SGOTM 13 - What do you want?

[BLubmuz]

I've lurked for some day before to say something.

LowtherCastle proposal has some interesting point.

I would suggest to give the Oracle to the Barbs instead to an AI. Then if you conquer it you gain only the GPP.

Another point can be to give the GLH to the barbs, but make it unreachable (surround the city with ice, like in the Demogame i'm participating at present).

Some "scenario conditions" can be:
- Win as you like, but one of your cities must be Legendary before you win
- Conquest or Domination, but the other continent(s) coastal cities must be conquered with Marines (at least 1 marine have to fight to take the city, or anything in that spirit)

No more ideas for now, back to lurk

 

[kcd_swede]

I've lurked for some day before to say something.

LowtherCastle proposal has some interesting point.

I would suggest to give the Oracle to the Barbs instead to an AI. Then if you conquer it you gain only the GPP.

Another point can be to give the GLH to the barbs, but make it unreachable (surround the city with ice, like in the Demogame i'm participating at present).

Some "scenario conditions" can be:
- Win as you like, but one of your cities must be Legendary before you win
- Conquest or Domination, but the other continent(s) coastal cities must be conquered with Marines (at least 1 marine have to fight to take the city, or anything in that spirit)

No more ideas for now, back to lurk

Well... sounds like lots of ideas how to prevent strategies that won previous games from being copied. Not sure I'm with you on that. However, one could use a Medieval start that prevents pre-medival wonder from factoring in.

Perhaps a Medeival start where only the AI start with the Medieval techs. Could pose some serious challenges.

Like Old World mets New World.... and this time YOU are the New World.

 

[shyuhe]

I prefer the oracle (and other wonders) being available to all players. One of the big risk/benefit questions that many teams face in ancient start games is to decide (a) are we going to oracle and (b) what are we going to try to oracle. It's all about trying to find the right balance of low risk high return, and I think eliminating that from the game will take away from the fun.

I like KCD's proposal, but I'd make sure the "new world" isn't big enough for you to just turtle up and win the game. A doctored map where we start isolated and HAVE to trade with or conquer the AI to win the game would be quite challenging and fun I think.

 

[kossin]

Wonders are part of the game, I don't see a reason to put some of them away because of the likeliness of getting/missing them and their impact.

The only things that could make sense, imho...

-forcing a 0-wonder game (any city containing a wonder needs to be razed). No nationals/ no world/ no projects

