Discussion : What makes a good post to TSG?

[DrakenKin]

We play the TSGs, we try to make a summary of our play by posting. But there doesn't seem to be a format, some posts have too much information, others too little, and mostly it seems what we talk about is not necessarily what people want to see.

So I think the question is worth asking : What do you expect or wish to see in people's posts? In opening actions and after action reports specialy.

The gold is not to restrict people to report the way they wish, but simply let give some pointers to those who wish to write better reports. After all we don't write the reports for ourselves but for others.

 

[DrakenKin]

I'll answer for myself. I do TSGs because it is fun to play the same map with others, be able to compare plays, but mostly it is a learning experience and the most important things i would like to see are :

1) Milestones. When did people get education or universites or when they built or researched key elements of the victory condition. Mainly as a basis for a more in depth comparison than a simple win time. (Essential to know where you are being slow and where to improve.)
2) General strategy. As in "I plan to make 4 cities, focus on bottom of tech tree, and get all GS generating wonders". Maybe the things you are trying / experimenting with, as in "getting my first scientist as soon as possible by making oracle and hanging gardens for the free garden."
3) Specific play details, as in build orders, research orders, RNG elements (tech from ruin, enemy army getting stuck), specific decisions and the logic behind. Mostly this shows how the initial strategy changed because of the map or what happened in the game.

To be more specific :

Opening actions :

- General strategy you plan to use, if any. Exemple : early domination diplomatic win, with honor and liberty, aiming for a turn 200 win.
- Build order of capitol until at least the settlers. Most important is turn GL and NC are finished, when exactly the settlers were made, and when the workers were built / stolen.
- Research path up to Education at least. What is the most interesting is what techs you chose to delay writing for, and what techs you went for after. (Choices between sea techs and land techs for coastal cities for exemple can be key.)
- If there was early agression, what units were build and lost. On which turn the first city was captured would also be good to know.

After actions :

- Turns key researchs were completed.
- Which wonders were made, when.
- Possibly cities size at fixed points in time, like capitol size at turn 100 and 200. Size at every 50 turns from start would be ideal but probably too much to ask.
- Mention of any bribes.
- What mistakes you made. What would you do differently if you started over.
- Policy choices if not standard tradition -> patronage -> rationalism.
- Religious choices.

 

[IronfighterXXX]

Well, to include all the information we would need to play game with pen and paper, which for most players is probably not attractive.
I often write short posts because I'm not very good in English and writing long descriptive posts is difficult for me

 

[budweiser]

While I enjoy reading the initial comments about how everyone approached the opening, what I think is missing are some comments from the map makers themselves about the choices they made when the put the map together. Like, how did they think the players would develop their empires, did they think there were any potential pitfalls, did the players fall for it? Did a player make a move or go in a direction that they did not anticipate? Did they hand pick the opponents, did they hard code leader behavior variables, set the starting distances? Etc, etc.

 

[leif erikson]

You are reading way too much into what is done in creating a map imho. First of all, editing maps in Civ5 is a lot more difficult than Civ4. Not going to go into it all, but all my maps are game generated with no changes. I do hand pick opponents depending upon the game type. I do not hard code anything nor do I set traps for players.

Maps are test played to ensure the player has a reasonable chance of survival and enough room to expand some. Also, resources are checked to ensure that sufficient amounts are generally available, unless we want to keep something from you for a while, like Iron or Horses.

 

[budweiser]

Thanks for the prompt reply!

That's good to know.

 

[ambrox62]

I completely agree with DrakenKin
I'll try to write a detailed report on my game attempts, although I'm a weak player

 

[pvtjava]

Excellent thread. I agree more is better. I am playing too much GMR and I'm slow so I am rarely finishing GotM games. I still love reading about how the better players tackle situations, though. That is better than an all-inclusive type guide. Anything that helps the average player improve is a great thing.

 

[ambrox62]

I wrote a detailed report HERE and I've seen the DrakenKin one in the TSG87 that I'll study soon

 

[4N4C0ND4]

I usually play the game on a one time session.
So I apologize but I don't use a lot the "opening actions" thread that much.
Too lazy to split up in parts.

On topic, explaining the start is what I like best. Playing the game on the same maps and see how things can be so different is what keeps me playing Gotm. Very impressive victory times we see and I hope that one day I will sneak it to the top 3