Challenge #6: Ironman

lilnev · Oct 23, 2006

Well done Garath! I'll be updating the leader board soon. And congratulations on your ascension to the lofty position of First Citizen.

My replay game is up to 1585 AD. The perimeter is under heavy pressure, and my wall of forts is starting to crack. That's something I learned, by the way -- unless it has quite a large advantage (cavalry vs longbows, for example), the AI is disinclined to attack troops fortified in forts or good defensive spots, and goes after the impregnable cities instead. Once I built a solid line of forts, I didn't have problems with pillagers. Now, however, the cavalry are arriving in force (I spied the first in 1530 AD :run:

. I guess that's the price I pay for developing in isolation), and I've had to abandon some of the forts. I think it's about time to start whipping as aggressively as possible -- my troop strength has been holding steady at about 50 total longbows and a dozen pikes, but I can sense the pressure building and I think casualties will soon outpace replacements.

As for the wonder-building challenges: I agree that World Wonders sounds like more fun than Nationals. I think it should be any 7 (or however many), not a specific list (and you didn't include the Pyramids?), to allow a greater variety of strategies and avoid the feeling of "damn, I got beat to X, now the whole game's over." Interestingly, for WotM01, I decided to try and build ALL the World Wonders (except shrines). That was on Noble level, and I pulled it off, but it took several practice games with the same settings to work out my strategy (you can read a report in the first spoiler thread for that game).

peace,
lilnev, Former First Citizen

Newbert · Oct 23, 2006

I haven't played the challenge, so this may be a stupid question: Does anyone know if there were any feasible nearby islands? Sending a galley with a settler would have made one heck of a survival strat... (I'm aware the map is a pangaea, but it's still possible for there to be an island or two in the water, right?).

Garath · Oct 23, 2006

lilnev: I agree, you're going to need more longbows if you want to slow down the collapse of your empire as much as possible. Particularly, you can whip border cities into the ground without worrying about the unhappiness penalty having time to wear off, since the cities are going to fall soon enough anyway, right? Has your tech stagnated yet? If you aren't going to reach Gunpowder, may I suggest shutting off research and building up as large a gold pile as you can. You are, eventually, going to be reduced to one city like the rest of us can. If you can choose when and where that happens, and make sure to rescue most of the longbows from each successive border town before it falls, you could easily have 60, 80, or 100 bows in your last city, which could easily be enough to see through to a later date than I managed. One city won't have enough to support them, though, which is why I'm wondering whether you can make enough gold to make it feasible.

As for not putting the Pyramids on the list for wonder-building... I *knew* I would forget something. Thanks for pointing it out! My thoughts as to the specific ones was that either someone else building a wonder won't be the end of the world (capture it), or if it turns out that isn't going to be competitive, that once a few games have been played, people will know exactly which wonders can be built fastest and then it will be the end of the world if one of those gets built by someone else anyway. So I figured they might as well be specified at the start.

I'm not dead set on the idea, though. If more people think just first to 7 or 8 wonders makes sense, then we'll go with that. (If we even go with the wonder-building idea at all. There are plenty more good suggestions floating around too, and First Citizen or not, I don't want to be a dictator here.)

Garath

Cabledawg · Oct 23, 2006

I like the wonder building idea.

Splattery · Oct 23, 2006

Garath said:
I'd be interested to see the start you've managed, splattery. I didn't think it would be possible to retain many forests whilst still getting to Feudalism on any sort of reasonable timescale. I'm sure a game developed from a start like that would be able to beat my date. I don't know whether I could have held out any better against grenadiers, though, since I couldn't have supported any more longbows than I did for most of the game. Maybe by building fewer earlier and putting in some shields into the Great Library instead for conversion to gold, so more gold is left for going deeper into negative gpt later.

Garath (note second 'a' )

The specific game order in my replay was to found in place and build warrior, research mysticism, then build stonehenge while researching poly (hinduism claimed) and then archery. Then build one archer which completes just as the barbs start penetrating (I think my warrior had to fight a warrior the turn before the archer showed up), and go back to stonehenge. Research priesthood, writing, monarchy and time the oracle to show up right after monarchy. I micromanaged the heck out of my citizens in the meantime because you have to worry about what spaces the barbs occupy and then maximize accordingly (the AI governor does not do this well for you, though it is better if you "avoid growth"). I think I kept my city to size 5 through this whole thing just so I could get to longbows the fastest. Then build longbows, research alphabet and lit, and build the heroic epic and shut off tech for gold accumulation. You get to pop a couple GP prophets too which really helps. This particular replay only got me to 1808 (I think) but I think I was pretty lucky in the 1818 game. I'd do it this way if I were to repeat it (but I'd much rather do the next challenge!

