COTM 05 Pre-Game Discussion

[klarius]

I just tested the start in C3C.
The plains fur tile still gives two shields in the city center (well one should trust Dave ).
The chop-a-chasqui sequence ends up with 59sh for the granary , if there is no BG in the north.

 

[horragoth]

As for settling north or not, for me that depends on where on the map we are. It's clear by the pine trees that we are either far south or far north. If we are already far north, I will not move my capitol further north (in that case DaveMcW's start sounds very tempting). If we are far south, I will probably settle north. But any food bonus found by the initial scout and worker moves could change this.

There is minimap posted. We are far south...

 

[Hannabir]

Yep. Another good reason to send the scout northways.

Settling one tile north gives, from what we can see now, Warrior-Worker-Granary-Settler in 2850 BC or Scout-Worker-Granary-Settler in 2800 BC, if my calculations are correct.

 

[samildanach]

Just so that there's no misunderstanding. Revealing the map before playing is not just tantamount to cheating. It *is* cheating. No reloading is allowed in order to affect outcomes in your submitted game. Not on one computer. Not on multiple computers.

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players. Such as reading through the spoilers before playing. Not only would you get map knowledge but you would have also gotten strategic and tactical advice on how to play that map from elite players. You would also find out the dates you need to beat in order to gasump someone out of a medal....
Cheating IMO is any behaviour that may give you an unfair advantage over your competitors. This is pertinent to GOTM 35 where because of the militaristic/scientific error some players were given opportuinities that were not available to players who downloaded the later scientific save. Now to be of any use the militaristic trait has to be used or as Sir Pleb said in the other thread - rax are just going to be sitting around adding to your support cost. The players that noticed the trait error straight away perhaps would have used it to build up a force of vet warriors for upgrade to invade the nearest civ and hopefully bag a GL or two before asking ainwood to "fix" their save. Or in my case, since I didn't notice it till libraries, build up a force of archers for future upgrade to LBW. Not as advantageous as the warrior upgrade but still better than sitting on my hands till sipahi.
My submitted save comes under the definition of cheating, I would say, because it had a reload and it did affect the outcome of the game. Now I knowingly chose to do that and it wasn't the result of a crash therefore my game should be excluded. But what of the players who got the switch and may or not have gotten an advantage but it still provided them with opportuinites that were simply not available to other players? Aren't these games still loaded ? Are we to believe all the protests of "I didn't notice!" Even I noticed eventually .
It looks to me that you may be prepared to tolerate one form of cheating or of gaining an unfair advantage because it spares blushes and doesn't upset people.

 

[eldar]

IIRC, the advantage for Expansionist Civs popping huts is the same regardless of the unit popping the hut... so use a scout and 2 warriors, in that case.

2 warriors is, imho, a far better use of 20 shields.

This being Regent, though, with the huts being nice-r an' all, there's one thing to be careful of, and it's caught me out twice: popping Philosophy when you're still researching CoL! That REALLY bites.

Neil.

 

[solenoozerec]

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players.

Maybe spoilers should be published later than they are right now?

 

[AlanH]

I don't disagree here. But my guess is that the most effective form of cheating is using information or opportuinities that aren't available to other players. Such as reading through the spoilers before playing. Not only would you get map knowledge but you would have also gotten strategic and tactical advice on how to play that map from elite players. You would also find out the dates you need to beat in order to gasump someone out of a medal....

True. And it's not allowed either.

Cheating IMO is any behaviour that may give you an unfair advantage over your competitors. This is pertinent to GOTM 35 where because of the militaristic/scientific error some players were given opportuinities that were not available to players who downloaded the later scientific save
....
My submitted save comes under the definition of cheating, I would say, because it had a reload and it did affect the outcome of the game.
It looks to me that you may be prepared to tolerate one form of cheating or of gaining an unfair advantage because it spares blushes and doesn't upset people.

We had to respond to the error made by the game organisers, and your action was sanctioned by the decision we took to allow a switch. If you feel guilty about having taken that opportunity in an unfair way then we'll exclude your entry, and that invitation is open to anyone who feels they've played unfairly. But it's your decision.