- disabling TGW in a barb-infested scenario. For example, The Barbarian Challenge I made a year back or so.

~~~

I don't think the AI needs many boosts or any if the game is on Immortal seeing as there aren't that many Imm+ players on the teams.

However, on Emperor a bunch of starting techs to the AI would be a good leveling field I think.

 

[BLubmuz]

Well... sounds like lots of ideas how to prevent strategies that won previous games from being copied. Not sure I'm with you on that. However, one could use a Medieval start that prevents pre-medival wonder from factoring in.

I don't like starts not in ancient era. The worst is Renaissance.

I don't remember now which WWonders are forbidden in a classical start. Surely SH, can't verify ATM. Maybe this can work.

In any case, just an idea to fuel the discussion. Also my other proposals can drive to a completely different game.

 

[Gumbolt]

Blub and KCD have got some interesting twist ideas. Having a legendary city could be an interesting twist. You could even state that the city must have no world wonders in it.

Having an interesting map could be enough to satify most.

I would agree with Kossin somewhere between emperor and immortal will make difficulty interesting.

The wonder side is difficult. I think the last few games have been about Oracle and gLH early on. The coastal/small continent starts have defined this. Rather than restrict perhaps give player different problems or options at start.

You could design a map where we have no early copper/horse forcing the player to think more about barbs. Also be cruel and give nearest neighour the great wall.

I suspect Dynamic has enough ideas to work on now.

 

[kcd_swede]

I prefer the oracle (and other wonders) being available to all players. One of the big risk/benefit questions that many teams face in ancient start games is to decide (a) are we going to oracle and (b) what are we going to try to oracle.

Well... I don't think that's really how it works. I think each team makes a cost/benefit analysis as to whether REX or CS-sling or whatever other choices are available would provide. However, once a team comes to the conclusion that the Oracle (or GLH or whatever) would accelerate the victory, indeed accelerate it a lot, then, the risk is not a factor at all, no matter how high the risk! You try for the oracle and a "chance" at an award, or you don't try for the oracle and have no chance at any award. Tough choice, eh? Eliminating the Oracle would just create a differnet "must have". In fact, I think the teams that set themselves apart are the ones who figure out for any given set of conditions just what the "must haves" are. Skill creates its own luck, if you will.

So.... in the best of worlds I wouldn't want to take things out of the game just because their value has become "universally recognized". I am confident the game designer(s) will be able to provide a game that is at least as balanced and contains as many potential trade-offs as we are accostomed to in BtS. One sure way to do that is to have a normal BtS type of game.

 

[Gumbolt]

If you want a balance of emp/Imm why not just give the Ai the starting techs of immortal but starting units for emperor (2 archers no worker). If need be you can gift each Ai a late game tech to spice things up.

The overall result is the Ai rexs at a similar pace as emperor due to no worker but will tech much faster.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Lots of interesting points in the discussion. Thanks for everyone's contributions. There are definitely some good ideas there, some of which may well be used in future games. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion, we will certainly pay attention to whatever is said, though it may now be too late to influence SGOTM 13.

The staff (well, mostly me and Erkon) will go away and figure out a map. I'm not yet in a position to give full details, but based on this thread and the poll results, you can expect that it will be either emperor or immortal (with the map designed to hopefully pitch the difficulty between those levels), using a heavily modified map, and the game will be open to a military victory.

And you can expect it to be a week or two before the map is ready.

 

[BLubmuz]

Thanks, DS!
And many thanks to all the Staff, particularly to Erkon for a great "scenario" last SG.

I think it was the best SG i ever played, along with the 9th. Pity that one was on quick.

BTW, mainly if the VC will be military, please use Epic speed... now that i'm thinking to it, no one mentioned the speed, IIRC.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

One idea that could still be applied to SGOTM 13 is that of tiered difficulty levels.

In the XOTM games, if I take a Challenger saved game, I am faced with an additional set of obstacles. There is no reward at the end of the day, such as a boosted Score, but there is the bragging right of claiming that I took that harder saved game.

We don't need an Adventurer level--everyone should still be eligible for Awards--but what is honestly the harm in offering an additional Challenger save for those who want to test their mettle?

It seems to me that with all of this talk of disabling Wonders, splitting up the "stronger players" (a term which I disagree with--I believe that we can all learn and can all be great players if we put our minds to it ), etc, people are actually clamouring for a way for some of the teams who have been consistently doing well to get a bit of a handicap.

As long as you stick to the Challenger save format where the players are not rewarded--burn down some of our starting trees, take away our starting Warrior/Scout, remove some of our techs, make a nearby AI stronger, etc, instead of doing something like altering the difficulty level (which can actually work in favour of a team), then won't this option serve to give some teams an additional challenge while giving other teams a bit more of an edge? I'm certain that there are a lot of players who would love to see, say, I don't know, a particular team win Bronze instead of Gold due to having taken the Challenger save.


Maybe the Challenger idea hasn't been carried-over to Civ 5, but it is a tried-and-tested approach for Civ 4 games, and we're all here because we enjoy playing Civ 4.


The biggest arguments that I have heard against Challenger saves in the past are:
