Harbourboy
Deity
Yeah, I don't think we ever got our head around the Barbarian Allies / All War aspect of the game, and tried to play it like a normal game.
SGOTM 05 - Geezers
- Thread starter AlanH
- Start date
Harbourboy
Deity
I've been reading more of the other teams and all the good teams quickly realised that a Bronze Working beeline would cause absolute havoc with the other teams with all the Barbarian axeman rampaging around the countryside all over the world.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
Very true.
Our science path was far too long. I think we probably worried too much about building up the economy in the early game. Early BW would certainly have given our barb allies a chance to cause more mayhem before the rest of the AI starting beefing up their defences. Although some teams went for HBR & Construction it's interesting that OSS team managed the vast bulk of their campaign without it.We probably started settling cities too early which just meant that we started leaking
and slowing down research. The next step is to try and apply some of the lessons from this game to the next one. 
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
I think that we were aware that barb axes would make life more difficult for the AI. Unfortunately we didn't realise quite how much impact this would have in the very early game and so we didn't beeline BW.
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
I agree with all the comments on tactical things we did wrong in this scenario. However, you don't win or lose on tactics. Some teams attacked from the east, some from the west. Some went for Sally, others went for Alex, some went conquest, some domination. However for the most part, they still beat the AI's. I think our two biggest issues as a team are:
- we don't truly align on a strategy and stick with it throughout the game
- even during stretches where we are somewhat aligned on a strategy, we don't focus on it when we are making all of the zillions of tactical decisions that come up during our turns
Basically we are wishy-washy, and this means waste... wasted builds (e.g. build a temple when we are warmongering), wasted research on non-critical techs, building the wrong kind of units versus our plan (e.g. defensive units vs. offensive), etc. In a tougher scenario (or at a higher level), waste can put you hopelessly behind the AI's. One thing I've learned in playing HOF is focus = speed.
I think the root cause is we have diverse playing styles. Some evidence... How many times on a specific decision did the following occur?
- one group of players says "do xxx"
- another group of players says "do yyy"
- "xxx" and "yyy" were not minor variations on a common theme, they might have been very fundamentally different (ie. build a keshik or build a temple)
- the person who is up tries to decide which choice had the most votes (or decides for himself)
We very rarely had situations where we had full consensus on a decision. "Majority rules" does not equal "alignment". And this is in cases where we discuss the decision. For the many decisions we each must make without discussion during our turns, we are all over the map. This means from turnset to turnset, our path wavers... we are not rowing in the same direction. As a result, we play to a much lower skill level as a team than we would as individuals.
This is an inherent challenge in succession games. I suspect the really good teams have three key characteristics:
- everyone on the team is a strong player individually (of course)
- they all align on a strategy, all of their individual decisions are in complete support of that strategy... they focus (all are rowing in the same direction)
- all are able to play a similar style (i.e. warmonger vs. builder, risk tolerance)
By the way, please don't take this as a criticism of our team... I think our comraderie is great and we have fun playing (and this is most important of all
). Just offering my 2 cents as to why we don't get the result we expect.
- we don't truly align on a strategy and stick with it throughout the game
- even during stretches where we are somewhat aligned on a strategy, we don't focus on it when we are making all of the zillions of tactical decisions that come up during our turns
Basically we are wishy-washy, and this means waste... wasted builds (e.g. build a temple when we are warmongering), wasted research on non-critical techs, building the wrong kind of units versus our plan (e.g. defensive units vs. offensive), etc. In a tougher scenario (or at a higher level), waste can put you hopelessly behind the AI's. One thing I've learned in playing HOF is focus = speed.
I think the root cause is we have diverse playing styles. Some evidence... How many times on a specific decision did the following occur?
- one group of players says "do xxx"
- another group of players says "do yyy"
- "xxx" and "yyy" were not minor variations on a common theme, they might have been very fundamentally different (ie. build a keshik or build a temple)
- the person who is up tries to decide which choice had the most votes (or decides for himself)
We very rarely had situations where we had full consensus on a decision. "Majority rules" does not equal "alignment". And this is in cases where we discuss the decision. For the many decisions we each must make without discussion during our turns, we are all over the map. This means from turnset to turnset, our path wavers... we are not rowing in the same direction. As a result, we play to a much lower skill level as a team than we would as individuals.
