Future GOTM Map Suggestions

[starlifter]

If we think about games in 3 types based on expected playtime, short (expect less than 20 hours or so), medium (roughly 20 to 40 hour), long (the "normal" full GOTM)... then if there is a 6 month or 12 month general plan (not the specific maps, but the general type), then for the "long" type (3 or 4 of these per year) can and really should have at least 2 months to submit. Not becuase it necessarily takes 2 months to complete, but so that a person's schedule (work, school, tests, travel, etc.) give a larger window of opportunity to actually play the game.

It would be a shame if a person could play a September long (for example), but had the game time to do it a week after it had to be submitted. Better to just extend and advertise well in advance the submission window. And even better, is to ensure that a "long" can cover at least one "holiday" period. Some people have more time outside of holidays, some have more during holidays... but giving the option may allow more people to play.

In any event, a "long" game should have more than a 1 month window . Its still a "Monthly" game, but some games take more months than others .

Between "longs" can be "shorts" (OCC, probably) and "specials" (like scenarios, surprises, unusual challenges, etc.).

Some more information/possible ideas are also in this thread, "GOTM with 10 Cities".

 

[Peaster]

Scenarios seem a good answer to many of these desires, but for some reason they have never caught on, as least as comparison games [though LaFayette and I tried]. Everyone would have to use MGE, I guess, which might block some people from playing.

We have played some gotms in scenario mode (perhaps these starting saves are "mod-packs" rather than "scenarios"? I'm not sure of the lingo). I think they have been mostly successful, but you can't change the game as much as in a true MGE-style scenario.

For those who like variety, a simple solution, used for years in the Polish gotms, is to impose new rules. Magic experimented with this recently by forcing us to irrigate our island before building any boats, and it seemed to work well. Of course, the 10-city idea, the Fundamentalism game, etc fit this description and there are endless alternatives.

Overall, I think it is amazing that we are still playing GOTMs after 10 years, and that the system is working pretty well as it is. Certainly, we can experiment with different rules, settings and formulas but I am wary of systemic changes. For example, I am less likely to play in gotms that require OCC or landing, and I hope those don't come to dominate future GOTMS. Others may feel this way about bloodlust. I slightly prefer un-revealed maps. In general, the Civ2 designers pretty much got it right. But experiments are fine - and I doubt they scare many people away for long. Most of us don't have time to play every GOTM anyway.

If interested, I think there is a related thread here on "what was your favorite gotm?".

 

[Magic_gorter]

One of the thinks I want to do more often in future gotm is to think of some special rules. One I certainly will play is without ships and no marco polo..... Just like the current succession game. I also have a few scenario like games but I need time to make the maps. I do realize we need more short games. But only occ games won't be the right solution. Perhaps some games can have a short goal like the first to discover democracy or the first to have 100 cities. Erhaps others have more ideas or new maps.

 

[mackerel]

From time to time a thread pops up like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=416565
in which somebody asks for advice on their hopeless game and several of us respond in ways that show depth of interest. Already he's being overwhelmed by enemy aircraft, his situation is dire. He's looking at a situation that, if it is winnable at all, will involve protracted combat and unimaginable sacrifice. It's probably 1970, the starting position was what we would call squandered, he didn't know about ICS or trade or PDS, vital wonders may be in the wrong hands, and he's about 3 turns from throwing in the towel.
That's where the GOTM I have in mind starts. We know we can build great empires, even given a severely disadvantaged start on the wrong size of a mountain and glacier maze. Can we rescue a hopeless empire from extinction?

 

[Major Advantage]

There are a lot of ideas mentioned here that I like.
If a game is supposed to take huge RL time, you could allow 2 months for that and set up a quick game as the next one. I also like Magic's idea about special winning conditions. I suppose we all have landed on Alpha centauri or conquered the world plenty of times, so to shorten the time to finish there could be other goals like a certain tech or a wonder we have to build. Maybe there could be some adjustment made to the score formula to reward earliness for such games.
Another point is the "bad-headstart" that mackerel mentioned: Taking over a game that has been played terribly until, I would suggest about 500 AD (or maybe even more). I think I still know how to play "stupid", so I would volunteer to create such a start. (First rule that crosses my mind: Pick techs that the science advisor advises )
But still I a totally agree with Inkerman's comment in the other thread, GOTM is like being a child before christmas and looking at the next GOTM feels like opening the next door of your advent calendar (assuming that you have that custom where you live).

