G-Minor 208

[WastinTime]

That was my initial plan but the problem is with so few entries in the tables and so many blanks it would be too easy to rack up maximum QScores totally distorting QM and EQM.

I'm not sure that's true.

EQM scores: easy to get 100's because map size doesn't matter. You can play Tiny. There are sooo many 100's that a couple more will not affect the balance.

QM score: The only way to get 100 is to play Huge, Raging barbs. On standard and smaller maps, scores are ~70, 60 or capped even lower.

I doubt LoN, etc. will be affected significantly.

If you're seeking high QM/EQM scores, you will find them whether it's in the EV category or somewhere else.

I think the new EV category needs to be included or it will not be popular. In time, with enough entries, the scores will balance themselves. Pls reconsider adding it.

 

[Seraiel]

I think the new EV category needs to be included or it will not be popular. In time, with enough entries, the scores will balance themselves. Pls reconsider adding it.

I support this. As I understood it, the Espionage-category was planned to be added once there are enough games. I also find it difficult or even see no reason to play a game that isn't belonging to anything bigger than itself, so i. e. a HoF-game belonging to EQM or a Gauntlet.

Also: There was an Espionage-Gauntlet already and the 100 points I won in that Gauntlet count towards EQM in the Gauntlet category.

I personally find that the Espionage-category should simply be added and everybody starts at 0 points, then it's the same for everybody. If players from several years before don't play anymore, fine, then they also don't care anymore. There are several types of sports where points decay over time so I see no problem with giving everybody a 0. At least then there's a real motivation to play the new category, because every active player will want to have his two games .

Something like this happens every few months in MMO-games, something new gets developed and added, and all the player that want to stay at the top need to get it. This can also be seen as an advantage for those that actually really play the game .

 

[elitetroops]

I support that they should count for EQM for all categories, except for Machiavelli they should only count as possible high score game. The Victory condition should not be added as a requirement to complete QM/EQM.

Something like this happens every few months in MMO-games, something new gets developed and added, and all the player that want to stay at the top need to get it. This can also be seen as an advantage for those that actually really play the game .

It's quite a different situation if the games are developed and content is added. In this case a possible exploit was discovered by the players, nothing was added by the developers. In my opinion it would not be appropriate by HoF to change the rules this long after the games release and require that all players must make use of a recently discovered exploit.

 

[shulec]

In my opinion it would not be appropriate by HoF to change the rules this long after the games release and require that all players must make use of a recently discovered exploit.

That sounds a lot like integrity.

The espionage victory category was created to preserve cultural victories, not to promote espionage victories. If the espionage victory takes on life of its own... great!

 

[Seraiel]

It's actually not that different elitetroops, because in MMO's there are also things that the players don't know, and then someone finds something out, one weak later the pros all completed that task and have their advantage. In Camelot Unchained, the spells that magicians use i. e. have to be created, so i. e. fire + wind gives fireball, it's logical that some spells will be so complicated that it'll take months or years 'til someone discovers them.

I know that opinions differ on this, but for me the Espionage-Victory is actually no exploit, it's a great chance for all player to have to learn something new and improve as a gamer. I understand that existing Quattromasters shouldn't lose their titles, so why not give everybody 1 point in that category?
I also don't like AP-victories, but (E)QM is basically the "achievement for having proven that one has mastered the game completely, so that one can play all settings" . It imo. would be only logical to add the Espionage Victory as a requirement for new players. In MMO's, rules also change, at one time this and this has to be done for something and next patch they decide that that was too easy or too hard or they change the encounter completely. With one patch, lvl 50 can be the limit and then with the next patch lvl 60 is the limit, and this is especially a chance for new players to be able to compete. If the old players would always stay on top, no new player would have the chance to play with them on one level. With 1 point, the Espionage Victory isn't a real requirement for the existing players but new players ofc. would need to play 1 game because they don't get that point. Like that, every existing player doesn't lose anything, but every (existing or new) player has a chance to gain something .

 

[cseanny]

I don't really play either so here's my unbiased opinion. If you're going to add another Victory condition then it should absolutely qualify for the same rewards as all the others before it. If not then it shouldn't have been created in the 1st place.

Why try and preserve old cultural games if the players have found a better way to achieve a Cultural victory? Seems only natural to replace the old games with new and improved ones. After all, it's no exploit.

I'd say its like somone playing for a Religous Victory and gifting cities to the AI for +4 trade benefits. Is it still a Religous VC? Absolutely. Same would apply to Cultural Victories using espionage and spies in conjunction with gifting cities.

 

[Seraiel]

I don't really play either so here's my unbiased opinion. If you're going to add another Victory condition then it should absolutely qualify for the same rewards as all the others before it. If not then it shouldn't have been created in the 1st place.

Why try and preserve old cultural games if the players have found a better way to achieve a Cultural victory? Seems only natural to replace the old games with new and improved ones. After all, it's no exploit.