) Unfortunately, I have played since then and I've deleted the actual saves, but I think it shouldn't be that hard to reproduce. You know, at some point I was deleting longbows too - maybe then it might have been a good idea to sneak a settler out or something like that. It would have been great if there were an island somewhere on the map... :mischief:

It seems like people are most responsive to the wonder-building challenge, and although I am fond of my earlier suggestions, I think it would be challenging and fun to do the "fastest to seven wonders." I agree the level would have to be at least Monarch.

Also, who would object to using Warlords? I'm just curious who hasn't taken the plunge. I know buying it easily cost me several days of otherwise productive time in my life. :crazyeye:

oyzar · Oct 23, 2006

I am against warlords since i havent bothered to get it yet(I would have to borrow it from my flat mate if we had to play this). I think I am a bit builderish at heart so for me the warmonger challenges are way more challenging. How about we do the wonder thing on a huge pangea on monarch with 18 civs

. Gettign first to 7 world wonders at all would be QUITE random. Doing this would mean you just couldnt go all out peacefull either. Prince might be an alternative but then you can easy get like 2 of the early wonders + some others.(oracle -> metalcasting -> pyramids -> mass GE's) Ofc with 18 civs that might be ahrd enough in itself. To bad the ai dont war much in the beging. If you play with standard amount of civs on a relativly standard map it is pretty easy to get most of the early wonders yourself(chop chop chop). As for who to play def not an industrious civ. Maybe a philosophical one or does that make it to easy with GE's too?

clinton · Oct 24, 2006

I would really be up for a post-patch warlords ironman, with a similar format (though, probably even harder due to the AI improvements). Maybe something like Epic or even Marathon speed to put the focus on the fighting. To counteract the slow game speed, keep the difficulty level up at Immortal to keep the game fast paced and short. Great generals glore!

carl corey · Oct 24, 2006

Some things to consider for a World Wonder challenge:

- if we want specific ones there's no way we can go with a continents map. If 2-3 wonders end up on the other continent you'll have a tough time finishing this without actually winning by conquest/domination.
- even on Pangaea with specific wonders things would be pretty random. You could have the civ farthest from you build two wonders and then you're pretty much screwed. More possible luck => less skill involved.
- getting the Colossus and the Great Lighthouse requires a (good) coastal city. That means either we're on the coast and build them ourselves, or wait for someone else to build them. Problem is, we might end up with two AIs, each owning one wonder.
- you forgot the Parthenon. Pretty hard to get too, and nearly impossible if you want Pyrs too. How many of the early wonders we actually get to build ourselves might greatly influence the game.
- getting any 7 wonders on Monarch might also be too much for some of us. We might want to settle on Prince. We're still probably going to go to war in order to achieve a better time, but this might also provide builders with an interesting challenge.

Technical details:
- not all of us have warlords yet. I do, but I don't mind playing a vanilla game to be more inclusive. Also, the Great Wall -> Pyramids gambit works for now but it won't work that well once the new patch gets out, so there's not much future in it.
- we have different computers, some that don't support big maps/great numbers of units well. 18 civs is a bit too much as some people have had problems with the Mini-Me challenge. Standard map with normal number of AIs is ok.

In conclusion I'd go for fastest to any 7 wonders, maybe on a Standard Pangaea (or Terra?) map, Prince diff, vanilla Civ. Don't have an opinion about the leader for now.

Garath · Oct 24, 2006

OK then, it looks like as a group we're leaning in favour of the wonder-building challenge, so let's go with that this time. This game, at least, will not be on Warlords since I don't have it yet. On the other hand, with the news of the AI improvements in the upcoming patch, it's getting a lot more tempting.

So let's have First To Own Seven World Wonders. What do people think about a Large Lakes map? According to Sirian, Lakes is one of the smaller scripts, so Large Lakes should be about the same as Standard on most scripts, but it still lets us have 8-9 opponents without having to cram them in horribly, and I'd like there to be plenty of competition for the wonders. I'd go even larger, but I imagine there are folks around without computers good enough to do that.

I'm thinking either a non-Industrious civ on Monarch or an Industrious (and maybe a quarry resource somewhere in the vicinity) on Emperor. Most of the other settings I have no thoughts on yet, so please make lots of suggestions for how you all think this could best be done.

Garath

cabert · Oct 24, 2006

carl corey said:
Some things to consider for a World Wonder challenge:

- if we want specific ones there's no way we can go with a continents map. If 2-3 wonders end up on the other continent you'll have a tough time finishing this without actually winning by conquest/domination.
- even on Pangaea with specific wonders things would be pretty random. You could have the civ farthest from you build two wonders and then you're pretty much screwed. More possible luck => less skill involved.

right!
I like the 7 world wonders challenge, but we need to stick with any 7 wonders. It's just a pain if we select them before the game starts.