The gotm works to a significant extent on an honour system. We trust players not to break the rules and we don't have effective tools to detect all the possible breaches. Getting a high ranking or a medal or an award by cheating can happen, but will the player concerned get any satisfaction, other than that of a kid who rang a stranger's door bell and ran away without getting caught? I don't think so. But maybe that's enough for some people

 

[samildanach]

We had to respond to the error made by the game organisers, and your action was sanctioned by the decision we took to allow a switch. If you feel guilty about having taken that opportunity in an unfair way then we'll exclude your entry, and that invitation is open to anyone who feels they've played unfairly. But it's your decision.

Rest assured Alan if I had scored a 10 K game you would not have heard a peep from me as I had guessed you would let it slide But since I did not, the only satisfaction I was going to get from my game was to stir up trouble . Guilt does not come into it.

Where there is an opportuinity for profit players will take it. I am kicking up a stink because I sensed the opportuinity but made a pigs ear of it ie . the opportuinity being sanctioned cheating. And now in my surly, petulant style I'm railing against those players who may have done a better job of it than me .

I'm happy for my game to be withdrawn but I'm fully aware that you are chickening out of taking the hard decision of excluding other games. Leaving it up to the individual players to decide, when you should be sharpening your axe. How will that be percieved by the players who have not had the potential advantages of a switched game? Badly! I hope.

 

[AlanH]

If I were a chicken I'd have crossed the road and ignored your trouble-making

So trying to take advantage of the opportunity backfired on you! My heart bleeds Specially since you seem to be saying that you *would* get a kick out of ringing door bells if you could reach the bell push

How can I, or any of the staff, tell whether the switch was made by each player as a genuine innocent action to get back onto the intended game plan, or as a deliberate decision to take an unfair advantage?

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Conversations like this are one of the many reasons I like civ: the community is about as quirky as they come.

The whole militaristic/scientific thing did give me a thought: I wonder if a game where the players were allowed to chose their starting traits would make for a good GOTM?

 

[AlanH]

Quirky? Moi?

 

[samildanach]

So trying to take advantage of the opportunity backfired on you! My heart bleeds Specially since you seem to be saying that you *would* get a kick out of ringing door bells if you could reach the bell push

Thanks for your heart warming vote of sympathy . I reloaded to play the game I originally intended to play. No particularly great advantage was gained by doing so. As it happened the game I intended to play and then played resulted in an indifferent jason score. But in essence it is still cheating because it is a reload. I was very aware that the game had developed in such a way as to make it possible to score very well if I chose to pursue domination or conquest. But I really wanted to go for 100k and I wanted to go back to the point where I was about to implement my plan. I knew this was cheating, because it is reloading, but I thought it would be allowed to slide ( correctly as it appears) and I thought I would do well ( wrongly it turned out). Other players will almost certainly have made similar calculations to suit their particular purpose.

How can I, or any of the staff, tell whether the switch was made by each player as a genuine innocent action to get back onto the intended game plan, or as a deliberate decision to take an unfair advantage?

You can't. Therefore all should be excluded. Irrespective of whether the decisions made were deliberate, the fact some games were allowed to switch makes them unfair. In that other players did not get the same opportuinities.
I realise that decision to exclude these games will make you unpopular, but by being a Mac owner you should be used to that by now

If I was in the business of ringing door bells - it would be for gold medals

 

[smackster]

The whole militaristic/scientific thing did give me a thought: I wonder if a game where the players were allowed to chose their starting traits would make for a good GOTM?

Or just giving us a choice of one of two civs for an upcoming GOTM. With a map tailored so that it gives advantages to both. Would certainly intensify the pre-game discussion.

 

[AlanH]

Well, you don't actually know whether your reloaded game will be allowed or not yet . But we're not in the habit of reversing decisions if we can avoid it, and particularly not in a way that would exclude a significant number of innocent players whoso only crime was to accept Ainwood's invitation to have their saves switched.

I'm very popular with a lot of other Mac users, and some of my best friends suffer under the heel of M$. They *do* get my sympathy

Or just giving us a choice of one of two civs for an upcoming GOTM. With a map tailored so that it gives advantages to both. Would certainly intensify the pre-game discussion.

