DCL evolution and proposition

[Chicoutimi]

for people wanting to make it harder while trying something new:
you can not spend any policy points in tradition/liberty

 

[Grendeldef]

I would be more inclined to play in these if there was a target victory condition that players could approach in a more competitive way. This would be entirely optional, of course -- anyone uninterested in this could go along using the DCLs however they have in the past.

I'm not convinced that anything would change on voluntary basis and I from personal pov I can safely say that nothing would change in my lack of game style.

In terms of "competitive", what I mean is trying to set the fastest victory time, as in HoF/GotM type games. One thing to understand about this is that the "competition" isn't necessarily about winning, but more about setting a universal, agreed upon goal. If everyone is playing for the same objective, then you can have more meaningful strategy discussions. It also can generate interesting information. Everyone loves discussing power levels of Civs, Tier Lists, and the like. This would be a way to get empirical data about this stuff.

Without anything being mandatory nothing would change and there isn't anything preventing this atm. If people are not interested in the competitive aspect they won't take a sudden interest in theorycrafting due to limited options during the play.

This would fill a slightly different niche than the current HoF and GotM. There would be a set map to play with, so it eliminates the re-rolling aspect of HoF, for those who dislike that. And, unlike GotM and HoF, players would be free to re-roll and replay the map as they pleased, in order to further explore strategy.

There's barely enough players for DCL when 'everyone' is catered in some way and presenting very easy maps partly in purpose of trying to lure Immortal players to join the series. By making the series more similar to other available option most likely won't be net increase in player # but even if it did - what's the point of having a replica of GotM.

The series won't evolve into Deity+ or something. Since DCL20 there have been normal medium and easy maps (some graciously provided by you). And this'll continue as long as I'm host.

I'm fine with and without Deity+ option.

The thread isn't about making the whole series harder. It's a place to assemble opinions and comments and it's (right now) also about knowing what kind of tweaks people are comfortable with on a moral level. To either make the game more interesting or shifting the difficulty one way or the other.

Suggested VC has always been a possibility, can't really see the harm in it. However I'm personally against different goals since it is the opposite of a suggested VC, it splits players into even more categories.
I'm also strongly against splitting the series.

I agree.

I also won't do a poll at this point. If someone has an opinion please state it and explain it, I'll hear it. Even if I participate in the debate and pushes my way, I do listen and some comments and suggestions will make their way in. If someone doesn't like the direction the series take (overall) it's also the place to voice your concern.

I'm all for a sophisticated dictatorship so I don't need polls to express my views but in case they're implemented, I'll gladly press a button or even several.

I could even say I like the series.

 

[Manpanzee]

Sorry I don't understand - you would like get prepared map or not? If not as you probably already noticed vadalaz started interesting deity challenges in HoF rules.

Sorry, the second "re-roll" was the wrong word. I meant "re-load". That takes a lot of the pressure off of it (if you make a game-ruining mistake, you can just reload, unlike in GotM/HoF), and I think it shifts the emphasis more to experimentation -- as in, what would things be like if I tried so-and-so? Is this or that policy better? Would conquering an AI capital here speed up or slow down a diplo victory? I can reload and find out.

Playing for HoF is obviously easier since you roll great start and can choose peacefully civs as opponents - really don't see how can it add difficulty (in worst scenario you just don't beat record)

Well, yeah that's the difference here -- in the DCL, you CAN'T always roll a great start and choose peaceful opponents. So there's more of a possibility for AI-induced challenge than in HoF.

I do think playing for turn times adds challenge, though. Consider science victory -- people often gripe about how easy it is to turtle your way to a science win. However, the potential victory speed from a turtling science game is generally worse than the potential in a game where you're more aggressive about getting cities out and are more willing to forward settle the AI for good locations. I believe that the latter strategy is actually superior from a turn-times standpoint, but it's definitely more challenging -- you're forward-settling the AI and inviting war while trying to win a science victory! But there isn't as much of a reason to make risky plays like this if the goal is just to win eventually.

 

[nmp0098]

I recognize that there are people downloading and playing the map, but not posting a finish. Some of them might not be posting because they don't think their finish time is impressive enough, so I'm against anything too competitive. I'm here to learn and compare my choices with those of others playing the same map.

That said, I do want the occasional stinker of a map. 1 of 3 is good. I learned a ton from the Attila map, and I thought the Ghandi map was flat out tough because of the local landscape. I like playing the easier ones chasing a faster finish time.

The AI has flavors for offensive military, science, city-state love, expansion, boldness, and others that may not be so important to overall success. I bet you can guess which AI have high values for those flavors, and what that means for their relative success.

