bi-monthly pre-game threads are generally great fun.
Though I'd go with trying to have an Easy/Hard option oscillating, though where do you put Monarch? There have been 'easy' Monarch games (COTM04), and 'hard' Monarch games (COTM02).

Neil. :cool:

I'd like to know the difficulty in advance to help plan my time better. If I know that a hard game is coming up then I can make sure that I don't overcommit in other areas (such as real life) so that I can make a decent showing.

I'm quite "hard nosed" with regard to this. I even think that the pre-game discussion is spoiler information.

For me, I would like to open the save, and only then find out anything about the game. I would relent, and allow the map size to be advertised in advance.. but nothing else.

Would your settler know he was on a continents planet, with a temperate and wet climate etc. ? Nah. All he knows is that he is standing on a patch of dirt, and it's either good enough for him or he moves on in hope...

Hmmm..I'm not sure whether choosing to play the easier game (if the COTM/GOTM are out of phase) will have much impact on veteran players GPR. On a regent level game elite players will be turning in sub 500 AD and BC conquests and the rest of us will be judged accordingly. So say you got a 10K game at regent then Sir Pleb clocks in with a 12-13k game its no different from a dEIty or emperor game where you get 8K and he gets 10k - you will still get the roughly the same GPR points.


You are right! However, it involves much less time and effort to drift along and collect 10000 or so jason points in a regent game. I prefer playing higher level games really, but they take me longer.

Scaring off new players would be very bad, so I have to agree that games should be out of phase because of this.

The pre game threads can be a bit frustrating at the moment because of the drip feeding of info, and maybe this could be speeded up. At the moment the full pre game info is available only just before the game starts, and there is a lot of wild speculation.

The pre game threads can be a bit frustrating at the moment because of the drip feeding of info, and maybe this could be speeded up. At the moment the full pre game info is available only just before the game starts, and there is a lot of wild speculation.

On this point I tend to agree with you.
The teasing that comes with dripping info is nice, but it could probably stop a few days before the game is released in order to leave more room for some (partially, at least) informed discussion. That's part of the anticipation too, after all.

I like the way things are, but I voted for difficulty to be known in advance. I like the surprise factor but I sympathize with the players that don't have a lot of time and have to pick their games carefully according to the challenge.

You (ainwood) must be allowed to stay free to add a final touch at the last moment, although it would be fun if the difficulty was intensified step by step, then, as a relief, brought back to warlord or regent.

I'd like to know the difficulty in advance to help plan my time better. If I know that a hard game is coming up then I can make sure that I don't overcommit in other areas (such as real life) so that I can make a decent showing.

Indeed. I want to add that it would be nice to know map size too.
As for civilization, type of map, climate, location etc., sure suspense is appreciated.

I enjoy the pre-game discussions and I feel as though a complete description of the game weeks in advance would give those who had time to practise too much of an advantage (as it happens, i struggle to notch up a good score :blush: ). So the only parameters that I would be interested in knowing before the pre-game discussion would be the map size and difficulty, for pure logistical real-life reasons.

I would also like to see custom maps once in a while (although I know it's a lot of work), like 90 % land or 80 % water on a large/huge map. Additional civs would also spice things up even though it would mean more downloads. I really liked the Minoans (or whatever they were called) way back in the Greece GOTM. The Austrians come to mind for COTM....

How about - you don't even know all the settlings at the start! :eek: I went through a phase of playing everything random, and it improved my game flexibility and early analysis no end. OK so certain things would be easy to figure out (e.g. CIV, difficulty when cities start to riot) but settings such as land mass type and setting, barb level could be left so only ainswood knows :mischief:

Actually ... Is that so different from what happens now? :D

While I like the mystery and guessing in the pre-game chatter, I voted for pre-release of game level information to allow for a little better time planning. I got caught in COTM3 with not enough available time to play the game right and still be ready for GOTM 35. Knowing how much time I'll need in advance (level & map size) would make the planning a lot simpler and make it more likely I'd be able to complete most GOTM & COTM games.

The occasional "wild card" games as RFHolloway could be tempered with the "this is a quick one" or "get comfortable for the long ride" type warnings.

