Discussion of HOF power plays

Congrats SirPleb on finishing! I'm just finishing up the city/terrain improvement stage, just a few more mass transits and all thats left is 200 turns of cleaning up pollution :rolleyes: I should be finished in another day or two hopefully, I'll post a link when I do. I really want to install the patch just for the stacking of the workers, but will play through with 1.16 as thats what I started with.

Do you think that playing on a smaller landmass (and non-pangaea) setting helped or hurt your score? On Emperor and below it would seem the more land the better, but on Deity it might allow the AI to become even more of an obstacle.

I am looking at a mid to high 30k score as well, if my math is right (doubtful). Emperor just allowed for a quicker conquest, which made up for the 5:6 scoring ratio. I somehow doubt than any 1.17 games will be able to score as high, since pop rushing was by far the most efficient production method for the vast majority of cities on huge maps. We both lost out on a couple thousand points before we knew we could reload to figure out the domination threshold, but I don't think that would be enough for a 1.17 game to make up the difference.
 
That's great Aeson, I'm looking forward to seeing it!

I think that a larger land mass would improve score even on Deity. At 60% water it would be 1/3 more land than I had. I think the resulting score would be 20 to 25% higher. Because the AI is so aggressive about filling all the land as a top priority, on a larger landmass I think the result would just be more easy pickings in the first 3 or 4 wars, it wouldn't slow the player down much I think.

I'm unsure of the impact of Pangaea/Continent on score in this map. Pangaea makes it easier for the player by giving more choices of enemies and more useful possibilities in diplomacy. Against that, the AI's rate of research would probably increase and it is already frighteningly high at Deity. With the continents I had there were two groups of AI Civs, a group of 8 (with me as the 9th) and a group of 7. They were isolated until the techs for ocean passage were discovered. On a Pangaea map all 15 AI's would be trading, research might go faster again. Overall though I would guess that Pangaea would be a slightly better setup for high score. The possibilities for massive ongoing conflicts with each AI at war with 5 or more enemies at one time are appealing. Does this match your thinking about the land types?

I suspect that Archipelago would be extremely tough with huge-deity-15-rivals, if it could be won the score would be lower. On the other settings, it would be bad luck to start on one of those occasional isolated islands.

As well as holding back on the Domination threshold, I held back on Hospitals for a long time. That probably impacted my score somewhat. I could have grown much sooner but waited for Mass Transit. I just didn't want 100s of cities spewing pollution and causing major global warming in 1300AD :) I over-did it, my pollution only passed 10T once briefly and I never had significant global warming. Should have started the baby boom sooner.

About the 1.17 patch: I've just finished testing an idea I had for pop rushing. It works, I've played the same huge deity map I just finished up to the point where I can rush at the same level I used in my real game. It took me 15 turns longer to reach that level of production. That's a lot but not a killer, wouldn't necessarily change the result much from that point on. Except for another thing: the AI rate of learning tech seems to be hugely faster with 1.17. I think that's a killer, takes the fun out of it. I'll be posting a longer note explaining all this as a new thread later tonight. It is sad, I think I actually don't want this patch.
 
Once your population and happiness are maxed out, I found that you can predict the 2050 score with fair accuracy. You can use a calculation based on turns so far plus the rate of increase of score (measured from last turn to current turn) to work out the underlying (hidden in the depths of the program) current turn value. Then you can work out what the final value will be by averaging in the current turn value for the number of remaining turns. Of course this is a minimum for the final value - any increase in population/territory/happiness from the current date will increase the score. Guessing that part is hard.

I made a quick/dirty Excel spreadsheet to work it out. You can plug in the current score, current date, and the observed increase in score since the prior turn. It does the rest. It also shows the number of turns remaining from the given date and has a section further down for quickly seeing the required culture/turn to get to 100,002 from the current date.

