Civ III GOTM after 2022

[Più Freddo]

It appears that interest in the friendly Civilization III contest is waning. There is absolutely no activity in the discussion threads and very few submissions. It seems to me that the model with two parallel games per quarter has failed. I think we should either have more games or fewer. Actually, it seems to be easier to find willing game modifiers and designers than active players. So perhaps we should play more often, but also more focussed on just one active game at a time?

I suggest that we go back to having a new game every month, but just one, either Play the World or Conquests. We could have each variant every second month. We could let the games stay open for two weeks into the following month. That way, we would have news and things to talk about twice per month and still only have 50% more games in total. There would also only be a two-week hiatus between games of either variant for those of us who play only one of them.

What do you think? Please cast your vote in the attached poll (no mail-in ballots!) and add your wishes, suggestions and comments directly in this thread!

 

[templar_x]

Re myself, you are right: no way I can finish a serious game within 4 or 6 weeks. Hardly any playing time whatsoever. However, I can contribute a game every now and then. And hope you guys like it.
t_x

 

[templar_x]

Therefore, I went for the "keep it the way it is" option

 

[BaTTleBOtfan54]

I haven't played a GOTM before, but I am planning on it for next quarter. Having 3 months to finish a game is good for me, so I voted for that.

 

[Lanzelot]

I voted for two per quarter, but would also go with one per quarter. In any case, I think that reducing the play time back to 4 or 6 weeks, will not increase the number of submissions... Especially for "the older generation", it is easier to find some time for playing and finishing, if you have three months to do it. Then chances are much higher, that there's a week of vacation, a longer weekend, or a less busy week at work, where one can find some time for playing.

 

[Più Freddo]

OK, so it appears that it's not the slow tempo that kills interest, so it must be something else. Perhaps the spoiler thread was just to complex. We can try with just one discussion/spoiler thread ruled by personal discretion alone.

 

[Spoonwood]

OK, so it appears that it's not the slow tempo that kills interest, so it must be something else. Perhaps the spoiler thread was just to complex. We can try with just one discussion/spoiler thread ruled by personal discretion alone.

I thought about playing one recently. I've several times fired up a COTM, but then didn't play it out for one reason or another, mostly because I was used to playing HoF starts with powerful starts. But, now I'm warming up to more average and even did a sub ten shield start today and it was pretty fun. Except now, I'm using the C3X mod, and I'm not sure I want to play without it for a few reasons.

And, of course, I understand that everyone needs to play the same version, otherwise we have different rule sets.

 

[Captain_Jack]

I actually favor Piu's idea of one game active at at time. Monthly works fine for me.
Perhaps one game released at the start of the quarter and then the other game released at the six week mark?
I will play whatever games are given, but if it is a higher level game I have no chance of winning so it is less fun but still takes the time.

Would there be any interest in reviving specific victory conditions or playing games with unique rules? I know some people play a Five City Challenge, and there used to be games where, for instance, only a 100k Cultural Victory was allowed. That might spike interest.

Another option might be a serial game (I might have the lingo wrong) where one player does some turns and the next player takes over. I can imagine an expert taking over from me after I have allowed the enemy to establish a foothold on my island and I build libraries in his war towns. That would be a lot of fun for me.

 

[bbrady413]

Hey guys. I’m getting bitten by the Civ bug again. I’ll be jumping back into GOTMs with whatever is available. This game is awesome, and life is getting easier. So count me in again….

Now I’m gonna go check the schedule and see what games are running.

 

[Più Freddo]

Now I’m gonna go check the schedule and see what games are running.

We have two games that just started and which run until the end of October.

 

[Quintillus]

I decided to get some empirical evidence on how many players were playing. I looked at the last 12 games (3 years). For GOTM (PTW):

186: Monarch, 5
185: Regent, 10
184: Deity, 5
183: Emperor, 6
182: Monarch, 8
181: Regent, 11
180: Deity, 11
179: Emperor, 8
178: Monarch, 9
177: Regent, 8
176: Deity, 8
175: Emperor, 9

Most recent year: Average of 6.5 players. Previous year: Average of 9.5 players. Prior year: Average of 8.5 players.

Regent/Monarch (6 games): Average of 8.5 players. Emperor/Deity (6 games): Average of 7.8 players.