And as The Moose mentioned, the special tribes/units/resources add a special flavor to those games. I have more memories of the Han & Greek games than the more recent Spain & American games.

Picking up on a few comments re the pre-game discussion, following a few experiments, I think it is best to provide the map up-front. The discussion surrounding this tends to even out the starts a bit more, and help the newer players get off to better starts - I think its a good learning tool. Rather than drip-feeding map details etc, I can always just post them in the first post, or post them all at once.

In terms of the difficulty, I have noticed that with the GOTM in particular I've put a lot of games in the Monarch / emperor band, and done it again (although this one works better at monarch I think). That band should be at a minimum widened to include regent, and I think a Deity or Warlord game should be thrown-in every few months - A chieftan game once-a-year too?

For me, I would like to open the save, and only then find out anything about the game. I would relent, and allow the map size to be advertised in advance.. but nothing else.

Would your settler know he was on a continents planet, with a temperate and wet climate etc. ? Nah. All he knows is that he is standing on a patch of dirt, and it's either good enough for him or he moves on in hope...

I agree with most of this but I do enjoy the pre-game discussion and so a starting screen shot is a small concession to make. Also knowing the civ traits and game level is information that I would have once the game starts so why not have it to make this discussion more informed and helpful (particularly for newcomers)?

I do like the idea that all parameters that are not obvious from the starting position should remain a mystery. Certain aspects of civ are too predictable and a little variation would be appreciated. The next GOTM sounds promising in this regard :)

I just wanted to say that I like the idea of Warlord and Chieftan games.

They really distill everything down to what the player does. The AI's have very little influence at this level. At the high levels the player's skill is still the prime distributor, but too much difference occurs because of the randomness of Leaders and such. I think a Warlord or Chieftan game would provide an interesting new perspective.

Another thing that could be done in such an "easy" game would be to have a "unique way of winning" contest. Each player who chose to participate would choose their own way of winning (or even losing). It could be as easy as taking a "Always War", but more original ideas would be encouraged.

For example, I think it would be interesting to try to win by diplomacy when someone else has to build the UN.
Even more challenging, Try to lose by Space Race as early as possible. The possibilites are endless, and I think it would be really fun.

I like surprises. Sometimes.

I think the GOTM/COTM should stay away from Cheiftain games. That level hardly requires much thought as for strategy and what not. One interesting concept would be to have a Chieftain game, but have us on a very small tundra island in the middle of a huge ocean, with the AI on lush continents. Now that would make for an interesting game :D

If you do a Chieftain game, do it on a Large map with few AIs. Or a Tiny map with tons of AIs. Both would focus on fast expansion, although in different ways.

I like to know only civ and difficulty, but since I don't care to play through the games to the end anymore after the Dutch "bread-crumb to cow", I don't even cast a vote.

I play through the ancient era and make the best of it, then do something else. I just might continue on the Maya-game though, it's a fun game and with 20+ cities at 1000bc I'm just curious where it could lead.

Civ and difficulty is important, the rest should be discovered by the player.

I would say that the info to be specified should be everything that is available to all players without requiring player skill - but what might be missed by some only because they don't know where or how to find it. Information that requires skill to figure out, should not be revealed.

So, yes to: map size, list of rivals.
And, no to: map settings.

Further, I would like to do away with the more outrageous random stuff such as early settlers from goodie huts and galleys surviving on ocean tiles. I would like it if getting a great leader were not random, but something that is earned, after a given number of elite victories etc. But I don't know if it is possible to change the game there.

A game on chieftain, warlord or regent is pretty dull unless the human player is handicapped in some way. The handicap should best be a surprise. :)

It's defnetly OK like it is. :goodjob:

I like to know only civ and difficulty, but since I don't care to play through the games to the end anymore after the Dutch "bread-crumb to cow".



I think that's a pity.

I believe there really was a trail of crumbs in that game and I wish I had been clever enough to see it. It was admittedly an indistinct trial and it proved hopelessly unbalancing. I think those of us who missed the trail have something to :wallbash: about.