Here's the spreadsheet in case anyone wants it:
 
Yah, that's how I was calculating it. Just at the time my population and happiness levels were fluxuating a lot. I was manually dealing with specialist on a per city basis up till 1800, then I couldn't stand it anymore. After that the Governors took over, and promptly lowered my per turn score increase by 30... stupid governors. Oh well, at least I'll be able to finish pretty quickly, 2 turns gone by since I started writing this ;)

Read your post on pop rushing too SirPleb. I had posted a theoretical version over on Apolyton this evening as I haven't used the patch yet. They need to make it so that an entertainer gets overridden by unhappiness, and give settlers a memory for unhappiness as well. Otherwise the changes in pop-rushing just add more tedium to "power" civing.

Up to 1990 AD, should finish quite soon now... Diplomatic loss looks right on target!
 
That's funny Aeson! I see on that Apolyton thread that you were thinking the very same thing, you probably would have had a working example long before me if you didn't have this 1.16 game to finish. :)

Oh well the good news is that our HOF submissions won't be tainted after all, I think. It looks like I could have gotten roughly the same result with 1.17. I'd have had to change a mid-game sequence where I set up a secondary slave camp in a high-corruption area. But there are alternatives. With the new setup I think I might capture some city or cities, particularly if my rival's demise is in sight, and convert them to quick-reducing training centers. First reduce existing population a step at a time into trained military, till down to one entertainer. Then process nearby captured workers through the resulting conversion center. Sun Tzu's would be a big help for this which is ok for me, it is the first Great Wonder I prioritize these days anyway :)

Anyway, it may all be a moot point. I see that some others have also noticed the weird business about remote parts of the map flashing by. So I guess I'm not the only one to hit that bug, and that soon we'll see others posting about AI Civs getting prematurely in communication. And that I expect will be a killer for many people. Wrecks the game. So we may find that 1.16 is the desired patch level for most play for now. I'm going back to it after posting this note.

The Governors sure are a pain. I tried fixing all the specialists every few turns for a while, soon stopped bothering (backed off to reviewing all cities every 20 turns.) It sure does have a significant impact on score. It is annoying how your specialist assignments (individually clicked on moving targets :)) can be changed so frequently, even with the Governor mood management turned off. I wish there were a Governor setting for specialist priorities!
 
Well, I just finished :)

Zulu/Huge/Pangaea/8AI
2049AD Conquest Defeat, Score: 37779

EDIT: link removed due to no longer being linked to anything :)

I messed up the timing of the UN by 1 turn, so went with conquest instead. Only cost me about 150 points, the diplomatic loss wouldn't have changed the score at all. Overall I think I could have gotten about 42k if I would have stuck it out and manually cleaned up pollution and managed citizens moods. I would have lost any remaining sanity though ;)

Joan is still furious with me, even though I gave her the world. You just can't please some people...
 
Just a couple thoughts before I turn in for the night.

1. The scoring ratio for Deity:Emperor (6:5) doesn't match the difficulty ratio. It should be 7:5 most likely. The jump from Emperor to Deity is much larger than any other difficulty transition.

2. I want an option to behead governors and the domestic advisor! It would be great to have a "default" specialist option, as in scoring games its all about entertainers. The way it is now, specialist do the exact opposite of what the player would want. At 100% science, they all turn into taxmen, and vice versa. Also an option to lock city tile usage would help a lot. And to be able to turn off pollution, starvation, and WLT*D messages would be wonderful.

3. That map/communications bug in 1.17 sounds like a game breaker :( Hopefully they fix that soon, as the stack movements and automated worker changes really would help.
 
Oh, that is too funny Aeson! I cracked up. You'd think Joan would be happy with all that pretty new pink border pattern! Congratulations!

You nicely cleaned up the messes everyone left behind too.

You passed a milestone I'd hoped for in my game but didn't reach: Your score is past what even the most contrived one move game can ever get.

I'm going to watch your replay and then go get some sleep.
 
