Gauntlet Suggestions
- Thread starter Ozbenno
- Start date
I am really having fun with the current Time Gauntlet. I don't think it would be a good idea to have them very often, but another one in a few month's time would be great. Time games should be reserved for Major Gauntlets because a full month is needed to play through.
On a side note, one of the things that I find fun about this time game is that I have to play to maximize score rather than finish quickly. One thing which might be interesting is to have a Gauntlet with one of the standard VC, but have the winners ranked by score rather than fastest finish. This would make for some interesting variation where some players would play tall and fast to get a higher score multiplier and others might play a wide strategy to increase the base score. Perhaps a Culture game with score as the decider would be interesting.
How about Poland, Culture VC, Small Continents (or Large Islands), Emperor level, highest score wins?
On a side note, one of the things that I find fun about this time game is that I have to play to maximize score rather than finish quickly. One thing which might be interesting is to have a Gauntlet with one of the standard VC, but have the winners ranked by score rather than fastest finish. This would make for some interesting variation where some players would play tall and fast to get a higher score multiplier and others might play a wide strategy to increase the base score. Perhaps a Culture game with score as the decider would be interesting.
How about Poland, Culture VC, Small Continents (or Large Islands), Emperor level, highest score wins?
Bleidraner
King
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 640
Mesix I think that would be a time game. I would just play like a time game and win a CV on t499. It adds the complexity of timing your tourism, but very little else.
As for time game, I am with mostly everybody else on this: major only and smaller than standard maps.
That's one way to play it. Another might be to spread out early on and win by sacred sites tourism in the late Renaissance or Early Industrial Eras. The base score is multiplied if you finish earlier, so getting 8K base score on turn 499 might net the same result as getting 4K base score by turn 249. It would be interesting to see how people play it.
Bleidraner
King
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 640
Um yes I had forgotten about that. I think I did the calculations a long time ago, and late win was more powerful but I cannot swear that's true. I see your point.
Added
Will be the next major diplomacy game.
Added
Yes, a turn 499 victory won't win.
Will be a few months since we just had a time game.
So the final score multiplier is calculated as (500 / [finish time] ) right? Then I'd assume the winning strategy would be to treat it as a Time game and win a CV when your score starts to plateau, somewhere around T450 maybe?
These are the interesting discussions we can have when this (or a similar perhaps Diplomacy or Conquest VC) game is up for us to play. I think there will be some people who try to maximize early and get a bigger multiplier and others who will play until very late in the game. It sounds like a fun challenge and a deviation from the norm in any event.
Morcar_olmig
Warlord
I know gauntlets have been always games for fastest finish or highest score, but what about non-standard victory paths? Like, for example: capture selected civs in particular order or be the fastest to reach 50000 Gold or smth like that? Of course we should choose only those conditions which are easy to check...
Cromagnus
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
I think that's the thing. Right now it's very simple to calculate a winner. It would probably require a monitoring mod to play with more involved rules/victory conditions.
And if there *were* other ways to calculate victory, my first suggestion would be that Time Victories be handled as follows:
Everyone submits a save on the turn they place their last city. We then rely on a mathematical equation to determine their final score. So you only have to play until you finish placing cities.
Heck if we're doing that, the way to go (IMHO) would be to greatly reduce the value of total population in score. Like, by half. And modify the score from number of cities so that size of cities is a factor. For example, the score for a city would be 1 at pop1, (1+2)=3 at pop2, (1+2+3)=6 at pop3, or some slower-accruing linear series, so that a size 50 city is worth WAY more than 5 pop 10 cities. And greatly increase the value of social policies and future tech. That would make it way more interesting.
And if there *were* other ways to calculate victory, my first suggestion would be that Time Victories be handled as follows:
Everyone submits a save on the turn they place their last city. We then rely on a mathematical equation to determine their final score. So you only have to play until you finish placing cities.
