Cookbook University games discussion thread

[Dirk1302]

I would propose:

No huts
No random events
Normal speed (I play both Normal and Epic -- typically Normal speed is best for me in GROUP games like these and epic is best for my PERSONAL games).

Agree with these settings. As for the format i like my own suggestion giving everyone the chance to play on once from their own save instead of having to choose the winning save. Btw i like ABigCivFan's suggestion too but that's because i like the the open game format. In practice i think many players would play on from their own save making the winning save and with it the voting process relatively unimportant.

SG'd be fun too but i think we could do something like that after we 've played a deity cookbook game.

About reporting, CellKu provides some very good guidelines for reporting. In open games it's not really worth it to go into so much detail. here i think it's
indeed important to do it this way to promote discussion about strategy.

 

[Rusten]

Not really what this topic is about, but before people get the wrong idea.

Human will be at extreme military disadvantage for at least the first 5000 years of the game, so managing the soft skills and long-term planning become imperative to ensure early survival and late success.

You can beat AIs with axes/swords/HAs/elephants etc as well, especially those that hardly make units -- it's just more situational. You don't have to be 1st to liberalism and win with a renaissance/industrial era war every game. Just saying this in advance to avoid everyone playing the same way thinking it's the only way to win.

Humans have the advantage of adapting and putting all effort into 1 area while the AI gets everything all the time. With smart play you can easily overcome the AI bonuses early on as well.

That's not to say long-term planning isn't important, it just means that a long-term plan might involve an early war. It doesn't have to be about survival -- it can be about gaining via war as well.

P.S. If you want to use unofficial patches (Dresden) I'm probably out as that would complicate MP. I'm playing pitboss and regular MP and it would be annoying to swap .dll and other necessary/similar files all the time.

I don't really care about the system. Whether I play from my own save or not doesn't matter

 

[ABigCivFan]

Not really what this topic is about, but before people get the wrong idea.

You can beat AIs with axes/swords/HAs/elephants etc as well, especially those that hardly make units -- it's just more situational. You don't have to be 1st to liberalism and win with a renaissance/industrial era war every game. Just saying this in advance to avoid everyone playing the same way thinking it's the only way to win.

Humans have the advantage of adapting and putting all effort into 1 area while the AI gets everything all the time. With smart play you can easily overcome the AI bonuses early on as well.

That's not to say long-term planning isn't important, it just means that a long-term plan might involve an early war. It doesn't have to be about survival -- it can be about gaining via war as well.

That was just a general statement. But from my experience, early war on Deity are most of the time huge gambits. Even if you have copper in BFC, 2-3 productive cities to crack out Axe, the odds against a early rush is still overwelmingly bad against human given the severe hadicap the AIs get (2 settlers/production bonus/research bonus).

They can mount these impossible counter attack for human. Just Imagine you are producing/whipping Axe/Cats/Phants from your small 2-3 cities each 3-5 turns trying to keep up with an AI who is producing Axe/Swords/Horse Archers/Cats/Phants every 1-2 turns from 6 cities...

On Deity, In general, it is much safer to develop an group of core cities while keep good relations with neighbor AIs until human can offset AI's production bonus.

Of cause there are always those rare occations when you have no space to settle but have copper/Ivory in BFC and Gandi is your neighbor who settled some good cities for you with just a few archers defending each city.

 

[Bleys]

In practice i think many players would play on from their own save making the winning save and with it the voting process relatively unimportant.

As a poor Emp level player, I can assure you, when I play the Immortal and Deity Cookbooks, my own save isnt even worth reporting most times, heh. I like the idea that I can mess up my own game, jump in, and follow the next set more closely because my position doesnt suck from my own incompetence.

I think the other point you made in your post is solid. Proper reporting, and clarifying your plans and reasons for the path you chose is critical, but again, that may be a matter of my own inexperience at these levels and wanting to learn WHY people do what they do.

 

[Gliese 581]

P.S. If you want to use unofficial patches (Dresden) I'm probably out as that would complicate MP. I'm playing pitboss and regular MP and it would be annoying to swap .dll and other necessary/similar files all the time.

I don't really care about the system. Whether I play from my own save or not doesn't matter

I think saves using this patch is compatible with regular saves but I'm not sure. Not having it changes circumstances a bit between games but not enough to make it obligatory imo.

 

[JBossch]

Sounds like a great new game series! I am unfortunately bouncing around way too much to play right now but I will definitely be lurking. Hope to join in when I get settled.

