[BNW] ANY TAKERS FOR A NEW CHALLENGE SERIES?

[beetle]

I very much appreciate all the feedback!

The name that sticks out to me is Sejong, who I've regularly included in my SV attempts, and would have a low expansion bias. Is it common for Korea to really take off mid-game in a 250-350 turn game?

Yes, Sejong has low expansion bias, but he is good to have in the mix because the AI plays him well. SV is the biggest threat to a slow DOM run, so that is why I think he has be in the game.

Unless domination is the specific focus…

Domination will be the focus I am sure, if only because it is usually the most interesting way to play.

I'd suggest making a point of having 'well rounded', strong AI in terms of their advantages and more common victory condition.

I think the entertaining mix will be civs that either routinely eliminate other civs, or put time pressure on the human player.

…I would put in a vote for Pachacuti

I like the idea of an AI that consistently plays a strong tourism game, but RNG is such that most any of them can be a CV threat. I did think of Pachacuti for the mountains, but it turns out that the Donut script does not have the usual options for terrain and world age.

I tried Ring, and picked Forest for dominate terrain, but there was not an option for world age. Also, my game only had four CS, so it may be that the Ring script is buggy.

 

[Grendeldef]

Solid civs offered to fill the pack but I'd add Hiawatha and Pocatello to those to do well in the hands of AI. Both are also keen on ICSing hence tend to grow to be more or less serious annoyances in the game and are hard to bribe for wars and they are unlikely to go Piety which frees the hammers for something useful.
Germany is one which can successfully turn a military game into science and vice versa while Pachacuti rarely does badly on his own, is more versatile than the other ones here and moreover he's very keen on the GW which makes/can make him very slow to conquer.

While Pacal is easy mode in the hands of a player it's a pushover by the AI - easy workers in the beginning, nice wonders in the mid-game and almost non-existent opposition in the end. Darius can be anything and under-performs regularly but can be a real threat, Cathy isn't consistently good as she goes Piety too often. Rome oddly rarely grows big enough - maybe Augustus is fundamentally lazy or something.

The list of good civs played by human vs those in the hands of an AI varies quite a bit. In general I'd stay away from civs that have tendency of going Piety apart from Poland and the Aztecs to a lesser degree.

 

[beetle]

Thanks @Grendeldef, the problem is that there are actually too many to choose from! Attila has not been doing well in my two early test games, I guess maybe all the forest is hampering his UA?

Since one idea behind this is to sort out which civs the AI plays best, it could be safe to skip Casimir and Shaka. I will definitely keep Sejong and Alexander in though, as they bring value in making sure the player’s DOM run does not take too long!

 

[Grendeldef]

Yeah, I think solid arguments for at least a dozen opponents can be made in this type of scenario but as always as Shaka is present the starting position matters - a lot and I think the first question is whether to include Shaka or not.

Shaka, Alex, Casimir, Sejong, Hiawatha, Pocatello/Pachacuti & Monty would be a formidable opposition but Shaka & Sejong shouldn't start next to each other

 

[beetle]

…Shaka & Sejong shouldn't start next to each other

Is that because Sejong is too soft a target for Shaka? Should I re-roll the map if the player starts out next to Sejong?

 

[Grendeldef]

Basically yes and if Sejong is supposed to act as a sci threat in the game it won't happen side by side with Shaka but it's your map and scenario so you do as you please - I'll be happy to participate either way.

 

[Blatc]

A slow start on rough terrain will likely hurt Attila enough that he may not warrant being included.
Agree that, if Sejong starts beside Shaka, that pretty much wastes including Sejong.

 

[Grendeldef]

Oops, sloppy reading from by part but if as suggested Sejong is supposed to focus on sci and keep up the threat of actually winning the game I'd keep him away from both myself and Shaka.

A bit late here but if Shaka is present the case for including Darius in top 7 has a lot more merit. Out of the AI civs he's one of if not the best equipped to deal with pre T100 Shaka.

 

[beetle]

Okay, first game is up. I can’t seem to survive past turn 150, so it should be challenging enough for the lot of you! I posted a lite version, which might well end up being the one that I play.

 

[beetle]

…I think the first question is whether to include Shaka or not.

I should have given this observation more thought before posting my first try with this. Part of the fun with this is figuring out which civs are merely third tier for the AI to play. Casimir, Shaka, Alexander, and Sejong are clearly first tier. Alexander and Sejong are in the series because of the time pressure they put on the player. But I can skip Casimir and Shaka because everyone already knows that the AI does quite well with them!

 

[raider980]

I definitely think Shaka should be left out. He will bias the results because whichever civ is next to him is going to be screwed for that particular game. Also, agree with your comment in the other thread about using flat land as the base.

Regarding the map, although I really like it from a human player perspective, I think Ring will tend to alter the normal AI behavior. I played a little of the Poland game and basically each civ has its own starting area that is physically isolated from everyone else. I would think this would tend to benefit the Tradition type civs who like to turtle and hurt the expansionist civs. I think Donut would be better, or have you looked at the Oval map? What would really be interesting is to play games on both Donut and Oval/Pangea and see if there's any difference in AI strength - but that would be a lot of games!

One other question that I forgot to ask. Are we going to play the same civ throughout the eight games or switch civs each game?

 

[Grendeldef]

I think leaving Shaka out would be beneficial for the series and based on the The Huns challenge would probably produce more results/general interest. Including/excluding Poland will not make huge difference either way.


edit. simultaneous posting...

Are we going to play the same civ throughout the eight games or switch civs each game?

I assume & hope we'll be using all 8 civs.

 

[beetle]

I think Donut would be better, or have you looked at the Oval map?

Donut would probably be better, but I think it would get boring after a few maps. The Oval map is just a very round Pangea.

What would really be interesting is to play games on both Donut and Oval/Pangea and see if there's any difference in AI strength - but that would be a lot of games!

Yes, too many games. I am making something of an assumption that Ring/Donut is not messing with the AI too much. Pangea, in my experience, has too much variability with starting dirt for this particular experiment.

One other question that I forgot to ask. Are we going to play the same civ throughout the eight games or switch civs each game?

We will switch civs each game, which is why it will be an eight game series instead of some other number.

 

[beetle]

New game is up. I will apologize a bit in that I picked Attila, who we just had in the CDG series. OTOH, this first games looks to me like is much more like a typical Hun start. And if you are one someone who cannot stand repetition, my versus series is really going to bore you!