This is an inherent challenge in succession games. I suspect the really good teams have three key characteristics:
- everyone on the team is a strong player individually (of course)
- they all align on a strategy, all of their individual decisions are in complete support of that strategy... they focus (all are rowing in the same direction)
- all are able to play a similar style (i.e. warmonger vs. builder, risk tolerance)
By the way, please don't take this as a criticism of our team... I think our comraderie is great and we have fun playing (and this is most important of all
). Just offering my 2 cents as to why we don't get the result we expect.
Harbourboy
Deity
For sure. I saw in one of the team threads that they had been on the PHONE to each other during the turnset, so they were definitely aligned on their turnsets.
We most definitely were wishy washy. This game was only Monarch level, and the unique aspects of the scenario aside, we should have been able to make a better showing at this level, given that there are people here who routinely win at Emperor level.
How do you get consensus though, without spending weeks on each decision? There is a balance between speed and accuracy here. I'm not sure exactly what the answer is, in a way that would still keep things light and fun.
But I'm still dead keen to be part of this team for the next game (when is that?) so hopefully we can find a way to be a bit more focussed.
On more specific matters, I do note that we did not even manage to do some of the things that are in the Civ IV 101 basic training manual. For example:
- where was our super science city?
- where was our GP farm?
- were we using cottage or specialist economy?
- etc
And I still think that some early tactical decisions did cost us. If we had pulled off tricks like the barbarian axe rush, the galley chain, or the contrived AI peace offerings, we might have been able to offset some of our lack of focus.
But Hawk is right. I don't think ever really got consensus on our victory condition objectives at the start. I think some of us still thought that Cultural was a worthy path.
Anyway, it has still been fun.
We most definitely were wishy washy. This game was only Monarch level, and the unique aspects of the scenario aside, we should have been able to make a better showing at this level, given that there are people here who routinely win at Emperor level.
How do you get consensus though, without spending weeks on each decision? There is a balance between speed and accuracy here. I'm not sure exactly what the answer is, in a way that would still keep things light and fun.
But I'm still dead keen to be part of this team for the next game (when is that?) so hopefully we can find a way to be a bit more focussed.
On more specific matters, I do note that we did not even manage to do some of the things that are in the Civ IV 101 basic training manual. For example:
- where was our super science city?
- where was our GP farm?
- were we using cottage or specialist economy?
- etc
And I still think that some early tactical decisions did cost us. If we had pulled off tricks like the barbarian axe rush, the galley chain, or the contrived AI peace offerings, we might have been able to offset some of our lack of focus.
But Hawk is right. I don't think ever really got consensus on our victory condition objectives at the start. I think some of us still thought that Cultural was a worthy path.
Anyway, it has still been fun.
AgedOne
Emperor
A few thoughts from one of the 'New Boys' of the Geezers team.
I absolutely agree that were were not consistent in our strategy from one turnset to the next, and many times we got ourselves into that 'voting situation' on what was to happen in the upcoming 10 turns - which just isn't going to get us anywhere.
I'm probably the weakest player - measured in terms of my SP play. I can only beat Monarch level 50% of the time and have virtually no wins (if any) against higher levels. However, part of my reason for asking to join the team was that the discussion would help to bring my own level up. I felt that I had already come on a bit by reading through your previous SGOTM entries. It struck me that there was a lot of discussion of a very detailed nature in that game, and that it would help to focus on the important decisions.
Funny how it turned out!
I think we need to find a way of operating as a unit. And by that, I hope it doesn't mean "The best player makes all the decisions, and the rest of the team follow". Though that might well lead to success, it might as well be a single player tournament and the rest of us get nothing out of it.
Perhaps a few ground rules are needed before next time. We print our strategy up - and what that entails in term of builds and focus - and repeat it before each turnset (if necessary). We don't change this strategy unless it becomes essential.
