Fix the Trash Game

[Cam_H]

Anyone interested?
what do you think Paul666?
DaveMcW could be expert, i think Cam_H, pigswill qualify as experts too.
The rest (no offense meant) i don't know. I'm no newbie either. I'm a bit humble as expert myself, but would like to try.

Maybe we should move to the SG games forum?

I'm pleased to see this idea still being considered. Some good thoughts cabert.

Now that I've been mentioned, just so you guys know where I'm at;

I can only play three days per week as my work and home locations are some 300 kilometres apart, and Lord help me if I bring Civ to work!

At the moment I am confident at Monarch but floundering at Emperor (one win from three starts only), so I'm in no-man's-land in terms of 'expertise'.

I do think that this one could go in the Succession Games forum.

 

[mice]

Keep at it Paul666. It could be really helpful for the bottom group ,and enjoyable for the top group , who generally take an interest in mentoring new players.

I would like to play in the bottom group.
48 hours is surely enough for 10 turns. Newbies dont take 72 hours over 10 turns and a good player wouldnt need all that long to spot the errors, act on them, and post about it.

 

[pigswill]

Hey, me an expert, don't make me larf, can't even win monarch regular. OTOH if it comes down to best games being selected then I can wallow in obscurity.

 

[William III]

Very nice idea! I would like to join it. My current level is Prince, but I have not won or lost anything on it(won the Civil War and Mediterranean scenairio's with Washington resp. Caesar, but the scenairio's are too simple). I have only got the game for 3 weeks now, and I raced through Chieftain - Warlord - Noble. I hope I can steam through to Monarch, soon . But I have played Civ and civ3 many years. Does that qualify me as a newbie? Okay, n00b, if you like that better.

72 hours is the right time-control for me.

Thanks,

William III

 

[cabert]

who's gonna open the thread in the SG forum?
I vote Paul66 (the "fix my trash game" was his idea). If he doesn't want to, i'll do it.

We are a little short on the roster right now.
Current proposals are
- newbies : Paul666, mice, william III + (pettrucci maybe? or robertoZ28?)
- experts : hem, well, are there any? (i threw cam_h in, and he said well why not but he doesn't grab much about his expertise, pigswill said he is nowhere near expert but would give a try, some for me : not an expert but would give a try)

IMHO we need 4 in each team, so that :
- there are enough different games to choose from, even if one or the other doesn't manage the deadline (if there is only one proposal, we're into a SG without variant )
- we don't need a week to sort the best/worse game.

So we lack one newbie
(a real newbie would be cool, william III may be too advanced already ) and one expert
(at least! i understand pigswill isn't really willing, which would give a second empty place, with 2 not quite experts (no offense meant cam_h) trying their best )
DaveMcW? still here? I'm sure you'd like to give us all a good lesson

edit : vanilla for me. If it's warlord, it's without me.
edit 2 : time frame could be 2,5 days (60hours) to post, 1 day to select (enough for shuffling through 4 games, if we go over the board with "competitors", we need more time for selection). This way, we can have cam_h at home for the playing time each week What day do we need to start?

 

[Petrucci]

- newbies : Paul666, mice, william III + (pettrucci maybe? or robertoZ28?)

Prince level I win about 60% of the time, so I would definatly benifit from the experts mulling over my last round played! Sign me up if another hasn't been selected already! I've always wanted to join in an SG so it would be fun as well

 

[bg112]

How about if some of the newbies just post mid way saves for games that they've screwed up, and see what the experts can do to fix them? I've certainly got a good candidate from my first Warlords game.

 

[Cam_H]

... with 2 not quite experts (no offense meant cam_h) trying their best )

No offense at all!

edit : vanilla for me. If it's warlord, it's without me.
edit 2 : time frame could be 2,5 days (60hours) to post, 1 day to select (enough for shuffling through 4 games, if we go over the board with "competitors", we need more time for selection). This way, we can have cam_h at home for the playing time each week

I'm very happy to go without Warlords to keep cabert in ... I like some of the changes in Warlords, but my view at the moment is that they are really just 'bells and whistles' and shouldn't impact on the point of this exercise, which is improving Civ gameplay.

Thanks for your understanding on my schedule. I can't go on a regular tag-team type roster as I'm simply unable to play four days out of seven. I am willing to chime in when able, and let the game roll on when I'm not.

