SGOTM 13 - What do you want?

[Frederiksberg]

How about two games ago?

That wasn't an advanced start. Advanced start is a setting in the Custom Game menu. But there seems to be a technical problem in relation to creating a save before spending the gold for cities and units.

Another option that hasn't been explored in SGOTM is no tech trade (Also a custom game option). Might force play towards more spying and perhaps also make the game easier because the AI will not be able to trade.

 

[lymond]

Advanced Start is an intriguing idea from the standpoint that there so many choices of what to buy at the start and each team would have a different strategy. Do you buy an extra city, if there is enough points? or workers (can they do anything)? Units? Scouts (ugh)? Buildings? Culture? Visibility? Techs? It would really be interesting to see how each team approaches those options. Advanced Start have never appeared that popular - at least in the forum. Only time I ever played it was the Charlemagne scenario. However, I could see it working nicely in an SGOTM. Ha...imagine all the testing before the start.

The EP game would be interesting, but I guess you would need options/rules to gear it toward EP like no tech trading, as mentioned, and maybe a rule to only run Spys in cities.

 

[leif erikson]

Advanced Start is an intriguing idea from the standpoint that there so many choices of what to buy at the start and each team would have a different strategy. Do you buy an extra city, if there is enough points? or workers (can they do anything)? Units? Scouts (ugh)? Buildings? Culture? Visibility? Techs? It would really be interesting to see how each team approaches those options.

Tried doing this for a BOTM. I also found the problem that the game cannot be saved, nor can the WB file, without spending the points on things. Only after you have made your decisions can you make a save. I tried but could not find a way. Would love to learn if there is one though as the possibilities could make for some really games.

While the poll is still open for a fair few days yet, on the basis of the results so far, it's looking like there's a strong consensus for either emperor or immortal difficulty on a heavily modified map, with most people preferring a military victory option.

If I were looking to try a SGOTM, I would want to have a more difficult game and hope to play with a team that had players better than me on it so I could learn how to manage a more difficult start. This is the reason I began played SGOTM's, oh so long ago...

Seems to me that the only people who would prolly not sign up for a more difficult game would be those who feared being placed on a new team with unknown players. Not sure how we counter that though?

 

[shyuhe]

Seems to me that the only people who would prolly not sign up for a more difficult game would be those who feared being placed on a new team with unknown players. Not sure how we counter that though?

OSS is looking for new players Not sure how much of a micro-managing team we will be in the upcoming SGOTM game yet, but I promise we'll be nice to new players!

 

[Deckhand]

How about shaking up the teams?
Randomly assign all teammates, while excluding current team members from being on the same team.

Spoiler :

I will let others list pros/cons of this idea.

Agree we have had enough of Russia.

Agree Emperor or Immortal. Immortal with current teams, Emperor with new teams.

@Frederiksberg - no tech trading makes it harder (Monarch+) on higher levels. Tech trades are one of the things players do better than the AI.

 

[Gumbolt]

While the poll is still open for a fair few days yet, on the basis of the results so far, it's looking like there's a strong consensus for either emperor or immortal difficulty on a heavily modified map, with most people preferring a military victory option.

The comments in this thread have leant towards immortal. Just to throw an additional thing into the discussion: Is there any argument for saying that, while immortal may be preferred by seasoned SGOTM players, emperor has the advantage of being more likely to attract new people to SGOTMS?

I think this got missed by many so i am quoting you!

Emperor will add more options in terms of game play! A chance for different strategies and slingshots. Immortal will require teams to adopt a defined strategy more earlier due to the Ai tech advantage and other AI bonuses on immortal. Wonders especially go much earlier. Early wars would be tougher if the Ai have metals.

You would hope in a large team the more experienced player would pull the monarch/Emp players along. Would they be frightened off if they didn't understand the debate? Hmmm.

The key thing is that the game is still fun and we are not all encouraged to play the game exactly the same. How big a step up is immortal from emperor really?

For me I would design the game and test it on both levels. If you are doing a map with just a pure conquest no vassels then stick it at immortal. If you want game conditions like espionage or kill Ai in A-z order then drop it down a level.

Theres my 2 cents.

