BOTM 07 Final Spoiler

[jesusin]

To me, the different AI's and their typical behaviour is a great part of civ and should stay in

The different AI's and their typical behaviour would still stay in. The only difference is you wouldn't have prior knowlegde about which behaviour corresponds to which face.

 

[Thrallia]

well I didn't even have a chance to decide whether I wanted to keep Mansa alive or not

 

[PutCashIn]

Is Zara always being a christian in game any more anal than Saladin always being Spiritual?

I guess if there was a display of what your diplomat thought thier demeanor was, say 'agressive and happy' or 'has spiked full plate with fresh blood...probably another warlord'....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

well I didn't even have a chance to decide whether I wanted to keep Mansa alive or not

Yes you did. You could've not declared war on him in the first place

 

[DynamicSpirit]

By the way, my personal opinion is that starting this game, finding that we are alone with Musa and then deciding not to kill him on the grounds that he is the only AI that trades monopoly techs is simply cheating.

Out of interest, why? Is it any different from, say building up a huge military if you discovered that you were alone with Montezuma, because you can guess what he'd do if you didn't?

So my vote (if anyone is interested) goes for checking on 'random personalities' in every single XOTM game.

FWIW I have considered the 'random personalities' option for an occasional BOTM - I think it'd put an interesting twist on the game, although for most games I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy Thunder. However the problem is that to keep the game on a level playing field, I'd need to make sure the personalities are locked in in the starting save files, so that everyone playing a given BOTM sees the same personalities, and at the moment I don't know of a way to be certain of that. (Eg. the game wouldn't be very fair if when you played, both your nearest neighbours were peaceful traders, and in someone elses game, those same AIs were Montezuma-type characters). We're not going to have a 'random personalities' game until I can solve that issue (and preferably, also find a way to edit the personalities so I can ensure the game is balanced appropriately).

 

[Jimmy Thunder]

1230AD: Musa votes for himself, all the rest abstain, I get 204 votes out of 204 needed, out of 272 total votes. Victory!

And that's what I call a nice self vote!

 

[jesusin]

Out of interest, why? Is it any different from, say building up a huge military if you discovered that you were alone with Montezuma, because you can guess what he'd do if you didn't?

It's not different at all. The cheating comes from knowing in 4000BC (or the turn you meet them) that one will dow you sooner or later and the other will trade his monopoly techs. Come on, you have just met your neghbours, take your time to make their acquitance and learn the kind of people they are.

You shouldn't be allowed to look at the future in a cristal ball to know how they will behave.

FWIW I have considered the 'random personalities' option for an occasional BOTM - I think it'd put an interesting twist on the game, although for most games I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy Thunder. However the problem is that to keep the game on a level playing field, I'd need to make sure the personalities are locked in in the starting save files, so that everyone playing a given BOTM sees the same personalities, and at the moment I don't know of a way to be certain of that. (Eg. the game wouldn't be very fair if when you played, both your nearest neighbours were peaceful traders, and in someone elses game, those same AIs were Montezuma-type characters). We're not going to have a 'random personalities' game until I can solve that issue (and preferably, also find a way to edit the personalities so I can ensure the game is balanced appropriately).

I assumed (maybe wrongly) that the personalities are assigned at map creation and so they would be the same for everybody. If they were not the same for everybody it wouldn't be a viable option for XOTM, of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's not different at all. The cheating comes from knowing in 4000BC (or the turn you meet them) that one will dow you sooner or later and the other will trade his monopoly techs. Come on, you have just met your neghbours, take your time to make their acquitance and learn the kind of people they are.

You shouldn't be allowed to look at the future in a cristal ball to know how they will behave.

Interesting idea, but that sounds to me like that's veering away from what Civ is. There's lots of things you know at the start of the game which you could argue you shouldn't know. The fact that you know them is crucial in almost any good player's strategy - I find it hard to see how you could remove all this foreknowledge without reducing Civ to little more than a game of chance. For example, when the only knowledge you have is eg. fishing and agriculture, you probably shouldn't be aware that such a thing as an 'Oracle' or a 'Pyramids' could exist, or that there's this technology called iron working that will let you clear those pesky jungles and build great city-attacking units. Does that make a CS slingshot, or beelining for iron working 'cheating'? Where would you draw the line between cheating and not cheating?

