Civ 2 has proven to be an amazing strategy game, one that has stood the test of time over three generations of computer evolution; this alone is remarkable. Even today, I teach it to kids as young as age 8... and in many cases, parents ban their kids from playing it because of the amount of time it can take
.
Early GOTMs
The original iteration at the beginning was essentially a potential HOF game every month, and all that implies. Transformations of mountains to grassland. Resource swapping. Hundreds and hundreds of engineers. Hours of tedium. And GOTMs themselves have evolved. Players and playstyles have improved. Many things were learned.
In late summer of 2001, the largest single change in GOTM history occurred, with the introduction of the GOTM formula. That transformed the focus of GOTMs to not just playing Civ against the AI, but playing against an equation with a time factor. Though I have not yet had time to look through the last 10 years of games (but eventually do indeed intend to do so), I presume that most GOTMs have been judged on the GOTM formula ever since.
GOTM Purpose
Some questions that GOTMs answered included how different approaches to the game gave various results. Especially in many of the first approx. 20 GOTMs that I have a recollection about, there was a lot of fun in looking at how players did certain things, and funny things that could be seen in various states of save, like polar explorers etc.
But the underlying idea was to let the game run its natural course (with rules which also evolved), with game conditions and constraints that could change. For instance, limiting the government choice, or wonder selection, or map issues.
Real Life: Time
Civ 2 is a game that can really suck up lots of RL time, and its always a battle to produce results with the limited monthly time. Probably most GOTM games ever played were not really completed the way the player would have liked, if real time were not a factor. Doubtless many if not most results from the very beginning were affected by lack of player time, and few outside of the presumed OCC games and maybe some early conquers could say "yup, I played that one to my best and could not have done any better".
But, there are lots of ways that are possible to reduce this.
Game Plans
For instance, quarterly game patterns, or even yearly game plans. For instance, an sequence of OCC, a "special" game, and a moderate "full" (e.g., a 'normal' and hence potentially long) game. Or, in keeping with Civ 2's patterns of base 2, maybe a sequence of 4 game types in a short - long - short - medium plan.
I think the objectives for games can be specifically stated, and individual GOTM "win" conditions need not necessarily even be based on the highest GOTM score.
Two or three "special" GOTMs which are set to provide an extra dimension, such as potential combat on a large scale (e.g., a scenario variant), or goals to fulfill (like the
WW II scenario as Russia Communism, or German Facism).
It could be that a 6 or 12 month road map is laid out, for upcoming GOTMs. The month and general type of game would be known, e.g.,
September: an OCCC-20 due in October
October: a "full" classic GOTM due in December
November: an OCC-4 SS due in December
December: a "special" rules GOTM (e.g, like GOTM 68, or a scenario, etc.).
January: an OCCC-4 due in February
February: a "full" classic GOTM due in April
March: an OCC-1 SS due in April
....
OCC & Its Variants
Prior to GOTMs, one of the single most effective sources of my own learning when I first played Civ was the OCC, starting over a year before I even heard of CivFanatics or GOTMs. OCCs are one of my personal favorite, and within OCC, I especially think that fight oriented games are the most fun. In OCC conquer (OCCC), which as far as I know is not and never has been particularly popular, Civ 2 becomes a totally different game compared to normal GOTM methods. Ali is making an OCC (SS) guide, and I think that when its done at least one or two Full SS OCCs each year would be good "short" GOTM games, and at least one size 4 SS OCC & one size 1 SS OCC.
A gamut of three OCCC's (OCCC-20,OCCC-4,OCCC-1) would fill the short/medium game lengths. If players have not tried conquering the world with one city, then you might be surprised to find that its not necessarily a short game like OCC-SS games are, but it is nowhere near as long as full 'normal' GOTMs.
An obvious advantage to any OCC game is that each player should likely be able to play it exactly as they want, and real time will not be a factor or cause a truncation of results.
Game Variations
There are other options to make things interesting for a given game. One is to restrict certain forms of government for the human, or award them to the AI. Likewise, units, wonders, and even city improvements and techs can be restricted (or given to the AI).
Some of these variants may have been done before; players that know about these and what worked well, and what was maybe not as fun, should fill in the gaps. In the first GOTMs, variants with real world maps, wonder modifications, government restrictions proved popular and interesting. Though I've only played 3 out of the last 100 GOTMs, the ones that I did were fun (68,121,122) and not a "standard rehash", though all 3 were "long" games.
Huts
In general, I think huts can have a couple variations. First, is wiping huts from the map. This allows for less variations, esp. in early game; this variant is one that I think should be commonplace, though not exclusive. Second (and to my knowledge has not been tried in a GOTM) is the polar opposite: allow as many hut reloads as a player desires, to fit outcome to the playstyle. One will may learn a surprising amount of info by noting the hut outcomes of many attempts. And of course, players should explain their rationale for their outcomes and see how it affects the course of their game.
Map Reveal
This can be an interesting variant, esp. if testing some specific issue for comparison in that GOTM.
Comment on variants of "10 cities"
This could be a "special" GOTM topic, but even as this was discussed 10 years ago, would not work to be a normal GOTM rule. XX cities limit really has no meaning, nor even point of regular comparison. OCC stands alone in city restrictions in part because of the Civ II history of this for nearly 15 years. But for a one time game, its certainly and option, and part of the fun in making "special" games is to test some aspect of the game, and compare how different approaches turned out.
Combat
It might surprise many that my own favorite style of play is conquer and combat, and massive invasions, battles, etc. In GOTMs that I have seen, there is very little combat -- I dont even recall getting nuked even once. Never has an AI arrogantly told me "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons". Never have I made a Nuke Trap. Never has my stack of AEGIS fended off 20 Cruise Missiles. Never have I used task forces, swept the enemy from the oceans, etc. In GOTMs, I have never had to fight for survival, and come from far behind with things like suitcase nukes just to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Archivists
If you have been playing GOTMs in the last 100 or so especially, what are some of your own favorites? What made them fun for you, or what was significant? What were your own "Top 5" or "Top 10", and for each one, why? What did not work, and why?
Viewpoints
Certainly, all Civ 2 players and lurkers who read this thread should comment and give views and ideas, even if you don't play Civ 2 GOTMs. If you dont currently play, then what would you suggest to make it interesting for you? After all, you probably would not be reading this if you didn't like Civ 2!
.
