CDG Series Discussion Thread

[Shark Diver]

I suppose. I think other civ games reported kill:loss ratios? It is a ridiculous oversight.

Yeah, when I first bought G&K, my entire Civ experience had been a bunch of hours playing Civ2. I spent a lot of time looking for those kill stats that Civ2 had provided (more than a decade prior) before realizing they had chosen not to include these nice stats.

I wonder if anyone can write a mod that does provide kill stats?

 

[Wild_Woojsha]

I have updated the list again, below are links to the previous games:

CDG1: Persia, Oct 31st, 2015, domination, Pangea, hard, map by Consentient
CDG2: Assyria, Nov 15th, 2015, science, Pangea, medium, map by Consentient
CDG3: Ethiopia, Dec 2nd, 2015, culture, NQ Pangea, hard, map by Consentient
CDG4: Spain, Dec 17th, 2015, domination, NQ Pangea, medium, map by Consentient
CDG5: Indonesia, Jan 2nd, 2016, culture, NQ Continents, hard, map by Consentient
CDG6: Zulus, Jan 15th, 2016, domination, Oval, easy, map by Consentient
CDG7: Shoshone, Feb 2nd, 2016, culture, Oval, very easy, map Created by Enslingkorp
CDG8: Austria, Feb 15th, 2016, science, Pangea, very easy, map by IronfighterXXX
CDG9: Brazil, Feb 28th, 2016, culture, Pangea, medium, map by Blatc
CDG10: Denmark, March 14th, 2016, domination, Pangea, hard, map by Beetle
CDG11: Venice, April 1st, 2016, domination, Archipelago, very easy, map by Wild_Woojsha
CDG12: Byzantium, April 15th, 2016, domination, Terra Incognita, very hard, map by Beetle
CDG13: THE Inca, May 1st, 2016, culture, Archipelago, medium, map by Shark Diver

Games on Deck:
Indian - Gandhi - Claimed by Donkeyfish for CDG14, scheduled for May 15th.
Celtic - Boudicca - Claimed by Consentient for CDG15, scheduled for June 1st.
American - Washington - Claimed by Beetle for CDG16, scheduled for June 17th.

Civs available to choose from:
Arabian - Harun al-Rashid - Possibly by Donkeyfish
Aztec - Montezuma
Babylonian - Nebuchadnezzar II
Carthaginian - Dido
Chinese - Wu Zetian
Dutch - William - Claimed by Shark Diver for unspecified future date.
Egyptian - Ramesses II
English - Elizabeth
French - Napoleon
German - Bismarck
Greek - Alexander
Hunnic - Attila
Iroquois - Hiawatha
Japanese - Oda Nobunaga
Korean - Sejong
Mayan - Pacal
Mongolian - Genghis Khan - Possibly by Donkeyfish
Moroccan - Ahmad al-Mansur
Ottoman - Suleiman
Polish - Casimir III
Polynesian - Kamehameha
Portuguese - Maria I
Roman - Augustus Caesar - Possibly by Donkeyfish
Russian - Catherine
Siamese - Ramkhamhaeng
Songhai - Askia - Possibly by Donkeyfish
Swedish - Gustavus Adolphus - Claimed by Consentient for unspecified future date.

Anyone can update and re-post this list by quoting the post and then removing the quotation text before and after the post.

 

[consentient]

Why are you worried about honesty Beetle? What do you care if someone cheats? Are you gonna do the hard work that the HoF people do and check save files?

As for the leadership gap, it looks like you've done OK to me.

 

[Wild_Woojsha]

So many posts to respond to...

Regarding speeding up the process, I guess I just have posted this list of civs so many times that I wanted to get more opportunities for people to claim maps! I don't know. You're all right though, it should only be twice a month, 2 weeks is not enough time for me either.

Regarding honesty about achievements, who on here has actually tried to cheat those? I haven't seen anything questionable yet, and furthermore, I thought this series was relaxed and not as competitive achievement-wise as something like the GOTM? Right now the highest score is SCLB with 150 points and second place hasn't even broken 100.

I also don't think CDG 7 should be tossed either, we came up with good enough achievements after the fact to make it usable, and its not like its a bad map or anything. It just surprised us, and ruffled our feathers a bit. But its all done now, so we might as well move on.