I'd say its like somone playing for a Religous Victory and gifting cities to the AI for +4 trade benefits. Is it still a Religous VC? Absolutely. Same would apply to Cultural Victories using espionage and spies in conjunction with gifting cities.

There already was a discussion and the majority of players wanted that the traditional culture games should be preserved, because the new way to win by culture is so superior that it would completely replace a highly developed playstyle that has a huge tradition and is very fun. A comparison between the AP-victory and the UN-victory was drawn and it was written that AP- and UN-victories are basically the exact same scenario, if they weren't seperated then nobody would try to win via the UN.

But I agree, the new form of victory should be equal towards the older forms of winning, we should be happy that a new way to win CIV was discovered 10y after its release and an Espionage-victory requires skill and the competition is the same, but only if the possible rewards are also the same, because who plays when there's nothing to gain for him?

The only real alternative I see is that some sort of "espionage competition" gets created, so i. e. "achieve an espionage-victory on all 4 different speeds at least once on each map-size" or so.

Or the Ultra Quattromasters that I already suggested. "Achieve a win in all Marathon Time games, only allowed leader: Tokugawa (as self and as opponents) , map needs to be Archipelagio, no ships allowed " (sry ^^)

 

[WastinTime]

Back on topic...

My game goes as planned. About 40 turns before 1AD, Gandhi gets Philo.
Our relationship is just OK, so I give him all my health/happy, I eat a turn of anarchy to switch to his religion, and I liberate a city to him for +1 along with the +4 fair trade. That's still not enough for Friendly, so I wait 10 turns. That allows for +2 appreciate resources and +3 shared religion. Whew...I get free Philo.
Now with 30 turns to go, and too much $ in the bank, I can get Nationalism and Constitution by ~1AD.
Let's go to the list:
MoM: check
Parthenon: check
courthouses: check
half a dozen good cities that can produce jails in 1 turn: check
Taj finishing 1 AD: check
NationalEpic 1 AD: check
religion spread: check
Holy city owned: I have to do a surgical strike to extract the Holy city from Mansa. I was too lazy to spread my own Confu religion and I just used the one he spread partially for me.

If I could have gotten Philo instantly instead of having to kiss Gandhi's butt for 10 turns, I could hack 10 turns off this game. I had plenty of money, so the 10 turns of 100% wealth didn't shorten my Nat/Const research time.

 

[WastinTime]

In GM-121 I got 5 Great Spies so that's 15k of on its own. Subtracting those from the 30k of which I needed, only 15k are left. I already had 8k @ 1 AD and with making 400 via Buro + Scotland Yard only 8k of are left,

5 great spies can't give you both 15k and Scotland Yard (and then didn't you even settle some Gspies to get that 8k @ 1 AD?)

 

[Seraiel]

5 great spies can't give you both 15k and Scotland Yard (and then didn't you even settle some Gspies to get that 8k @ 1 AD?)

Yes, I got 6 Great Spies ^^ .

The main point was though, that the Infiltration Mission isn't enough as a sole source of and that some needs to be created via Cottages, which you wrote that you wanted to skip completely.

And I'm sure I calculated settling against the Infiltration Mission and that settling (as always) was inferior. Just to be 100% sure: I got the 2nd Great Spy in T108 and had the necessary somewhere around T160 (definitely improveable) , so a settled Great Spy (+12 *2 for Scotland Yard) would have given me less than 1.5k of ?

Really seems like always. I think I settled 1-2 Great Scientists in some OCC Diplo games and 2 Great Prophets in my last Spacerace, apart from that I have not encountered even 1 situation in which settling was the best option, I even regretted it several times in my last games because I needed to i. e. go into 4T of revolution because I couldn't trigger a GA, and in the Diplo games settling the 1 GS was equal at most iirc. , so it didn't get me any advantage.

Idk. , but there's always this "feeling" of players that they want to get an everlasting advantage, but the instant benefits or special abilities of GPs just aren't balanced well. I won't write what I felt or thought about the SSE-approach or what it's called when I read of it. Normally it should be really easy to take a calculator to multiply the benefit of settling and multiply it by the number of turns (expected to be) left and then simply compare it towards the instant benefit ^^ .

Correct me if anything of the above is wrong, but this question seems to come up again and again, settling is just a temptation, best case is one doesn't get punished when making that choice.

 

[Denniz]

I don't really play either so here's my unbiased opinion. If you're going to add another Victory condition then it should absolutely qualify for the same rewards as all the others before it. If not then it shouldn't have been created in the 1st place.

Why try and preserve old cultural games if the players have found a better way to achieve a Cultural victory? Seems only natural to replace the old games with new and improved ones. After all, it's no exploit.

I'd say its like somone playing for a Religous Victory and gifting cities to the AI for +4 trade benefits. Is it still a Religous VC? Absolutely. Same would apply to Cultural Victories using espionage and spies in conjunction with gifting cities.