- getting any 7 wonders on Monarch might also be too much for some of us. We might want to settle on Prince. We're still probably going to go to war in order to achieve a better time, but this might also provide builders with an interesting challenge.

first 7 wonders on monarch are usually captured (not built

) somewhere around 1000 AD. If we focus hard on the issue, i'm pretty sure it can be done earlier (if we include the religious shrines).
It cannot be much faster on Prince. In fact it's slower, since the AIs build slower :lol:

.

But it's about being inclusive.
Prince is just over medium level, it seems a better choice if we want a large amount of players.

Technical details:
- not all of us have warlords yet. I do, but I don't mind playing a vanilla game to be more inclusive. Also, the Great Wall -> Pyramids gambit works for now but it won't work that well once the new patch gets out, so there's not much future in it.
- we have different computers, some that don't support big maps/great numbers of units well. 18 civs is a bit too much as some people have had problems with the Mini-Me challenge. Standard map with normal number of AIs is ok.

right, except about number of AIs
I don't think more AIs is a technical problem. Only size of map is a problem.
But again, it's about being inclusive.
More AIs than usual on a given map size = more wars = less strategical options (it's near always war again!).

In conclusion I'd go for fastest to any 7 wonders, maybe on a Standard Pangaea (or Terra?) map, Prince diff, vanilla Civ. Don't have an opinion about the leader for now.

Right, although a fractal map could be good for a change... Just a thought...

About the leader :
If we want various strategies, we need to avoid philo and industrious leaders.
I can't see a philosophical leader missing a GE strat.
For the same reason, I can't see an industrious leader missing going builder.

:scan:

What about Egypt? The war chariot is a bit strong, but if you attack with those, you can't wait until any wonder is built, can you?

In conclusion I'd go for fastest to any 7 wonders, on any map except archipelago, Prince diff, vanilla Civ. Playing Hatchepetsuh.

patagonia · Oct 24, 2006

cabert said:
In conclusion I'd go for fastest to any 7 wonders, on any map except archipelago, Prince diff, vanilla Civ. Playing Hatchepetsuh.

Hatty's my favourite leader - Cre/Spi is an awesome trait combination if you know how to exploit them effectively.

For a bit of spice, rather than specifying particular wonders, you could state that you have to have one to generate GPP for each type of great person. There's enough variety early to mean if you miss out on one there's still an alternative as wonders and techs are easy to get to first on Prince.

VoiceOfUnreason · Oct 24, 2006

Garath said:
On the other hand, with the news of the AI improvements in the upcoming patch, it's getting a lot more tempting.

Blakes AI improvements are available as a mod for Vanilla, if you want to go that route.

oyzar · Oct 24, 2006

problem with prince is that it is very easy to just build all the wonders yourself. Even if you have yet to win on monarch it should be doable to just get 7 wonders. On prince it is also very hard to go the capture wonders route. On difficulties like prince we could easily go for all the specific wonders though. Just race out with scouts and decleare war on everyone and wops no wonderbuilding for them(as we saw in this map). Why no continents? You could do some strike mission into the other continent to claim wonders. With unspecific wonders it doesnt realy matter what map you play at least. The more civs the more interesting this would be imo. Fractal map overabundance of AI's would be cool. How about romans? Pretorians are strong but then you wont be building much wonders(though it might be possible to have the ai do it for you at least partially. We could do soemthing like japan for a bit more of a challenge(I like challenges). His UU might even be relevant if we go for specific wonders. Mongolia or china is other fun options.

Garath · Oct 25, 2006

I was thinking Monarch since I believe it would be too easy to just build the first few wonders (not including shrines, those are a different sort of thing), given any sort of decent starting position on Prince. After all, we've just seen that it's entirely possible to build Stonehenge and the Oracle on *Immortal*, so those would be easy, and we know the AI is slow on the Pyramids and even slower on the Hanging Gardens and Parthenon, and that a human with a coastal start can easily get those wonders in plenty of time. So how hard could it be...? :mischief:

Even so, if the great weight of opinion is against it, we can go with Prince.

I was thinking Lakes for the map just to keep people accessible and at least give the option of capturing some of the wonders, but I don't know what Fractal is exactly, and that's been suggested. Can someone give more details?

I like Hatshepsut as a leader choice for the challenge. A good strong pair of traits and a useful UU, but with neither of the ones too directly related to the aim of the challenge.

Garath

carl corey · Oct 25, 2006

Fractal is the old "continents" I think. It will give you uneven, weird looking continents with lots of branches. If you choose it be careful not to get us alone on a continent. No fun.

I'm ok with Lakes too. I've never played it before, so it should be interesting to have some variety.