I'd love to find a mod that counted kills, that would be awesome. Does infoaddict calculate that? Or the awesome EUI which I cannot play this game without?

 

[beetle]

Why are you worried about honesty Beetle?

If the achievements are easily verifiable, it won’t come up.

As for the leadership gap, it looks like you've done OK to me.

Yes, we figured it out. HT to WW, ST, and everyone who has posted a map!

 

[Sclb]

Why are you worried about honesty Beetle? What do you care if someone cheats? Are you gonna do the hard work that the HoF people do and check save files?

As for the leadership gap, it looks like you've done OK to me.

Pretty sure many have reloaded games, either to correct mistakes or to try different strategy. I don't think we ever consider that cheating is that bad although HoF might think differently, so that's why we're more casual.

 

[vadalaz]

1. The Melee Archipelago: 1 point for each 5 Melee units trained or bought (not gifted) that are kept alive until the end of the game. -3 points for each ranged/sieged units trained or bought (not gifted)

2. Quad Pike: 1 point for each 5 Melee Units that have FOUR promotions other than Shock/Drill at the end of the game.

3. Whirling Skirmish: 1 point for each 10 enemy Melee units killed during the course of the game

4. Ownership of the Isles (from the Intro text): 1 point for each self-founded city after the 6th.

5. Everlasting Victory: X points (tbc) for a total domination of all AI cities (not CS)

#2, #4 and #5 sound good to me. #3 is a fun one, but it might be a bit tedious to keep track of. Maybe I'll rename my capital to the number of kills to make it easier.

I like the idea of #1 as well, but the ratio seems a bit harsh to me, 15 melee to compensate for 1 ranged/siege? Also it can be cheesed in the late game with landsknechts, so I'd exclude those from the achievement.

 

[consentient]

Regarding honesty about achievements, who on here has actually tried to cheat those? I haven't seen anything questionable yet, and furthermore, I thought this series was relaxed

I'll say this once, and then leave it at that, since I cba to discuss it, just want to make myself heard: I think the whole points thing is a bit of bad idea. Achievements are nice, since it creates special situations bespoke to the maps, and helps increase the flavour, but the quantifying of it actually seems to complicate things. A view that has arisen, and beetle is just one of the people that has expressed it, is that the points for each map should be equal, I guess so as to make the competition fair.

So then we have a disconnect between an unverified, honesty-based paradigm, and the quantitative awarding of points. Better to simply have A,B,C,D,E and see if you can tick those off, I think.

As for the honesty thing in general, I've never seen anyone in the DCL/CDG/ICL/IAG communities who has voiced even the slightest willingness to put in the legwork that the HoF team do in checking stuff, so how we approach honesty has already been decided, de facto. We just have to take people's words for it, unless volunteers emerge to check for no reloads, etc.

Personally, I don't care about which way things go, just stating the obvious because some people obviously want things to be 'more honest' to reflect the quantitative nature of things. But they can't have it both ways, sadly.

I also don't think CDG 7 should be tossed either

Please don't. I'm currently playing it, and would enjoy sharing my write-up when I'm done. I don't understand why you'd delete it at all.

If the achievements are easily verifiable, it won’t come up.

See above comments about a verifiable gaming paradigm.

Pretty sure many have reloaded games, either to correct mistakes or to try different strategy. I don't think we ever consider that cheating is that bad although HoF might think differently, so that's why we're more casual.

Exactly. That is the atmosphere of the DCL in which I learned my chops. I went from multiple reloads, to a handful, to none, and that's all part of the learning curve. If the series were to change to HoF style submissions, I wouldn't mind, but I don't think mine is the majority position.

I like the idea of #1 as well, but the ratio seems a bit harsh to me, 15 melee to compensate for 1 ranged/siege? Also it can be cheesed in the late game with landsknechts, so I'd exclude those from the achievement.

It can be cheesed with any big economy, but it's very difficult to claim that it's not valid just cuz it's cheesy. But this brings me full circle to my earlier point about quantifiable vs. boolean. I'm in favour of the latter because that cuts out any arguments about what is sensible, or suitable, or cheesy, or the like.