 

[Inkerman]

My post in another forum discussing much the same topic as referenced by Jokemaster above. Starlifter, Magic_gorter and Ali_Ardavan have also posted on this topic over there.

 

[Catwalk]

I'd like to try an Island Hopping Challenge GOTM:
The more cities you build on the same island, the more you're penalized.

This encourages you to seek out new lands and to only build in lucrative locations rather than swarming all over the place in a heartbeat. My suggestion for the implementation of this penalty is to make it progressively more expensive to found new cities on the same island (based on how many cities you already have on the island) by requiring you to disband a number of settlers (corresponding to the number of cities) before you can build a new city. This is an idea I'm toying with for my mod, I'd love to have it playtested extensively

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I have several more custom designed maps I would like to suggest playing on. I will post details soon.

This morning I had an idea for a game, that though not map related, I have no better place to suggest it than here.

We are playing as Celts on a game-generated map. The luck of the Irish is with us and we get a pot of gold with 1000 coins right at the start.

Since this is a huge advantage, and the AI is pretty bad at managing unusual circumstances, I suggest we play OCC only.

 

[Major Advantage]

Nice idea. But we should be playing someone green and be custom-named "Irish".

On further ideas, the game I enjoyed most in my one year of playing GOTMs was the one we played the Vikings and had to exchange freights between our cities, so I would be happy to have another game with completely alternated rules and/or victory conditions. I'm trying to think of something...

 

[Ali Ardavan]

This 100x100 round world consists of a southern continent and a northern continent hugging the poles and spanning around the world. The southern continent is very green and vacant. Northern continent has some dry spots and is home to Mongols. There is another small continent shaped like a pentagon right in the middle. The human player, playing the orange civ, is right in the middle of this continent. The remaining 5 rivals are on the 5 corners of the pentagon.

The pentagon is large enough so that no two capital cities share a tile yet small enough that each capital's border touches that of some other capital.

The challenge here is to win before Mongols do. Will you keep the peace among your neighbors or annihilate them and send their reincarnation to a much better place (the southern continent)? When venturing out of the pentagon will you go for a colony in Mongolia first or a colony in the southern bountiful continent? Are you adventurous enough to try OCC here knowing that late game multilateral warfare is all but inevitable?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Perhaps you would be interested in the attached scenario (currently a work in progress).

The scenario takes place in the large "Ellingsworth Archipelago" where many islands are separated by more than 7 squares (transports can't make the "jump" in one turn), so there should be significant naval warfare. The technology is early modern, but research will be an option (it will be expensive, but not prohibitively so).

The Egyptians are the nation meant for play, a small nation over a handful of islands. At the start of the scenario, they must hold off invasion by the Romans. The current player goal is to inflict a decisive defeat on the Romans, by keeping the Romans below a certain number of objectives (say 5) for 5 turns (victory would also occur the moment the Romans are completely eliminated). This could easily be changed to a more general conquest goal.

The other regional powers are the Vikings and the Persians; both of them are larger than the Egyptians.

The orange civ is an alliance of small independent nations that specialize, in part, in providing financial services to international clients. All these cities have highways and airports, making them lucrative trade destinations.

The purple civ represents territories that are dependent to nations outside the region.

The green civ represents various undeveloped tribes that still exist throughout the region. Most cities are found in inhospitable terrain. The economic value of the cities does not warrant conquest, but some of the cities may be of strategic value.

A couple of special rules may apply, such as no shipchains and restrictions on trading with enemies.

 

[Magic_gorter]

Both sounds interesting. And some fresh maps/ideas are welcome at the moment (pretty busy again in RL)...

Let me know (pm) when those games are ready to play....

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Prof. Garfield,
Sounded interesting. I downloaded and looked at the starting map and it definitely looks as interesting as you explain it. I say finish up your work in progress (whatever it is) and present this as one of the GOTMs this summer.