What I really want is the AI to try and kill me once I signal a launch by finishing Apollo, but that's not gonna happen. I fondly remember making sure my military was up to snuff before finishing Apollo in 4. However, I have seen the AI put together a solid game and actually try to win. It's not consistent, but the game when AI Assyria launched on turn 218 made it into my Steam finishes.

So I'm thinking that an optional AI boost could be assembled in such a way as to not interfere with every download. Someone kindly posted an example of an across the board AI boost in my xml modding query, and I plan to figure out whether it's effects are independent of the save. The idea is a juiced AI would make the game more interesting for more advanced players, but still allow everyone else to get down with a salt and wheat start. For the hard maps, all of the AI could be given the spike before the game starts. It's just a matter of figuring out what changes actually make the game more challenging and fun, and I give credit to Acken for working the problem.

@nmp0098

Let me ask you something? Is victory ever in doubt if you go conquest?

The short answer is yes, more so and more often. The idea of whacking somebody on Deity with even XBows was foreign to me before I started really reading on this site, so most of my domination runs start with Autocratic infantry and artillery. I'm effective at that point, but it is still a matter of execution so the game is in doubt much longer. That's actually how I played 4, mixing in an early rush or maybe two if appropriate. It doesn't lead to impressive finish times though, even when you can completely obliterate a civ in 4-5 turns. If I start with CBows I have a good shot at getting out of position and losing, so the whole game can be in doubt until the last opponent falls.

 

[Acken]

If we look at Aztecs, Babylon and Inca, we can see that people love their turtling SVs. More than 50% of victories have been SVs. For me, that's kinda sad, but I never made a map where SV was inaccessible for most players. I feel that anything like Denmark makes Dom and CV really hard.

Well done on your own win, but you have to admit you're a full class above the rest of us, right?

That map IS supposed to be hard. It's written in the description. Even science is harder if you usually cannot win before T280 the chance someone launches is increased.

The fact that science ignores the AI performance and is an easy victory is out of my control. Harder means CV and domination are harder. These victory scales with AI difficulty or map crappiness. The tips you give someone will vary wildly for these victories whether they play at Prince or Deity. Almost nothing changes for science.

And that's also why I won't disable the victory. People like the possibility of winning science when they are in a tough game. Diplomacy for others.

Regarding that map I actually did not found it THAT hard. I won with a classic artillery rush followed by bombers and rocket artillery. It is harder than usual but that was the purpose at creation and I strongly suggest people being confident in their domination tactics give it a try. Sure you cannot do early wars, but that is also the case for a jungle map like India or Polynesia, a common point of a hard map. The difference here is that the start is good enough to give you a strong economy to catch up rather than rely on a poor start to slow you down. To me this is just two faces of the same coin. Two valid ways as how you could increase the challenge.

However I'll admit some stuff were unfair or poorly thought out. That is why I'm really interested in what people thought of it. The horsemen barbs, the allied CSs. I probably should have picked a better suited civ that gets bonuses for the challenge (well I did use ski infantry and free pillage !). But I wanted to get rid of Danemark

 

[nmp0098]

Early horsemen barbs are awesome. There was no getting away with silly settler wandering or delaying some archers.

 

[Manpanzee]

The fact that science ignores the AI performance and is an easy victory is out of my control. Harder means CV and domination are harder. These victory scales with AI difficulty or map crappiness. The tips you give someone will vary wildly for these victories whether they play at Prince or Deity. Almost nothing changes for science.

See, I think that this is simply untrue. Deity science is way, way different from other difficulties, for so many different reasons. The wonder environment is totally different, for starters -- on lower difficulties you want to wonder spam like crazy, whereas on Deity many wonders are unbuildable. Then you've got research agreements, availability of land, AI wealth for trades, strong AI religions, actual threatening AI military, Ideology pressure...

I actually think Deity science is fairly underexplored. It's the victory of choice for less-experienced players, but Deity veterans seem to disdain it as easy and uninteractive. Sure, the general noob tips for science are the same (grow cities, get NC, get science buildings, etc), but there's a lot more to it that gets ignored for whatever reason.

There was a recent Rome/Warlord/Science gauntlet in the HoF, and all of the fastest finishers did four self-founded cities with two captured capitals, for six cities total. This result is both non-obvious and non-turtley. In comparison, capturing capitals on Deity is a lot harder but a lot more rewarding -- you don't get to crack open a Turn 100 wonder piñata on Prince the way you do on Deity. Based on my observations, I think it's likely that some amount of conquest is often optimal for Deity science victory, but I really have no idea how much. Because nobody seems to be exploring this -- all of the Deity players with the skills to pull it off are uninterested in science victory.