a) They made the game easier. See above. Don't do that (i.e. the normal save on Emperor and the Challenger save on Immortal would be a bad idea as the game could become easier on Immortal if played in a certain way).
b) The claim has been raised that the Challenger games aren't comparable to the Contender games. Well, I've won Awards with Challenger saves. I've written write-ups and have found my games to be comparable to those who abstained from the Challenger save. I still felt like I was playing the same game, but I just had to deal with a guaranteed additional challenge instead of an additional challenge that crops up randomly (such as a Barb Spear randomly appearing in one team's game versus a Barb Warrior appearing in a different team's game).


I think that having a Challenger save will make some players feel that the playing field has been levelled a bit, while those who take on the Challenger save can enjoy the extra bit of challenge to still try and make it to the Medal podium.

 

[Gumbolt]

Thanks, DS!
And many thanks to all the Staff, particularly to Erkon for a great "scenario" last SG.

I think it was the best SG i ever played, along with the 9th. Pity that one was on quick.

BTW, mainly if the VC will be military, please use Epic speed... now that i'm thinking to it, no one mentioned the speed, IIRC.

No one suggested which nation to play. I wouldn't mind the Aztecs! Gives real options on whipping units with the UB.

Be nice for a new civ to be used for once.

 

[Fluroscent]

I just want to repeat that I think that it is a good time for the SGOTM to veer away from the "funky" scenarios and have a game that resembles what you normally get when you start a custom game.

As for the wonders, Oracle and GLH that have dominated the recent games, simple map settings can defuse them without being radical modifications like giving them to presettled barbarians or something.
Inland start with no islands nearby and no AI on different landmasses in galley range will make GLH weak. Immortal with unknown opponents without a commerce resource in the BFC will solve the Oracle, since it's usually gone by 1800BC then.

 

[BLubmuz]

No one suggested which nation to play. I wouldn't mind the Aztecs! Gives real options on whipping units with the UB.

Sure Aztecs. But with Huaina, Mansa or Ramesses as leader. Monty is too weak.

Inland start with no islands nearby and no AI on different landmasses in galley range will make GLH weak. Immortal with unknown opponents without a commerce resource in the BFC will solve the Oracle, since it's usually gone by 1800BC then.

I agree. But the Oracle can be used for CoL or MC. Far less powerful than CS, but still good techs.

 

[kcd_swede]

And you can expect it to be a week or two before the map is ready.

Nice! Time to start recruiting, then!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can now tell you that the game will be played to a domination or conquest victory on a sea-based map.

A couple of people in this thread have expressed a preference for vassal states to be switched off, although I'm not clear what the reasons would be. So I'd like to open a quick discussion on whether people would prefer vassal states on or off, before we finalize the map. Why would you want them either enabled or disabled? How do you think it would change the game?

 

[kcd_swede]

I can now tell you that the game will be played to a domination or conquest victory on a sea-based map.

A couple of people in this thread have expressed a preference for vassal states to be switched off, although I'm not clear what the reasons would be. So I'd like to open a quick discussion on whether people would prefer vassal states on or off, before we finalize the map. Why would you want them either enabled or disabled? How do you think it would change the game?

Prefer Vassals on, because no vassals is too much like Vanilla. EIDT: I retract this preference in light of the below posts!

I think: Post-astronomy Conquest (only) victories are greatly speeded up by having vassals option, in my experience. But if the VC specified is Domination (only), it's more of an equation.

I think: If the allowed VC is Conquest OR Domination, Vassals will incentive the entires to go for conquest by vassalization. But No Vassals could make the factor seperating teams one of "did the AI settle someplace hard to reach", something out of our direct control for conquest VC... so probably more get pushed to domination.

I think: some of the players who specilize more in military VC should know better than me.

 

[Fluroscent]

With vassals:
Invasions, particularly after Astronomy are going to be all about chain capitulating the overseas AI. If the human team has the means (tech+production), which is normally the case at that point, then that part of the game becomes exceedingly boring, with the majority of the discussion going to be mostly about capitulation mechanics.

And the variance in outcomes in AI vs AI wars can mean that some teams are going to face having to wipe out AI vassals completely before the master can be capitulated, while others can get away with capturing 2-3 coastal cities per AI and be done. A huge difference due to luck.

Non-vassal conquest would mean that if the overseas AI are not completely backwards, then an invasion will take a lot more finesse and proper tactics.

So I really prefer vassals off for a game like this.

Edit: And I hope sea based does not mean we see a GLH game again... Continents/Hemispheres = Great. Archipelago/most fractal/island ridden = bad

 

[neilmeister]

^^ this.

I think Fluroscent has raised an excellent point, regarding allowing vassals obviously allows AI to vassalise each other. At Emperor/Immortal, I think it would be fair to assume some AI might be vassalised, and this is a massive random factor.

Vassals off would be my preference as well. Vassals have always struck me as a cheating way to conquest.

 

[kcd_swede]

^^ this.

I think Flourescent has raised an excellent point, regarding allowing vassals obviously allows AI to vassalise each other. At Emperor/Immortal, I think it would be fair to assume some AI might be vassalised, and this is a massive random factor.

Vassals off would be my preference as well. Vassals have always struck me as a cheating way to conquest.

I agree. I did not think about that aspect. I'm convinced.

Vassals are more potentially disruptive to an even competition than no vassals would be. I guess that means domination would be the only sensible victory option to choose, too. So tile-counters... be ready.