Then perhaps a way of making decisions, giving more weight to the better players - but not everything!
But it has to be fun. I didn't join just to bring my game along. I wanted to be part of it.
I absolutely agree that were were not consistent in our strategy from one turnset to the next, and many times we got ourselves into that 'voting situation' on what was to happen in the upcoming 10 turns - which just isn't going to get us anywhere.
I'm probably the weakest player - measured in terms of my SP play. I can only beat Monarch level 50% of the time and have virtually no wins (if any) against higher levels. However, part of my reason for asking to join the team was that the discussion would help to bring my own level up. I felt that I had already come on a bit by reading through your previous SGOTM entries. It struck me that there was a lot of discussion of a very detailed nature in that game, and that it would help to focus on the important decisions.
Funny how it turned out!
I think we need to find a way of operating as a unit. And by that, I hope it doesn't mean "The best player makes all the decisions, and the rest of the team follow". Though that might well lead to success, it might as well be a single player tournament and the rest of us get nothing out of it.
Perhaps a few ground rules are needed before next time. We print our strategy up - and what that entails in term of builds and focus - and repeat it before each turnset (if necessary). We don't change this strategy unless it becomes essential.
Then perhaps a way of making decisions, giving more weight to the better players - but not everything!
But it has to be fun. I didn't join just to bring my game along. I wanted to be part of it.
Harbourboy
Deity
Yes, it is pointless playing "Succession Game" if you are just going to robotically follow the best player's instructions.
But we would also like to at least successfully complete a game.
Oh well, I'm sure we'll work something out.
But we would also like to at least successfully complete a game.
Oh well, I'm sure we'll work something out.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
And here's me still trying to get to grips with Noble.....In one of our SGOTMs where Klarius was in the team the game was somewhat like that although not quite so extreme. Admittedly Klarius had come from playing Civ3 SGOTMs where you had to really micromanage the game in great (boring?) detail.
Perhaps part of our problem is that we start zooming through our turns before we've really decided what is our strategy. We obviously need to play a few turns to find out what our immediate area looks like and which AI are about and where they are. But then we need to decide the strategy and what we need to do to accomplish that strategy. Some of this is repeating AgedOne's points but in different words.
Pariah
Outside Influence
Don't feel too behind, mate - I still routinely play at Prince level, and I don't usually win.
Like you, I figured that co-operating with a team of HoF players could help me improve. But as The-Hawk said, it's enjoying it which matters most.
I agree with most of what is said, but on page 7 we agreed on domination. Obviously we lost track on that and played unfocused. Our teching was poor as we ruined our economy and never got it running. Furthermore the captain obviously made a bad job and failed to remind the team what we were going for.
I totally agree that the fun should come first. For me any virtual awards are not important, but two games in a row we did not meet the objective. I think for the next one we have to put our heads together to get that done again.
Still this should not mean that the best player takes the decisions here.
So, who is up for the next one ?
I totally agree that the fun should come first. For me any virtual awards are not important, but two games in a row we did not meet the objective. I think for the next one we have to put our heads together to get that done again.
Still this should not mean that the best player takes the decisions here.So, who is up for the next one ?
Pariah
Outside Influence
OK, I'll stick around.
Harbourboy
Deity
I'm in. If I'm selected.
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
I intend to carry on.
Since there isn't even a signup thread in place I suspect it will be a few weeks before the next game starts. Of course the other question is whether it will be Warlords or BTS. Most likely bet is Warlords as not everyone will have BTS and BTS is also more likely to have a patch to fix some of the hiccups in 3.13.
erikthecelt
Old, Geezer, Unoriginal
I'ld like a players role if you don't mind.
Like Hawk says focus is key and the top teams aren't afraid to stop play and discuss a situation when the need arises.
I play alone at Monarch. Based on my HOF stats, I'm stronger in conquest and weaker in domination, with the other wins in between. I fit into the Quatromaster range halfway between The-Hawk and Harbourboy.
Like Hawk says focus is key and the top teams aren't afraid to stop play and discuss a situation when the need arises.