 

[beestar]

I don't feel strongly anout immortal vs. Emperor, but I do feel strongly that we should attract more players and teams. Maybe a shorter game would actually bring in more players, or at least more, smaller teams.

 

[reuster]

One of the fun things about SGOTMs is that they force teams to explore underused aspects of the game, and thus deviate from the formulae that have been developed to win regular games (e.g. cottage spam, CS sling, etc.).

How about this setup:
- future start (take tech almost completely out of the picture)
- conquest VC (to force teams to use modern warfare, which is rare in game)
- resource poor and/or isolated start (to prevent teams from steamrolling AI)
- aggressive AI or always war (to give AI reason to build large armies)
- map setup to emphasize naval war (another rarely encountered scenario)

 

[Alamankarazieff]

I'm hoping to join in for my first SGOTM, and I'm already fearing that among so many great players, I'm mostly going to be the wisecracking french sidekick. At least, at emperor, I'll probably be able to throw a punch or two, but at immortal, Batman might have to do all the fighting.

 

[Gumbolt]

I'm hoping to join in for my first SGOTM, and I'm already fearing that among so many great players, I'm mostly going to be the wisecracking french sidekick. At least, at emperor, I'll probably be able to throw a punch or two, but at immortal, Batman might have to do all the fighting.

A lot of players from the last SGOTM were Emperor players and managed fine.

 

[neilmeister]

I don't feel strongly anout immortal vs. Emperor, but I do feel strongly that we should attract more players and teams. Maybe a shorter game would actually bring in more players, or at least more, smaller teams.

I completely agree with this. Having gone through only 2 SGOTM, it did feel that we had too many players on each team. Players do drop out, but I suspect that the size of the teams contributes to this.

Please do not randomly assign players, this is sure to be a participation killer. No offence, but I would rather play with my mates (and wooden spoon again) than OSS or PD. I'm sure the majority of players that have participate would agree.

edit: Immortal/Deity would put off new entrants. Emperor would only deter the very best players, and there are Deity GOTM's for these guys.

 

[beestar]

If smaller teams are combined with shorter games, the (broadly speaking) people can still havethe same amount of play time.

I'm making the assumption that long, involved games put off some players, which has sometimes been the case for Fifth Element / Who Dat.

 

[neilmeister]

If smaller teams are combined with shorter games, the (broadly speaking) people can still havethe same amount of play time.

I'm making the assumption that long, involved games put off some players, which has sometimes been the case for Fifth Element / Who Dat.

I think the two are closely related. IMO, smaller teams mean that you are more likely to particpate in the discussions, and you play a turnset more often.

 

[adrianj]

About the Victory Condition - how about a game where it is required to achieve multiple VCs before submitting the game? Ie, it is required to continue the game after the first victory has been achieved in order to meet some more.

Combinations could be landing the Space Ship + Cultural + Conquest. Or just Space Ship + Cultural might be quite interesting. It would be interesting to see if the strategies that 'beeline' toward one victory condition can still achieve both/all conditions in the fastest time, or if a more balanced approach wins out. I guess this is in a similar vein to the myriad smaller conditions required for SGOTM11, which I really enjoyed being a part of.

Is it even possible to launch a space ship, or hold diplomatic elections, or vassalise an AI after you have achieved victory by other means?

 

[neilmeister]

^^
I like this idea, as long as the VC are not compatible.

Cultural & anything is achievable with sushi, but if we played on a map without sushi resources, then Cultural and Conquest/Domination could be very interesting.

 

[Gumbolt]

I think the two are closely related. IMO, smaller teams mean that you are more likely to particpate in the discussions, and you play a turnset more often.

You would need small teams that knew each other well. Not all new players that sign up stick it out past the first month. You have to allow some drop out per team. Any team below 6 players will probably struggle. All the above assume no one has anything better than civ 4 to play for next few months including real life.

Overall these games have always been 3-4 months. Push the time frame down to 2-3 months and the game can seem rushed. The last SGOTM got extended a month due to time constraints and most teams voted for that. No one can really be here 24/7 to play.

It is not always about playing turnsets but also being part of a team and having a good fun game/challenge that keeps you interested. I think the last SGOTM 12 had the right mix.