However, I think Ainwood could help by reducing factors like this at the start.
This could be done fairly easily by providing either a good start spot or a clearcut first move. No huts within 10 squares. The early leader issue is also annoying but at least doesn't matter so much with Conquests. Telling us the map type also evens things out, as potentially big decisions need to be made as a result of this very early on.

I voted for known difficulty level, mainly because I would like the COTM and GOTM to be alternate and opposite. (i.e. I'm not keen on playing anything above monarch yet). That way, I'd have at least one game a month to try my hand at.

After Mistfit's thoughts in the KA01 thread, I am starting to believe that the timing of the information is more important that the way it is provided.

That is to say, the most beneficial change to the pregame discussion would probably be to have all the significant information five days to a week before the game is released.
I still like the slow dripping of bits of info, every month a new one, but it could also come all at once, and even one or more months in advance (although I would still vote against that).

But having a few days to discuss the starting location, with the main parameters known, would certainly help develop a worthy pregame discussion, at least in my opinion.

I think mad-bax and Tone makes some really good points that I partially share with them.

I would like the map size, game level and civilization known in advance. Nothing else.

This information I would like to have released when the pregame discussion starts, proximally 5 days before the start of the game. This way the discussion will stick more to the point, and there will be enough time for experienced players to help newcomers (players like me :) ) to get a good start.

PS. I voted "Status Quo" because I also like it the way it is...although Ainwood can be a bit annoying sometimes... :D DS.

Voted to keep status quo.

Anyone seriously annoyed with Ainwood could voluteer to row the boat instead of rocking it.

The thing that annoys me the most is a difficult game that takes 12 hours then ends in defeat. I can do that on my own any time by playing diety spain castaway.

Out-of-phase difficulties sounds good in principle. I'll get conquest one of these days.

A warlord game is not so bad for the newbies. Lord knows I could have played a few of those. As long as the predator and creampuff flavors are available then everyone has a choice.

I've added my voice to the 'status quo' crowd, with some additional thoughts.

I like the pre-game discussion. Since this is a friendly competition, the early discussion helps to level the playing field, especially for less-experienced players. There are usually some very good tidbits of information and stratety approaches in the early discussions.

Not so happy about the drip-feeding :( ; only redeeming value is entertaining Ainwood and allowing the discussion to be on specific topics that have just been announced; the discussion is more focused this way. I'd recommend still drip-feeding, but knowledge of the civ should come out early.

It would help players who have to plan for which game to play, to know the size and difficulty level early. Maybe this could be set up a month or two in advance. (OTOH, these players could just choose on the fly whether to participate or not. I've been working on finishing my games faster, which really helps.)

I like the levels to ramp up and then start over, and I think this also helps to increase the skill levels of the new players. (When the level starts over again, it must seem much easier!) And I think they should be out-of-sequence with each other so those who are not so confident with their skills can play a lower level game. Most games should focus on Monarch-Emperor level, with shots at Regent and occasionally Demi-god/Deity (please!!) (When's Sid going to show up?). Lower than Regent should have some compensating challenge, as others have mentioned.

Regent-Monarch-Emperor game are the levels majority of the players are comfortable with....
Very few would enjoy to play a game below regent, much more players will enjoy playing above Emperor even not feeling comfortable with the level but simply to try their skills out.
I suggest we never play GOTMs/COTMs below regent.

Once in a while would be nice to have a mistery game, that is a game with zero spoiler information, well may be except the Civilization.

Anyone seriously annoyed with Ainwood could voluteer to row the boat instead of rocking it.:lol: I've got no problem with people voicing opinions. The aim here is to maximise the enjoyment for as many people as possible - if the consensus is that people hate drip-fed information, then I'll stop. In my current modus-operandi, I am aiming to have the starting map out 5 days before the game starts, and the civ the next day. Thinking that perhaps both of these on the same day would be better, and maybe even 7 days out. :hmm:

: In my current modus-operandi, I am aiming to have the starting map out 5 days before the game starts, and the civ the next day. Thinking that perhaps both of these on the same day would be better, and maybe even 7 days out. :hmm:

Pesonally I would not like the map too early. 5 days of not being able to play the map is frustrating; 7 days would be torture :D

However from these posts it appears that we all like different aspects of the GOTM. I guess that that you have have a concensus to carry on as you see fit, ainwood. From my point of view I enjoy the games and the forum discussions so :goodjob: Feel free to be as annoying as you please as long as the games continue to entertain us ;) As alamo says

Anyone seriously annoyed with Ainwood could voluteer to row the boat instead of rocking it.