There already was a discussion and the majority of players wanted that the traditional culture games should be preserved, because the new way to win by culture is so superior that it would completely replace a highly developed playstyle that has a huge tradition and is very fun. A comparison between the AP-victory and the UN-victory was drawn and it was written that AP- and UN-victories are basically the exact same scenario, if they weren't seperated then nobody would try to win via the UN.

But I agree, the new form of victory should be equal towards the older forms of winning, we should be happy that a new way to win CIV was discovered 10y after its release and an Espionage-victory requires skill and the competition is the same, but only if the possible rewards are also the same, because who plays when there's nothing to gain for him?

The only real alternative I see is that some sort of "espionage competition" gets created, so i. e. "achieve an espionage-victory on all 4 different speeds at least once on each map-size" or so.

Or the Ultra Quattromasters that I already suggested. "Achieve a win in all Marathon Time games, only allowed leader: Tokugawa (as self and as opponents) , map needs to be Archipelagio, no ships allowed " (sry ^^)

The Culture victory via Espionage and how we addressed it is pretty much water under the bridge now. In hindsight, I think banning it might have been a better option. Instead we have victory condition for it and people get another way to compete.

For QM/EQM, our main concern was not to strip people's QM/EQM status with the new victory condition. The fact the they still count towards the other categories is a bonus.

 

[WastinTime]

The main point was though, that the Infiltration Mission isn't enough as a sole source of and that some needs to be created via Cottages, which you wrote that you wanted to skip completely.

Even without any cottages, I still generate EPs. Probably about 12k - 15k in the 30 turns after 1AD. That's using a projected rate of only 400+ per turn. I'll let you know my rate once I reach 1 AD.

I hybrid approach (as usual) is probably better. However, I'm not sure Scotland Yard is worth it. It'd be nice if it was. More features of the game in use is better.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Also: There was an Espionage-Gauntlet already and the 100 points I won in that Gauntlet count towards EQM in the Gauntlet category.

Yes, as Denniz hinted at, it turns out the code does actually count games towards everything except Machiavelli I'll get the QM / EQM pages updated over the next few days.

 

[WastinTime]

Oops. I forgot they nerfed golden ages and I don't play Epic much.
Only 15 turns (with MoM). I was expecting 18 each for 36 turns, but now I only get 30.

 

[WastinTime]

Although I can do ~600 EP/turn at 1AD, I can only sustain only about 350 at break even.

btw, NatEpic city can maintain 132 GPP per turn

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

No, I simply research Nationalism and Constitution. Those are the only 2 extra techs you need to get Jails. A small price to pay.

I think my strategy is better for a novice. Just farm and chop so you can whip spys and still have enough pop for 3 specialists. Managing cottages using 'helper' cities to support the super-capital is much more advanced.
If your economy is in trouble, you can just run the wealth slider. Seraiel's strategy means you need a really efficient empire. Maintaining 100% EP slider is not for a beginner.

I meant to say cottage all cities, not just the capital. In any case, helper cities to help mature capital city cottages isn't that complex a topic that a novice could not understand it.

How do you plan to beat the AI to Music without Oxford University when stealing Literature? It seems certain that the AI you stole Literarature from will tech Music as fast as it can. Consider this a question for Deity level; a human player can easily tech faster than an Immortal player, given a reasonably good start.

 

[WastinTime]

How do you plan to beat the AI to Music without Oxford University when stealing Literature? It seems certain that the AI you stole Literarature from will tech Music as fast as it can.

In my game, Mansa actually teched Drama, then Lit. So 1st to music would have been easy if I traded him for Drama.

Since my NatEpic city is doing 132 GPP, I chose to skip Music and just get Jails that many turns sooner.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

In my game, Mansa actually teched Drama, then Lit. So 1st to music would have been easy if I traded him for Drama.

Since my NatEpic city is doing 132 GPP, I chose to skip Music and just get Jails that many turns sooner.

Well that's seems strange. I always though once a tech with a free great person could be researched, AIs will almost always research it immediately.

So, what are the odds that Mansa Musa will repeat Drama -> Literature in other Espionage Vitory games? I don't believe you can depend on this happening and must have a contingency plan to beat the AI (usually Mansa Musa) to Music in case that is his next tech after either Literature or Drama.

 

[WastinTime]

So, what are the odds that Mansa Musa will repeat Drama -> Literature in other Espionage Vitory games? I don't believe you can depend on this happening and must have a contingency plan to beat the AI (usually Mansa Musa) to Music in case that is his next tech after either Literature or Drama.

Don't need a contingency if you don't care about Music like I did not in my game. Not worth the turns wasted for one GArtist

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Don't need a contingency if you don't care about Music like I did not in my game. Not worth the turns wasted for one GArtist

So you did not tech Music as you originally stated you would. Did you even seed the LC cities with a Great Work from one Great Artist per city? Or did you seed with your own culture from an ancient Great Wonder in each LC city? Or did you let the AI seed the culture for you and through successive Inject Culture Missions got the City Culture discount close to 50 for most of the later Inject Culture Missions?