Beyond the Sword: GOTM Implementation Issues

[ImperialGuard]

IMHO The only glaring thing that Warlords has over the Vanilla is an improved AI.....it's a night and day difference between the two. I almost "hate" playing the vanilla, cause it is not challenging unless you get to the upper difficulty levels (which is just more cheats for the AI) ....

If the vanilla could be augmented with Blakes AI, then there would not be a great difference between Vanilla and Warlords (again IMHO)

I think the staff said it was alot of work to incorporate Blakes AI into the vanilla HOFMOD though ...

 

[Thrallia]

I greatly prefer Warlords over Vanilla because of the Unique Buildings and improved AI...I prefer a smarter AI over a more cheating AI...it feels like I have a better chance against them at higher levels.

However, I think that simply deciding not to do a GOTM for either Warlords or Vanilla based on differences isn't a good idea. I think it'd be better to see what games are more popular as we get there...and indeed, perhaps even do 3 OTMs at a time for a short time to see which ones are preferred in general.

I know that means more workload for the staff, but I'd be willing to help out with any of that I could, and I think with some added help setting it up, it might not be too much more overall workload to sustain it...and if it is and its decided to keep all 3 versions, then I'm sure there'd be volunteers to help out on an ongoing basis.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I greatly prefer Warlords over Vanilla because of the Unique Buildings and improved AI...I prefer a smarter AI over a more cheating AI...it feels like I have a better chance against them at higher levels.

I don't understand. Warlords gives you an AI that is smarter while simultaneously being equally 'cheating', it doesn't give you an 'instead'. How does Warlords give you a better chance? I was under the impression that Warlords higher levels were harder than the same levels on vanilla???

 

[DynamicSpirit]

IMHO The only glaring thing that Warlords has over the Vanilla is an improved AI.....

There is another glaring difference (at least for me, dunno about anyone else?): Vanilla, with the latest patches, is stable and performs reasonably well on a medium-spec machine. Warlords OTOH I find to be fairly unstable - it still suffers unpredictable crashes, and has horrendous problems with freezing up at regular intervals.

it's a night and day difference between the two. I almost "hate" playing the vanilla, cause it is not challenging unless you get to the upper difficulty levels (which is just more cheats for the AI) ....

I agree with you that I prefer playing Warlords (or at least, I would if it wasn't for the crashes and freezes). However, general point to everyone saying we should scrap vanilla GOTMs because warlords is 'better': The problem remains that if you scrap the vanilla GOTMs then, unless Firaxis changes the way it packages Civ, you automatically bar everyone from a GOTM who hasn't bought Civ AND separately bought an expansion pack. For me, that's the killer argument that says we need to keep the vanilla GOTMs (and perhaps consider scrapping the WOTMs if the aim is to keep just two GOTMs a month).

 

[Thrallia]

well...it is true that on equal levels, the warlords AI is just plain harder than the vanilla AI because of the intelligence difference and the cheats...but I tend to compare Warlords levels to Vanilla+1...which I feel is a fair comparison(possibly more than fair) and which gives me the feeling I'll play a better game in Warlords than in Vanilla...I may be completely off my rocker, but my 3 highest finishes in the combined rankings have all come on Warlords(once I got past the point of dying off in 3 straight WOTMs lol)

 

[da_Vinci]

I think we will want to keep vanilla, mainly because that is the entry level of Civ for new site members, I suspect. Assuming that attracting new participants to the (S)XOTM series is an important goal, vanilla will always have a place.

I know that I only had vanillla when I started in the GOTM series (some may say that is an argument to scrap it! )

dV

 

[ImperialGuard]

I agree with you that I prefer playing Warlords (or at least, I would if it wasn't for the crashes and freezes). However, general point to everyone saying we should scrap vanilla GOTMs because warlords is 'better': The problem remains that if you scrap the vanilla GOTMs then, unless Firaxis changes the way it packages Civ, you automatically bar everyone from a GOTM who hasn't bought Civ AND separately bought an expansion pack. For me, that's the killer argument that says we need to keep the vanilla GOTMs (and perhaps consider scrapping the WOTMs if the aim is to keep just two GOTMs a month).

Agreed ... I think we should go with "Vanilla CIV4" but augment with Blakes AI (which what makes Warlords AI so good!)

 

[Harbourboy]

Warlords OTOH I find to be fairly unstable - it still suffers unpredictable crashes

Really? It has never crashed on my PC. I guess those are probably going to turn out to be famous last words.....