 

[consentient]

Based on my observations, I think it's likely that some amount of conquest is often optimal for Deity science victory, but I really have no idea how much. Because nobody seems to be exploring this -- all of the Deity players with the skills to pull it off are uninterested in science victory.

I'm interested in this. Maybe you and I can both pursue this strategy on the next one?

 

[Acken]

See, I think that this is simply untrue. Deity science is way, way different from other difficulties, for so many different reasons. The wonder environment is totally different, for starters -- on lower difficulties you want to wonder spam like crazy, whereas on Deity many wonders are unbuildable. Then you've got research agreements, availability of land, AI wealth for trades, strong AI religions, actual threatening AI military, Ideology pressure...

Sure that was an exaggeration. But it was mostly to illustrate why people chose science and why it is and always is easier than the others. It's also why I do not really understand why someone uses it to say something is too easy.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

But capturing cities on Deity is also not very hard. Basically, the whole premise of Deity is its supposed difficulty due to AI's advantages, but realistically, human players often convert all of that into their own advantages. It's like taking a box of candies from a rich kid.

 

[Acken]

It's a lot harder than on Prince. That's just what I mean. There's a reason why people often consider culture and domination the real challenges of going from on level to the next. And the many threads asking for help on the subject.

 

[beetle]

There's a reason why people often consider culture and domination the real challenges of going from on level to the next.

As someone who has not participated, I can say that this is what I would hope to get out of DCL. Deity SV is something I can figure out on my own, but Dom is a real challenge and CV seems totally out of reach for me.

With the map editor or whatnot can you allow SV for the AI but not the human player?

 

[stormtrooper412]

That map IS supposed to be hard. It's written in the description. Even science is harder if you usually cannot win before T280 the chance someone launches is increased.

This is true. I played super focused until ideology and I was fairly certain I would be able to wrap it up in under 250 but then my game kind of collapsed because of reasons and I won by the skin of my teeth, which on "normal" deity would never be an issue

 

[Acken]

As someone who has not participated, I can say that this is what I would hope to get out of DCL. Deity SV is something I can figure out on my own, but Dom is a real challenge and CV seems totally out of reach for me.

With the map editor or whatnot can you allow SV for the AI but not the human player?

Not as far as I know.

 

[sun8119]

I am pretty much happy with DCLs so far. However, 2 points to note:

1. We are running out of unique civs to play, are we going to play same civs again?

2. Perhaps games should include more custon settings from civ advanced menu. For example, there are plenty of custom map types which could be interesting. Maybe other settings too, I do not know I have not tried them but who knows maybe they will bring something new and unusual.

 

[consentient]

I am pretty much happy with DCLs so far. However, 2 points to note:

1. We are running out of unique civs to play, are we going to play same civs again?

2. Perhaps games should include more custon settings from civ advanced menu. For example, there are plenty of custom map types which could be interesting. Maybe other settings too, I do not know I have not tried them but who knows maybe they will bring something new and unusual.

1. We're on #27. There are 43 unique civs. Some way to go yet

Still unplayed on DCL are:-

Assyria
Austria
Carthage
Egypt
France
Greece
Iroquois
Japan
Korea
Ottoman
Portugal
Russia
Shoshone
Siam
Songhai

All of whom have the potential to be interesting at least

2. Some custom map types COULD be interesting, but please be aware that some rely on DLC that not everyone has.

 

[budweiser]

But capturing cities on Deity is also not very hard. Basically, the whole premise of Deity is its supposed difficulty due to AI's advantages, but realistically, human players often convert all of that into their own advantages. It's like taking a box of candies from a rich kid.

Yes, once you know what to do. The biggest problem I have with deity is how long it takes to play a game if you fight at all. So I prefer peaceful play in the interest of finishing the game in 2-4 hours, not 8 to 12. That's why I never put that much time into deity at all.

 

[stormtrooper412]

I am pretty much happy with DCLs so far. However, 2 points to note:

1. We are running out of unique civs to play, are we going to play same civs again?

2. Perhaps games should include more custon settings from civ advanced menu. For example, there are plenty of custom map types which could be interesting. Maybe other settings too, I do not know I have not tried them but who knows maybe they will bring something new and unusual.

We could play the modded civs

 

[Nikola K]

We could play the modded civs

Hitler vs Stallin duel map :> ?

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Hitler vs Stallin duel map :> ?

I actually love historical re-enactments in civ. The Genghis Khan campaign was fun, Into the Renaissance was a lot of fun. You also have a turn limit, so it really pushes you to be efficient.

Civ 3 had Napoleonic Europe, and a bunch of stuff around the Roman Empire, and I played the crap out of those.