Civ 3 Tournament Proposal

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by donsig
What the heck kinda civ game would we be playing if there were no huts?

Come on guys you're takin' this competition way too far. And I can't believe that all the number crunchers out there haven't said anything about luck evening out over the seasons! Who cares if one guy gets a settler early on in one of his games? He won't be that lucky every game. Isn't the whole point of having several seasons to enable the good players to rise to the top despite luck?

Absolutely. Of course huts should be included. Part of civving skill lies in adapting to different circumstances, and efficiently taking advantage of any breaks that come your way. You can never remove the randomness of civ, it is inherently random.

You may just as well say remove leaders. It makes a huge difference getting a couple of leaders in time to get a FP and Sistines. Much more so than huts. Should leaders be removed as well? No, of course not. Embrace the randomness, certainty is for wimps.

 

[Strider]

I think huts should be kept in the game. Even through everyone else mainly agrees, but anyway here's my point. If we take the goodie huts out then it might ruin the fun of the game for some players. Who cares if someone gets an extra settler? If a player has enough skill that should just be an problem for them, nothing more and nothing less. This also gives some of the not to good players a chance to get alittle extra points over the other not to good players.

Of course I wont be playing in the 1st one sense I wont have my civ cd till may 10th, but there's my suggestion.

 

[Grey Fox]

Well, it seems like the general opinion is to keep the Huts.

Then we should maybe keep them.


But the point in not having them is that IF you get a settler in the start it can do so much, much more then many beleive.

Consider this. You only build settlers (almost), and when you get a new settler your ability to build settlers increase by 100% if you only had one city before.

And a Settler early is worth half your Empire throughout your game.

1 Settler within the first 1000 Years could mean you have 20 Cities in the year 1000 BC instead of 10 cities. (No calculations done, but you get my point).

Originally posted by Strider

Of course I wont be playing in the 1st one sense I wont have my civ cd till may 10th, but there's my suggestion.

You could still play, you get 1 month on each game you know.


New Players

Elite
- DrSpike

Veteran
- Harbinger
- Bamspeedy
- Drool

Regular
- harji
- Nicolai

Total amount of Players: 131

 

[donsig]

1 Settler within the first 1000 Years could mean you have 20 Cities in the year 1000 BC instead of 10 cities. (No calculations done, but you get my point).

Yeah, but the player would have to know what to do, right? I think I got an early settler in one of the GOTMs and still got my butt kicked by the AI. Huts are just another aspect of civ that will help seperate the men from the boys (so to speak) in the tournament.

 

[whb]

If it comes to it, a single warrior defeating the last defender in an enemy capital or not can be "worth half your empire" in the early game. Happening to send a scout in the direction of the fertile land rather than the mountains can easily be worth much more than that in some games.

As with any other aspect, huts are a random factor, but sensible strategies can maximise your chances with them.

 

[dikwhit]

The statement has been made that we will not make artillery lethal because thats an adjustment to the game and not how firaxis made it. Great it makes no difference to me. But, by the same token, until 1.21 huts were always included. Now we have an adjustment to the game and not how firaxis made it.

We need to stay on the same side of the fence, not jump back and forth. In other words are we making the choices or is it random.

The ruling council is picking the civ,victory condition and size. What about land type/% water and barbs? If they are random its all good, if only some are random not so good.Either preset all or preset none.If raging/islands/80 water come up thats life. If none/pangea/60% come up thats life too. Dont try to control every single nuance of the game.

Basically what im saying is, if something becomes a prob. lets fix it, but lets not spend weeks planning for every single possible issue. Why? Cause some will be missed regardless.


By the same token though, the barb/huts issue is the only one ive seen so far that is even worth voting on, and even then barely because hut elimination means 4 civs are handicapped no matter who has em AI or human.

 

[Grey Fox]

In a day or two, we will have our own forum! I PM'd TF and he agreed on creating a forum for the tournament.

 

[dikwhit]

sweet grey fox. Thanks thundie.

 

[JackRules]

I'm just a casual regular player, but am I missing something? In order to remove huts, won't you have to remove barbs as well?

If popping an extra settler is a big problem, make it a rule that the popped settler must join a preexisiting city and not start a new one. Personally, I'd like to pop a settler and start a new city because I need all the help I can get.

I run golf tournaments for a living and luck is a huge part of every event, but Tiger Woods is still the best player in the world, with or without luck.

 

[AndyS]

Keep the huts. Luck will always be a part of the games, with or without the huts. No reason to try to remove just one element of luck.