 

[carl corey]

Yeah, saves with Solver's patch are compatible with saves without it. BUG mod, if used directly in the custom assets, also gives compatible saves. We have encountered one problem so far (3.17 + Solver's + last version BUG crashes on opening the log of 3.17 + older version of BUG I think), but the save itself loads ok and is playable.

As for the format itself, in IMCII I proposed longer rounds for the next games in the series. We could play half-rounds in between them, where you could choose to continue from either your save or the best save. Complicating things with giving 3 saves to choose from or stuff like that will become hectic in case of ties (and if you think ties are unlikely, you're wrong: the first round ended in a tie for first place, the second one in a winning save and a tie for second place), so let's keep it simple. "Whole" rounds will be played from the best save available, so that we would start our comparisons from a common situation. The rounds I proposed for the next game could be: 4000BC-1AD-1000AD-1600AD-victory, with no half round for the first part (unless we want to post a 1500BC save to talk about city placement for example), and half rounds at 500AD and 1300AD. An alternative is to let everyone play to the end once we reach a save that is unanimously deemed winning, as that means that the rest of the game has less to do with learning how to play Immortal, and more to how to finish the game quickly from a good position. Such a save should meet certain criteria, such as having a strong enough power to withstand a sudden DoW, or good enough diplomacy that this can't happen, etc.

 

[CellKu]

Yeah, saves with Solver's patch are compatible with saves without it. BUG mod, if used directly in the custom assets, also gives compatible saves. We have encountered one problem so far (3.17 + Solver's + last version BUG crashes on opening the log of 3.17 + older version of BUG I think), but the save itself loads ok and is playable.

That is good to know! Thanks! Would have been too bad if Rusten had dropped out because of that.

The rounds I proposed for the next game could be: 4000BC-1AD-1000AD-1600AD-victory, with no half round for the first part (unless we want to post a 1500BC save to talk about city placement for example), and half rounds at 500AD and 1300AD.

I read your argumentation in the immortal cookbook thread. And I do agree that for reasons of comparison and voting playing until 1 AD might be a good idea. However, with regard to information sharing and the learning experience, IMO 1 AD on deity seems a bit too late for a first report. A 1 AD save contains a lot of information about initial build orders, tech choices, rexing etc., but also about the following phases.
So, I would suggest that we have 1-2 reporting dates somewhen before (as you also seem to suggest in your parentheses). Voting, however, will only be done on the 1 AD dave. (Actually, we did something similar in an SG when each of us played out the start, reported 2-3 times and after that we chose one save from which we then continued together. So, we could do something like that here as well.)

An alternative is to let everyone play to the end once we reach a save that is unanimously deemed winning, as that means that the rest of the game has less to do with learning how to play Immortal, and more to how to finish the game quickly from a good position. Such a save should meet certain criteria, such as having a strong enough power to withstand a sudden DoW, or good enough diplomacy that this can't happen, etc.

I like that. Although, on deity I would think that we get such a save only very late in the game.

 

[carl corey]

On Deity things will certainly be different. Someone like me who only started playing on Immortal would already be dead by 1AD on Deity. Anyway, those were the Immortal dates, I'm sure you can come up with something equivalent on Deity.

 

[Gliese 581]

Also don't forget the dates differ between epic and normal. My suggestion for first round is until 375 bc (100 turns). Then less turns for each consecutive round.

 

[CellKu]

Couldn't we have an "in between" reporting date (before 375 BC) - somewhere around 1200/1000 BC or whichever date is the closest to the AI usually getting alpha and the player having something meaningful to trade (such as e.g. aethetics). I think it would be helpful to have one report about all the initial moves before the tech trading starts.

 

[Dirk1302]

So when'll we start? I've almost finished the ultimate deity pt III challenge and have played my walk through to 1000 AD so after compiling reports on those games i'll have time to play this. Gliese's game's nearing the end too (for better or for worse).

We probably need to sift through the posts here to see which format we'll play, we seem to be agreed on all other things like fractal, random settings, no huts, no events and detailed reporting.

 

[CellKu]

Dirk1302, it seems that everybody is waiting, since nobody posts anymore.
I think what still needs to be discussed are, for example, the reporting dates. Following Gliese's current game, I have the feeling that 5 or so reporting dates - as proposed (I think by carl) - are not sufficient.
So, I would suggest a few more (with regard to the proposed dates, please keep in mind that I would prefer to have "only reporting dates" and "reporting and voting dates"):

1.) 1800 BC (reporting only) - Suggestions for reporting: Especially about city placement, initial build order and the like.