Coastal starts can indeed net you almost any wonder you want on Prince, but with any other start it's pretty difficult to get all of them. :shrug: I guess I'm ok with going for Monarch, as long as we don't need specific wonders, but you'll have to see what the others want too.

As for the leader, Hatty seems cool.

My "votes":
- lakes (standard size)
- Monarch without specific wonders or Prince with specific ones
- Hatty

lilnev · Oct 25, 2006

Does Lakes also have seas, so Great Lighthouse and Colossus will be available?

I too think that Prince would become (almost) a pure builders race. If that's what we want, fine. I think I'd enjoy Monarch more, but if people argue passionately for Prince I won't object.

I think the goody huts should be removed. It feels really cheesy to work out an optimal scout path to maximize them.

peace,
lilnev

Raiser · Oct 25, 2006

I did originally suggest 7 wonders :blush:

, but here's my 'passionate argument' for a upping the target to 'First person to own any 12 World Wonders' instead of going for Monarch diff.

12 Wonders does make the challenge a bit longer and so reduce the opportunity to repeat attempts, but it opens up much more variety. Variety of wonders to go for, of tech routes to take and of strats to employ.

- I like the feel of prince diff as a standard difficulty on these challenges because it should encourage more people to give them a try. And I don't think it is entirely necessary to go higher to make this one work.

The suggestion of a higher difficulty seems to be to stop the AI's getting none of the wonders and therefore stopping the possibility of 'build-some/steal-some' strats.

With 7 civs on a standard-sized map and a high enough target number they should win some of the races, even on Prince.

The point about the tactic of declaring war on all the AI's to distract their focus from construction is valid if you are planning to try and build the first 7 wonders on Prince, but I think with a higher target number it could be risky to continue 'all war on me' too long.

Declaring war for a short period at the beginning may be an interesting tactic and slow the AI's a bit, but it may present problem later on when you are dealing with the diplomatic fallout.

- I think 'any 12 wonders' not only combats the problem of 'build-all strats' being the only valid option, it goes further and makes stealing wonders much more appealing than upping the diff setting to solve the problem.

On the right map and a lower than monarch diff setting with a target of 12 wonders, I'd be tempted to encourage the other AI's to get organised and actually build the wonders faster! I'd split my focus between building a select 8 wonders and amassing several mobile strike forces. Do a lot of scouting of cities and try to co-ordinate multiple attacks on the Wonder-Cities (esp if an AI city contains more than 1 wonder). You don't have to worry about holding the cities long if you can get from 8 to 12 with captures in a timely fashion.

- A higher target means we'll climb higher up the tech tree and see people trying different routes. It will counter just 'chopping all the early wonders'.

Fast teching Pottery/Writing/CS and going for Stonehenge, Oracle and Chicken 'Ittle along the CS-Slingshot route. Then using your higher research speed to get post-early era wonders ought to be available as a valid option, and with a target of 7 it just doesn't feel like it is.

- A higher target might help smooth out the effect of loosing any one particular wonder-build-race and feeling like you want to start over.

- Lastly here's a list of the first 16 Ancient and Classic Era wonders. So you can take a look at the options that the post-early wonders offer. (The list includes the costs and techs. Whatever the settings that Garath decides upon it doesn't hurt to plan your route to victory early. :mischief:

)

Spoiler :

That's my thinking on the target. As for the other settings I vote:
- Difficullt: Prince... for inclusivity,
- Build: Civ IV vanilla... ditto,
- Map: Lakes sounds fun, and standard pangaea is a safe bet,
- Leader: Any non-industrious leader, Hatshepsut is a good fit,
- Huts: Removed with world-builder to reduce the randomness,
- Barbarians: On, but for god's sake.... not raging barbarians! :aargh:

I'm still having nightmares about the last lot!!

---

scherbchen · Oct 25, 2006

good points raiser, i agree.

12+ wonders (i might even want to take it further. 15 or 16 does sound like a good number to me as this might allow for multiple paths up to renaissance times.) and prince.

Dr Elmer Jiggle · Oct 25, 2006

If you want to be really diabolical about it, you could make all of the AI opponents be Industrious leaders. :mwaha:

oyzar · Oct 25, 2006

I realy like challenges alot more. I think prince difficulty wont be more inclusiove at all. Those who want to play these challenges will do it anways. People want to learn from these challenges. Rushbuilding alot of wonders on a pretty easy difficulty . IMO it is way much mroe fun to play a more challening game. uping it to 12 wonders would prolly be better though.

Challenge #6: Ironman

King

Chieftain

Sorceror

Prince

Chieftain

Have quit civ/forums

Warlord

Deity

Sorceror

Big mouth

Emperor

Deity

Have quit civ/forums

Sorceror

Deity

King

Pottery is unbreakable

well that can´t be good

King

Have quit civ/forums

Similar threads