I like the levels to ramp up and then start over, and I think this also helps to increase the skill levels of the new players. (When the level starts over again, it must seem much easier!)
Me too! I caught the bottom of one of those ramps when I started with GOTM17 (Carthage/Regent) having only played about 3 games of Civ, and it definitely helped me up my skill level. I didn't do too well for quite a while, getting my first GOTM win with GOTM20 (Spain/Deity!!!). GOTM21 (Greece/Monarch) did seem a lot easier!

I'll add another vote for information in advance, five days or a bit more or less seems good to me. I'm another one who's not wild about the drip-feeding approach though. I generally wait till all advance information has been revealed before thinking about the game.

Interesting. My first submission was 20/deity, also only having played a few solo games. I lost only because I didn't understand the voting rules and ran out of time, but I didn't feel it was harder than 21. For me the map, with its AI proximity, food and resource availabilities, seems to make at least as big a difference to my chances of a good game as the difficulty level.

Regent-Monarch-Emperor game are the levels majority of the players are comfortable with....
Very few would enjoy to play a game below regent, much more players will enjoy playing above Emperor even not feeling comfortable with the level but simply to try their skills out.
I suggest we never play GOTMs/COTMs below regent.

I would echo these thoughts 100%.

In terms of games below regent, is the feeling that players wouldn't enjoy them actually right? This used to be my feeling, although I did find it quite enjoyable w few months back to set up a chieftan pangea game as the iroquois and watch how easily I could over-run everyone else with mounted warriors - it would be more of a challenge if (for example) if steps could be made to force more research (maybe set a space-race victory condition??)

In terms of games below regent, is the feeling that players wouldn't enjoy them actually right? This used to be my feeling, although I did find it quite enjoyable w few months back to set up a chieftan pangea game as the iroquois and watch how easily I could over-run everyone else with mounted warriors - it would be more of a challenge if (for example) if steps could be made to force more research (maybe set a space-race victory condition??)
I would vote against having the difficulty any lower than Regent. The AI civs in GOTM34 couldn't study their way out of a paper bag, so I think I would get really frustrated if I had to conduct essentially all of my own research.

As for the overall approach to the pre-game discussion, I'm fine with the current setup.

Thank you for all of your hard work! :goodjob:

Anyone seriously annoyed with Ainwood could voluteer to row the boat instead of rocking it.

I don't know if this was a general comment or aiming at my previous post. I don't have anything against Ainwood personally and I think he is doing a great work. It is only the teasers in the pregame discussion that I sometimes feel I could live without.

This isn’t my mother tongue so different “shades” of the language/expressions are difficult for me and the Internet forum doesn’t make it any easier. Only wanted to make myself clear.

Besides, the phrase "ainwood annoys me with it, and I like it!" was used in the alternative I chose.

I answered let us know everything (size,difficulty,map size, start map, and civ)

I get no pleasure out of all of the guessing and mis-information given out in the pregame thread. What I enjoy is the informed starting information we get from our elite players. With knowing what their plans are for their starting moves boslters a newbies confidence on a new type of game. This is the reason that I am playing COTM04 this month (my first try at GOTM). I wouldn't mind the teasing if it were done for a limited time. But 10 days before the competition started I would like to know all of the information I've listed above.

I do not really care about the climate/age of earth/arch -vs- continent info. On these I would agree with MB that these should be kept secret and we can find out on our own.

Anyway these are the ramblings of a half sane clown so take them with a very large grain of salt.