 

[Thrallia]

I've actually found Warlords 2.08 to be more stable than Vanilla 1.61...I've had vanilla crash once and never had warlords crash

I think I may just be lucky though, as I've never really had any crash issues...not even with vanilla 1.00(although though I did have slowdown that made me search out Harkonnen's patch)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess what actually happened is that Warlords changed which machines suffered the crashes - probably Firaxis attempted to fix the crashes they knew about and ended up causing other problems.

Guess I got unlucky with warlords (but lucky with vanilla)

 

[Lexad]

Haven't noticed Warlords to be more "crushy".

And I wouldn't be overoptimistic towards Blake's AI, the way it makes workers change towns (not cottages) to farms and then back over and over again, or first irrigate resource overed by jungle (spending 8 extra turns on Epic), and then building appropriate improvement over it makes me grind my teeth.

 

[Thalatta]

Maybe all three could rotate, keeping two games a month? Or are there a lot of people that still have only vanilla?

I like Warlords more than vanilla, but I think it would be a shame to drop either one. I'm a big fan of the improved AI - it has its quirks, but overall the smarter AI is more fun to play against, even if it's harder - and the other aspects of Warlords have grown on me as I've played it more. The UBs add a whole lot more to the game than was apparent when Warlords came out and the expansion adds other complexities and features that are subtle, but strong improvements.
However, since vanilla is different enough to stand on its own and is the original, it doesn't make sense not to play it.

How Beyond the Sword is, of course, affects how things are done.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Maybe all three could rotate, keeping two games a month?

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.

 

[scooter]

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.

I really like this idea too, I don't know what to do about the game name, but this would be pretty cool. Might be kinda tricky remember what days what games close and stuff, but still would be fun.

 

[Thrallia]

well, Game of the Month could just be the 'brand name' of the competition, just as the SGOTMs don't actually take place once per month, but rather over 3-4 months.

and to specify, I like Daviddes' idea...it would also allow the mapmakers to try out a marathon game or large map game sometimes, such as was done over the Christmas holidays recently.

 

[MarkM]

I would love it if we could run all three, on a 45-day cycle, so that there is a new game starting every 15 days, and we could allow 45 days to complete each game. That would substantially increase the number of games I would finish.

It does make the "Game of the Month" name a bit archaic.

I like that idea too, the only fear I have concerns the 45 day open period, as it is I barely remember games by the time the scores come out, I fear this might make it worse if I finish the game quickly. I told myself that the reason I want to play GOTM is to learn from comparing my strategies to others', but by the time the results come out it's just really hard to recall details anymore, so I haven't done a lot of that -- I get a lot out of reading the spoilers, but the replays are just too late.

 

[ccccc]

I think we will want to keep vanilla, mainly because that is the entry level of Civ for new site members, I suspect. Assuming that attracting new participants to the (S)XOTM series is an important goal, vanilla will always have a place.

For what it's worth, my first GOTM is a WOTM, because I loves the Warlords. *shrug* you may still be right though.

 

[Stormreaver]

I think one big piece of information we still lack is needed before a decision can be made:

Will BTS include all changes in gameplay introduced in Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings and so on)?

If so, then I think WOTM could be scrapped, if not... I'm not quite sure, actually.

Or go with all three. I'd be just as fine, most months I can't play more than one game anyway, so I could pick the one I'd feel like playing each month.

 

[MarkM]

I think one big piece of information we still lack is needed before a decision can be made:

Will BTS include all changes in gameplay introduced in Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings and so on)?

If so, then I think WOTM could be scrapped, if not... I'm not quite sure, actually.

Or go with all three. I'd be just as fine, most months I can't play more than one game anyway, so I could pick the one I'd feel like playing each month.

Well, it's official. BTS will include all the functionality of the Warlords core game -- yay! (just not scenarios, etc). So I think this means eventually the WOTM should go the way of the dodo, the two games should be GOTM and BTSOTM; the only question is the timing of the switch. Perhaps that can be driven by either 1) pollings/survey of current WOTM players, and/or 2) waiting for first patch to come out for BTS. Although of COURSE it will be perfect as shipped

added: ... and of course 3) when the HOF mod can be adapted to it.

 

[da_Vinci]

So BTS is an expansion of the basic Civ 4, rather than an expansion to Warlords, right? But it will include great wall, trebs, etc from warlords I assume. That means that there will be a group of players who will own vanilla and BTS but not WL. Perhaps there will be a group of players who will own Vanilla and WL but not BTS. Depending on which one is either larger or louder in the GOTM forum, that will eventually determine which two versions go forward in the GOTM series (if we don't pursue all three).

My sense is that perhaps BTS will be enough like WL not to have both, and the value of vanilla as entry level to the GOTM may clinch it to remain as well.

dV