 

[mice]

So I'm ready to play any time. Vanilla is Ok for me too. About level. I think Noble will be too easy even for the newbies, won't it?
I am trying to move up to Prince, so Prince plus good advice would suit me.
The AI would punish a fundamental error more on Prince I think, however I will go along with the general consensus

 

[cabert]

Prince level I win about 60% of the time, so I would definatly benifit from the experts mulling over my last round played! Sign me up if another hasn't been selected already! I've always wanted to join in an SG so it would be fun as well

so you're just as much a newbie than i am an expert

About level. I think Noble will be too easy even for the newbies, won't it?
I am trying to move up to Prince, so Prince plus good advice would suit me.
The AI would punish a fundamental error more on Prince I think, however I will go along with the general consensus

Prince is good : enough of a challenge for the (not quite) newbies, enough room to recover for the (wanabee) experts

We still lack a thread OP in the SG forum (link in this thread if/when there is one) and a few real experts. I think the first try may not be that great, but the idea sounds good both for the learning (newbies) and the fun (experts). It may become a "standard", who knows?

cam_h: i think you can play on weekends only? making a start on sunday evening for the newbies so a save/writeup on wednesday morning, and a play time for the expert starting on thursday morning and ending on saturday evening possible? (we have only very few experts around, don't want to lose one )

 

[Cam_H]

Yeah ... I think that we have to lose this "expert" tag sooner or later, or someone's going to realise that we can't actually add up how many are needed to fill a fat-X.

I'd be erring on the Monarch side more so than the Noble side, so I guess Prince is a compromise. I think selecting a tougher game level will help the team deal with crisis management a bit better.

More of "where I'm at" ... a clue ...

So just about everyone else's Thursday is my Friday, and so on. I have Fridays - Sundays off, so that's most people's Thursdays - Saturdays.

I would rather not go with a tribe that relies on an early and/or powerful Unique Unit, so nations such as India, Germany, Spain, or America would be my preferred so we don't skew the tech' path too much.

 

[cabert]

i'm waiting for Paul666 to tell if he OP or not...
If i get no answer, i'll open a thread on saturday (provided i have internet acess at home by then
Then i'll leave for a week on holydays (that's a good reason for me not to be the OP, isn't it? )

 

[Cam_H]

I like the plan ... let's wait for Paul666, and if no response within a few days, fire away!

Holidays?

I'm still confused by the rules, and I would prefer some objective measure on what constitutes 'the worst game'. I'd feel happier if there was some measure like; least happy faces in total empire, or lowest GDP, or something like that. Maybe we can change the objectives in each round?

I also think that victory conditions should also be established, such as; Domination or Conquest or Diplomatic-by-own-vote-only.

 

[cabert]

I like the plan ... let's wait for Paul666, and if no response within a few days, fire away!

Holidays?

I'm still confused by the rules, and I would prefer some objective measure on what constitutes 'the worst game'. I'd feel happier if there was some measure like; least happy faces in total empire, or lowest GDP, or something like that. Maybe we can change the objectives in each round?

I also think that victory conditions should also be established, such as; Domination or Conquest or Diplomatic-by-own-vote-only.

ok about giving criteria, but the main thing is there isn't a golden rule of "best game" (would come back to score) per se

let's think about options. I see 2 big ones :
1- a score based on tech level/ Power/ land & pop
2- check list of possible problems/objectives

1) Very clearly, best game is the one with highest (reviewed) score and worst the one with lowest score. That's easy. What's not easy is how to count.
1 pop = 5 points, 1 tile= 1 point, 1 unit = 2 points, 1 tech = 5 points, 10 gold = 1 point, add current gold per turn (be it benefit or deficit)?

I think it's a dead end, in the learning area and a complete injustice for those with a plan (binary science would get a good whack on the head )

2) Here we're in freedom land. Let me try 2 different approaches (examples, you could think of hundreds of ways) :
2a)
Before every set of turns, objectives are given out.
After the set of turns, you give a note on each objective from 0 (not even started) to 5 (complete).
best is highest note, worst is lowest note.
2b)
General set of objectives at the start.
One note for planning (ie : going for something, be it a victory condition or a general strategy, like conquering the continent) and going for it,
one note for economics (including tech and gold),
one note for power,
one note for diplomacy.

Would one those solutions be better than a simple vote from the next group?
I'm not sure. Although a real newbie may not see how powerful a well-planned strategy (although low on score) may be and they may end up selecting the wrong "best game". The vote thing gives more power to the writeup than to the actual game

 

[Petrucci]

So, is this still based on all newbs playing a round?

Let's see, this is hard to explain...

...So all newbs play 10 turns or so, with one expert picking the so called "worst round played" aka "worst game" via the scoring event, however that shakes out. Then the newbs all play another round, followed by another expert. Am I even remotely close to understand this?