2.) 1000 BC (reporting only) - Suggestions for reporting: Especially about initial diplomacy, perhaps first trades and wonders, actual placement of new cities and specialization of the newly founded cities.

3.) 1 AD (or 375 BC if Gliese prefers that) (reporting AND voting) - Suggestions for reporting: Especially about first trades, some more diplomacy, maybe wonders and specialization of the newly founded cities.

4.) 500 AD (reporting only) - E.g. lib-race and the like
5.) 1000 (reporting and voting)
6.) 1300 (only reporting)
7.) 1500 (reporting and voting)
8.) 1650 (reporting and voting)
9.) 1800 or end (reporting and voting?)

Maybe one more reporting date between 1500 and 1800? To take into account the length of modern wars?

Well, what do you think? If you prefer a more turn-oriented approach (as it appears Gliese does), we could change these dates according to that - for example, report after turn 30, 60, report and vote after turn 100).

 

[Dirk1302]

I'm fine with these dates, initial turns are shorter than later turns so i'm not in favor of linear turn based voting.

Maybe i'd add a reporting date 500 bc. 1000 bc - 1 ad is a very important time where lots of crucial decisions are made regarding extended rex, timing first GS and building GL.

I agree with voting 1 AD, the issues i raised directly above are often clear then and the game is entering the beginning of the lib race.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Hi guys,

I love what Cellku just proposed: a reporting date in between two voting points, so the more experienced deity players can give pointers to others before it's too late...
And yeah, I think all interested people are waiting for a thread to start...

Cheers

 

[Dirk1302]

What i'm going to love (or hate) about this format is the need to report in relatively short intervals. When i started my walk through i was determined to put in a fair amount of detail (i did) and to report in short intervals which i certainly did not. If i'm not forced to stop because of a vote or a reporting date i tend to play on. So if nothing else i hope to learn some discipline in reporting.

I have just glanced over the whole thread again, from the info here i gathered there are 2 formats that have some support.

Cellku and i are in favor of a format i proposed some time ago:

1)
Each player is free to play his own save instead of the elected save after a voting round. If on the next voting round his save isn't the elected save he's forced to play from the elected save. On the next round having played on from the elected save he's free again to play his own save again once.

2)
ABigCivFan and Carl Corey are in favor of a format where you're always free to play either the elected save or your own save. Carl argues that there'll be players that are learning to play this level that are only too happy to play on from an elected save. Could be but my recent experiences with open game games suggests that there won't be so much players taking the game on. I could be wrong there though, in a cookbook game there'll be much more discussion than in an open game, this may indeed encourage more people to play. Input in this thread has been encouraging in this respect sofar.

Compared with the immortal cookbook game there aren't that many voting rounds here. You can play your own save until 1000 AD according to format 1) and Cellku's proposed dates so there's enough room to implement a long term plan

3) Gliese proposed the following, elect 3 saves to play on from. There wasn't so much support for this although i think something like this could be interesting too, maybe we can do something like this later. In absence of 3) He leans toward 1) more than 2).

I'm willing to compile a summary of the settings and subsequently post a start in the near future. In absence of further posts on formats i'd assume we go with format 1) and Cellku's post dates.Keep in mind however that the whole format is new for me anyway, id be happy to play according to format 2) too.

 

[carl corey]

My opinion shouldn't count as a "vote" if you're talking about Deity games. I won't participate in those for a while now, I'm just making it to Immortal. I posted in here just to give an idea and provide some reasoning to go with it.

 

[shyuhe]

I would prefer format 1. But I'm open to any of the other formats as well.

 

[Gliese 581]

Format 1 it is then unless we get more votes soon.
I like the idea of report only dates and think 500 bc report only and 1 ad vote and report is fine along with the rest of the dates Cellku put in.

I don't have alot of experience with deity but from the games I've played it seems they don't go very far beyond 1800 so that seems ok too as a late date, otherwise I might have suggested a split into two dates at the end of the proposed schedule.

I'm ready to start on this game as I'm just occupied with my own game which is nearing its end and the emperor cookbook game that was more or less won after round 2. So feel free to host it Dirk, make sure you explain the vote and play procedures in detail to avoid confusion.


EDIT: One thing we didn't discuss is choice of leader. I'm fine with whatever basically, though perhaps not one of the weaker leaders. I know someone voiced a wish for a strong leader in this thread.

 

[carl corey]

I'll take a look at your thread to see how things are going. If everything's gonna go well we can adopt the same format for the Immortal Cookbook. Although we might have to decide really soon, as IMC II looks easy to finish in round 4. We're THAT good!