Having used the Civilisation Placement Tool in conjunction with patch 1.17f with my mod "Civ3 on Earth" I won with a score of 30000 points...pretty good huh! Turn 1 saw all A.I civs die and I was victorious...with no cities and no viewable units :crazyeyes
 
I should have saved the "loss" win for a GOTM game, but I have a tendancy to put too much value on little icons by my name ;) There isn't one yet for "highest scoring loss". Passing the 36060 3950BC Deity conquest point was one which I was shooting for all game. It's why I stuck with manually setting specialists and worker terrain usage/improvements as long as I did. If the governors had lowered my scoring by another 10 points per turn or so, I would have had to play it all the way without automation. The settings on my game were almost perfect for running up a score. I'm sure that with a larger landmass you would have been pushing 40k SirPleb, if not more. That you timed each victory for 2050 was quite impressive, following the overall theme of your game :)

I may try to play one more game of this, without pop rushing at all. Playing the same way would be difficult just to get through the initial conquest phase, as it wouldn't have that "first time" appeal to override the tedium involved.
 
Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Having used the Civilisation Placement Tool in conjunction with patch 1.17f with my mod "Civ3 on Earth" I won with a score of 30000 points...pretty good huh! Turn 1 saw all A.I civs die and I was victorious...with no cities and no viewable units :crazyeyes

Yes, the early scoring bonus for a 3950BC conquest is huge. Any time you can build a city and there is no other land for the AI to build their cities, they are destroyed. I have set it up in the editor by just having 4 tiles, 3 of which were mountains, and a 4th for me to build my first city on. I used maps of these sorts to try and figure out the formula for the conquest scoring bonus. I'm not sure why it would happen on a map of earth though, must be something introduced with 1.17f?.
 
I'm tempted to try a similar game again too Aeson, playing it differently. But I'm going to wait a bit, see what evolves regarding the patch before considering another monster game.

Your replay sure shows the effect of your aggressive exploration. It is funny to see you at conflict on multiple far-off fronts before the entire map is settled. I imagine it made for quite a different set of challenges. The city naming you did, apparently to keep better track of your long term intentions, keeps popping up as you reorganize your controlled areas. Looks like you often had quite a few balls in the air. :) (I sure had that feeling many times in my game.)
 
I'm working on a new HOF attempt, seeing whether I can beat my old deity score with the 1.17 patch.

I've been playing a huge map with 60% water to give the maximum scoring potential. 16 Civs for maximum complexity.

I'm using 5 billion years, warm, and wet settings, to increase the maximum population potential. I didn't think those settings would make the game harder or easier. As things turn out I think they do make it a bit harder. Most of the Civs get very good start positions with these settings. So the AI Civs, with their deity advantages, get off to a roaring start! I think that may work against score - it pretty much eliminates any chance of getting the jump on a rival early on. A long stage of careful buildup is necessary before there's any chance of competing with them. But with 1.17 and without pop rushing perhaps that is unavoidable anyway.

I'm playing a Pangaea map. Archipelago would offer more scoring potential (lots more sea in one's territory) but would I think be very much more difficult with these settings. Continents would offer a little more scoring potential but I played that way last time, decided to try Pangaea this time.

I'm on my third try now. First try I played Japan. Got smeared around 300BC. I refused an extortion demand and soon afterward I had a large number of Civs ganged up on me. I was far from equal to any of them in strength, the situation was hopeless.

Second try I played the Chinese. Got to about 500AD but I was just too far behind in growth and development to have much hope of reaching a conquest. I was way behind in culture which was really hurting. I shouldn't have tried as China, I did it just to see, but it just didn't work as well for my style.

In my current try I'm playing as Japan again. This is my favorite combination I think: Religious and Militaristic. This time it seems to be working. I'm approaching 1400AD and am by a large margin the strongest Civ, approaching 1/2 of the world in my borders.

It is a very tough game with 1.17! I haven't use the remaining pop rush trick since it is clearly an unintended exploit. Without pop rushing the whole approach had to be different. The game has had a few phases:

1) Survival. Science at zero, saved up money. Expand and build. Gave in to all extortion demands using the money saved from science. Built some temples very early to get a culture head start on the AIs and maintain parity in the long run. Extremely careful trading of maps in one crucial turn (right after all the AIs learned Map Making) gained tech parity at that point. After that I maintained tech, just a bit behind, with careful ongoing trading.

