Future Civ3 Games of the Month

[AlanH]

Civ_steve still seems to be totally AWOL. My PMs and emails have not had replies.

In order to keep the flag flying while hoping for a return by civ_steve, I produced the current Warlord level COTM. However, I don't plan to become the Civ3 game designer. I don't have the competence to produce reliably playable games, so I could only generate random games. And I have hardly ever played C3C. At lower difficulty levels, random games may work most times, but at higher levels I'm sure there would be a lot of games that you would not enjoy.

So I guess we are looking for new blood. If anyone feels they can design interesting games for the community, please PM me.

Re. PtW games, do you play these just because there isn't another COTM? Or do you genuinely like playing PtW for its own sake? I don't think it's any more effort to produce a mix of the two versions, but it might make it more difficult to find one or more people willing to design for both.

 

[Lanzelot]

First of all: I do hope that Steve is fine and and nothing serious has happened to him!! But then: not reporting back at least a short line like "don't worry, I'm fine, just completely swamped" doesn't look like him at all and makes me really worried.


Speaking for myself, I still enjoy both, PtW and C3C. And the great SirPleb once voiced his opinion, that PtW is the more "mature" of the two. At least it is more balanced, because C3C introduces a few "broken" concepts that the AI is unable to handle or that introduce too much of a "chance factor":

• the Republic sling
• the broken Armies
• Scientific Great Leaders (ok, these are turned off for COTM)
• the ability for trading maps and contacts comes too late for my taste. (In PtW it may be a bit too early, in C3C it's definitely too late!)

However, despite these shortcomings, C3C also has a few new features, which make for interesting new strategies, like the new traits (SEA and AGR), the new wonders (especially Zeus and Artemis allow for some interesting alternatives) or the better mechanics of how artillery works. In short: I would miss either one.

The times where we had two games a month, will probably never come back, and most people who still compete these days wouldn't have the time for two games a month anyway. But perhaps we can alternate? A while ago civ_steve already triggered a discussion about this, and I think the consensus back then had been to start one game per month and allow two month for completion. (For me at least that would mean I would be able to submit more games without the usual "deadline panic real life stress" usually involved, and I would be able to enjoy both flavors.)

But that doesn't answer the question, who could take the job... I could imagine to contribute a map once in a while, but at the same time I too much like to compete as well...

 

[tR1cKy]

To easen up the task, why not getting rid of the classes completely? Nobody plays the conquest class anyway, and personally i can live without making fun of those who are too afraid to take on predator

 

[AlanH]

I share your concerns about civ_steve. He has disappeared for longer than this before, so I am still hopeful that he is OK. But his absences have become very frequent, so I think we have to move on without him, for now at least.

I would be very happy to drop the classes. They were introduced to try to sustain a large player group, which simply isn't going to happen now, with a game this old.

My thoughts were that, if a few players were prepared to take it in turns to provide a scenario file and send it to me, I would create the start files, set up the threads and administer the games. We could do this up to two times a month if enough map designers were prepared to help. And removing the classes reduces the workload for me

The scenario designers could play, but would not be included in the results for their games - unless we want to try an experiment and publish an image of the full map before the game starts, so that everyone has the same information?

 

[Più Freddo]

Yes, both games have bugs and shortcomings. C3C was supposed to correct the bugs in PTW, which it mostly did, but also introduced new features which were buggy. We should continue playing both.

• the Republic sling
• the broken Armies
• Scientific Great Leaders (ok, these are turned off for COTM)
• the ability for trading maps and contacts comes too late for my taste. (In PtW it may be a bit too early, in C3C it's definitely too late!)

I think the unit costs under Republic are usually patched in COTM as well?

I don't know what you mean with broken Armies. They are broken in PTW in that they are useless. They are broken in C3C in that they can be used to win games at ridiculous difficulty levels as they aren't attacked at all by the AI.

The corruption system goes the other way. Using RCP and double cores may be a little bit overpowered, but as the RCP feature/bug was solved in C3C, the second core also disappeared, which really is a pity.

Regarding the ability to rush Wonders with Leaders, I find it's a matter of taste. Both alternatives are appealing, neither is unbalancing the game.

 

[Lanzelot]

I don't know what you mean with broken Armies. They are broken in PTW in that they are useless. They are broken in C3C in that they can be used to win games at ridiculous difficulty levels as they aren't attacked at all by the AI.

I mainly meant the fact that the PtW-AI can handle them ok*), while the C3C-AI simply cannot**).

*) "Ok" is of course relative... But on the higher difficulty GOTMs I've often encountered AI Armies, e.g. filled with 3 swords or Knights, or even a size-3 Sipahi Army in GOTM71, which they used quite effectively in combat. (On lower difficulty levels it is more seldom, probably because they don't have a sufficiently high number of elite victories to get an MGL.)

