COTM 02: Pregame discussion

[EL_OSO]

I hope scientific leaders are enabled.

That was my biggest dissappointment in the last game. Now that MGL are essentially crippled, SGLs become a much nicer feature. The arguement that it is "luck-driven" doesn't hold water since most everything in the game is based on some element of luck.

Take the scouts for instance. Sometimes you get tech, sometimes you get a settler/town, and other times you get a map. In the last game, I got one tech, one town (in a horrible position), and the rest were maps. Others that played the game probably had different results. I can cite other examples of luck but I digress.

 

[ainwood]

I hope scientific leaders are enabled. It will be fun to read about how the AI must have used one to rush a wonder a player was counting on.

No, they won't be on. Too unbalancing (due to randomness), unfortunately.

 

[ainwood]

That was my biggest dissappointment in the last game. Now that MGL are essentially crippled, SGLs become a much nicer feature. The arguement that it is "luck-driven" doesn't hold water since most everything in the game is based on some element of luck.

I have to disagree. MGLs are only crippled in that they can't be used to rush great wonders, but conversely the power of armies has been greatly increased.

Take the scouts for instance. Sometimes you get tech, sometimes you get a settler/town, and other times you get a map. In the last game, I got one tech, one town (in a horrible position), and the rest were maps. Others that played the game probably had different results. I can cite other examples of luck but I digress.

The randomness of scouts can be somewhat smoothed. By increasing the number of goody-huts that the player can get to, the odds of all players getting a similar distribution of results is increased. The alternative is to remove goody-huts from around the players' starting location. If there were (say) only one or two goody huts that the player could get to, then the chances of it giving one player a greater benefit than another are increased.

If you consider the SGLs, 1 in 33 players will get one with the first tech they discover that another civ doesn't have. Depending on the civs playing, this could (in the extreme) be the very first tech researched. Is it fair to have only 1 in 33 players with (say) the pyramids within the first 30 turns, based solely on luck?

 

[al_thor]

I have to agree with ainwood. Since the COTM scores are all compared (all in good fun, of course), it would not be fair for 1 out of every 33 participants to get an SGL and be able to rush a Wonder in one turn.

On a different note - did I hear someone say that ainwood is on New Zealand time? Does that mean that he will release the COTM2 at 1 minute past midnight, July 1st, New Zealand time?

 

[SniperDevil]

yay earlier!

 

[ainwood]

No - it will be released at around 8:00 PM NZ time (about midnight US Central time). GIve or take an hour or two.

 

[SirPleb]

Sir Pleb woul it be better to move SE if there is nothing on the other side of the hills? what would be worth moving to the other side of the hills if there was anything?

Yes, I think so. If there's nothing which makes a move across the hills worthwhile, moving SE to be able to use both whales seems well worth a turn, and worth the loss of a BG. (We get the shield back via the whales.)

Cattle across the hills would make a move worthwhile to me. Or any food bonus if it looks like there's a connection to a larger landmass - the only time I might not move a bit to get extra food would be on a very small island. (Even then if there were wheat over there I'd have to think about it. Moving might make sense. I haven't worked it out for now because wheat on a small island seems unlikely.)

A location with more 2-food tiles, shields, and/or commerce would make a move worthwhile I think. If a location becomes visible which is better in some ways but worse in others then it will be very difficult to decide, we'll have to think about which of production or science we'd prefer to emphasize.

If it looks like there's a connection to more land, but there's no food bonus for moving, it will be a tough decision. Placing the Palace more centrally will help later on with distance corruption. I think I'll move toward more land if:
1) There's at least as good a location visible over the hills as the SE tile, and
2) It doesn't add more than one additional turn for the settler to get there

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Is it fair to have only 1 in 33 players with (say) the pyramids within the first 30 turns, based solely on luck?

Yes. Randomness is an intregal part of the game. The only players that care are the ones that plan every move via spreadsheet formula because they can't figure the randomness in.

 

[Shinatoo]

over the hills is (on the south west side) another hill and (on the north west side) either a coastal or desert tile, judging from what I can see. I think even looking over the hill is a waste of time.

Also, why can we not see the ocean tile SE of our current position. There is nothing blocking our view.

(Why do these discussions always start sounding like an Asops fable).

 

[denyd]

Isn't it about time for Ainwood to add another tidbit to the plate?

Say for example the Civ were playing or the mini-map?

 

[civ_steve]

Shinatoo: The BG to the SE blocks our view of the next space. We can look over 1 tile of coast to see what's on the other side, but not over land.

I think lots of random results that over the course of a game provide pretty much all outcomes is fine. I'd prefer to avoid singular random events that generate widely varying outcomes. SGL falls in this category.