2) Get size parity. Attack a neighbor. I did this when Samurai became available, to trigger a golden age. That was 430BC. I attacked a neighbor who was already at war with another Civ and had some resources I wanted. Fought enough to eventually get a leader and build Forbidden Palace in the territory captured from my neighbor. In this stage I captured cities - had fairly high culture and hadn't been able to devote any resources to building settlers for a raze and replace approach.

3) Build infrastructure and maintain tech parity. Research rate still zero. During this stage I fought a few opportunistic wars with neighbors who were already under attack, gaining a bit in size and luxuries, then traded peace for tech and sometimes a city or two. I traded maps and occasionally a resource (e.g. horses to a far away weak Civ) for tech. Just barely hung on to tech parity in this phase! The tech pace is stunning. By 300AD everyone in the world knew Steam Power and Nationalism. Although I did no research, I did build libraries and universities during this stage. They help with culture and would eventually be needed for research. During this phase I tried to build a strong infrastructure for the coming stages.

4) Take the tech lead. This was about 500AD. I traded heavily for Scientific Method once it was available. I'd saved a leader - used him for Theory of Evolution. I sold Atomic Theory for a small fortune and started research on Radio at 100%. Some turns later I sold Electronics for another small fortune and some side techs. From that point onward I've managed to (barely!) maintain a tech lead. I've been able to sell each new tech I research for some gold (after the first two sales usually not as much as the research cost, but enough to still keep my science at 100%), to include side techs in the trades, and to build up a nice cash reserve. I applied cash to aggressively building up infrastructure during this phase. I used a leader from a minor war to build Hoover Dam, crucial for building up production.

5) Take the power lead. I was not the strongest or largest Civ by a fair margin yet. I planned ahead, working toward throwing the world into massive war a bit after 900AD. I set up an MPP with a very strong neighbor, Iroquois. A few turns later I took some additional MPPs with a couple of distant rivals. I made sure everyone was involved in some MPPs, trying to reduce the chance of a premature war. Just before the MPP with Iroquois expired I declared war on our mutual strong neighbor Russia. Iroquois and Russia had MPP as well but that didn't matter - when Russia attacked me next turn, Iroquois went to war with them. Soon after that, when my Iroquois MPP expired, I also declared war on my former friends the Iroquois. The result was that on the next turn, my two strongest neighbors were at war with each other, and much of the rest of the world was at war with both of them. Wonderful stuff! When the dust settled a bit after 1200AD, I was by a slight margin the most powerful Civ. (But still had to worry about the other Civs deity bonus of course!) Was the largest by a wide margin - I'd taken almost all of the ex-Iroquois territory and some of Russia's. And I still had a slight science lead. The world was at the Nuclear Power stage by this time.

Since then I've been increasing my lead. The major concern I have at this point is taking out my major rivals before they stockpile too large a nuclear arsenal. A massive nuclear war could still blow this game.

I had a very bad moment in 1255AD. America, my strongest remaining rival, had cancelled our MPP a few turns before. She still had many troops in my territory. Without warning she declared war. I was quite surprised, thought we were on good terms. But I couldn't really blame America - I had to admit that this was just the kind of maneuver I would pull. :)

On the turn that America treacherously attacked me she captured 5 of my cities and razed an additional 5. One of the razed ones was one of my core cities near my Forbidden Palace. America also moved a stack of 55 tanks into a forest beside one of my boundary cities, a few jumps from my Palace, ready to clobber my crucial boundary city next turn.

To make matters worse, America had MPP with two other Civs and ROPs with almost everyone else. So as soon as I retaliated I'd be in an unwanted war with 3 Civs.

Quite a bit of damage! I thought I was toast at this point. But I had too much time invested to give up without at least trying. I went into panic mode. I used about 1/2 my cash reserve (had 9000 gold saved up at the time), plus some resource trades, to buy alliances against America from four other Civs. (One the second largest rival, the other three small players but important for eliminating ROPs with America, particularly the ROP which had allowed the large tank stack to arrive at my doorstep.) I used most of my offensive units' moves to kill off the scattered American units in my territory. I used a few infantry to fortify key points, then used the remainder of my infantry (about 25) to defend the town under attack. Moved all my artillery (about 10) there and shelled the tanks. Used about 10 remaining unused offensive units to weaken the incoming tank stack. Then crossed my fingers and ended the turn. The American tank stack attacked but failed! I ended up with about 10 wounded infantry left. Most of the tank stack remained alive but was wounded. (Many had retreated after going down to 1HP.) They had nowhere left to retreat and I destroyed all of them in the next two turns, as well as finishing the cleanup of the damage America had done. Phew!