For PTW, the average player count is down, and difficulty does not appear to have a large impact on turnout.

----

For COTM/Conquests:

159: Emperor, 8
158: Deity, 9
157: Regent, 16
156: Demigod, 5
155: Emperor, 9
154: Deity, 14
153: Regent, 13
152: Demigod, 12
151: Emperor, 13
150: Deity, 8
149: Regent, 13
148: Demigod, 7

Most recent year: Average of 9.5 players. Previous year: Average of 12 players. Prior year: Average of 10.25 players.

Regent/Monarch (3 games): Average of 14 players. Emperor/Demigod (6 games): Average of 9 players. Deity/Sid (3 games): Average of 10.3 players.

The yearly average follows the same pattern, but there are more players in the COTM. This time the lower difficulties are noticeably more popular, despite being much less prevalent (and oddly, Monarch difficulty being absent entirely).

Another thing to look at would be are we getting any new players, and if so, in which games? I'm not surprised the COTM is more popular, since Conquests/Complete has been the only version available to buy new for well over a decade now. If anything I'm surprised the gap isn't larger, but that it isn't suggests that a lot of the remaining player base is long-term players who bought the game on CD way back in the day.

Thus, I'd also adding more Regent/Monarch Conquests games, perhaps trading off with more Emperor/Deity PTW games if there's a desire to keep the balance of difficulty level similar. Right now we only offer one game per year, on average, that is friendly towards inexperienced players who may have picked up the game recently, and which is our most popular format. That should probably be at least two.

 

[Quintillus]

I also think it might help to try some more outside-the-box ideas.

We've had some unusual maps over the years (the infamous isolated tundra island start on Warlord, for example), but it's pretty much the same format every quarter. Changing things up more significantly might draw more interest.

This could be with somewhat more unique setups (but hopefully not just punishing ones). Maybe a super-elongated "ring world" map with islands? Maybe a real-world map? Maybe applying "house rules" as has been done in the story - Captain_Jack's suggestion of a 5CC being a good example. But there are plenty of others - Always War, No Artillery, No Armies. These could encourage more creative and different gameplay, which might make it more appealing and thus draw in more people.

(Although I'm personally not a fan of mandatory victory conditions. To me that is a restriction that railroads you into a certain style of gameplay, whereas something like No Artillery lets you decide how to deal with it. Maybe you play a peaceful game, maybe you go all-in on Horsemen, maybe something else. Still, if mandatory victory conditions were an occasional change of pace and not all the time, it wouldn't drive me away)

I'll also mention another idea that I raised a few years ago that didn't go anywhere at the time - playing actual scenarios. There are hundreds of them created by our community, and featuring one could be a great way to draw in people from Creation and Customization who don't frequent the GOTM forums. Meanwhile, earier this month in the Stories and Tales forum, Lanzelot's documentation of his story The Nine Conquests, combined with choxorn's existing story The Conquests, has inspired others to start playing the scenarios Firaxis shipped with Conquests, and writing about how it went for them, what they tried differently, debating strategy, etc. It has somewhat become an organic version of a GOTM with a scenario focus, and it reinforces my belief that such a format may increase engagement. Maybe start with a Firaxis scenario first, and if it goes well, try a community one.

And at the risk of becoming an outcast, I'll also raise the question that was raised in the 2018 discussion of the future of the GOTM and ask, how many people are still specifically playing the PTW GOTMs who don't play the COTMs? Given that we get about 3 extra players in each quarterly COTM (with the gap slowly widening), switching some or all of the GOTMs to COTMs may increase participation somewhat.

All the same, I wouldn't entirely move away from the classic epic game format. Since Più Freddo has already suggested perhaps having more games, I might suggest this proposed schedule:

- Quarterly schedule
- 3 games each quarter
- 1 game for Conquests, similar to the current games, epic format (but include 50% regent/monarch)
- 1 game for Conquests, featuring a unique house rule or variant
- 1 game for Conquests, featuring a scenario

Or you could have two with the epic format, one high difficulty, one low difficulty, and one with house rules/variants/scenarios. Making it possible for low-level players to always have a GOTM could make them more likely to stick around, and eventually move up.

The house rules/variants/scenarios wouldn't count towards the Pantheon of Heroes, but is that the motivating factor for anyone these days?