**) In C3C, what you usually get (if they build Armies at all...) is an Army filled with a single horseman, or filled with a spearman and a Knight or something like this... (My theory of why that happens is the follwoing: I assume, the algorithm for filling an Army dictates to "always put a unit of the same speed as the Army into the Army". In PtW this worked fine: when the AI put a Knight into an Army, it followed up with putting further Knights into that Army. But in C3C they added the "+1 speed feature" to Armies and "forgot" to adjust that algorithm accordingly... Now what happens is, e.g: the AI puts a Knight into a fresh Army. Now the Army becomes speed-3, and as the AI doesn't have any speed-3 units at the moment, the Army remains a size-1 Knight Army until the invention of Military Tradition. But because a size-1 Army is only slightly more powerful than an ordinary unit, it gets killed long before MT...)

And: in "normal" C3C games I've never encountered an AI Army so far. Only in scenarios like Rise of Rome, where the AI starts with preplaced Armies. Most probably the AI uses their MGLs for rushing "important" buildings like Collosei...

 

[Lanzelot]

But before this turns into a "what changed from PtW to C3C discussion": yes, I can imagine to contribute a map once in a while!

And publishing the .biq so that the map creator can participate as well, sounds interesting. But wouldn't people miss the fogg-gazing fun? And knowing where all the resources are, and where safe galley passages are etc. would make the game a bit boring, not?

 

[AlanH]

I agree that removing the surprise element from the map would detract from the games. I only raised it in view of the fact that we are down to a small number of players these days, so losing one as designer each time has a big impact on the group. It's your competition, so it's your call.

 

[Kulko]

Firstly I am willing to take part in the scenario prepartaion for COTM, as long as there are multiple people sharing the load. Unfortunately I am working with the steam version of C3C which does not include the PTW exe. I also might need somebody to give me a short intro in the whole process, bur I hope that can be done somewhere.

As far as prepublishing all info, which the scenario creator would have, is concerned lets just look what that means.

A) The overall geography is known from the start.
I consider that not necessarily a bad thing, as sometimes it prevents you from making the wrong strategic choices in the AA by assuming a normal map, only to find later that you should have pressed for MM or such.

B) The perfect places for sea crossings are known beforehand.
Well that doesnt really add fun, but should reduce randomness.

C) All Ressources are known beforehand.
I really dont like this one. Knowing beforehand if you have iron or horses might not be too bad a thing, but knowing where exactly they will be and being able to conquer/plant cities in preparation for that is plain boring. The AI is bad enough as it is, and we dont need even more of a advantage.

D) Starting location of other civs are known beforehand?
As far as I understand this would be part of the knowledge of the scenario designer and it would reduce the fun I have while playing the game.

E) Exakt Dom limit Known beforehand
I dont really care about that one.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Ditch]

Hi. I'm new to this whole forum and the GOTM and even to C3C. I've enjoyed PTW since it came out and just got myself C3C; I have submitted a COTM 96 entry today and look forward to more in future. I am much more used to PTW - I don't know half the terrain or unit types I've come across recently in C3C, although I feel like a kid at Christmas discovering new items under the tree! I'd be happy to alternate one game per month, or have two in parallel for two months, overlapping. But please - breaking up the fog is a huge part of what I enjoy. If there are too few people to work out a good scenario, why doesn't someone just offer up a random 4,000BC start for us all (themself included) to try their best at?

I started on Civ II and couldn't get into Civ IV, let along Civ V which my kids play, so I've stayed put on Civ III - definitely my favourite of the bunch. Glad to have found you all, after 14 years!

 

[AlanH]

Unfortunately, the current structure of the competition means the games have to be built with the editor, using the scenario template that was devised a long time ago, and includes a few balancing adjustments.

I could create a random game myself - that's what I did for COTM 96. But that was a Warlord game, where you would have to be very unlucky not to get a playable scenario.

Since I don't play, it would not be a problem for me to create random games, but you would not get the benefit of the well set up scenarios that you have been used to, as I don't have those skills. And at higher levels of difficulty you might well get an unwinnable game.

 

[Ditch]

I used to play random games on a single world with a couple of my kids using PTW, but we always started in different places and someone always had an advantage. Also, when I play alone, I like to have a reasonable chance against the AI on Emperor, so I usually cycle through a number of one-turn openings until I find one I can live with past about the tenth turn, when I commit no matter what. I wouldn't mind a potentially unwinable start if I knew I was competing against others in exactly the same position as me and on at least a moderately hard level. The same goes for you designing a near-random scenario on a harder level, AlanH - I wouldn't worry if it is potentially unwinable, because the enjoyment is in wondering how others are doing in the same position; anyway, I don't like to assume I can always win...

 

[templar_x]

sorry that i am a bit late to this discussion.

i absolutely appreciate Alans willingness to invest some time in this competition of the few of us left. therefore i would like to point out what i for myself see as the most important elements of this "monthly" competition:

- that players on mainly good or very good playing levels can compete playing the same start, and that only once
- that the results get checked and published

everything else in my eyes are extras and nice to have, but no "musts".

therefore, for my taste, i would not mind at all if the games use just random starts. personally i even prefer them to overly luxurious starting positions. most starts are winnable for some players, regardsless the level, and sometimes you struggle - and i think that is absolutely ok and not every game needs to deliver the chance to beat the "fastest date".