If you want lots of new teams/players keep the game at Emperor so those at Monarch or below are not scared off.

 

[neilmeister]

Not all new players that sign up stick it out past the first month.

Yes thats true, but why? If a new player finds out that he/she has to wait a week, just to move the warrior/scout/settler, this is the most likely thing to discourage them (IMO).

You have to allow some drop out per team. Any team below 6 players will probably struggle. All the above assume no one has anything better than civ 4 to play for next few months including real life.

Disagree with this one. What takes time is agreeing on what to do, not playing the game. I usually manage to play all 3 GOTM's, because I do not have to discuss my strategy with anyone, I just play (badly).
Look at PD, they were down to 2 players (albeit very good ones) in weeks. They finished a month before anyone else.

Imagine your team had 20 players. How quick do you think discussions and play would be?

 

[bcool]

Thoughts on teams (what works, why randomizing teams probably wouldn't work)

Spoiler :

For a team to work well together, there has to some common expectation of the type of playing/planning the team will do. Or at least a willingness to learn and adapt to the group's expectations. This develops over time and thus it is somewhat hard to just scramble the groups up as someone suggested. I made the same suggestion when I was getting involved with sgotm, but since then I think part of the fun is working with people you know, respect, and enjoy playing with.

Of course I'm not against having different teams, since learning from others and helping others in the team learn the game is also part of the sgotm experience. There is always a need for more players as people move on to different games or real life demands.

I think having too many people on the team is difficult since it really is hard to get that many people to agree or play with a reasonable understanding of a coherent strategy. And too few loses the richness of the experience.

I like adrianj's suggestion of multiple victory conditions if it is possible. I have a feeling that the game would have to be modified to make it possible though. I never have played past a victory condition, but I doubt the game checks for new victories after the first.

Future starts are an interesting suggestion, but the AI doesn't handle advanced starts that well from my limited experience with them.

 

[Grifftavian]

A Conquest + Cultural Combo game idea...

Map Type = Continents/Custom Continents
Map Size = designer's choice

Concept: playable Civilization and all except three AI Civilizations start on the main continent (the old world). Three target AI civilizations start on another continent (the new world).

Victory Condition: eliminate the three target civilizations in the new world (mini-conquest), but capture their three Capitol cities, and require those three captured Capitols to be the three Cultural Cities for a Cultural Victory.

 

[unclethrill]

So here is my two cents:

1. Randomizing teams is a bad idea. Why? Because most teams have a core of players (2 or 3) that understand how the others think and act. Shaking up the team members make the dynamics change and will cause more conflicts than learning IMHO.
2. Emperor vs. Immortal: I think that for the most part the teams are mostly established with a couple members carrying the torch so new players are "recruited' as much as just volunteering. Based on this, the team members will bring in new players and explain how the SGOTM really work: We over analyze every turn and as such the real level of the game is about two levels down from how most "normal" games go. What I mean is that in a SGOTM, there is so much analyzing into each turn set that a game on say emperor plays out to an end that a normal prince game would (at least for me). So an Immortal game will play like a monarch game for most teams.
3. I'm really not a fan of short games. I like the SGOTM that start in the ancient age and extend at least to the industrial but preferably the modern age. I think that the longer games require a more diverse and thorough understanding of the game as a whole. So by this logic, I prefer Space, Diplo or heavily modified Conquest or Domination. The old adage that a job will extend itself to fill the time allowed comes to mind. If we have 1 month to finish, we will all finish any game in a month; if we have 4 months, then most teams will take a pangea religious and make it take 4 months. The level of micro will vary with time allowed but it will almost always drag out to fill the time allowed. The only thing we get out of a 'short' game is that the amount of concentration we spend on each turn set will be reduced.

Bottom line: I want to start a new and interesting SGOTM as soon as possible but I would rather wait a couple extra weeks to have a special customized game that we as a team can spend the next 4 months concentrating on instead of cutting corners and getting half a game out of it.


Edit: If map size is in contention too, I think that large and huge are tough for some player's machines. Large may work but huge is too much. I think standard really is the best size for this type of play.