I play alone at Monarch. Based on my HOF stats, I'm stronger in conquest and weaker in domination, with the other wins in between. I fit into the Quatromaster range halfway between The-Hawk and Harbourboy.
AgedOne
Emperor
Oh, I really couldn't quit after my rookie season.
I'm in for the next. (Once a Geezer, . . . !)
I'm in for the next. (Once a Geezer, . . . !)
Harbourboy
Deity
Don't use my Quattromaster status as anything to go by. Most of my high level wins were cheesey Incan rushes. My emperor domination gauntlet took me 35 attempts before the law of averages kicked in and everything went my way.
Take a look at my GOTM stats for a better indicator of my skills (something like 2 wins in a dozen games - and always ranked in the bottom 20%).
The next game won't be BTS, that's for sure - so dust off the Warlords disc because we'll be back in the land of Vassals and Unique Buildings.
Take a look at my GOTM stats for a better indicator of my skills (something like 2 wins in a dozen games - and always ranked in the bottom 20%).
The next game won't be BTS, that's for sure - so dust off the Warlords disc because we'll be back in the land of Vassals and Unique Buildings.
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
Yes, I agree. We definitely agreed on domination as a victory condition. So maybe part of the problem is we all have different ideas of what strategies and tactics best support that goal. For me, on smaller maps, dom typically means... tech to a unit advantage (e.g. Keshiks versus archers), then stop teching, stop building infra, spam offensive units, go whup someone, don't stop whupping until the little window pops up and says "you win". However another approach (especially on a map like this) could be more of a builder strategy. Neither approach is "right", in fact both could have worked. However, I'm pretty sure flipping between the two approaches from turn to turn is pretty "wrong".
So, here is a suggestion. We certainly can't discuss every decision. However, as we make our broader strategic decisions, maybe we should take more time to discuss exactly what it means. For example, on page 7, after we settled on dom, we should have asked ourselves things like... given dom is the goal, what is our long term tech path? What are critical builds? What shouldn't we build? What techs don't we need? What types of units should we concentrate on? Do we need defensive units, or only offensive? Do we need a navy? I think these kinds of broad agreements would give all of us more context in our individual turnsets. The discussion would probably be very educational as well.
Furthermore the captain obviously made a bad job and failed to remind the team what we were going for.
Mark, I almost always find myself in agreement with your opinions. However, this is one of the most inaccurate things you've ever said.
I don't even know who that is. I hope you didn't think I was inferring this... that would be completely against the geezer philosophy. Heck, for my part, I'm even nervous about offering constructive criticism of other folks turnsets (although I recognize constructive criticism may add to the educational value of the game). Last thing I want to do is make decisions for someone else.
I still stuggle with the disjointed feel of a succession game, I have trouble maintaining my "situational awareness" with the big gaps between turns. However, the moderators dream up outstanding scenarios and I enjoy the discussions as we grapple with them. This is a great bunch of folks to team with. I'm definitely up for another go.
Harbourboy
Deity
This is indeed educational. Your criticism of all the infrastructure building I did when we should have been building armies (somewhere in the middle of the game) was useful and I have applied that focus to some of my other games.
No matter how this turns out, I find that succession games do not actually take up that much time. There is a bit of analysis between turns but it does not take long to rattle off 10 or 20 turns so it doesn't really interfere with anything else I am doing. Having said that, maybe I should take more time over my turns and we might get a better result.......
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
IIRC in the early SGOTMs we used to post a broad outline of what we intended to do in our turnset for comment and agreement. As we have team members scattered across the time zones I don't know how feasible it would be to reinstate this. Certainly it would impact on how quickly team members could play their turnsets given the need to wait for about 24 hours before playing. OTOH it would probably help concentrate team members' minds on the main objectives and minimise the more 
builds and moves.
The flip side is that other team members, or at a minimum the captain, need to respond to these plans otherwise it's just extra work for no return.
builds and moves.The flip side is that other team members, or at a minimum the captain, need to respond to these plans otherwise it's just extra work for no return.
Similar threads