Perhaps if all else remains the same, you could modify #1 to say "trained or bought and then earned at least some combat XP"

But seriously, I hope we make a move away from quantities.

OK, I've said my lot. I'm no longer the host, so it's up to whoever is now the head honcho to decide.

 

[beetle]

Better to simply have A,B,C,D,E and see if you can tick those off, I think.

Oh, that sounds much better!

The spreadsheet could then just revert back to turn time, using the same formatting as with the DCL games. The ABCDE is just a text note, not tallied at all.

EDIT: In the first draft, as I recall, the CDG spreadsheet just had the achievements listed without points assigned. I prompted ST to make the achievements the index field. I regret my part in pointing us into a poor direction.

 

[consentient]

Given that you called me a hypocrite on the other thread, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. My last word on this matter is to say that I don't care either way what data people want to record about their selves in the spreadsheet. From Day 1 of conceiving the idea of the CDG until now, I never wanted my own results to appear on the spreadsheet, but people can do whatever they like. I was just voicing the opinion that a preoccupation with numbers might stop the achievements from being as good as they can be, that's all. I really cba to go back and forth on this issue. I'm just gonna play the maps, and post the odd one. I won't set achievements for the maps I provide, you guys can take care of that.

 

[beetle]

I am not being sarcastic. It was CDG1 that had different points assigned to the achievements. I agree with you that, in hindsight, that was not necessary. I am sorry that you won't be suggesting achievements because that was the best part!

Also, I didn't call you a hypocrite. You are not generally hypocritical. You are very valued member of this community. I pointed out that your comments on the other thread were contrary (hypocritical) to your earlier opinion that people should be playing only for the suggested VC. I am labeling the specific statement, not the person. Apologies again if you regard this as squabbling.

 

[donkeyfish]

For what its worth, I dont have a real opinion on the matter of ach structure. Only thing I´m interested in is that people mention re-loads in the write-up, something I find courteous.

After all the ach often encourages ways of playing thats uncommon, at least to me. That undoubtedly leads to some reloading when I mess it up.

On designing achievements, I do have a small aversion to the achievements that delays the game too much. If you have a dom game and the ach can be reached by just not capturing the last cap clicking next turn to achieve X, it becomes a tad boring imo. But its not a big deal, I just disregard that option and try to get the ach before I win. If not, then I dont get it.

 

[DanQuayle]

consentient, I rewrote your achievements as Boolean conditions for a total of 20 points which is in line with the rest of the series so far. Let me know what you think.

1. The Melee Archipelago: keep a minimal ratio of 5 Melee unit per ranged or siege unit at all time during the game* (4 points)

2. Quad Pike: get 20 Melee Units that have FOUR promotions other than Shock/Drill at the end of the game (4 points)

3. Whirling Skirmish: kill 40 enemy Melee units during the course of the game (4 points)

4. Ownership of the Isles (from the Intro text): self-found 10 cities (4 points)

5. Everlasting Victory: conquer all AI cities (not CS) (4 points)

*If you train 5 Melee units and then one range unit, you are fine. However, if one those 5 Melee units dies, you are no longer fine. (Up to debate: should gifted ranged/siege unit count toward the ratio)

 

[vadalaz]

But why have points at all then?

 

[DanQuayle]

Only to respect the standard that has been established beforehand in the CDG spreadsheet (ie continue to have a meaningful total point tally).
It's a way around it if you only want Boolean conditions as achievements for a specific CDG.

Or if you don't limit yourself to Boolean conditions, you could approach it with incremental steps that are capped (which might be more appropriate in this particular case). With the previous example:

1. The Melee Archipelago: keep a minimal ratio of x Melee unit per ranged or siege unit at all time during the game*
a) 3 Melee unit per ranged/siege unit 1p
b) 5 Melee unit per ranged/siege unit 2p
c) 10 Melee unit per ranged/siege unit 3p
d) 15 Melee unit per ranged/siege unit 4p

2. Quad Pike: get x Melee units that have FOUR promotions other than Shock/Drill at the end of the game
a) 5 Melee units 1p
b) 10 Melee units 2p
c) 15 Melee units 3p
d) 20 Melee units 4p

