Come on! I am on the number 1 spot in Monarch for almost half a year now! God, 8000 will not do!
Any challengers, please stand up, so I can crush you
Any challengers, please stand up, so I can crush you
Civ3 High Score Hall of Fame
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
I will take that challenge on some day when I have the time to play an extra game!
ANd I think I can beat warmongeringfo0ls emperor game with my next game. (I was about to in a game I played recently but I lost that because of my bad timing in the attacks against the last 2 civs, one of them won with culture because of that... damn Infantry...)
ANd I think I can beat warmongeringfo0ls emperor game with my next game. (I was about to in a game I played recently but I lost that because of my bad timing in the attacks against the last 2 civs, one of them won with culture because of that... damn Infantry...)
wohmongarinf00l
Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 452
beammeuppy, u are right. that 8000 doesn't sound right. if the regent games can net over 10K, i don't see why one shouldn't net above that with a nicely optimised early conquest+expansion game such as the one i'm trying with the zulus.
grey fox, i believe u can beat that score too. i have been comparing replays between the deity games and the emperor games. the deity games have much early prolonged conquest but
it seems that the emperor games have a very quiet middle-period.
for example, in my game i could have finished off the aztecs and the americans much earlier and not worried so much about the infrastructure and tech catch-up. i spent the whole middlegame wrestling the tech lead from the germans and russians.
grey fox, i believe u can beat that score too. i have been comparing replays between the deity games and the emperor games. the deity games have much early prolonged conquest but
it seems that the emperor games have a very quiet middle-period.
for example, in my game i could have finished off the aztecs and the americans much earlier and not worried so much about the infrastructure and tech catch-up. i spent the whole middlegame wrestling the tech lead from the germans and russians.
wohmongarinf00l
Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 452
congrats aeson+ sirpleb. aeson's score is amazing. i'm looking at dense-building in a whole new light.
Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
Thanks for supporting the Civ 3 HOF and I wish you all luck. And, if PH puts his name in all the slots, let me know.
Ok, all current rules and standards are still in force. I invite PMs and emails but I would much rather have PMs as I do most of my CFC work at my real work.
I don't check my email at work though. If you do send me an email then please link to whatever page you are speaking in reference to and also be sure to mention that it is the Civ3 HOF you are speaking of b/c I do get some emails and PMs about other Civ3 stuff. Thanks.Sidenote, but important: I use a modified game....what steps will I have to go thru to check the games according to the standard ruels of HOF? Will I just have to open the submitted saves since the .bic is now in the saved game and I won't have to change any of my settings? Thanks for the replies.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
With 1.21f games the rules are saved with the game. Not sure how long you were planning on accepting 1.17f games. Shouldn't make too much difference in loading up the games either way though. You won't actually be playing with the different rules, and I don't think the scoring system changed at all.
I think it's important to decide on how the HOF will treat 1.21f games in relation to earlier ones. The default Huge maps in 1.21f only have 80% of the land tiles of earlier versions. For instance, to beat my score of 63545 in 1.21f would take a much better played game with the fewer tiles. Roughly 80k (1.17f) efficiency, which I really don't think is possible. Even if it was possible though, it wouldn't be right for a game much better to not score an equivalent amount better.
One fix for this is to allow people to still play on 180x180 custom sized maps, instead of being stuck with 160x160 maps as the maximum size. Another would be to archive the 1.17f and previous HOF and just start a new one on 1.21f.
I don't want to end up with an 'unbeatable' score just because no one else is allowed to play out a game on as large of a map.
I think it's important to decide on how the HOF will treat 1.21f games in relation to earlier ones. The default Huge maps in 1.21f only have 80% of the land tiles of earlier versions. For instance, to beat my score of 63545 in 1.21f would take a much better played game with the fewer tiles. Roughly 80k (1.17f) efficiency, which I really don't think is possible. Even if it was possible though, it wouldn't be right for a game much better to not score an equivalent amount better.
One fix for this is to allow people to still play on 180x180 custom sized maps, instead of being stuck with 160x160 maps as the maximum size. Another would be to archive the 1.17f and previous HOF and just start a new one on 1.21f.
I don't want to end up with an 'unbeatable' score just because no one else is allowed to play out a game on as large of a map.
A poll questioning whether we should allow custom maps of certain size in order to keep the map sizes the same or to archive the v1.17f games would be good.
Are there any other questions that could be polled that DoM hasn't quashed already? I am reading through all the old posts right now so don't try to pull a fast one on me.
Also, I am in favor of making it 1 entry per level instead of the current 2. What does everyone think on this?
Are there any other questions that could be polled that DoM hasn't quashed already? I am reading through all the old posts right now so don't try to pull a fast one on me.
Also, I am in favor of making it 1 entry per level instead of the current 2. What does everyone think on this?
Patient, my friend. I'm trying out my first milking game at that Monarch level as we speak.Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Come on! I am on the number 1 spot in Monarch for almost half a year now! God, 8000 will not do!
Any challengers, please stand up, so I can crush you
(huge random map with 15 random AIs). So far, I'm a little behind my conquest schedule; the enemies were a little tougher than I have anticipated. My cavalries have a tough time against those rifleman defenders. Without railroad, it takes forever for my replacement troops to reach the front line.
It's now almost 1400 A.D. and I controlled only 7 luxury resources about 1/3 of the world. However, I think it already is good enough to challenge your score.
I know the secret to beat the AIs at Deity level now.
By watching the playback of those savegames of Aeson and SirPleb, I learned that I must use the land wisely in the early stage of the game. I should build a lot of towns closer to each other (two or three tiles apart) and start pumping out a lot of troops. Later on, after I have more land, I can disband some of those town to make room for bigger size cities. Oh, baby...I can't wait to line up my towns 2 space apart. I will make every square of land count!
[dance]
By watching the playback of those savegames of Aeson and SirPleb, I learned that I must use the land wisely in the early stage of the game. I should build a lot of towns closer to each other (two or three tiles apart) and start pumping out a lot of troops. Later on, after I have more land, I can disband some of those town to make room for bigger size cities. Oh, baby...I can't wait to line up my towns 2 space apart. I will make every square of land count![dance]
Very good idea! I think each player should be allowed to submit as many times as he/she like, but only one with highest score will be kept at each level. That would give SirPleb a chance to beat Aeson.
Ronald
Emperor
I am also playing currently a huge map monarch game (patch 1.21, so reduced map size).
As far as I can see it now in 1400 AD, a final score with 8.000 points will be definitely not enough.
Have lots of fun with miliking
As far as I can see it now in 1400 AD, a final score with 8.000 points will be definitely not enough.
Have lots of fun with miliking
Ronald
Emperor
Originally posted by PaleHorse76
A poll questioning whether we should allow custom maps of certain size in order to keep the map sizes the same or to archive the v1.17f games would be good.
Are there any other questions that could be polled that DoM hasn't quashed already? I am reading through all the old posts right now so don't try to pull a fast one on me.
Also, I am in favor of making it 1 entry per level instead of the current 2. What does everyone think on this?
I am in favour of only allowing random maps, custom maps could be specifically designed to give the player additional advantages.
One entry per level should be enough.
What they mean with CUSTOM here is to allow players to play on maps that are 180x180 in Size, like the HUGE maps from earlier patches, as you know, the HUGE mapa now are only 160x160. Which lowers the score potential quite a bit.
How to solve this is another issue, maybe we should have a Specific .Bic file here we must use or or we do it ourself.
And How can we know that the person that did it hasn't randomized the map in the Editor and had a little look on it?
Anyway, 1 entry per level should be suffiecient.
What do you mean by "one entry per level"? For example: If Aeson manage to beat his 64K high score, will he be allowed to submit again? I assume that "one entry per level" means only one entry in the HoF for each level and we can submit as many time as we like, right?
wohmongarinf00l
Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2002
- Messages
- 452
one entry per level is good.
i've played so many emperor persia games it's now a routine. that's why i'm trying something new.
i've played so many emperor persia games it's now a routine. that's why i'm trying something new.
Moonsinger, Grey Fox, Ronald,
Good to read you are picking up the gauntlet !
, after all 8000 should not be to difficult. Could you please post your results here, first of all I am curious and secondly I'd like to know the new target!
Good to read you are picking up the gauntlet !
, after all 8000 should not be to difficult. Could you please post your results here, first of all I am curious and secondly I'd like to know the new target!
Originally posted by PaleHorse76
A poll questioning whether we should allow custom maps of certain size in order to keep the map sizes the same or to archive the v1.17f games would be good.
Are there any other questions that could be polled that DoM hasn't quashed already? I am reading through all the old posts right now so don't try to pull a fast one on me.
Also, I am in favor of making it 1 entry per level instead of the current 2. What does everyone think on this?
On custom maps: only with very clear rules what can be custom and also the option to submit on the new mapsizes.
On other questions: If you have been through the posts you must have read the discussion on the scoring system. A reflection of that discussion has been processed by Aeson
in a scoring system that is used in the Tournament. Why not a) poll for use of a better scoring system and b) make use of the lessons learned there.On entries per level, I guess you mean 1 listed entry per level and a newly submitted one must be higher than the previous one? Fine with me.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I'd be in favor for archiving all the old scores. Future patches may change some things, but I don't see them making the maps any smaller, so as far as land and population available for milking, it will probably stay the same. Aren't some of these scores still from v1.07f, when you could pop-rush like mad? Start a whole new list, and possibly seperate the scores by map size, because there is almost no way a standard or large map can beat a properly milked huge map.
If you're worried about too many scores maybe have the top 5 for each level and map size (standard-huge). That way there are 15 scores for each difficulty level, so the list won't be too much longer than it is now. This way if people like playing on standard maps they have a chance at a high score without the weeks of milking it could take to finish a huge map.
I also would agree that each person would be allowed 1 score for each level (if they beat their older score, the lower score would just be dropped from the list).
Beammeuppy, you're right 8,000 shouldn't be too hard to beat. Especially if they use Aeson's style. Aeson's style is way over-powering, on the AI and on score. Of course it is more difficult to pull off on the harder difficulties, but if you have practice with his style, one could beat all the scores that are up there now. I was using his style and it looked like I was on pace for 25-30,000 pts on Regent!!
I can't remember the dates but I think it was around 3-400 A.D., and I was over halfway to domination and I was gaining between 60-80 pts per TURN!
If you're worried about too many scores maybe have the top 5 for each level and map size (standard-huge). That way there are 15 scores for each difficulty level, so the list won't be too much longer than it is now. This way if people like playing on standard maps they have a chance at a high score without the weeks of milking it could take to finish a huge map.
I also would agree that each person would be allowed 1 score for each level (if they beat their older score, the lower score would just be dropped from the list).
Beammeuppy, you're right 8,000 shouldn't be too hard to beat. Especially if they use Aeson's style. Aeson's style is way over-powering, on the AI and on score. Of course it is more difficult to pull off on the harder difficulties, but if you have practice with his style, one could beat all the scores that are up there now. I was using his style and it looked like I was on pace for 25-30,000 pts on Regent!!
I can't remember the dates but I think it was around 3-400 A.D., and I was over halfway to domination and I was gaining between 60-80 pts per TURN!
I completely agree that the scoring system needs to be addressed.
Yes, some of the games on the HOF are still from 1.07f, but, for the most part, they are not the top scores.
I don't remember my reasoning (if any) behind allowing two scores per level, maybe I was just in a good mood.
And, thanks everyone for your show of concern that I won't be doing the HOF anymore.
I also noticed the HOF thread is sticky again. Nice to be the Mod of the forum it's in, huh?
Yes, some of the games on the HOF are still from 1.07f, but, for the most part, they are not the top scores.
I don't remember my reasoning (if any) behind allowing two scores per level, maybe I was just in a good mood.
And, thanks everyone for your show of concern that I won't be doing the HOF anymore.
I also noticed the HOF thread is sticky again.
Nice to be the Mod of the forum it's in, huh? 