I also agree with Dikwhit. Let's fix the problems as they come up, and not try to second guess them. We will never get them all now. Let's just play (with the huts), and see how it goes for the first few months. After a few rounds, let's see what problems there are and then we can fix them.

I think (hope) that everyone who signed up knows that this is the first try at this tournament and it won't be perfect (but it should be fun).

Andy S

 

[KithrupFugitive]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
But the point in not having them is that IF you get a settler in the start it can do so much, much more then many beleive.

Consider this. You only build settlers (almost), and when you get a new settler your ability to build settlers increase by 100% if you only had one city before.

And a Settler early is worth half your Empire throughout your game.

1 Settler within the first 1000 Years could mean you have 20 Cities in the year 1000 BC instead of 10 cities. (No calculations done, but you get my point).

I don't use the editor really, but I seem to recall that you can change the settings for the Barbarian tribe such that Settler is not one of the units that barbs can "build." If my recollection is correct, making this change to the bic for the tourney would mean that you could keep the huts without worrying that anyone would get a Settler from a hut.

KF

 

[Gnid]

What if I play the first tournament in veteran division. Then I cant play the next tournament. Do I drop to the lower division?
And then I have to play next tournament to get back to the veteran division?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by KithrupFugitive


I don't use the editor really, but I seem to recall that you can change the settings for the Barbarian tribe such that Settler is not one of the units that barbs can "build." If my recollection is correct, making this change to the bic for the tourney would mean that you could keep the huts without worrying that anyone would get a Settler from a hut.

KF

This procedure is correct. If you remove Barbs from the allowed civs for a unit, it cannot be found in a goody hut.

Personally, I say don't bother. It's a part of the game. Yes, there's a chance someone will get lucky and have a really great game as a result. So what? That's the game we're all addicted to. Just play it.

 

[pauleden]

Guys,
It seems a lot of people have put an awful lot of work into this and I'm really grateful they have done, I doubt this thing work work otherwise, but I'd like to make a point about complexity.
How much of the aforementioned complexity is going to be apparent to league players?
Ideally, I want to be able to download a 1 move old map, play it and mail off the final save game/screenshot of score page. Is this how it's going to work?
After all, if it's not user freindly and hassle free, people aren't going to want to take part.
Cheers!
Paul

 

[Sir Ralph]

I'd also vote for keeping the huts. Otherwise expansionist civs would be completely pointless after they are substantially hurt by the rather small map sizes. There will always be an element of fortune in the game, as it is in other games too. Without it, a part of fun will be missed. By the way, the AI could find this infamous settler as well, so the odds are equal. With 1.21f, the number of "skilled settlers" has been reduced anyway. And who doesn't quickly discover the map, hasn't deserved any bonuses.

 

[Grey Fox]

Next season there will probably not be any "Real" promotions and demotions.

But rather a split of the divisions. So it will be more Divisions instead.

Next Season we will probably devide the seasons into the following:

Regular becomes 2 Divisions, one with the same 2 difficulties:
- Chieftain/Warlord &
- Warlord/Regent
Veteran would also split to these two:
- Regent/Monarch &
- Monarch/Emperor

and the top division would stay the same.


2 new players. (4 actually but 2 with inadequate information)

Elite
- [PnP]dredd

Regular
- CockneyCobbler

 

[AndyS]

Great idea of splitting the divisions. Since there are a lot of players, I think this will work out fine.

A cool idea just came to mind and I thought I'd share it with you. Why don't you have 6 divisions, one for each level. In each division, you would have 4 games per round, two at the division's level, one at the level below and one at the level above. In the highest and lowest division, you would have three at the division's level and one at the other level.

Division 1: Elite
Division 2: Emperor
Division 3: Monarch
Division 4: Regent
Division 5: Warlord
Division 6: Chieftan

For example: Each round of 4 games, Division 3 would play 2 games at the Monarch level, 1 game at the Regent level and 1 game at the Emperor level.

This will "prepare" players for when they move up a level and also give a little variety.

Let me know what you think of this.

Andy S

 

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
In a day or two, we will have our own forum! I PM'd TF and he agreed on creating a forum for the tournament.

Thats great, thanks again to TF! Should make it a lot easier to divide up seperate issues into their own threads.

 

[Falcon02]

FINALLY! I've been hoping this would happen. This will make things ALOT easier.

 

[Aeson]

Here is the new forum!

Civ 3 Tournament Forum