3. Whirling Skirmish: kill at least x enemy Melee units during the course of the game
a) 10 Melee units 1p
b) 20 Melee units 2p
c) 30 Melee units 3p
d) 40 Melee units 4p

4. Ownership of the Isles (from the Intro text): self-found x cities
a) 7 cities 1p
b) 8 cities 2p
c) 9 cities 3p
d) 10 cities 4p

5. Everlasting Victory: eliminate x AI from the game
a) 4 AI 1p
b) 5 AI 2p
c) 6 AI 3p
d) 7 AI 4p

Only suggestions of course.

 

[consentient]

But why have points at all then?

Yeah, this is the crux of it. I don't think we should. DanQuayle's excellent attempt at rationalising the number system is commendable, but I think it's simplest and most prudent to stop the points and just move to ticks in boxes for achievements. Assuming the CDG runs the full length of 43 like the DCL did, it's not too late to make the change, and if there was to be a vote on this matter amongst the community, I'd cast my vote in favour of getting rid of points. I just don't think they're giving us much back, given the complications involved in setting them.

 

[Shark Diver]

Personally, I like the points system for several reasons. It appeals to one's competitive nature and gives a way to measure success vs others. More importantly, having points associated with achievements gives an incentive to play the game in ways different than I normally would and has most definitely improved and expanded my skills and understanding of this game.

If this was just "choose a map, play, and post a story" I'd lose interest.

 

[beetle]

It appeals to one's competitive nature and gives a way to measure success vs others.

We definitely have folks participating because they clearly are working to max out the points. With the Byzantium map in particular, I appreciated in the write ups how people were working the tech tree to get high achievement scores! Having a scoring system does apparently add interest to the series.

The point assignments also help balance out easier achievements against the harder ones.

It also occurs to me that achievements often have sub-goals, e.g., “win WF, IG, ISS”. Point assignment makes it easy to collapse the sub-goals into simple single digit. Without points, the achievements either have to be yes/no or have parts that always require an explanation. So, without points, the achievements actually get messier in significant ways.

I am back on the fence. Hashing out the points is bit tedious, as is trying to keep the point range for each game in the ballpark of every other game. But it may be worth the bother to keep the series more viable in the long run.

...you could approach it with incremental steps that are capped

I like your work on these, thanks! There is only one I would suggest changing:

3. Whirling Skirmish: kill at least x enemy Melee units during the course of the game

Maybe double the numbers there? Just about every game you are going kill ten AI units. I think we should try to avoid padding scores.

2. Quad Pike: get x Melee units that have FOUR promotions other than Shock/Drill at the end of the game

I think this one needs some clarification. Is it correct that Cover II + Medic II (Level 6 that is, I think) counts, but Sentry + Amphibious + March (Level 7, at the minimum) does not? Do non-XP promotions (i.e., buffs that show up in bar, e.g., Himeji Castle and earns faith from kills) count as one of the four promotions? I would favor this achievement just being “end the game with x Level 6” melee units, just to keep it a little simpler.

 

[Wild_Woojsha]

I am 100% in favor of points, ranging from 20-25, that are clear and concise and not a PITA to calculate. They should be provable with a few screenshots, and should be like a trench that guides the play-style along with the map and Civ. Later I will post every achievement we have had in a nice long post so we can pick them apart and see what works and didn't, but I don't have time to do that right at this moment. I absolutely don't think either achievements or points should be gone, since each achievement needs a value and the achievements as a whole makes this series unique.

EDIT 1: Anyone going to pony up the $60-$80+ for CIV VI on October 21st? They tried to fix all the stuff we complained about! No more 4 city tradition, no more 1upt, no more researching sailing on a great plains map! See Below:

http://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-everything-you-need-to-know/ (Best article)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...-october-21-big-changes-to-core-gameplay.aspx (I lol'd when I saw them mention the Great Library)

Not impressed with the cartooniness though, and I fear for their proven track record of buggy bugs...

 

[Nigel_Tufnel2]

I like the point system a lot. It allows a feathering of goal weights vs a checklist approach, which tends to make every achievement or sub-achievement equal.