I'm considering joining the worker to the first ciy after improving the starting Grassland. I plan to move the worker to see what's over the hills. Unless I see something really stellar, the Settler goes SE and founds on turn 2. Worker moves back, spends 9 turns roading and mining the grassland. Join on turn 12 (just after city expands to size 2); Settler in 4, to found on one of the hills (scouting determines exactly where). A city on a hill generates an extra commerce for that square (2, vs 1 for just a road) and equals the Despotism Food/Shields/Commerce of a Whales square (2/1/2). This little empire will be working 4 squares, while a standard start will be working 3. Upon growth 10 turns later, it'll be working 6 (2 city centers, 2 Whales, 1 BG and ??) while standard will be working 4 (1 city center, 2 Whales and 1 BG) and thinking about building a Settler. If ?? is a coastal space (worse case possible) than this empire is +3 food, +1 Shield and +4 commerce per turn vs standard start. If Research is more important than production, this seems a reasonable way to start the game.

 

[Xevious]

Also, why can we not see the ocean tile SE of our current position. There is nothing blocking our view.

Settlers and workers can only see one tile in every direction, unless they are on a coast, hill or mountain, where they can see 2 spaces. If a mountain or hill is 2 tiles away (and not blocked by a mountain 1 tile away) it can also be seen. Since SE is a grass tile, and we're not on a hill or mountain, we can only see 1 tile SE.

 

[SniperDevil]

i have no idea wat im gonna do but im definitely gonna scout west with my worker

 

[EL_OSO]

I have to disagree. MGLs are only crippled in that they can't be used to rush great wonders, but conversely the power of armies has been greatly increased.

I can't disagree with the power of armies being increased but MGLs are based on luck as well. 1 in 16 for non-Militaristic right? It is true that one can "farm" for them to increase their chances of getting one, but it still isn't 100% guaranteed that you'll get one in any given game.

The randomness of scouts can be somewhat smoothed. By increasing the number of goody-huts that the player can get to, the odds of all players getting a similar distribution of results is increased. The alternative is to remove goody-huts from around the players' starting location. If there were (say) only one or two goody huts that the player could get to, then the chances of it giving one player a greater benefit than another are increased.

These same laws of statistics can be applied to SGL farming. By researching more techs first you increase your chances of getting one. I'm not sure about this but I think the scientific trait does have a slight edge on the odds of getting one (5% as opposed to 3%).

If you consider the SGLs, 1 in 33 players will get one with the first tech they discover that another civ doesn't have. Depending on the civs playing, this could (in the extreme) be the very first tech researched. Is it fair to have only 1 in 33 players with (say) the pyramids within the first 30 turns, based solely on luck?

Well something like this is possible in the Classic GOTM since you could get a MGL in a early combat victory and rush build the pyramids. How is a 1 in 16 chance really that much different? You still have only 2 out of 30 getting that wonder rushed based soley on luck.

~ just my two cents.

 

[SirPleb]

Well something like this is possible in the Classic GOTM since you could get a MGL in a early combat victory and rush build the pyramids. How is a 1 in 16 chance really that much different? You still have only 2 out of 30 getting that wonder rushed based soley on luck.

They're different in a number of ways:

1) The chance of an SGL is smaller, and thus very long "leaderless" streaks will be more common. I think the MGL production already suffers from this problem at 1 in 16. 1 in 20 is a fair bit worse, 1 in 33 is hugely worse.

2) There's no cost/benefit equation to getting an SGL. If you want a very early MGL to rush the Pyramids you have to make tradeoffs and take some significant risks for the opportunity. The early SGL is a lottery ticket. Everyone does the same research, a few lucky ticket holders get a leader.

3) The benefit of something like Pyramids is higher the earlier you get it. An SGL is possible earlier than an MGL except for an insanely risky military approach.

4) You can farm for MGLs. You cannot apply the same laws of statistics to farm for SGLs. Nothing you do will make it possible to learn a few techs per turn. Vs. a strategy which attempts to win a few battles with elites per turn, which is viable. With SGLs you cannot make up for someone else's luck by just fighting more and longer - if you don't get one, you don't get one and that's the end of it.

 

[SniperDevil]

good poins sir pleb good points

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Is it really so scary to the top players that a lesser player may get lucky that they want the opportunity to not exist?

Why not just double all the hit points so the right unit is more likely to win every time? That will remove more randomness and ensure the best strategy wins everytime.

 

[ainwood]

Is it really so scary to the top players that a lesser player may get lucky that they want the opportunity to not exist?

Its not about the top players at all - its about meaningful comparisons between peer players. Anything that is unbalancing in the results can skew them heavily. In fact, I'd suggest that the top players have less to worry about with the randomness than the rest of us.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Has a poll ever been taken on SGL inclusion or was it just arbitrarily decided by the powers that be?

 

[samildanach]

Has a poll ever been taken on SGL inclusion or was it just arbitrarily decided by the powers that be?

It's quite an easy decision to make really. If the SGL option had been turned on for COTM1 thirty-two players would be denuding their prams of toys for every quietly pleased one.