I've now taken advantage of all the warfare resulting from that treacherous act! I've razed and resettled most of the holdings of the two Civs which were MPPd with America. Across the world from me, America remains at war with her strong neighbor, drawn in by my alliance. Don't know yet what the final result of the game will be but for the moment I'm back in control and am now by a wide margin the most powerful and largest Civ. The next trick is to avoid the remaining Civs from ganging up on me, and to pick them off without triggering a nuclear war.

I guess this may all sound like a more interesting game than my 1.16 HOF game. That game had less phases, it was ongoing conquest from fairly early on. This game is definitely harder. But it is also less fun. Generally I like a harder game, that isn't the problem. But with 1.17, the ways I've found to address the new challenges have ended up feeling somewhat predictable and tedious. Only the tricky diplomacy required at various stages remains about as much fun. Research is less interesting. Ancient Times and Middle Ages are not much fun, they just whip past before there is time to enjoy them. There are key events where everything hinges on catching trading opportunities the moment they appear - these are out of proportion and tedious to track. The other Civs have a more homogenous feel - it is necessary to really work at it to eventually force them apart into distinct entities, from the single big AI they feel like at the start. I would've enjoyed playing another game similar to my 1.16 HOF entry. This game, I'm having less fun as it goes on and I approach control. Now it is going to be just fight fight fight with Modern Armor. I have a good chance at beating my previous score but, if finish this game, I sure won't want to do it again with 1.17.
 
Good to read your journal SirPleb! Although you describe it as being more tedious on 1.17, you describe quite some excitement game play as well.

Currently I am playing on Marla's map (including the mods) on Monarch and IMHO there is a lot of fun in it. With respect to civadvances, I've followed tech trading up onto the point where I could take an unvoluntary tech-lead by building Theory of Evolution and maintained the lead for years. Right now my dear Indians are unique with Tanks and developing Synthetic Fibers for Modern Armor. Mighty Egypt is near-dead and China is protecting from Russian attacks.

To be short, there is a point in the game where a tech-following strat can be switched in to a tech-lead strat. IMHO once you have a tech-lead engage others in enough war to make sure they have to switch budgets or even better government and thereby stop 'm developing.

Aeson, how did your HOF submission work out in the end (the disband settler one)?
 
They decided not to include it because it was a loss. After the initial disappointment of wasting 200+ hours of micromanagement I decided not to do anything petty like submit a bunch of Cheiftain/Warlord games. It was a close thing though, in 4 hours I had put together 3 Chieftain games of 3k+ :p

Oh well, once I get enough time into a game I'll submit a higher score. I've been polishing up my American Settler Flood. On Monarch I think I can hit the Domination limit without even going to war. Using the Iroquois I can do almost the same thing on Emperor, adding cultural aquisition to the mix. A 50k score should be possible if done right. My American/Monarch game is a full 33% ahead of my Zulu/Emperor score at 10AD. It's really sickening though! ICS :nuke: :cry: :crazyeye: :mad:

SirPleb -

Sounds like you're doing very well. I think 8 AI would be best from a scoring standpoint, though there wouldn't be as many diplomatic opportunities. Give you a little more room to expand initially. I have a hard time stomaching 1.17f Deity... you're a brave man! In my few games that have reached the Industrial Age, the AI just kills itself with Communist pop-rushing. Has that been a factor in your game?
 
Domination on Monarch without going to war? Awesome, sounds like great fun! Pangaea would be best for that, right? To reduce the land/sea ratio problem with domination.

