SGOTM 21 Pre-Announcement Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Deckhand
- Start date
LowtherCastle
Deity
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,632
SG7 was really only Deity in name. It played as Monarch, which was the usual level for SGs back then. Gyathaar nerfed it by crowding the map so that the AIs mostly had three cities, a couple with four cities, iirc. He knew what he was doing. He designed many factors into each SG to make sure all teams would be able to win.
We all know that now, but we didn't when the game was advertised. And that is the most important point...
I would suggest a lower difficulty than immortal and also a limit on warring.
zbgayumn
Emperor
Well, the last one was advertised as Immortal, but the AI were nerfed enough that it played like Emperor or maybe even Monarch. I think Emperor is about the right difficulty level if it plays like Emperor. The lesson of Deckhand's latest GotMs is that Immortal with generous resources can be easier to deal with than Noble with poor resources and a tough neighbor.
Jenarie
Prince
I played once years ago when the Geezers were still a team but I'd love to join up again for the next one if anyone has space for a relative newbie.
I don't think I can play until I get a new computer which puts me in the voting for January 1 camp. I still might not make it but the chance would be a lot higher. It seems like holidays might be a bad time for people to try to keep up with a game as so many people have more family activities to attend.
Unless this actually affects the game-play of teams to the point of affecting the outcome it seems like no change is really necessary. People have fun with it as it is.
If it is really a worry I suppose blocking saves that are ahead of the last save your team submitted would be ok but this seems to me to be a non-issue.
This seems like a fun idea.
On the note of randomizing teams that seems to have died already but just want to put in agreement with the people anti. There are definite styles different teams develop and some people would be miserable with some styles. Some teams discuss every move with uploads several times a turn during critical stages while other teams discuss the major outline and leave players on their own for micro. Someone happy on one of those styles would be miserable on the other end of the spectrum. I personally think I could go with either but would be happiest somewhere in the middle.
I don't think I can play until I get a new computer which puts me in the voting for January 1 camp. I still might not make it but the chance would be a lot higher. It seems like holidays might be a bad time for people to try to keep up with a game as so many people have more family activities to attend.
Unless this actually affects the game-play of teams to the point of affecting the outcome it seems like no change is really necessary. People have fun with it as it is.
If it is really a worry I suppose blocking saves that are ahead of the last save your team submitted would be ok but this seems to me to be a non-issue.
This seems like a fun idea.
On the note of randomizing teams that seems to have died already but just want to put in agreement with the people anti. There are definite styles different teams develop and some people would be miserable with some styles. Some teams discuss every move with uploads several times a turn during critical stages while other teams discuss the major outline and leave players on their own for micro. Someone happy on one of those styles would be miserable on the other end of the spectrum. I personally think I could go with either but would be happiest somewhere in the middle.
Htadus
A and L's dad
1. When to start? No opinion
2. Progress Graphs accessibility? Some have expressed concern about the information available in the Progress Graphs. With some effort, AlanH could probably implement some scripts to delay their publication. It's my belief that speculating about the other team's graphs is part of the fun; so I wouldn't change how it's been run the last several games. But, what do you all think? It seem to be a favorite thing to do for many players. Keep it for them. I used to be one.
3. Related, how do you feel about having all teams submit saves at particular dates to facilitate comparison? That sounds good.
4. Finally, as in previous Pregame Discussion threads, any and all ideas are welcome. They may or may not get into SGOTM21, but could also be used in a later game (or an xOTM).
Thanks, Deckhand and BSPollux
Make the start even for all teams. Settle the capital. Make it a decent site and then let the subsequent decisions, planning and good execution decide the winner. As many others voiced, lets not have too many requirement.
For a real twist, ban slavery (and watch most players panic).
. Now that is what I call evil. 
and Playing as Montezuma
haphazard1
Dancing Bear
and Playing as Montezuma
Ouch! You really are feeling "not so nice" these days, aren't you?
I think it would be interesting to move people out of the usual paths, such as using slavery. It would shake things up and push teams to make different choices.
One possibility would be to require the teams to stick to an "honorable" personality: no slavery (you care for your people), no declarations of war unless you are attacked first (removes early worker stealing) or are asked to join a war by an ally, require adoption of certain civics as soon as they become available (emancipation, free religion, etc.). The exact combination of limits could be adjusted for a specific scenario.
Another option would be something like the early SGOTM where you had to get another civ to win the game by a specific condition. (I think it was Gandhi by space ship?) You would need to ban city gifting to avoid teams just building a massive empire and then gifting it to the target AI. But it would certainly shift the usual dynamics.
If the above seem too complicated, I also liked the suggestions for a "one big rule" scenario. Banning slavery would be a good possibility as already mentioned. Or maybe you can only build wonders in one city, and must have at least 10 wonders to win the game. Or require the team to build every national wonder to win the game. Lots of possibilities.