PTW or C3C i do not mind really. i use to play solely C3C in single games (if i still played any, that is), but i do participate if i find the time and not dependent on the version.

dropping the additional classes was mentioned already, and i believe this is the most logical extra feature to skip.

with regard to creating a game, i would be ready to do that once in a while, even though i could never promise a certain date, due to lack of time. someone would really have to explain to me how to do it though.

t_x

 

[tR1cKy]

And at higher levels of difficulty you might well get an unwinnable game.

There are no such games

Ok, seriously.

Methinks random games are mostly ok even at high levels. All it takes is a bit of attention to what may come out of them. Say, a colonizable one-tile island with a strategic resource in it should be removed, because it may spell disaster for a conquest attempt. Or an isolated AS on a island with the suicide path to it being unreasonably hard.

Maybe even a clearly bad start or a total lack of resources and luxuries should be addressed. I would be ok with a Deity level game with barely enough room for a core, no luxuries, no iron, no horses and no saltpeter, but how many would?

However, the job shouldn't be that hard. After creating the map, check it and fix something here and there. Or, if it really sucks, just create another one.

Of course i'll offer my contribution to creating maps should it be necessary. But i'd prefer competing.

 

[AlanH]

Be careful what you wish for

OK. We are on the upward slope of difficulty, so I'll start trying to build regular random GOTMs and COTMs and we'll see how far we get. Your next PtW GOTM will probably start tomorrow! As far as I know, GOTMs are played on an unmodified PtW .bix?

 

[Neo666]

I agree with Tricky and templar X. Better a random game then no game!

I personally really liked the suggestion (mentioned in the previous thread) of using old games and only switching the civ you're playing. Is that possible without it taking to much time??

Editing is something I have no experience in so I can't help you with that.

 

[tR1cKy]

As far as I know, GOTMs are played on an unmodified PtW .bix?

No, there's a scenario file specifically for GotMs, with some modifications that were meant for balancing the game and making it more similar to C3C. But i have no idea about who has a copy of it, nor if it's linked somewhere in the forums. However, the changes are documented so it's quite possible to recreate it. I've fiddled with scenario files in the past and it's not even a hard task.

 

[AlanH]

I personally really liked the suggestion (mentioned in the previous thread) of using old games and only switching the civ you're playing. Is that possible without it taking to much time??

Not sure. I'd have to be able to re-open the old files in the editor, and I don't know if that's possible. Also, doesn't it mean that those who played the game previously will know the map?

No, there's a scenario file specifically for GotMs, with some modifications that were meant for balancing the game and making it more similar to C3C.

I know that was the case when Cracker was still around, but I thought we later reverted to the standard bix when we started to run the COTM series. I'll do some research.

 

[Lanzelot]

I could create a random game myself - that's what I did for COTM 96.

That was random? Hey, I was already about to praise you for providing such a well-designed map! But seriously, so far it played very nicely, lot's of fun and very well suited for England

As to "unwinnable" games I agree with the rest of the bunch here. What is the fun in starting a game, if you know in advance that you are going to win. That's just not realistic. In my private games before I found civfanatics, I used to play out every start the game gave me. No re-rolling. Of course I had about 50% losses at that time. (And if not, I would move up a difficulty level.)
And this is what I've been missing a bit ever since I started playing the GOTMs: the difficult uphill struggle where the end result is in doubt for a long time.


Regarding the changes in GOTM compared to unmodified PtW I found this:

Some rule changes are used in 'Classic' GOTMs. Here is a list of all non-standard rules in use:

• The Great Wall Wonder: gives free walls in all your towns/cities on the continent
• Explorers and equivalent unique units have been moved from Navigation to Astronomy.
• Space Race - SS Stasis Chamber Has been moved from Synthetic Fibers to Robotics.
• Republic Government Unit maintenance cost is 2 gpt/unit with free unit support of 1/3/4 for town/city/metropolis.
• Archer/Bowmen added defensive freeshot at 1/0/1.
• Longbowmen added defensive freeshot at 2/0/1.
• Marines Increased attack strength from 8 to 12 and cost increased to 120 shields.
• Radar Artillery Movement increased to 2 and rate of fire increased to 3.
• Air Unit Operating Ranges most have been increased up to the maximum hardcoded limit in Civ3v1.29.
• Lethal Sea Bombardment for all air units that can bomb targets.
• Lethal Land Bombardment for all bombers and steath bombers.
• F-15 stats increase to 8/4/1 (range of 8) with bombard at 6/0/2 lethal land & sea
• Helicopter transport capacity has been increased to 3.
• Stealth Fighter stats increased to 8/6/1 with bombard at 6/0/2.
• Stealth Bomber stats increased to 0/5/1 with bombard at 18/0/3.

 

[AlanH]

Thanks. I found that list of scenario changes, and I have found a .bix that matches it as far as I can tell. So let's see what I can come up with.