Or perhaps it would be more like this...

... Maybe it will be more like one newb plays a round then an expert will play a round then a differant newb, then next round another expert? This would be more like a SG alternating newbs and experts!

As far as a scoring mechanism, I would like the idea of laying out a plan, and the next player trying to adhere, getting points by how well he does, but my question for you would be, who exactly is giving objectives out? The person who just played a round? With that in mind, if a "newb" gave an expert an objective and the expert thought it was daft, then what? Just trying to get a good grip on how this will be played out! Looking forward to this hurry up paul666 you you!

 

[cabert]

So, is this still based on all newbs playing a round?

you're wrong here. Obviously i wasn't very clear

It's a new object, a "group competition" SG.
1) First 10 turns (20 for the first round?) are played by every member of the newbie group.
2) Then the expert group (through a selection mechanism not yet decided, vote? note?) selects the worst game posted (should be amongst 4, if we follow my rules).
3) Then the expert group (every member of this group, should be 4!) plays 10 turns.
4) then the newbie group selects (through a selection mechanism not yet decided, vote? note?) the best game posted (should be amongst 4, if we follow my rules).
5) = 1
6) = 2
...

As far as a scoring mechanism, I would like the idea of laying out a plan, and the next player trying to adhere, getting points by how well he does, but my question for you would be, who exactly is giving objectives out? The person who just played a round? With that in mind, if a "newb" gave an expert an objective and the expert thought it was daft, then what?

right, let's say this is dumb, ok? 2a) is out, for the exact reason you gave.

maybe 2b) is better

My preference is still a vote. Everyone can argue why he votes for this or that, and it's better for group discussion IMHO.
After all, we're looking forward 2 objectives = learning and fun!

 

[Paul666]

I think the vote format for picking the starts make sense. After some thought I realized that score is not really much of an indication as to how well you are doing, some plans take a while to come to fruition.

I also like the idea of lots of discussion and planning. I always hoped this would somehow show ways to win after things go bad. That's a real weakness in my game. If I have a lead I will win; bad situations lead to silly moves.

I don't mind opening up the game BUT--- I am heading out on vacation next week 8/12-8/18 and don't won't to keep everyone hanging. My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).

 

[cabert]

I think the vote format for picking the starts make sense. After some thought I realized that score is not really much of an indication as to how well you are doing, some plans take a while to come to fruition.

I also like the idea of lots of discussion and planning. I always hoped this would somehow show ways to win after things go bad. That's a real weakness in my game. If I have a lead I will win; bad situations lead to silly moves.

I don't mind opening up the game BUT--- I am heading out on vacation next week 8/12-8/18 and don't won't to keep everyone hanging.

then OP the thread in the SG forum and put a link here.
we still lack a few people (experts!) to start the game, so we need to appeal to a few of those.
Timing maybe perfect : opening today, filling the roster until sunday morning
(8 am East coast time = 3 pm in France), then playing some (20 for the first hole digging seems right after some thoughts) turns and posting a save and a writeup leads to tuesday the 8th, 8 pm = 3 am wednesday here).
IMHO it's up to the OP to say "next group up : this save is selected" for each turnset. So it's perfect to you're still there on the 9th to launch the next playing round. Maybe selection for the third playing round will be a week long
The other option is to give newbies a whole week (well, 6 days) for the first hole digging until 2500 BC, then a week (when you're away) for the wanabee experts to prove their skill until 500 BC. Sounds good too and fits well with my own holydays . Fast players may post earlier, giving something to read...
You're the OP, you're the one setting the rules

My wife has made it very clear that work and computers are gone for a week. I think I better listen to her before she converts to slavery and the whip (I know she has bronze working in just one more turn).

now we know who's the most powerfull around

That is exactly the reason why i said the timing isn't perfect for starting such a thing. But it sounds so much fun i want to see it

 

[Welnic]

I think that you should let everyone play both the play the worst and play the best rounds. Everybody submits a game for the first round, and then you pick the one in the worst shape. There would be no need to limit this to the newbie people, and you could compare the worst games to some games that should be noticeably better. Then let everyone play the next round also, I would guess that the best game would come from an expert, but everyone could try.

I don't have clue on the best way to choose the games, though.

 

[William III]

I'm still in, but I'm away from the 11th of August to the 18th of August. But 1 Newb less would be no problem for just one round, methinks? 3 days okay 2 1/2 days is okay for me too, but no less. Prince would be nice, but enable raging barbarians. They're the best way to make the first round suck.