Heck if we're doing that, the way to go (IMHO) would be to greatly reduce the value of total population in score. Like, by half. And modify the score from number of cities so that size of cities is a factor. For example, the score for a city would be 1 at pop1, (1+2)=3 at pop2, (1+2+3)=6 at pop3, or some slower-accruing linear series, so that a size 50 city is worth WAY more than 5 pop 10 cities. And greatly increase the value of social policies and future tech. That would make it way more interesting.
What is missing for Civ5 is a good HOF mod.I think that's the thing. Right now it's very simple to calculate a winner. It would probably require a monitoring mod to play with more involved rules/victory conditions.
And if there *were* other ways to calculate victory, my first suggestion would be that Time Victories be handled as follows:
Everyone submits a save on the turn they place their last city. We then rely on a mathematical equation to determine their final score. So you only have to play until you finish placing cities.
Heck if we're doing that, the way to go (IMHO) would be to greatly reduce the value of total population in score. Like, by half. And modify the score from number of cities so that size of cities is a factor. For example, the score for a city would be 1 at pop1, (1+2)=3 at pop2, (1+2+3)=6 at pop3, or some slower-accruing linear series, so that a size 50 city is worth WAY more than 5 pop 10 cities. And greatly increase the value of social policies and future tech. That would make it way more interesting.
I'm looking into this but it's hard to do with the current tools.
Look at how much conversation the Time Gauntlet engendered, made more amazing by the fact most people on the thread (including me) could not or did not finish.
We need more Time gauntlets, but NOT standard size map or higher please [emoji6] . Small, Tiny, or even Duel could work. It would be nice if people could finish games...
My suggestion:
Byzantium, Prince, Small, Quick, Large Islands, Time
Byzantium - sparse on table entries, fun with dromons and cataphracts, and most interestingly a 3rd religious belief to play with.
Prince - High enough to be a bit of a challenge, but low enough not to scare off too many players.
Small, Large Islands - poses some of the game strategy problems of scale, but not machine crippling ones hopefully. Water limts # of cities somewhat.
Quick - Why not?
Anyone feels it can be tweaked to be better, feel free to chime in.
We need more Time gauntlets, but NOT standard size map or higher please [emoji6] . Small, Tiny, or even Duel could work. It would be nice if people could finish games...
My suggestion:
Byzantium, Prince, Small, Quick, Large Islands, Time
Byzantium - sparse on table entries, fun with dromons and cataphracts, and most interestingly a 3rd religious belief to play with.
Prince - High enough to be a bit of a challenge, but low enough not to scare off too many players.
Small, Large Islands - poses some of the game strategy problems of scale, but not machine crippling ones hopefully. Water limts # of cities somewhat.
Quick - Why not?
Anyone feels it can be tweaked to be better, feel free to chime in.
NiceOneEmlyn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 87
Time games just have to be quick speed as far as I am concerned. Count me in for my first gauntlet if accepted!
Congrats zenmaster for reaching the top of the VVV.
I would think not (should get more with Tiny islands and Archipelago) but since when did these Civ 5 map scripts make perfect sense? [emoji6] I posed Large Islands because I think it is the water map with the least variation, but I could be wrong. If another waterish map would yield less random landmasses I'm all for it.
I've played a bunch of Tiny Islands maps lately and they can have pretty big landmasses on low sea level settings and lots of 1 hex islands, so I think Large Islands won't mean significantly more cities. Again, just my feeling which could easily be wrong.
Thanks.
The Time games on Tiny maps at standard speed aren't so bad really, but I agree that Quick speed would mean a lot more finished Time games!
NiceOneEmlyn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 87
I am playing a duel large Island map at the moment. The consistency of the map is as follows;
1 - My large Island with one CS and enough room for 6 Cities.
2 - Opponents large Island with enough room for five additional Cities.
3 - Large Island with 3 City States and enough room for One extra City.
4 - Eight one/two tile Islands.
I hope this helps.
chuckh89
Prince
I am not a big MOD guy, but the "Ingame Editor" is great for observing the type of map your going to be playing,...You can remove the "Fog of War" on turn one of any setup to get a feel for what your in for when you play "For Real". I usually load a couple before I start Gauntlets so there are no surprises.
_