I assumed (maybe wrongly) that the personalities are assigned at map creation and so they would be the same for everybody. If they were not the same for everybody it wouldn't be a viable option for XOTM, of course.

It doesn't seem to be in the worldbuilder. I have been looking at it because I would like to try using that option. I'm sure the personalities must be assigned very close to map creation. (The existence of adventurer and challenger might make it harder too).

 

[ngraner42]

Having leaders with distinct personalities adds quite a bit of enjoyment to the game for me. There is no element of cheating since everyone has the same knowledge. It was actually an interesting choice of when or if to remove Mansa from the game; a choice that was executed very differently by different players.

 

[srad]

To me, the different AI's and their typical behaviour is a great part of civ and should stay in

I have the same opinion. Always playing against random personalities would result in a total different game and so strategy.

 

[jesusin]

Interesting idea, but that sounds to me like that's veering away from what Civ is.

Hmm, the Civ creators bothered to built in the random personalities option after all.

There's lots of things you know at the start of the game which you could argue you shouldn't know. The fact that you know them is crucial in almost any good player's strategy - I find it hard to see how you could remove all this foreknowledge without reducing Civ to little more than a game of chance. For example, when the only knowledge you have is eg. fishing and agriculture, you probably shouldn't be aware that such a thing as an 'Oracle' or a 'Pyramids' could exist, or that there's this technology called iron working that will let you clear those pesky jungles and build great city-attacking units. Does that make a CS slingshot, or beelining for iron working 'cheating'? Where would you draw the line between cheating and not cheating?

Oh, of course I feel that's cheating too! Fortunately the civ creators bothered to built in the option "you can't know exactly what you are researching"... at least in the Alpha-Centaury version.

It doesn't seem to be in the worldbuilder. I have been looking at it because I would like to try using that option. I'm sure the personalities must be assigned very close to map creation. (The existence of adventurer and challenger might make it harder too).

Good luck on your inquiries. I appreciate the efforts you do for us. And I enjoy the maps you design, with or without the random personalities option.

 

[MacBalt]

I appreciate the efforts you do for us. And I enjoy the maps you design, with or without the random personalities option.

Yeah, I've got to second this. Imho, Your maps have been especially well designed, DS. They are strategically interesting, challenging to play, and fun to compare. [Edit: I should have said "innovative" too. Never any fear of "same old, same old" when facing a DS map. ]

I can see where dealing with the same leaders & civs all the time could get boring, but whatever the particular challenges (or foreknowledge, etc.) in a game I don't think it would reduce the game to being too much based on chance so long as all the players face the same conditions (opponent personalities, for example). I love the idea of blind research, for example, but wouldn't want to play more than a game or two based on that unless we could find some way to set things up so that all players blindly researched the same techs in the same order. THAT would be an interesting game.

 

[MarkM]

I settled my part of the continent - built for Food where it made sense, cottaged most everything else, except for production squares which I mined. So no extreme path - just overall strong cities (especially Amsterdam). Traded Tech early and often with Mansa Musa (but still pretty much kept a slight Tech lead). First to Optics, shortly after 500 AD, I made the early contacts and circumnavigated first.

One of the things I was proud of this game was that I became the first to circumnavigate the world (something I usually do), but this time did it before I even built my first caravel -- in fact, I don't believe i even had astronomy yet

One of the things I'm not proud of is that I once again got the AP (I almost always shoot for it to keep it out of unfriendly hands & to get the production bonus), but did not use it in diplomacy very effectively, the only resolutions I used it for was 1) to stop trade with HC, which backfired on me because I forgot I had some important resources from him, and 2) got Darius, Liz, and HC to join in my war against WK, softening him up for me to take most of his territory (I chose to start my 2nd continent invasion in Korea, not Inca lands)

One of the things I'm ambivalent about is that, in this my fourth BTS submission, even though I've never played past the early 20th century, I wouldn't be surprised if I become a 3-time cow award winner. The temptation from Sid's Sushi + increasing seafood resources form expansion + future tech bonuses +5 religions/shrines on the starting continent + uber wall street city (Timbuktu was generating something like 1300 coins even at 0% finance!) was just too great. Towards the end it was all really snowballing, was literally adding 100+ points a turn to my base score, but I cut it short because I'd gotten too bored & had run out of time to recover my enthusiasm to see how far I could go. I had something like 80% of the world population, was fighting a war without running police state, and still had absolutely no issues with happiness or health.