Am I right in thinking BSPollox has already designed and made the next map? Or are you still looking for ideas?? No slavery or worker stealing would up the difficulty a bit. It should certainly be tested to see how badly it affects the human player.
It would certainly push certain other strategies.
It would certainly push certain other strategies.
zbgayumn
Emperor
The brief time I was playing the Rhye's and Fall Mod came to mind among all this discussion about game ideas. Maybe we could institute one rule for each era. Of course, there would also have to be something along with that to make sure that the game progresses all the way to the modern era.
Another somewhat whacky idea:
Ancient era, but advanced start. You get X amount of gold to spend on whatever you want. That would really make for some heated pre-game discussions. It would also be possible to have a Deity game because the advanced start would even out some of the AI advantages.
Another somewhat whacky idea:
Ancient era, but advanced start. You get X amount of gold to spend on whatever you want. That would really make for some heated pre-game discussions. It would also be possible to have a Deity game because the advanced start would even out some of the AI advantages.
Yes, the map has already been designed.
Ideas are still welcome.
Most could be applied to future games. Some (e.g. reveal more of starting area) can still be applied to this one. Emperor vs Immortal might apply.
The game could be played with a slavery ban. But it would just be pasted onto another theme, so I don't think this would be the best use of it.
elitetroops
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,706
Banning slavery would for sure make for a different game. And forests would be a lot more valuable..
Another possible way to force teams to depart from standard strategy would be to demand all GP are settled. Maybe even with a PHI leader? Freddy?
I don't remember if I've read about such a game, or if I thought about the possibility to make such a game earlier, but there could be a requirement to assemble the high council before winning (=settle one GP of every kind in your capital). This would require some serious planning, or potentially lead to extreme RNG dependence to finish the game.
Another possible way to force teams to depart from standard strategy would be to demand all GP are settled. Maybe even with a PHI leader? Freddy?
I don't remember if I've read about such a game, or if I thought about the possibility to make such a game earlier, but there could be a requirement to assemble the high council before winning (=settle one GP of every kind in your capital). This would require some serious planning, or potentially lead to extreme RNG dependence to finish the game.
BLubmuz
HoF Quattromaster
I still remember that game and yes, we were Vikings and were tied at war with Gandhi who has to win by Space.
The problem was that in our game Hannibal get rifles when we barely arrived to maces. He took the Oracle while we were fending off wave after wave of barbarians, Indians and Mongols. And Hanni won by Space. The game was Warlords, BtS was not out yet.
Other teams did not experienced a similar situation and we arrived to migrate in another continent, let Gandhi conquer our empty cities.
At the time someone said that it was inspired from a similar game in Civ 3, but in CIV there's much more randomness. Many teams have lost to the wrong AI, some has been wiped IIRC.
No thanks.
Banning slavery can be a good option. It has my vote.
Give us map with no luxuries nearby (or we are not allowed to develop those tiles with proper improvement), ban Beauro, repr, HR, but not slavery 
To compensate give us charismatic/spiritual leader = Brennus. Also give us 1 fully developped plaintown to allow getting a gambit with early religion (or dont allow civs which start with misticism) 
Cities with luxuries in BFC or even 3rd ring are forbidden, if captured - must be razed.
Do not allow leaders with Representation/HR fav civic to avoid getting diplomatic penalties from refusing adopting their favourite civics.
Force us to make happy only by temples, wonders and trading health for luxuries. Of course we must win space against tech monsters. We must also have a city of 25 without unhappiness
Is it evil enough to be a scenario?
--------------
(Or make a vegan game :] Gandhi was vegetarian, so suits the best. No pastures allowed, no cottages - only farms.)
To compensate give us charismatic/spiritual leader = Brennus. Also give us 1 fully developped plaintown to allow getting a gambit with early religion (or dont allow civs which start with misticism) Cities with luxuries in BFC or even 3rd ring are forbidden, if captured - must be razed.
Do not allow leaders with Representation/HR fav civic to avoid getting diplomatic penalties from refusing adopting their favourite civics.
Force us to make happy only by temples, wonders and trading health for luxuries. Of course we must win space against tech monsters. We must also have a city of 25 without unhappiness
Is it evil enough to be a scenario?
--------------
(Or make a vegan game :] Gandhi was vegetarian, so suits the best. No pastures allowed, no cottages - only farms.)
Add my vote to revealing the starting area.... In the past 4 or 5 SGOTM, there have been at least 2, and I think 3, where it was possible to make a decision on scouting on turn 1 or 2 that would have seriously hurt a team. This becomes luck then, because there is no proper information to base the decision on. (Even normal civ instincts and experience dont apply, because it is a question of guessing what the map maker did.).
