G-Minor 175

[shulec]

While the general Hall of Fame is an ongoing competition, we like to run time-definite competitions between updates that we call Gauntlets. Standard Hall of Fame rules (*) still apply, but any games meeting the settings will be counted towards the Gauntlet.

[size=+1](*) Please read the >> HOF rules << BEFORE playing!
[/size]​

Settings:

• Victory Condition: Conquest (though all victory conditions must be enabled)
• Difficulty: Emperor
• Starting Era: Modern
• Map Size: Standard
• Speed: Normal
• Map Type: Any
• Required: No Tribal Villages
• Civ: Any
• Opponents: Any
• Version: 3.19.003
• Date: 10th September to 10th October 2013 25th September

Must not play as Inca.
The earliest finish date wins, with score as a tiebreaker.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Modern Era is easy at Deity level. Even Modern Era Quick speed is easy at Deity level. Could just as well change this gauntlet to Deity level.

Not sure allowing Events will matter much. At least No Tribal Villages is required.

There seems to be a new trend in making Barbarians optional. I definitely like this, though at Modern Era it may not matter much.

This G-minor is set to be two updates long rather than the usual one update. Was this intentional?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Seraiel]

I wouldn't mind if this Gauntlet were changed to Deity, for some reason I still need 100 points in a minor Gauntlet...

 

[WastinTime]

Barbs don't exist in this late of an era. (So turn on Raging to get a higher QM score!)

Huts also are not a concern, so I don't see the need to be thankful for the 'no villages' option.

 

[WastinTime]

However, Vassals are allowed.

Now I have to remember which civs capitulate the fastest.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Barbs don't exist in this late of an era. (So turn on Raging to get a higher QM score!)

Huts also are not a concern, so I don't see the need to be thankful for the 'no villages' option.

Nice tip about Raging Barbarians for QM score, but with Modern Era and Emporer level required, what would one compete for in QM with this Gauntlet?

You misunderstood my motivation for being pleased that the "No Tribal Villages" is a required option for this Gauntlet. In my opinion, Tribal Villages should be banned for all HoF play. I don't care that Technologies can't be popped from Tribal Villages in the Modern Era. I don't believe they should allowed at all; If that means no Vanilla games, that would be no great lost in my opinion; Warlords is better than Vanilla anyway for play that is somewhat similar to Vanilla.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[shulec]

This G-minor is set to be two updates long rather than the usual one update. Was this intentional?

Sun Tzu Wu

This was intentional. There seems to be waning interest in the gauntlets, so it seemed appropriate. My timing was poor as I sprung the idea on the other HoF staffers only yesterday. I have not gotten much feedback, so I have changed it to the usual interval. I foresee this change going into effect in the near future.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

This was intentional. There seems to be waning interest in the gauntlets, so it seemed appropriate. My timing was poor as I sprung the idea on the other HoF staffers only yesterday. I have not gotten much feedback, so I have changed it to the usual interval. I foresee this change going into effect in the near future.

I disagree about waning interest in gauntlets. People will play the gauntlets, if they include settings players want to play. I believe there has been a definite increase in participation, since the "No Tribal Villages" and "No Events" options have been required.

Some players have complained about several anti-competitive HoF rules. For example, eliminating the ban on "Balanced Resources" would go a long ways toward opening the HoF and the gauntlets to a wider audience of players. It is actually "Standard Resources" that should have been banned. We are stymied by HoF rules that were agreed on around the time of the Civ IV HoF Beta Tables when the players at the time did not really have sufficient time, knowledge and understanding of the game to make rules that would pass the test of time (remain as meaniful now as they did then). In my opinion, they chose rules that would make the earliest possible game dates, without realizing how magnifying the randomness made for a very unlevel playing field. The only players that are happy with such rules are those that can leverage them to win virtual unbeatable games; no one else has much interest in playing gauntlet games under rules that dilute their acheivements with unnecessary randomness.

That's my opinion on why there has been a lack of participation in the gauntlets, challenges and especially the HoF tables themselves for many years, starting shortly after the Civ IV HoF rules were established.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[kovacsflo]

Submitted a 1943 AD victory as an ice-breaker. Possibly it won't be enough, but not bad for a start.

 

[Bugio]

1938 on first try. Defentely improvable 1930 should be possible

 

[kovacsflo]

1938 on first try. Defentely improvable 1930 should be possible

Yeah, quite right. Which leader did you chose? I have chosen Montezuma, but he wasn't actually a good choice.

 

[Bugio]

I don't see anything better than fast workers in a 30 turn game, and also spi is really powerful. So Asoka seemed the obvious choiche, with gandhi you can gamble a fast GE for pentagon but it is hardly gamechanging... I would rather have him as opponent.

 

[kovacsflo]

Now 1933. Much better, yet some few turns still could be saved. Fast workers are definetly required for this gauntlet.

 

[Denniz]

Results:

G-Minor 175 - Conquest, Emperor, Modern, Standard, Normal (check options)
1^st kovacsflo 1933 AD
2^nd Bugio 1938 AD

Congratulations!