I'd be happy to make/curate scenario/variant games for the first year if that idea is adopted.

 

[Quintillus]

One final, smaller suggestion (trying to keep each post focused on one idea, I spent too much time thinking about this last night before diving into the latest COTM): So far I don't like the no-spoiler-threads format. I very nearly got spoilers on GOTM 187 because I was scrolling down expecting it was all pre-game discussion. And then suddenly it wasn't.

I do like that if you start a game early, you don't have to wait a few weeks for a spoiler thread to post what's been going on. I can see where that may have reduced discussion.

But I'd suggest a standard of requesting that spoiler information be put in a SPOILER tag, with a notice of how far along the spoiler covers. That way if you're scrolling down to see the pregame discussion, you don't suddenly know the whole starting area because there was a screenshot posted. At this point I'm afraid to open the GOTM 187 thread until I finish and submit my game, which will also reduce discussion.

 

[Spoonwood]

But there are plenty of others - Always War, No Artillery, No Armies. These could encourage more creative and different gameplay, which might make it more appealing and thus draw in more people.

I'm skeptical that variants would draw in more players. I'm of the opinion that rule restrictions tend to dissuade players. I like using pillaging of trade routes sometimes. But, that is out if I want to play game of the month. Any player that prefers to build their economy or infrastructure first before going to war isn't likely to want to play Always War, especially if there exist free AI units roaming around. Like, since I prefer to put a granary in my capital early, I've removed AI free units, as I've sometimes gotten met early by an AI foot soldier even on a 60% pangea map with AI free units around. Players who like the trading system also aren't going to like Always War or have reservations about it. In fact, instead of playing strict or classic Always War, I've played the variant that is "Always War at the End of the Turn". That way I can trade, and even then I've also broken that variant slightly sometimes in my personal games.

If variants were suggested without being required for a submission, that might help to draw in more players. But, if variants are required for submission, I don't think that will draw in more players.

Despite "preserve random seed" not being checked for The Conquests, I do think those might be appealing to play for XOTM. Or other scenarios made my modders. Or a "Quick Civ" scenario provided by Firaxis. There are many good possibilities.

 

[jarred!]

Despite "preserve random seed" not being checked for The Conquests, I do think those might be appealing to play for XOTM. Or other scenarios made my modders. Or a "Quick Civ" scenario provided by Firaxis. There are many good possibilities.

That's a quick fix: you can open The Conquests's .biqs in the editor and edit the scenario settings! Then distribute a turn 0 .sav. And the scenario can be edited further.

There used to be multiple starts, one made to be harder than the other, right? Adding extra units or adding/subtracting a cow by the start would be a fast way to change difficulty level.

 

[Quintillus]

I'm skeptical that variants would draw in more players. I'm of the opinion that rule restrictions tend to dissuade players. I like using pillaging of trade routes sometimes. But, that is out if I want to play game of the month. Any player that prefers to build their economy or infrastructure first before going to war isn't likely to want to play Always War, especially if there exist free AI units roaming around. Like, since I prefer to put a granary in my capital early, I've removed AI free units, as I've sometimes gotten met early by an AI foot soldier even on a 60% pangea map with AI free units around. Players who like the trading system also aren't going to like Always War or have reservations about it. In fact, instead of playing strict or classic Always War, I've played the variant that is "Always War at the End of the Turn". That way I can trade, and even then I've also broken that variant slightly sometimes in my personal games.

If variants were suggested without being required for a submission, that might help to draw in more players. But, if variants are required for submission, I don't think that will draw in more players.

Despite "preserve random seed" not being checked for The Conquests, I do think those might be appealing to play for XOTM. Or other scenarios made my modders. Or a "Quick Civ" scenario provided by Firaxis. There are many good possibilities.

You may well be right, and the one restriction that we tried did discourage me from playing. The "optional" nature of them is a good idea. I think I might have even played one of the "mandatory victory" ones without trying for the victory, just without submitting it.

I still think it might be worth trying a few things. As one of my former managers said, if we have an idea that we think might help, we try it, and if after an appropriate trial period we find it doesn't, we try something else or go back to the old way. That philosophy worked well as everyone contributed ideas and we weren't afraid of trying something different. We could also collect feedback on variant ideas, and start with the ones that get the most positive feedback.

Although if I had to choose one of "variants" and "scenarios", I'd choose scenarios. Probably more variety, and more likely to draw in new blood (to GOTM at least, if not to the forum overall).

---------

Also, I somehow forgot to mention one last idea: submitting the GOTMs to the front page (civfanatics.com) every quarter. Civ4 and Civ6 do this, and it lets people know it's still going on. For a while the front page wasn't really getting updated, but it's active now, and Blake00 is even starting to share CFC forum posts on social media, where it could draw in an audience that might not discover it otherwise. I wouldn't expect to have 100 new players, but even a single-digit increase would be a noticeable boost, and could keep the event going for the next few years.

 

[Spoonwood]

Also, I somehow forgot to mention one last idea: submitting the GOTMs to the front page (civfanatics.com) every quarter. Civ4 and Civ6 do this, and it lets people know it's still going on. For a while the front page wasn't really getting updated, but it's active now, and Blake00 is even starting to share CFC forum posts on social media, where it could draw in an audience that might not discover it otherwise. I wouldn't expect to have 100 new players, but even a single-digit increase would be a noticeable boost, and could keep the event going for the next few years.

Yea, this is a good idea.

 

[Captain_Jack]

I wouldn't expect to have 100 new players, but even a single-digit increase would be a noticeable boost, and could keep the event going for the next few years.

This is a great discussion and I applaud everyone's suggestions. I have a few things to add:
1> This community is excellent. There is support for problems, solutions are suggested, and the feedback is helpful and everyone is friendly. That doesn't happen by accident, so I commend you all, past and present.
2> I enjoy the games at Regent and Emperor. Monarch would be even better. I play the higher level games but never with a hope to win, and I prefer more low level games where I can reasonably expect victory.
3> Creating some games has been a lot of fun also. It's a different type of fun, but I end up playing those worlds more intensely in trials than the actual for-credit games.
4> I would love to play a game with a team format, or one of those sequence games (a team takes turns playing, I forget the name). It would also be interesting to have a COTM or GOTM where each participant takes a different nation in the same world. If we have ten players sign up, then a ten nation world with everyone playing the same world but a different nation. It might be interesting, and I would volunteer to make that world if there is interest.
5> Thanks again to Piu Freddo. His work keeps the whole ship afloat.

 

[Quintillus]

On the topic of switching things up, yesterday I saw the latest Civ4 GOTM on the front page, and it's quite unique! I wouldn't want all of them to be so atraditional, but they've got 37 replies on the pre-game discussion thread, which is a lot. I've had terrible luck getting the Civ4 HOF Mod to play on my computer in years past, but am considering trying again just to try that game. Not that I'd likely have time to finish it in time, but it still sounds fun.

On (4), the term you're looking for is "Succession Game". We used to have those, although I never partook so I can't tell you the history. I did have a great time playing a Sim City 4 succession game in All Other Games at one point.

 

[Lanzelot]

the term you're looking for is "Succession Game". We used to have those, although I never partook so I can't tell you the history.

We still have Succession Games, but no longer Succession Game of the Months. When I joined this forum as a newbee, I had the honor of being a member of I.Larkin's team in SGOTM14. It was lead by two absolute Masters of the game, I.Larkin and ignas, and had a number of other top notch players. They pulled a feat I have never seen or tried since: the "accellerated slingshot". After Writing, skip CoL, research Philo up until one turn before completion, then shut down research and wait... Hopefully one of the AIs will meanwhile research CoL or Polytheism. Once you see that, finish Philo, trade for their tech and pick Republic or Monarchy as your freebee. That way they managed to become a Monarchy in 1990BC! Fastest time out of Despotism I have ever seen in any standard game... (But works only on high difficulty levels and with many AIs & contacts. It was a Demigod game with 24 AIs as Portugal (seafaring), so all these preliminaries were fullfilled.) I learned a lot participating in this game.

A regular succession game (without the competitive aspect) has recently been started by MrRandomGuy:

MRG's Random Game of Randomness

It's been a while since I've been around here. I got the itch to play Civilization III again and enjoyed the time I played a few succession games. I'm looking to play a Conquests game where most settings will be set to random. World size is going to be huge, but everything beyond that will be...

forums.civfanatics.com