We already produce nine different game start files every month, not including SGOTMs I know Ainwood lives in New Zealand, and they have to make their own entertainment , but I doubt if he's actually looking for an opportunity to double this number just yet

 

[smackster]

We already produce nine different game start files every month, not including SGOTMs I know Ainwood lives in New Zealand, and they have to make their own entertainment , but I doubt if he's actually looking for an opportunity to double this number just yet

I thought you had it all automated now anyway, I'm sure your progams/scripts can handle a few more files

But seriously, its just a comment, for a one off game, might be an interesting diversion.

smackster

 

[AlanH]

The submissions and results presentation are automated, but creating the game files and ensuring they have all the right civs and traits and .. and ... is manual labour. Hence the opportunities for error. Balancing a map to provide a level playing field for two different civs would require significant extra effort as well. But I'm sure Ainwood will be awake and along soon to give a better response on this.

 

[solenoozerec]

But seriously, its just a comment, for a one off game, might be an interesting diversion.

I like this idea too. Give a map, then take a vote about which civ to play. Then create two saves with two most popular civs and then see which one will turnto be more popular and which will turn to be more succesful.
I do not think that it is a good idea on a regular basis, but once it should be fun.

 

[samildanach]

Maybe spoilers should be published later than they are right now?

I think Mad-Bax is in favour of having no spoilers at all. I actually like the spoilers and can't wait for them to come out. Personally, if I ever play a possible medal winning game then I will just be a little circumspect about the information I give out in spoilers. So that I'm not gasumped by some yahoo who has been through the spoilers.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

I do not think that it is a good idea on a regular basis, but once it should be fun.

Indeed, just a possibility for a single game. I think it would only be interesting once. As Smakster noted, it would probably make for a good pregame discussion: each player laying out their reasons for picking certain traits given the start pic and divination into Ainwood's brain. We would probably also see more players pick their victory condition at the start, and outline their strategy based on it.

Of course, everyone might just chose industrial and agricultural , and their would be no need for additional start files!

 

[SirPleb]

Thanks DaveMcW, what a great idea to move the settler west! I think that a granary in 3350BC and settler in 3150BC is even possible, using only tiles which are fully visible at the start.

klarius, it is tempting to sneak in a "chopsqui" (thanks Horragoth ) before the granary. But I do think the delay is significant - it looks to me like a three turn delay in production of the settler, at 3000BC. Which might be worthwhile.

On the question of whether one Chasqui is as good as two warriors, I feel that the answer is yes for exploration. Two warriors cannot travel twice as far as one warrior. The Chasqui's greater speed should improve the odds of opening more huts. I've tested the Chasqui a bit and found something disappointing - although it can use its second movement point after moving onto a hill or mountain, it does get stuck in forest and jungle. This sure seems like an overpriced UU at 20 shields. And if there's a lot of forest/jungle then sending out warriors could be better.

On the issue of walking a long way for more bonus food: this start is a lot different from COTM02. There we were an agricultural Civ on a barren peninsula without a river. As we explored, each step we took improved our position by enough to at least break even on the time lost taking the step. And getting to a river alone is worth a few turns of walking for an agricultural Civ. Here we're an agricultural Civ with a fairly rich start position and we're already on a river. Unless each step the settler takes can be seen to be an improvement, why risk it?

I plan to start by moving the scout NE and (if nothing startling at that point) N to the hills. If that reveals something nice then I'll probably pause for a long time to compare the potential with DaveMcW's settler W idea. Might go for more food, might stick with the original plan. If the scout doesn't see food from the hills then I'll definitely move the settler west. And unless that reveals something startling my worker will clear the forest. In the next few turns I'll decide on whether to go straight for granary and settler in 3150BC or to do a chopsqui first. If the new tiles revealed to the north and west when settling create more options (even a BG in the town's initial radius might make a difference) then I may change to do a chopsqui, and if the first scout doesn't find a good location for a second town then an additional explorer will be a higher priority. I might even follow the granary or chopsqui by a worker before settler. All depends on what settling and the first bit of exploration reveals.

Research: I plan to research flat out, starting with Alphabet and taking the usual Conquests path to Republic, i.e. Writing, Code Of Laws, Philosophy, and free tech Republic. If the scout gets to pop a hut before my first turn of research I'll block a research path other than Alphabet while popping. I've never popped Alphabet at the start but I remain ever hopeful!