CFC 10 year anniversary GOTM specials

Ali Ardavan said:

May I suggest a personal challenge for you? This is one that I have done only once in GOTMs and 2-3 times in my personal games. Play with the goal of reaching 255 future techs (the maximum possible) before ending the game. We can even design a GOTM around this goal if there is enough interest.

Click to expand...

Aarrrgh! I appreciate that you are trying to help, but that sounds like a nightmare. I really don't enjoy playing long games, for score, or for techs for landing. IMO ICS is usually the best strategy, even for early techs / landing, so I play that way. In the late game, turns can take an hour each ... so 255 techs = 255 hours, which I just don't have.

If I played with only 10 to 15 cities, I might have different views on landing, maybe like yours. And I'd probably finish faster. But I think big is better.

I might be interested in another early landing gotm, trying to resolve our differences of opinion, especially since it's becoming "me vs the world". Also, I haven't played too many landing games, so I might be wrong about trade/etc, and might learn something.

On the other hand, I have played a few landing games (see GOTMs 63 and 75), and done quite well, after many many RL hours of effort. Also, I have argued my views in several CFC threads, and after poring over the responses, remain confident. That's why I'm not 100% eager to land again, and would do it only with a cohort of highly committed players, such as you and Magic [and.. ?].

I have seen your results and I have been amazed at how soon you manage to get 1 tech per turn.

What I am not sure about is how long you can keep that up. Same kind of reasoning goes for city placement. If you place your cities close by (ICS style) it helps you a lot in the early stages of the game but it is a handicapp in the very late stages of the game if you try to max out your cities.

Peaster said:

Aarrrgh! I appreciate that you are trying to help, but that sounds like a nightmare. I really don't enjoy playing long games, for score, or for techs for landing. IMO ICS is usually the best strategy, even for early techs / landing, so I play that way. In the late game, turns can take an hour each ... so 255 techs = 255 hours, which I just don't have.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Real time is a major concern. Unfortunately for me, most of my GOTMs end up taking close to an hour per turn near the end.

One way to limit this is the size of the available land mass in the world.

Peaster said:

I might be interested in another early landing gotm, trying to resolve our differences of opinion, especially since it's becoming "me vs the world". Also, I haven't played too many landing games, so I might be wrong about trade/etc, and might learn something.

Click to expand...

First of all, the world of civ2 is pretty small. So it is you vs. a few others.

Secondly, you are at this point the top player by a long shot so what you say carries a lot of weight.

Peaster said:

On the other hand, I have played a few landing games (see GOTMs 63 and 75), and done quite well, after many many RL hours of effort. Also, I have argued my views in several CFC threads, and after poring over the responses, remain confident. That's why I'm not 100% eager to land again, and would do it only with a cohort of highly committed players, such as you and Magic [and.. ?].

Click to expand...

I remember both those games. In GOTM 63 I could not believe your speed compared to mine and the fact that you came in second in the final tally beating many more experienced landing players speaks for itself.

I am up for the challenge as long as we can agree on a time when enough real time will be available. I firmly believe that I have as much, if not more, to learn from this practice as you do.

Perhaps CharlieChuck. He's one of the few players who are higher in the HOF and plays landing games.

@Peaster....I'm not saying that my way of playing landing games is better then yours but it just fits me better. I'm always amazed how fast you develop your civ in the early part of the game.

I guess what Ali means is when developing your other cities...they boost your science and you might be able to get 2 or more techs every turn at some point in the game. This is not possible with only van deliveries. Don't know if you had more techs every turn in those GOTM games you mentioned...but it makes live a lot easier (=less RL hours playing time)....

Ali Ardavan said:

What I am not sure about is how long you can keep that up. Same kind of reasoning goes for city placement. If you place your cities close by (ICS style) it helps you a lot in the early stages of the game but it is a handicapp in the very late stages of the game if you try to max out your cities.

Click to expand...

First, I am mainly interested in early landing, rather than GOTM score, because GOTM score is largely a function of patience. Not so much as Civ2 score, but a strong player can grow faster than 3%, and slowly increase their GOTM score by playing longer. So, I think Green is a safer measure of good strategy than Gold. Based on that goal, my thinking is roughly the following [but I haven't checked the numbers]:

Typical landing game goes like this: Build up a solid civ, with low corruption, decent defenses, room to grow, etc. Start serious trading around 500AD. Start getting [at least] one tech per turn around 1500AD. Finish around 1800AD.

My ideal landing game goes more like this: ICS until approx 1AD. Start trading around 500BC. Start getting approx one tech per turn around 300AD. Finish around 700AD. I win!

So, I am not concerned about maxing my cities. I'd be happy to get 2 techs per turn more often, but it is not very important overall. I don't have to keep my trade going strong more than about 20-30 turns, but don't see why it couldn't go on much longer.

One way to limit this is the size of the available land mass in the world.

Click to expand...

I don't understand 100%. You are saying less land means fewer cities [for ICS], so less RL time required ? If so, I agree with your reasoning [for ICS players anyway. True for you too?]. But I think the distant cities are less important to EL.

I'd like the comparison game to be on a typical map, where people can test a variety of strategies, and any conclusions we make will apply widely. I'd be happy to see huts removed, to reduce luck, since that probably wouldn't favor one strategy over another. I'd prefer a map that supports trade in Hides, but won't insist on that.

First of all, the world of civ2 is pretty small. So it is you vs. a few others.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind remarks [also to Magic]. I was starting to feel lonely.

@Magic: I certainly don't blame anyone for reducing RL playing time. But in strategy discussions like this, I try to focus on the goal [eg earliest possible landing] and ignore RL time, enjoyment, etc. That's how I'd want to play a serious comparison game, where we are trying to find the "best" trade strategies [I do play some other gotms just for fun, of course].

I'm up for 255 techs, but we'd need a huge deadline to be fair to all, especially with summer coming up. I haven't got any other strategies to try, but I would be interested in seeing how an ICS style works.

Magic_gorter said:

I guess what Ali means is when developing your other cities...they boost your science and you might be able to get 2 or more techs every turn at some point in the game. This is not possible with only van deliveries. Don't know if you had more techs every turn in those GOTM games you mentioned...but it makes live a lot easier (=less RL hours playing time)....

Click to expand...

Exactly. If your main source of science is trade the max you will ever get is 1 tech per turn. If you are going after a significant number of future techs, it pays to get your empire to a stage where you can get multiple techs per turn. When I play such games I sometimes get 3 techs per turn (1 from trade, 2 from cities) in early and mid FTs and then it drops off to 2 techs per turn (1 from trade, 1 from cities) with an occasional miss when tech cost gets near its max (about FT 167).

Peaster said:

Why do you say this? Except for the arrival of special techs, reach usually increases linearly [slowly] while civ size increases exponentially [fast]. The total number of vans, and therefore the delivery bonuses, can increase at the same rate. Probably even faster, because a) trade gives a slightly better return (7%?) than civ growth (5%?) and b) an increasing percentage of cities can focus on vans, instead of defense/etc.

Click to expand...

I should have been more clear. Size could mean how many cities you have or it could mean how large your cities are. Trade (for science not for gold) is primarily a function of your reach (how far you can deliver) and city size (how large your cities are). Even with a small number of cities you can fill out the science box every turn.
Beyond a certain number of cities (10 to 30), your primary growth in science comes not from your SSC (which is close to maxed out by this point), and not from your reach (probably reached the whole world by this point in time) but from science you get from non-SSC cities. The way an EC (and to a lesser extent EL) player plays you already have what you need by this point and can afford to ignore the rest.

Peaster said:

So, I think Green is a safer measure of good strategy than Gold.

Click to expand...

I would say Green is a quicker and a different measure of good strategy since a good strategy for Blue is somewhat different than a good strategy for green.

Peaster said:

I don't understand 100%. You are saying less land means fewer cities [for ICS], so less RL time required ? If so, I agree with your reasoning [for ICS players anyway. True for you too?].

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Peaster said:

I'd like the comparison game to be on a typical map, where people can test a variety of strategies, and any conclusions we make will apply widely. I'd be happy to see huts removed, to reduce luck, since that probably wouldn't favor one strategy over another. I'd prefer a map that supports trade in Hides, but won't insist on that.

Click to expand...

I agree with the point about huts removed. I would like to add that it is better for the map to be known to remove another element of luck.

CharlieChuck said:

One thing that can't be ignored about b) is its contribution to making cities celebrate under democracy. Until you get Cure for Cancer, a city having 3 good trade routes will celebrate at a much lower % luxury. I realise this is going off on tangent, if your playing an ICS style landing you'll run out of room for growth anyway.

Click to expand...

Good point.

CharlieChuck said:

I'm up for 255 techs, but we'd need a huge deadline to be fair to all, especially with summer coming up. I haven't got any other strategies to try, but I would be interested in seeing how an ICS style works.

Click to expand...

I second that. If we are going to have 255FT challenge, it should be at least a 2 month game.

This might be an idea for celebrating when CFC is 10 years....which is october this year. We could even make it a 3 month special (last three months of the year). Of course there will be GOTM's in november and december but those will be "small" games.... perhaps special maps celebrating 10 years CFC.

Is it an idea if somebody else then me creates the map for that GOTM (the 3 month special). I still have several ideas for maps which will take a lot of time to create.

I am also thinking about a sea batlle map (not with modern boats) for next GOTM with almost only ocean tiles. That will be a total different game then we're used to play.

I love playing on special maps. The idea of a 3 month special is great. I have my own ideas but since we are digressing way too much in this thread I just placed my idea in its appropriate thread.

(By the way, Magic it is time to unsticky some of the older GOTMs. There are too many sticky ones right now.)

I will unstick them as soon as the HOF results are up. This way it's easier for me to see what my workload is. Planning to do GOTM 103 monday and then trying to do some more the next days.

Moderator Action: I copied some post of another thread and removed some text which is of topic for this thread.

If other people have some ideas for the 10 year anniversary please add them in this thread.

Actually, after a size 20 city, with the luxury slider up over 50% and your entertainers turned to scientist, along with your cities on rivers and 3 good trade routes, you can get more than one future tech per turn. You also have to watch because when you get close to 250 it starts to excelerate and you may miss the 255th one and revert back to 1 in a single turn. This may be old news, but thought that I would mention it.

If you have fifty cities, some would be your science cities. You should also have about 10 cities that are mining hills and mountains as your capitialization cities for your gold income. Your gold slider should be low, Science at 50%, and luxury over 50% depends on how your gold is coming in to rush buy caravans. Although if you stay away from all the micromanagement of vans by trying to clear your trade boxes you should have a few cities that always keep a slot empty and still produce one van per turn without rush buying them. Having your cities do the beakers instead of relying on the vans will make each turn less time consuming.

I have read where the more vans you trade per turn the more science beakers you get. I have checked and the current version that I am playing with does not allow that. In the current game I have about 30 vans, but only use about 8 of them per turn. Once the beaker box is near full I stop. In the GOTM 108 (the very long map one) I am just getting to the Vikings and it is year 2230. Even with the logistics of getting vans past the "lakes", building a few military units, controlling 40 engineers that are making hills, my turns are still only 15 minutes and I am getting one tech per turn. Once again, I would like to point out that if you can get your city producing more beakers instead of relying on vans, I think that it would be possible to obtain more techs per turn and even keep the time per turn down.

If we're trying to compare styles, we'd need a consensus on the key civ. If we're going to use the key civ to our advantage we all need to do similar things (dump techs in a similar way) to avoid it obscuring the result.

Might be easier (though a lot longer) to not include the key civ?

Ali Ardavan said:

Exactly. If your main source of science is trade the max you will ever get is 1 tech per turn. If you are going after a significant number of future techs

Click to expand...

OK - it seems we have different goals [future techs vs early landing], thus different strategies. I am surprised people are interested in FTs [see above and below].

I should have been more clear. Size could mean ...

Click to expand...

I am still a little confused by this passage, maybe again because you have FT in mind and I have EL in mind [and I am starting to forget how we got onto this]. But I think the crux of EL is how soon you can get your trade going strong, at approx 1 tech per turn. The rest isn't as important - whether you can get 2 techs per turn, celebrations for more growth, reach, etc.

I would say Green is a quicker and a different measure of good strategy since a good strategy for Blue is somewhat different than a good strategy for green.

Click to expand...

"a good strategy for Blue" ? I've seen just a few threads on this, but
nobody has ever suggested a good strategy for Blue, except for lots of coffee ! AFAIK [and I have a couple of Blues] it's not primarily about strategy, more about endurance. That's why we use GOTM score here, and why the comparison games at Apolyton and at the Polish site, for example, were based on speed, rather than Civ2 points.

Playing for 255 FTs may have its own strategies - dunno (and not sure I want to). But .... assuming several people all get 255, who wins ?

I agree with the point about huts removed. I would like to add that it is better for the map to be known to remove another element of luck.

Click to expand...

I am somewhat neutral about these. Just to point out the other side - removing huts affects best strategy [less incentive to build exploration units]. Same for an open map ... much less incentive to explore or to build MPE. So, these changes could put our conclusions about best strategy into doubt, just as luck would.

One option is to remove only the huts near our starting position, since results from the distant ones are less likely to be major game-changers. Likewise, I guess we could expose only part of the map. Just ideas.

Good point.

Click to expand...

[about ongoing routes helping celebrations]. A few people mentioned this in the trade thread, when I disparaged ongoings. I don't recall having big problems celebrating in my games, maybe because

* I may have enough ongoing routes, without really planning to [without checking old saves, I'd guess I avg about 2 routes per city in the late game [?]].
* I want to cele-grow only for short periods [approx 5-10 turns?] and don't mind raising lux in those phases. Decent bonuses should keep my econ going, even without much taxes.
* I build the happy WoWs.

So, I still think the benefits from ongoings are usually minor [in games like mine anyway], and you shouldn't normally pay 50 shields for one. But this may be worth testing.

I second that. If we are going to have 255FT challenge, it should be at least a 2 month game.

Click to expand...

Aaaaargh! Count me out! I might play a serious early landing comparison gotm, or something very similar to that [eg, first to 80 techs, or whatever]. The landing game should be on a map that is as "typical" as possible. I'm OK with most any map for other gotms, incl the 10th anniv.

Peaster said:

"a good strategy for Blue" ? I've seen just a few threads on this, but
nobody has ever suggested a good strategy for Blue, except for lots of coffee ! AFAIK [and I have a couple of Blues] it's not primarily about strategy, more about endurance. That's why we use GOTM score here, and why the comparison games at Apolyton and at the Polish site, for example, were based on speed, rather than Civ2 points.

Playing for 255 FTs may have its own strategies - dunno (and not sure I want to). But .... assuming several people all get 255, who wins ?

Click to expand...

In case of 255FT challenge the winner is the one who gets 255 FTs in fewer turns. While you need a lot of endurance for Blue, your strategy matters too. I am willing to bet we can find GOTMs where the Blue star did not go to the person who played the most number of turns. I agree with most of your points. If your goal is purely earliest landing then what you say makes sense. But if you have an eye towards blue and getting a medal then your strategy could be somewhat different.

Peaster said:

I am somewhat neutral about these. Just to point out the other side - removing huts affects best strategy [less incentive to build exploration units]. Same for an open map ... much less incentive to explore or to build MPE. So, these changes could put our conclusions about best strategy into doubt, just as luck would.

Click to expand...

Good point about huts. I still think the benefit of removing them outweights the cost though. On Marco, however, I do not agree with you. Known map means you get a snap shot of the map at the start not a continuous update. By the time you get to build Marco every rival has several cities. Besides map exchange is hardly the only benefit of Marco: tech exchange, alliances, and gifting your key civ are all important incentives.

Ali Ardavan said:

In case of 255FT challenge the winner is the one who gets 255 FTs in fewer turns.

Click to expand...

Good; in that case, the results would mean something, I think.

I am willing to bet we can find GOTMs where the Blue star did not go to the person who played the most number of turns.

Click to expand...

Sure. Skill matters a little, in the sense that a newbie might not be able to manage a Democracy or a basic trade system or even survive the AI. But between moderately skillful players, I'd pick the guy ready to play the longest.

If strategy matters for Blue, where is the evidence? In most GOTMs, only 1-2 players play for Blue, probably because it is not very exciting. It usually isn't much of a competition, and the medal goes to whoever wants it more. There is no discussion in the spoiler about "how did you get so many points?" or "what did I do wrong?". There is no high score guide [like ELG or ECG]. AFAIK there have been no comparison games at any Civ2 website based mainly on high score.

Where is the evidence of any real strategies for getting a high score ?

AFAIK you mainly reduce the AI to pets, cover the map with large celebrating cities, and make a zillion Engineers to improve terrain, til you die of boredom [At least I do]. FTs count a little, and may require slightly more skill, but you can win Blue without them. I won a Blue this way, and cannot recall making any tough strategical decisions in that entire long long game. A few decisions seemed important at the time [harbors first ? or aqueducts ?] but eventually I saw that they didn't matter.

If you enjoy playing this style, then go for it. No problem. I sometimes enjoy going for long walks. But I'm skeptical that there is much "strategy" in either activity.

On Marco, however, I do not agree with you. Known map means you get a snap shot of the map at the start not a continuous update. By the time you get to build Marco every rival has several cities. Besides map exchange is hardly the only benefit of Marco: tech exchange, alliances, and gifting your key civ are all important incentives.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more of EC games, where map exchange is arguably the greatest MPE benefit, especially for showing the locations of the AI capitals. Some strong players [eg solo] have tried playing for EC without MPE - this idea would probably work much better on an open map.

The main point was that best strategy depends partly on the rules, and the map, so we should be careful about messing with those in any serious comparison game. Speaking of new rules, the Polish GOTMs were pretty free and creative with those, and many succession games use them too. I think they are usually fun, though they haven't caught on much in CFC GOTMs. Examples: you have to irrigate every grass tile on your island before building any boats ... you start in Democracy and must stick with that ... you get extra points if you are the first to defeat the Aztecs ... you are not allowed to attack the Greeks or to build the LH. I'm generally OK with new rules and new maps in most GOTMs, including the 10th anni game, but not so OK in serious comparison games.

@ Peaster

The strategy is in getting to the 255th tech. without spending a lot of time doing it.

In order to get there you have to bypass a conquest and a landing because both of those would end the game. You have to keep the AI in check or it will build a spaceship. The space race could be avoided by playing bloodlust like in the last few GOTM's. That would take some of the strategy away.

The blue win is not the same as getting to the 255th tech. The only "main" variable besides having all of the wonders or techs in a blue win is the population. Having 50 cities at 45 pop. does not mean you are getting a tech every turn; however it does boost your civilization score. The tech slump is usually between an EC or EL and the 1900's. If you can get 50 cities at 45 pop before 1AD, you would more than likely have an "E255th" game. I am also not contradicting myself. The "mechanics" of doing that would have you through the tech tree and into future tech.

Case in point: in the last GOTM the vikings had no techs to start with. By the time I reached them in 2200 AD, they were at future tech 7 and getting a tech every two turns. They had more than 50 cities and had gotten all of their techs from Rome as they were taking over all of their cities. They had only 19 size cities at the max and hardly any trade. They were in Fundy and no celebrations. They did not have many troops and had turned the cities into Capitalization cities because they had built everything else. They also did this between 1900 and 2200. I realize that it was way past the normal ending time, but the AI did it because they did have time, NOT because it was their goal. After they started to defend against me, their research dropped to a tech every 5 turns.

I say all this because EC does not need that many tech's, just the right ones. Same goes for EL's although more techs are involved. If the AI can build 15 cities and get them to size 20 with farmland and railroads on every square between those cities in 20 turns without "too much cheating" LOL then it can be done. I am not sure if any one has kept track of how many turns on average they can research a tech. I think every 8 turns between 1000 AD and 1700 AD is pretty good. I do not mind the long games because of the anticipation of each turn, so I never tried to figure out an EC or EL game. I think though that you are looking for more challenge than you are getting with EC and EL. Getting to FT 255 may be that challenge.

I hate micromanaging the beginning of the game. probably why I cannot get an EC or EL. I understand that the more units you have the longer the turns take. So the first comparison game should probably take out the Landing Win and just be blood lust. That would keep the AI from Launching and the extra strategy of keeping this from happening.

To answer the Question about Fundy: There is no corruption so attitude contol is a lot easier. However to keep the forms of gov balanced, you can only put science at 50%. If somone ran with fundy from "Democracy" and SoL with 100% science, getting to 255 would be a piece of cake.

@timtofly: Not sure I'm getting your point. I can see how an E255 game would demand good strategy, maybe even some new ideas, and I have not intentionally disparaged that gotm suggestion [for you guys]. But I am not interested enough to spend 200 RL hours on it ... that's about 5 weeks of full-time Civ2.

I still cannot see how Blue demands good strategy, just decent Civ2 skills + endurance. Were you arguing that point ?

I don't know if there are other players who don't like to play for 255 FT....is it an idea that the 3 month GOTM could also be played as normal (conquest or landing) but for the player who like the challenge and reaches FT255 first is getting bonus points (like the way Peaster mentioned in the Polish GOTM's) and everybody who reach FT255 gets 0.15 points (the same as OCC) for the Hall of Fame.

I like the idea Peaster mentioned about special tasks (like irrigating before you may build a boat). So perhaps I will try this in a future GOTM and look if others like the idea too.

Playing for Blue is in my opinion also a matter of wanting and having time to play a lot of turns.
Not everybody is playing for an huge score and trying to win the blue star. But the times I did I made sure I build as much cities as possible and developed the terrain in a way the cities could grow as big as possible.....

There is just no other way to win blue (if you want to win it) or you must be lucky nobody was playing for an huge score.

@Peaster...the comparison game you want to play is only an early landing game instead of going all the way to FT255....Is it an idea to play that game in september??? And the others players like Ali and Charlie and ???? do they know if september is a good month to play it???

Magic_gorter said:

I don't know if there are other players who don't like to play for 255 FT....is it an idea that the 3 month GOTM could also be played as normal (conquest or landing) but for the player who like the challenge and reaches FT255 first is getting bonus points (like the way Peaster mentioned in the Polish GOTM's) and everybody who reach FT255 gets 0.15 points (the same as OCC) for the Hall of Fame.

Click to expand...

OK with me. But I don't mind sitting out a month or two under Ali's system.

In the Polish system, players got points for various tasks in the game. Example: +10 points for 255FTs, and +20 points bonus for first player to 255FT [and maybe a few more tasks, which varied each month]. These points were used to determine the gold medal. I can't recall if Civ2 points were also used. In our system, we could add points to the GOTM score, similar to the Polish method, or we could add to HOF points as you suggested.

I like the idea Peaster mentioned about special tasks (like irrigating before you may build a boat). So perhaps I will try this in a future GOTM and look if others like the idea too.

Click to expand...

I thought it was fun to play under new rules, though the Polish people weren't always clear. Also, some of the rules seemed impossible to verify, so it was partly an honor system.

Playing for Blue is in my opinion also a matter of wanting and having time to play a lot of turns.

Click to expand...

Thanks. La Fayette used to say the same thing, and I've never heard much of a counter argument.

@Peaster...the comparison game you want to play is only an early landing game instead of going all the way to FT255....Is it an idea to play that game in september???

Click to expand...

It's OK, but I might lose interest in landing/trade by then.

Peaster said:

@timtofly: Not sure I'm getting your point. I can see how an E255 game would demand good strategy, maybe even some new ideas, and I have not intentionally disparaged that gotm suggestion [for you guys]. But I am not interested enough to spend 200 RL hours on it ... that's about 5 weeks of full-time Civ2.

I still cannot see how Blue demands good strategy, just decent Civ2 skills + endurance. Were you arguing that point ?

Click to expand...

The point I am trying to make is an early Ft255 does not have to be a Blue win. The strategy lies in ramping up science to get multiple advances per turn. It does revolve around trade though. I keep bringing up GOTM 108, but case in point. What in the trade dynamic would allow two size 8 cities within 7 spaces have a 20 arrow trade route. On the other hand two 19 size cities on opposite sides of the globe while getting a huge up front bonus when the route is established only get a measley 7 arrow trade route. It is obvious that 60 arrows will allow more science beakers per turn than 21. GOTM108 forced players to build on mountains, but who did it solely for the purpose of the trade bonus from the river?

Those who have done an EL would have a better grasp on how many future techs they have before the AI launches a spaceship ending the game, or if they are so far ahead of the AI they would be able to get to FT255 before landing their spaceship.

timtofly said:

Those who have done an EL would have a better grasp on how many future techs they have before the AI launches a spaceship ending the game, or if they are so far ahead of the AI they would be able to get to FT255 before landing their spaceship.

Click to expand...

You'd probably want to crush the AI before going for FT255, so that they can't build a ship. That means destroying most of their cities, and all of their units, and sabotaging their production regularly. You'd leave a few "pet" AI cities standing, to trade with. I've played EL that way, successfully. But to me, it gets tedious quickly, since nothing much can happen after the AI are reduced that far. It is not really a game anymore. Similar to Blue IMO.

For Ali [I think], the main goal in E255 is getting more techs per turn than the other guy. To me, that is new, and slightly interesting, but not enough to play for 5 weeks straight.

Just an idea: instead of E255, the goal could be - first player to get 3 techs in one turn. I'm guessing the strategies would be about the same for either goal, but the 3 techs game would be much shorter. I do not promise to play, even in that; I'd have to think about it. It would probably completely change my trade strategy, and I'm not sure the lessons learned would apply to normal games.