Magic,
I have a few more maps that I would like to propose as well. Going from the map to a game takes some extra effort though which is yet to be done. I would love to prepare one of the games this summer. Let me know which and I will plan ahead.

One more thing. Only once, in the GOTMs that I have been involved with, we have played a custom map more than once. If it was up to me, I would say we play the pentagon once as OCC and once otherwise.

 

[Magic_gorter]

Prof. Garfield,
Sounded interesting. I downloaded and looked at the starting map and it definitely looks as interesting as you explain it. I say finish up your work in progress (whatever it is) and present this as one of the GOTMs this summer.

Magic,
I have a few more maps that I would like to propose as well. Going from the map to a game takes some extra effort though which is yet to be done. I would love to prepare one of the games this summer. Let me know which and I will plan ahead.

One more thing. Only once, in the GOTMs that I have been involved with, we have played a custom map more than once. If it was up to me, I would say we play the pentagon once as OCC and once otherwise.

This is possible but I think they should be seperated with a couple of months.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I agree. And we should have a game with little RL requirement in between. How about June for one and August for the other?

 

[Magic_gorter]

If prof Garfield can finish his game before august I would play the 2nd game in september.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

No problem. It won't take all that long to finish up, although I'll want to do a little bit of playtesting, and perhaps make some alterations.

I have no idea how long this scenario will actually take to play, both in real time and in turns. I've made the scenario 240 turns long, but the GOTM's proposed rules will have provisions for longer games.

Here's a preview of the game's scoring system:

Green Star: First player to bring the Romans down to 20 objectives (5 less than they start with).

Medals: Awarded to the players who bring the Romans down to 5 or less objectives the fastest (and keep them there for 5 turns).

Blue Star: First player to reach 70 objectives (of 86) and hold them for 3 turns.

Red Star: Awarded to anyone who survives 240 turns (and to anyone who eliminates all rivals).

The Green star will reward a quick retaliation. The medals are for the main goal of the scenario. The Blue Star is a prize for pursuing a "conquest option." The Red Star exists mainly as a reward to players for sticking with a game even if they don't think they'll be able to turn the tide of the war. The conquest provision ensures that players don't have to drag out the game for a red star if they desire one and are more successful.

 

[Caias Jupiter]

Random maps certainly do add an exciting element to the game. Of course custom maps can also be very interesting to play, especially once all the players know the advantages and disadvantages of the map.

I've recently put together a scenario with a map that seeks to give each player the exact same start. It's also very small, relative the movement rate of ships, such that the game is quick with excitement potential. I've added a central objective so that the 4 players can each vie for it, like "capture the flag" or "battleship". If you try it certainly let me know if I've achieved my directive, or how I can improve it. It's called "Ape Island" and you can download it on the downloads section.

 

[Caias Jupiter]

I have played a lot with the map editor and I can tell you the random maps it generates are anything but random. They all follow the same pattern even when you change the parameters.

I too have played a lot with the map editor/generator and have never figured out how to get a lot of hills? IN the in game map generator it's common to get a map that could be 60% hills (so it seems) but with the map generator it's tough to get 2% or even 3 % hills? Tips?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I've had an idea about a new Game of the Month concept, and I would like to know what others think about it. I propose to play a game (or, perhaps, even a series of games) where the goal is to finish in the shortest amount of real time instead of the smallest number of turns.

In my view the possible inconveniences of this kind of comparison play are as follows:
1. Some machines may run more quickly than others, which might impact the comparison.
2. Comparison must be made using self-reported information, which the player could forget to keep or make a mistake with.

I can think of the following advantages to having real-time comparisons.

1. It would change the real-time commitment involved in ranking highly in the GOTM. Instead of having to spend lots of time in order to shave off a few turns, better play would in fact require less time.

2. It would open up new areas of civ 2 research because real time optimization is very different from turn optimization.

3. We could discover a relatively simple set of rules and principles to offer newcomers to the forum to improve their game, rather than trying to immediately induct them into the highly advanced strategies we practice.

4. It might become easier to relate to those who aren't interested in playing civilization as a world-wide shipping company, and we could better offer them advice that suits their preferred play style.

Something else to consider:

Players wouldn't keep logs of their gameplay (this would slow them down), but they might instead give a general description of how they played the game to minimize time.