BTS - HOF Rules - Game Options Discussion

[Shoot the Moon]

I think the argument for having Random Events as Player's Option is that there shouldn't be a significant advantage either way, so it shouldn't be forced on way or the other. I for one, don't find Random Events that enjoyable and would rather play with them off. From a HoF standpoint, that is actually to my disadvantage, because the theoretical best game would be one in which you get only (or mostly only) positive Random Events, and thus I am actually limited in my potential. In almost every other option, where the game is not significantly changed, if the player wants to slightly handicap themselves, they are allowed to do that and I think that precedent should be followed here by leaving it as Player's Option.

 

[ori]

I just found this little gem:

int CvCity::calculateColonyMaintenanceTimes100() const
{
if (GC.getGameINLINE().isOption(GAMEOPTION_NO_VASSAL_STATES))
{
return 0;
}

Basically what this means is that if you select No Vassal States (which is a player option since Warlords) Colony Maintenance (i.e. the extra maintenance for cities on other landmasses) is disabled. This could be a potentially big advantage for certain maptypes (Archipelago ) just to throw this into the discussion...

 

[Denniz]

I just found this little gem:

Basically what this means is that if you select No Vassal States (which is a player option since Warlords) Colony Maintenance (i.e. the extra maintenance for cities on other landmasses) is disabled. This could be a potentially big advantage for certain maptypes (Archipelago ) just to throw this into the discussion...

Aren't a vassal and a colony pretty much the same thing in the end? Do you know if colonies are still possible with vassals turned off.

 

[ori]

Aren't a vassal and a colony pretty much the same thing in the end? Do you know if colonies are still possible with vassals turned off.

They are not possible - that is the reason for this code. BUT picture someone trying for a Domination win on a Continents Map (or anything else with two or more large landmasses) - with Vassal States on the Colony Maintenance will likely force him to create a Colony or slow down his pace considerably. Forming a Colony however will make those cities only count half, thus slowing him down anyway. With Vassal States disabled this is none of his concern...

 

[Dracandross]

I do not think the option is really "game changing" as it cuts either way -- if you have it on, the AI can't tech broker, but neither can you. It does slow down the game a bit, because it slows down the rate at which the AI and the player can progress down the technology tree (so those going for the fastest finish may want to keep the option off). But I see no strong reason for disallowing the option, if a player wants to use it.

Tech brokering disallowed would have major effect on few gametypes. First all games where you don't research a would be lot easier due AI will stay longer in techparity. For example any conquest game. Also all games where you beeline to single tech to gain upperhand would benefit alot from this. Specially in liberalism race would benefit this. In culture/diplo game it is problem that you can't trade Philo/CivilS/Paper/Edu because it would leak to everyone too soon and it would allow you to trade techs to get crucial techs.

Of course this is part of the strategy decicisions and knowing of game but it could also mean that you'd better give some keytechs to AI before they research it so they could not trade them to others. Losing turn or two to keep tech monopoly would be priceless.

-Dracandross

Moderator Action: Please watch the language. Even if the auto-censor bleeps it out it is still considered inappropriate.

 

[mnf]

Couldn't the "No tech brokering" be exploited? Say I'm in a war and I don't want my victim to get Rifles. I keep my eyes on the passive espionage, and sell or outright give away Replaceable Parts and then Rifling when other civs are one or two turns away from it. This means my victim will have to research it himself with his ever diminishing research capacity. With brokering, he would have been able to beg plead trade his way up, and potentially be able to nullify my military tech lead halfway into my invasion. Now he can only steal.

 

[ori]

I keep my eyes on the passive espionage, and sell or outright give away Replaceable Parts and then Rifling when other civs are one or two turns away from it.

This does not work - in such a situation the AI will refuse to accept the tech even if you pay it to take it - it will be reddened out with the explanation "We would have nothing to gain"

 

[kovacsflo]

I would likely to play with unrestricted leaders. It would give us possibility of interesting combinations, but not an extreme advantage.

 

[IglooDame]

I would likely to play with unrestricted leaders. It would give us possibility of interesting combinations, but not an extreme advantage.

Two words: Boudica's Praetorians. *shudder*

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

I am just asking myself why "advanced start" is disallowed. Is it too unbalanced? or does the human player gets a too high benefit? I found it very interesting to try several strategies in "Charlemagne" with this option. Eiter 2 or 3 cities or a very advanced city. Any comments?

 

[Thalatta]

I'm going to make another case for allowing No Tech Brokering. The summary of my reasons:

1) The decrease in AI tech speed is countered by the decrease in player tech speed.
2) The player encounters additional difficulties aside from decreased tech speed.
3) The player advantage gained with No Tech Brokering is significantly less than that with No Barbarians


The details:

1) This has been argued already, but I'm going to re-hash it. The overall slower tech speed can give the player an advantage in terms of greater opportunity to outplay the AI, but that does not necessarily translate into better results. Almost all victories require a good tech speed to finish fast and/or with a high score, and a slower tech speed should reduce the finish date and final score. This will be less true with some victories and lower difficulties, but very much so with space race and high difficulties. Taking over the world with Riflemen against Longbows has never been easier, but getting to Riflemen is going to take longer, putting your finish date later and score lower.
2) No Tech Brokering gets rid of some different quirky elements that the player can take advantage of that the AI doesn't do as well. The main two ways are selling off cheap or old techs to pick up stray cash at "bad" prices and shifting techs around to catch up from being behind. The former sometimes just means you have to research Meditation yourself or sell off Polytheism instead after getting Currency, but the latter can put a big dent in some strategies, such as warring for techs and then selling them off to maintain parity.
3) The strongest reason, though, I think, is that No Barbarians is allowed. It's kind of a negative reason, but No Barbarians makes the game far easier on the player than No Tech Brokering. I win easily on Emperor without barbs; I struggle on Monarch with them. I consider myself an extreme example since I find barbs so annoying that I hardly play with them and as a result they're worth a couple difficulty levels, but I think No Tech Brokering is much lower on the scale of reducing difficulty. In fact, I'd argue that what it makes less difficult isn't even winning; it makes converting a won position easier, but not the process of getting to that point.


The disclaimer:

I have to put this in, as much as I love No Tech Brokering and think it's a legitimate option mostly because of the allowed lack of barbs. I've actually had an easier time teching since I've been playing BtS (I never used to get to BC Macemen without the CS slingshot...), and I've mostly played with No Tech Brokering. I don't think that it's actually because of the options; I think it's the lack of a starting worker at Monarch/Emperor (my normal levels on Warlords) on the part of the AI which allows me to expand into much more space in the early game.

 

[Thalatta]

Two words: Boudica's Praetorians. *shudder*

I think Genghis Khan is actually a more dangerous leader with Rome, but yeah, anyone aggressive with Praetorians is kinda broken. You can think of all kinds of ridiculous combinations, though, such as any organized leader with Holy Rome: 25% city maintenance at half price.

Personally, I like the idea of allowing the option for the occasional gauntlet, though, to create some fun combinations. Say, require Toku as your leader, France as your civ, and at least 3 Musketeers built during the game?

 

[ori]

Re: Tech Brokering:
No Tech Brokering greatly expands the time frame you have for early rushes (not so much axe but from Praets on) - seeing that the AI early on sucks at defenses denying them tech trading prolongs the time they need to get longbows up making early conquest and domination much easier (basically victories were you don't need much teching yourself). The No Barbs thing does not nearly make as much damage, in fact just try mid size difficulties with raging barbs now - since they reduced both AI early defenses and AI Barb bonuses almost every second game one AI will get wiped out by them - they do hamper early wins for sure but I believe the human can cope much better with both Barbs and no tech brokering then the AI.
Re: Advanced Starts:
Check out the opening of RBTS4: Sullla shows very convincingly that the AI plain sucks at advanced starts - you could just as well play one or two levels lower with that.

 

[Thalatta]

If you're able to do a successful rush pre-Feudalism you've already "won" and that's what I'm calling the situations where NTB makes "converting" the win easier than actually winning.

Again, as far as barbs go, I'm an extreme case, but I'm also thinking in terms of score and time, not just overall ease of victory. It may well be "easier" to win on raging barbs than no barbs now, but your score and time are always going to be better on no barbs.

The core of my argument, in a nutshell, is this: no barbs makes the "pre-winning" stage go faster, while NTB makes the "post-winning" stage easier. Since easier could perhaps mean a better score and/or time, I'd think it fair to add a modifier like the one that exists for no barbs.


I realize my way of thinking is a little bit different, but I "learned" civ 4 through the CS sling. Pulling it is effectively winning; understanding what you're doing to get there and then how to use the advantage generated is basically knowing how to set up a won position and then convert it. It extends to other parts of the game; the CS sling is/was just a blatant example of a won position. A more subtle won position is a successful conquest of a neighbor: once the budget is balanced, the player has double the production of the nearest AI and a recovered GNP so the process can be repeated - take over another neighbor, balance the budget - until it the game is done. The invasions happen in separate steps, but only the first one is when the player actually "wins"; it gives the player a decisive advantage (eventual double production), while the rest are just finishing the job. A substantial tech lead is a won position, too; converting it by, say, slinging Liberalism for Replaceable Parts is the first part of post-winning, researching Rifling gives you superior military technology and then conquering a world of medieval units with Riflemen is actually the very last part of post-winning.


As for advanced start; yeah, that's obvious. The AI is better, but its intelligence is still...artificial. Sulla gives a perfect example of what I'm talking about with "pre-winning", a won position and "post-winning": pre-winning takes place during the analysis of the advanced start, the won position is turn one, and the rest of the game is now post-winning.

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

As for advanced start; yeah, that's obvious. The AI is better, but its intelligence is still...artificial. Sulla gives a perfect example of what I'm talking about with "pre-winning", a won position and "post-winning": pre-winning takes place during the analysis of the advanced start, the won position is turn one, and the rest of the game is now post-winning.

You have the reference to Sulla's article?

 

[ori]

You have the reference to Sulla's article?

I linked to it in my post above - its the rbts4 first post

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

I linked to it in my post above - its the rbts4 first post

Sorry - haven't read your post above Got it now

 

[Denniz]

We're sort of grandfathered into the whole Barbs thing. With NTB, I do see the point doing it again.

 

[Thalatta]

Ack, I'm not suggesting to get rid of the no barbs option - they are sooooo annoying!

 

[LowtherCastle]

Has the HOF ever considered limiting options according to victory condition? For example, requiring that NTB be unchecked for fastest conquest and fastest domination?