I don't know if this was a general comment or aiming at my previous post. I don't think it was aimed at you. :)


I answered let us know everything (size,difficulty,map size, start map, and civ)

I get no pleasure out of all of the guessing and mis-information given out in the pregame thread. What I enjoy is the informed starting information we get from our elite players. With knowing what their plans are for their starting moves boslters a newbies confidence on a new type of game. This is the reason that I am playing COTM04 this month (my first try at GOTM). I wouldn't mind the teasing if it were done for a limited time. But 10 days before the competition started I would like to know all of the information I've listed above.

I have just started a succession game based on GOTM 20, and it was quite interesting to see the quality of the pre-game discussions for that one. I agree that the whole idea is to try and get informed starting information from our elite players, but I think that the new players really contribute a lot too - they ask the questions that draw the reasoning out from the other players (from elite to regulars). So they contribute a lot in a different way. I've learned quite a bit by reading the responses to these questions.

I must stress that if I have been guilty of providing misinformation, then this is not intentional. I won't post factually incorrect stuff - maybe people read a bit much into some of the comments, so I'll try to be careful with that aspect.

I think 10 days is a bit early, but perhaps all the info up-front could be a better option.

Actually ainwood - The mis-info I do not think is coming from you. I have seen in some of the previous discussion threads people guessing wrong about your pic and I got all excited about playing the wrong civ. And once you did anounce the actual civ I lost interest because I had wasted my time researching the wrong civ. Is this your fault...Absolutely not. It is more my fault than anybody.
This isn’t my mother tongue so different “shades” of the language/expressions are difficult for me and the Internet forum doesn’t make it any easier.
Well this is my native tongue and I still have'nt learned not to offend people when I do not mean to.
I have seriously enjoyed the COTM - If nothing changes from the way it is now I will still enjoy it? Yes, definitely. I was asked my opinion. If anyone has been around me in the forum they know one thing for certain. I AM opinionated. Right or wrong.
So do not take offense to anything I say unless I actually tell you to. :D
I think you are doing a splendid job.

[c3c] predator

I'm on the same thought line with Mad-bax. I'll find it more interesting to know nothing: start with a save and find out.....

Although, I guess I'll miss the pre-game discussions. Maybe giving us the tribe and the start location could facilitate some pre-game discussion.... I guess that doesn't give away a lot, and newbies or less experienced players (like me) can learn from discussions on tribe's UU usage etc..

Of course there's still the F10 button to find out about your opponents, the worldmap, to know where you are relatively, and the Culture limits, who can tell you about the map size. Although we learned this month, that this can be manipulated as well, right, Ainwood? :)

I don't know where that leaves us.....

I still would have the open/conquest/predator game versions! I think they're great for newcomers to play and have changes for winning.

BTW, Ainwood, you don't annoy me (yet) ;)

I learn a lot from the pre game discussion and think they must remain. The spoiler threads are nice but contain more results of players than discussion about strategy. In the pre game discussion, people talk about the things they will do, why they will and share it with other. This makes me think of many things that I haven't considered before and makes me learn a lot.

I believe the pre game discussion should begin at the same moment as now. Planning all the games a year in advance would kill the fun and the chat.

It would be nice if the first post of the pregame discussion contain all the known information about the game. When ainwood feeds us with info, he could edit the first post to also add the info there. I do not like reading the first three pages of people trying to guess the civ only to learn at the end that they were wrong. Same thing for the difficulty.

Why change a winning formula ? :D

I'd like to know how big the map is(I don't know if I'll have the time to play huge maps), and the type of map(continents, etc.. - maybe I'd want a specific wonder depending on the map).

I think it'll be good to change the difficulty and not playing all the time in Monarh or Emperor:
I'd say, go all the way from Chieftain(only for fun) to Deity(new players would be more willing to participate in lower levels and they'll gain valuable experience for higher levels, when they'll see what strategy advanced players in their team suggest each time).

As for the civ, I'd like to be surprised and learn which civ I'm going to play, when the team-threads are open!!!

I like it the way it is for the following reasons:

1) with the release of a little info at a time, we get alot of if this then do that.
I get a lot of info for the other games I start. If we know everything at first all we would get is do this.

2) the updates give me something to do while I'm waiting for the game to start.

So far, ainwood has proven an excellent mapmaker who can create very challenging and intriguing games with non-standard setups. :goodjob: