Conquest 05: Results and Congratulations

[bed_head7]

This sounds to me like Aeson is saying it could be played to that date / score range, and may in fact be playing the game right now to prove it.

If he did that, then my respect for his playing skills would...I don't even know how to put it in words.

 

[Aeson]

Yes.

Ok. I will have access to Civ III and Conquests mid-December, with some time to play.

 

[bed_head7]

Even if you do that, and the more I think about it, the surer I am that you will get reasonably close and get a score like that, it still doesn't fix anything. Domination dates around the same date as my victory scored better than mine, and it just feels wrong. But,

Please note, by no means I want to threadjack this for a complaint about the scoring system (it is as good as it could be without MAJOR work). It just shows again that someone should better not go for 20k if he doesn't want to end in the bottom third of scores.

I am not asking for a change. It is just the fact that Aeson doesn't really seem to think there is much wrong about 20k game's scores that gets me. I admit that I could have reached the domination limit sooner. I was a little cautious about going to war just in case I underestimated an oppenent and it would end up somehow affecting my capital. And I could have actually milked when I got there instead of getting lazy and just wanting to finish the game. I'll even admit to automating workers towards the end, which certainly didn't help. But devoting four or five or six hours to milking to raise my score to a more respectable point just wasn't worth it to me.

Again, I'll say that proving it can be done doesn't fix anything. Even trying to ignore what I now know about the map and being that extra bit concerned about score, I could surely beat 1600 AD. Building ToA instead of Pyramids would only have wasted four turns, since I was at 25spt by 1500 BC. The impact on finish date would have been four turns, unless building ToA had some unforeseen impact, but the effect on score would be pretty substantial. Wasting a hundred and fifty shields in a switch to SoZ when I finally got it hooked up in early ADs would have pushed back the date again, though not the full six turns, and felt aesthetically wrong to me, but would have meant four more AC that would probably have much quicker conquest of Aztecs, as four more AC would increase the size of my military by about 20%. I made a few mistakes in the game as well, in terms of culture, possibly enough that if I hadn't made those mistakes I could have made those culture sacrifices listed and finished at the same date. Thinking about it, I would probably say the best date achievable at about 1550 AD for this map, as opposed to the 1700 AD used for the best date for scoring purposes. I probably couldn't do better than 1575 AD, and that is only with something less than my 5 or 6 turn anarchy.

So 1600s 20k finish with the 11-12k score will be very impressive, but really doesn't mean much. If played for score and without some mistakes, I could probably do 9-10k with a 1600s finish. But I would still choose late 1500s with 7k. And after this whole long post, I don't even really know what I am saying, so there is probably no way anyone else would. I guess the whole score thing is a personal problem, and simply a matter of not conforming to the style necessary. And I can't expect that the whole scoring system be changed to suit the feelings of one person.

So excuse the content of the entire post.

 

[Aeson]

As you seem to realize, there is a playstyle that can at least get close to what Doc has said would satisfy his concerns about 20k scoring. My concern is laying Doc's concern to rest so that every month the same misconception isn't posted and mislead people into thinking they can't play 20k and still get a good score. I asked if the criteria stated would do so, and he affirmed.

Your personal opinion is valid. The great thing about this is anyone can formulate their own rankings based on whatever bias they want. And post them if they want. It's how the Jason score came about. It was something I posted unofficially for 6 months as it evolved, then it was adopted as a better solution than the in-game scoring. It's also how the "lowest" awards came about. Something Phillip martin ran to highlight the interesting games at the other end of the spectrum.

As for my response to your personal view, it would be great to have a scoring system that could accurately portray the trade-offs required for the "cutting edge" victories by date. I just don't see the possibility to create such a scoring system and not introduce a large random factor and disallow other playstyles (milking and hybrid) to compete.

 

[akots]

@Doc: well, considering your 20K date and score, I'm sure very many people can beat that and rather easily. So, I'm still not seeing even the smallest reason for again raising some essentially "buried" topic.

 

[bed_head7]

I realized that. It doesn't change the fact that it bums me out, but there is no perfect system, no matter how hard anyone wishes. It just means that as in any game played on my own, my only satisfaction in 20k victories as part of GOTM will be derived from how well the game is played, whereas in COTM4 I was definitely pleased by my nearness to the 10k mark along with a finish date better than the best date, playing for 100k.

And I do understand that 20k can be played for good score. I could have won the award for 20k and scored at least 1000 points better. You'll no doubt get near gozpel and mine's finish dates with a score substantially higher. Since you can outmilk the milking curve projection, I suppose it is even possible that you could beat the top domination scores. That is something I could not do, even if I chose. Outmilking, that is. I won't even pretend that I could have gotten 12k in any victory type, though 10k is certainly not out of the question.

I have enough faith in your reputation, and I am probably not the only one, that you don't need to play the game if you don't want to. Although DocT might feel differently.

 

[bed_head7]

@Doc: well, considering your 20K date and score, I'm sure very many people can beat that and rather easily. So, I'm still not seeing even the smallest reason for again raising some essentially "buried" topic.

That was really unnecessary. Sticking a smilie on the end doesn't change the content of your post.

 

[Aeson]

I understand the desire for a better representation in the score.

There are only 2 faster 20k dates than yours in the HOF, and those are on hand-picked maps. In the COTM it's the fastest 20k date so far posted. So the 20k award is well-deserved, and is part of the "scoring" if not represented in Jason score in this case. I'd agree that such an effort should be around 10k, but I don't know how to make it work that way and not have the hypothetical "1620AD 12k" end up "1620AD 90k" and screw up the scoring system completely.

What I think I can do is show a way that players can approach 20k, compete for awards, and still post Jason scores that will compete for medals. This way at least players have a choice and know what to expect from those choices.

 

[bed_head7]

Although, as I would assume you know, there are a whole slew of games from LulThyme, and a few from punkbass, that handily my dates. Of course with SGLs, but still that brings up a whole different argument that belongs in the HoF forum, not this one (though I may note that you never responded to my query about the policy on SGLs in 20k games in the rules thread).

Edit: And I followed the modification of Jason scoring thread, so I read all the dangers of a date based system. Although I would have no problem with my game getting 90k, some others might be upset with that.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

(Edit: Was originally answering to Akots friendly comment, but on a second thought, it's not worth it to clutter up the thread. Would you please do the same akots, and pm me if you feel like it?)

Aeson, I don't understand how the 'Milking Curve' exactly works, but from what I can tell, a delayed expansion (solely required for 20k, Space or UN are not affected) will hurt a lot - is that correct?

 

[Nichelle]

Well back to the subject of the thread.....

Big congrats to the many players whose score was over 10k!!!!!

I think it goes to show how the abilities of all the players are growing thanks to the GOTM/COTM.

Special congrats to all you brave souls who did the AAC-someday I hope I am confident enough to try something like that.

A special congrats to Bradleyfeanor-first medal+first dom award+BC finish date all in doing the AAC!

A final BIG thanks to the GOTM staff for all you do. I am amazed at how you all are able to keep giving us these great games and tools to compare the games. Especially with all the "suggestions" that have been happening of late. Thanks for everything!!!!!!!

 

[Aeson]

Aeson, I don't understand how the 'Milking Curve' exactly works, but from what I can tell, a delayed expansion (solely required for 20k, Space or UN are not affected) will hurt a lot - is that correct?

It depends on when you finish and how long the delay is.

There are different and rougly equal (from a base score viewpoint) approaches to getting to the Domination limit.

One is to always be fighting somewhere. Use Swords/Horses, then when available Knights, then when available Cavalry. Territory expansion is constant, somewhat slow, and more resources are used in claiming territory. Focus is on military for almost all of the time, so happiness and population growth suffers. Slow and steady.

Another is to build up a strong core, beelining for Knights or Cavalry (to use Knights or Cavalry is interesting itself). A massive upgrade and rush finishes things off quickly. Territory expansion is pretty much limited to what you can grab peacefully early on, then a quick jump out to the Domination limit when the Knights/Cavalry are available. Focus is on tech rate, getting enough cash for upgrades (Leo's), happiness suffers, but population growth should be high.

Moonsinger even did well with Infantry/Artillery in some games. The wait for expansion is longer, but the efficiency of the units is almost 100%. So more resources can be devoted to making what you have happy and productive instead of building military. This is more for higher difficulties and larger maps where Knights/Cavalry won't be enough to finish things off.

Then there is everything inbetween. Just about any approach, played right, can get to about the same point by 1400AD.

--------------

20k mostly cuts out the opportunity for the first option.

If the first 40 turns of the game are spent simply building up the 20k city at the expense of all else, the Sword/Horse rush will be 40 turns behind. So basically it's out of play. (Leader farming isn't though... opening up the military small wonders and rush them still helps, as does having empty armies to put Knights/Cavalry in.)

Knights will come before the military gap can be completely made up too probably. Starting here can still be a good idea.

Cavalry give enough time to get the necessary forces together in most cases though. You only need so many Cavalry, and usually the limiting factor on how fast Cavalry can get to the Domination limit is not how many Horses+Gold which can be put together, but when Military Tradition rolls around. Very shortly thereafter the Domination limit should be reached, whether there are 100 Cavalry (adjust for mapsize and difficulty) or 6000.

--------------

Also the map plays a big part. If all players have to wait until Navigation/Magnetism to claim a good portion of the Domination limit, 20k games may not lag behind at all. By then you can have built up the 20k city, moved on, and claimed/built up the entire starting continent either way. In that case the only tradeoff would be a small amount of early score (compared to conquering the continent right off) or a bit of tech rate (compared to pushing the tech rate as much as possible).

------------

The other main factor will be how the predicted scoring curve matches up to the actual possible one. Different approaches will maximize the difference between their curve and the predicted one at different times. Different map situations will change things too.

Using Swords/Horses, that point may come rather early (I don't think it's going to be before 1000AD very often), while waiting till Cavalry will have that point much later in the game. Some maps, where initial terrain is very bad (low food and/or little of it), and the good terrain (high food and/or lots of it) is only reachable later in the game, 2050AD will be that point.

Generally you can beat the predicted curve most after having fully maxed out population and happiness and played a number of turns at that level. 20-40 probably. The later in the game Domination is reach the higher the number will be.

------------

So the answer is, it varies by map and the approach to it. 20k Ottomans on a small initial landmass and no crossings till Navigation should be able reach Domination the same time as anyone else. 20k with a good Ancient UU civ on a high difficulty smaller map pangaea might be giving up a whole lot.

 

[ainwood]

I'm still working on it Alan. The currently released version (2.7.5) still has some bugs in the QSC scoring. My current (not quite released yet) version gets real close to the official values (within around 10 points). I'm working with ainwood to get it exact.

Whereas I got distracted on the weekend, but will have my end sorted in a few days (hopefully).

 

[AlanH]

Without wanting to put words in his mouth, I know if I were Offa I'd be happy with something to give a +/-10 point estimate of QSC progress. The main benefit I find is to see where your emphasis (mis-)matches your objectives. I know when I first saw a QSC analysis of an early game I was quite surprised at what *it* said I was doing vs what *I* thought I was doing

 

[chunkymonkey]

Some very impressive conquest/dom dates, yet again, well done guys! Also, well done to Space for stealing the cow from me ( I say steal, but her base score was actually 20% higher than mine - must improve! ).

 

[horragoth]

Congratz to all players, especially to Kaiser_Berger who has faster Diplomatic then me by more than a century and half.

 

[Florian K]

Congrats to all other medal and award winners, especially Bradleyfeanor with his 50BC ancient age conquest, and Darkness who I just managed to edge by a few turns.

 

[AlanH]

KillerLoop's QSC result has been updated as it didn't take account of his 15 Pyramid-shaped granaries. Apologies - a QC error