I think you're right that 8 AIs would probably be better for scoring. With more of them there are more chances to play them against each other. But I think that is much more than offset by there being 15 productive rival Palace regions, and not a lot of expansion room. Still, I like the maximum complexity. :)

One thing which works to increase scoring potential with 1.17 is the tech pace. It is probably a tad faster again with more Civs. (Beyond some point probably not much faster, once we reach the point where one strong Civ is researching each path at any given time. But a bit faster perhaps.) Given that I can't take a tech lead and bust out for world conquest before Modern Times anyway, the sooner they arrive the better for score. But the worse for fun. In some ways 1.17 makes a higher score easier, probably just the opposite of what was intended :)

I have found that the AIs sure do sometimes implode when at war, due to the Communism pop rushing. I have the impression that they only do this when hard-pressed, i.e. when an enemy is within striking distance (or perhaps simpler, only when within 2 tiles) of their cities. Some of the Civs in my game seem not to have done it. Others seem to have rushed themselves from their former glory as world powers into third class players. I think it happened to them when a rival pressed near their productive core region during a war.

I think it would be possible to take advantage of this. Throw a number of distant strong Civs into war with each other and with yourself, and park strong defensive units at key points: hill/forest/mountain, within 2 tiles of two of their cities at once when possible. Do it with a number of their core cities. And just leave the defensive units sitting there. Wait N turns and watch the AIs implode as they fight each other. It would probably be very ugly. While they implode, prosecute a more aquisitive war against another nearer rival with the bulk of the military force. Later on in the game the remote ones would be easy to take in their wasted condition. I'm not sure this would work, I don't know how high a priority the AI would give to dislodging fortified defenders near their productive cities. I imagine with a bit of experimenting to find the right combination there'd be a way.

Another possibile use of this AI tendency is a short term tactic - park units near a target city for a while, until it reduces from metropolis to city, or from city to town, then attack later when its defenses are lower. Can also get more experience upgrades and leaders by picking off the resulting feeble conscripts.

Neither of the above has any appeal to me. They both seem like terrible exploits. But I've found that I actually have to make an effort to avoid abusing the AI's rushing the second way. Much of the time it doesn't matter with my play style since I prefer fast focused power strikes to seiges. But sometimes I want to park a unit on safe terrain near an enemy city to keep an eye on it, or to block it from that terrain. And when I do that now, I grimace as I see its population plummet and reduce its defenses.

I just today captured Moscow which had JS Bach's and found it to be a complete ruin. The Russian capital, sigh. 100% unhappiness, probably forever. I took it from China with a fast strike, I presume Russia ruined it when China was at war with them.
 
Originally posted by Aeson
They decided not to include it because it was a loss. After the initial disappointment of wasting 200+ hours of micromanagement I decided not to do anything petty like submit a bunch of Cheiftain/Warlord games. It was a close thing though, in 4 hours I had put together 3 Chieftain games of 3k+ :p

Sounds you felt like :die!: :ripper: :rocket2: :rocket: :rocket3:
 
Yah, that would be a pretty accurate description Beammeuppy. :)

Here is my Settler Flood in action. It was my first try at it, so I made a lot of mistakes, could come close to half again as many cities at any one point in time.

270BC, about 90 cities. 3 of which were taken from the French, before I had the idea of shooting for Domination without any warfare.

EDIT: attachment deleted as it's no longer needed
 
At 340AD. About 250 cities, and 30 Settlers in transit. I had built a lot of Barracks and Horsemen during this time, each one costing me a new city. Also I had rushed about 20 Libraries with gold, each Library costing the equivalent of 2.5 Settlers I could have rushed in high corruption areas.

EDIT: attachment deleted as it's no longer needed
 
I think the Iroquois would be best for this. I had 7 luxuries, so pop rushing Settlers in corrupt locations would have been possible every 40 turns. It wouldn't interfere with each city building (at least) another Settler on their own in that time as well. With Religious, I could have switched to Despotism to do the rushing every 40 turns, then switched back to Republic.

Another possibility is the Egyptians, but they will most likely miss out on the early Settler. A Settler in the first few turns will almost double the expansion rate up to the corruption limit. Industrial is nice to have though, speeds up Settler movement to their new homes, and gives a good production and food bonus from faster terrain improvements.
 
Back
Top Bottom