1st Spoiler at 1000bc?

[Memento]

In many Games a lot of Players win in the AA.
Is it possible that we make a QSC Spoiler?

 

[Lanzelot]

Might be a good idea. I noticed that most of the time the second spoiler is empty anyway. So why not have one for QSC, one for rest of AA + MA and the final one?

Lanzelot

 

[Megalou]

I doubt it. It would be hard to decide what should be allowed to discuss. For the sake of game integrity horses, luxuries and iron should not be shown at this date. Especially in C3C, where world maps cannot be traded with Map Making, I often fail to discover resources, maybe not in the core area but 5-10 tiles outside it, well after 1000 BC. And what about land bridges? If a spoiler reveals a land bridge to a player who hasn't found it in 1000 BC it would be a disaster for game integrity. (Yes, I don't always find the land bridges either; GOTM100 is a painful reminder of this.

I think it would be much more valuable if more people but a lot of effort into their spoilers. Many of the timelines that are posted could do with a lot of revising to make them more rewarding for other players. If a 1000 BC spoiler is introduced it is likely that the spoilers will be less meaningful than today, when the necessary limitations are applied. After all, there is still a QSC competition which is excellent for comparing early endeavours.

I noticed that most of the time the second spoiler is empty anyway. So why not have one for QSC, one for rest of AA + MA and the final one?

What difference does it make if the second spoiler is emptyish if the first one is throbbing with excitement? I'm happy if the interest for this old game can make even one spoiler exciting.

 

[PaperBeetle]

I think the suggestion has some merit; the rules for when you can read / post in the thread don't change, so the risk of being spoilered about something like unexplored geography or unmet contacts remains the same. The only difference is that you choose to end your narrative at 1000bc instead of the end of the era.
In writing my spoilers (back when I used to be assiduous in posting such things, ahem) I always slightly resented the final between-QSC-and-medieval paragraph. Presentation of QSC stats seemed a more satisfying way to end the spoiler. I'll try doing it that way next time...

 

[Megalou]

Sorry, double post

 

[Megalou]

the rules for when you can read / post in the thread don't change, so the risk of being spoilered about something like unexplored geography or unmet contacts remains the same.

If the discussion is limited to QSC stats, excluding extra information like "dyes connected" or "5 contacts," I see no problem at all. There could be good discussions about why someone has better stats.

But if the limitations are the same as for the Middle ages I don't see how the risk of being spoilered can be "the same." There is a wide variety of games and in some cases iron may only just have been disovered in 1000 BC. In some games some people will have found iron and some will not. And if you have no contacts and someone else has 5, you would probably start building galleys in a hurry. This is very different compared to learning about those 5 contacts at the end of the middle ages: If you haven't put your money on suicide galleys by then it won't make a big difference. In 1000 BC Map Making is often a very new tech.

If the only rule for participating is to reach the year 1000 BC, publishing maps must be 100% banned. If it isn't, there will be a considerably greater risk of spoilers. I would hate to see even 1 ocean tile that is unexplored in my game. But what do I care? I wouldn't visit such a page anyway. I am a different category of player than those who want to see how their spreadsheet worked out. Even Civfanatics are different among themselves and there is no harm in that.

 

[PaperBeetle]

When I say the rules don't change, I mean you would still have to hit medieval (or have completed the game) in order to post & discuss your progress. The only difference is that you choose not to discuss the things that happen between QSCbc and the end of the era, in a purely artificial attempt to (a) focus the discussion on QSC stats and (b) increase the need for traffic on the second spoiler thread.
Of course, occasionally one reaches medieval before QSCbc, so there is technically a situation where a player would have to mention out-of-scope things when posting his QSC stats. But I don't see a spoiler risk there - it's not like anyone ever reached Astronomy or Gunpowder in a QSC. Did they?

 

[civ_steve]

Civ3 is set up to have these abrupt era changes, which really make ideal breaks for spoilers; all players are guaranteed to have the same techs, therefore have the same resource visibility (although maps and contacts will vary somewhat or a lot). The QSC was developed as a training aid for new players, and to help focus players on better planning for their game; a good first 80 turns usually sets up the remainder of your game, so providing information from a good QSC is very helpful for players who are struggling or just getting by.

I appreciate the discussion and the intent of this thread. I'm seeing 3 issues being raised.

1.) Some games are concluded in the AA, so a QSC spoiler entry followed up by a end-of-game spoiler may be a better split of game information. These are still pretty rare, and even in these games some players will give late game victories, so a change to support the creation of spoilers entries for AA victories isn't strongly warranted IMO. Also, a player can choose to make spoiler entries in this manner for these types of games as is; put a QSC report in the first spoiler and a how-I-finished-them-off entry in the final spoiler. From a personal point of view I've always thought the way the player concluded the AA was a very important part of the game, for the majority of games; for me it's the final movement of the early game strategy initiated with the QSC period. I'm not sure I'd want to delegate it always to being lumped in with game-submittal spoilers or the Middle Ages for that matter.

2.) Low # of entries in MA focused spoiler #2. I've noticed this as well, I believe usually in the low difficulty games. Perhaps for Monarch and lower we could skip Spoiler #2.

3.) Lack of detail in the QSC to end-of-AA period. Well, spoiler participation (and quantity/quality) is voluntary, but a robust spoiler participation for G/COTM is very desirable. You can always ask for more information if you feel something of value is missing in the spoiler (and often you do!)

I think I would suggest staying with entry of MA as requirement for reading and participation in the first Spoiler, but add a focus for QSC reporting. And drop Spoiler #2 for low level games (keep it for Emperor and higher.)

 

[Lanzelot]

I think I would suggest staying with entry of MA as requirement for reading and participation in the first Spoiler, but add a focus for QSC reporting. And drop Spoiler #2 for low level games (keep it for Emperor and higher.)

Sounds like a good solution to me!

Usually the most interesting spoiler is the AA spoiler, because that's where 99% of the games are decided, so here is where a good strategy pays off the most. In the spoilers for the later ages you can learn a neat trick here or there on how to speed up the game by a couple of turns, but in most cases there are no longer game-deciding strategies to be discussed. (Perhaps for Diplo and Space the MA are still important.)

 

[Più Freddo]

Perhaps for Diplo and Space the MA are still important.

This is why there is a #2 spoiler.

For Conquest and Domination, the MA is usually extremely important, but

• How would one write an interesting spoiler about hundreds of Knights on a Spearman-killing spree?
• The Middle Ages are in these cases usually reported in the final spoiler

This is why there are so few entries in the #2 spoiler.

 

[Più Freddo]

add a focus for QSC reporting. And drop Spoiler #2 for low level games (keep it for Emperor and higher.)

Dropping yet another spoiler is fine. "Adding focus" probably doesn't hurt, but I don't see that it will have any effect. Which is just fine.

This game series is quite mature and doesn't need a lot of experimentation.

 

[Lanzelot]

This game series is quite mature and doesn't need a lot of experimentation.

Hmm, perhaps we should all switch to Civ4 and now "solve" that game as well...

But seriously: I guess you have a point here. There aren't that many new strategies or brilliant tricks coming up anymore. The first time SirPleb wrote about his stunning GLib exploits or DaviddesJ about RCP, it was a spark of creative genius. But now these things have become standard tools in everybody's arsenals, so no need to write about it again game after game.

However, once in a while some still has a clever idea that hasn't be seen before (like ignas' excellent idea of how to use the religious trait for a fast domination in GOTM103), and these are then the spoilers I enjoy a lot.