 

[Thrallia]

Interesting idea, but that sounds to me like that's veering away from what Civ is.

just to let you know...that's a built-in feature of Civilization Revolution

 

[kcd_swede]

It doesn't seem to be in the worldbuilder. I have been looking at it because I would like to try using that option. I'm sure the personalities must be assigned very close to map creation. (The existence of adventurer and challenger might make it harder too).

Isn't it theoretically possible to make the BOTM start save begin after running a game with your map for 1 turn, so all the AI are established?

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I loved this game. It was a nice, lax game with a twist (exactly the type I love), in that Mansa was your only neighbour and still so close.

Settled on the banana and founded Confu before realising that noone had built the Oracle, so I chopped it and got a very late CS sling. Mansa had no religions so that made us the bestest buddies in the whole world.

Went for space, but got bored and took diplo instead after beating up and vassalising "the bad guys", Huyana and Ragnar. Can't really remember the date, probably mid 1800s. Score around 50-60k somewhere.

 

[jm4civ4]

Dikes are like a very cheap Maoui Statues in every coastal city... so the Dutch are awesome.

agree 100%

I am curious if anyone was successful using a cottage-spam economy in this game, and if so how?

Its curious to see that question, as I began learning Spec Econ since that game! I had a pure cott econ running, along with waterwheels and dikes.

I lost the game due to my poor diplomacy skills and other inadequacies but my economy produced enough steel to wipe out HC and subdue LIZ from across the ocean

I posted on page 1 of this spoiler thread if you want to read a little about my loss...I'd be happy to post the save if you'd like a peek

 

[jm4civ4]

jesusin, challenger. Goal: fastest religious victory (Gauntlet). Result: 1230AD religious victory.

The plan was not very elaborate:
1.-Spread a religion 2.-Build AP 3.-Get 75% pop somehow. 4.-Cheat around the 75% rule.

Spread my religion to the last of my cities (I was holding this as a way to manipulate the 75% threshold rule). .

Dear Jesusin,

Your write up was a great read and very useful. I fail to grasp how it helps to NOT spread the relig to all your cities asap. Would you care to elaborate?

Thanks in advance....

 

[jesusin]

Dear Jesusin,

Your write up was a great read and very useful. I fail to grasp how it helps to NOT spread the relig to all your cities asap. Would you care to elaborate?

Thanks in advance....

Sure.

With AP , there is a turn where the resident chooses what resolution to vote. The following turn, the votes are counted.

Under 3.13 there is a rule that states that, if you have enough votes to give you victory by autovoting (75% of the votes), then in the first turn you will not be able to choose the "vote for victory" resolution.

So if you go to 80% of the votes asap, you will never be able to choose the victory reolution and you will never win. However, if you go to 74.99% votes asap (but no further!), then the first turn comes and you choose the victory resolution, then in the interturn you grow pop, (or you spread the religion to more of your cities, or you build the HG that turn, or you declare the AP religion as your state religion to double your votes, or you conquer a couple of cities, etc...), then when the votes are counted you will have the required 75% and you will be able to auto vote.

I hope I was clear enough to make you understand why I call this "cheating around the rule".

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I for one, relied heavily on a CE. So much so that my main production city wasn't optimised: I failed to build farms/workshops instead of cottages.

Like others have said, dikes are awsome. Imhso the dike is probably the best UB in the game, at least on watery maps. I got dike + Moai + Iron Works in my main production city. I think it had 15 coast + ocean(?). It was probably the best production city I've ever had (all the while considering that's the weakest part of my game).