Gotm 60

[Duke of Marlbrough]

When you first load you should look around carefully, note your cities production and relationships with other civs, especially note that the Manhattan Project has been built and all civs but the Non-Aligned ones have Nuclear Fission.

Win can be by Conquest or Spaceship.
Game turns are by Month, and the game length is set at 240 turns/20 years.

You have your choice between three starting locations (saves below). Each one has a different difficulty level to it.
The easier game will come with it a penalty (-50) to your overall score, while the hardest game will come with a bonus (+50) to your overall score.


The game settings
Difficulty: Emperor
Barbs: Restless Tribes
Restarts: Off
Map: XL Earth Map (revealed)



Saved game:
http://civ2gotm.civfanatics.net/civ2gotmdownload_60.shtml

Games are due February 11th, 2006.

 

[Peaster]

1) Are we allowed to look at the saves before deciding on which to start from?

2) Please check GOTM15.sav (Romans - should be Mongols).

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Finally we are playing a revealed map! Hurray!

What are the 3 saved games we need to submit in place of the usual AD 1, AD 1000, ... ?

This is the first game I have seen where we can choose our side. Wonderful idea! Thanks. As Peaster said, can we look before we choose?

 

[Sharkbait]

If we're not allowed to look, can you give us a bit more info as to what the "Non-Aligned" is made up of?

 

[Ace]

Looking is irrevelant! The games are the same, its just you selecting which nation you want to play. And the difficultly difference is, apparently, in your starting postition relative to the other civs.

Now, what is the purpose of "User def tech A", B, and C?? Like, I know what they are, but what are they suposed to represent in this scenario?? Is there a scenario file missing? In a scenario, the creator renames them and inserts them into the tech tree to add a unit or structure, but something seems to be missing here.

Also, I noticed that several cities are larger than size 8, but no one has built any Aquducts or sewage systems. Is this related to "User def techs" or just a screw-up?

 

[LordValuna]

whats with the non-aligned nations? They have 4 (count them) 4 Capitals

i must say some one has gone to all of trouble for this GotM

 

[Peaster]

Ace: Looking is not completely irrelevant. It may give you info about defenses (etc) that you would not normally have. But this doesn't really bother me; I suggest that looking should be legal, to allow an intelligent choice of starts. I am also eager to begin, but the Duke seems to be away or busy.

Does anyone object to looking ?

 

[golem]

I have played one year as Non alligned. Perfect game. Non allied are SouthAmerika, Canada, Japan, Australia, South Africa and Switzerland.

I suppose that the A,B,C games are not the same, as the Non Alligned has about six or seven techs less then other nations and are weak comparing with other armies.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Check out the saves before playing if you like.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Looking is irrevelant! The games are the same, its just you selecting which nation you want to play.

As Peaster pointed out it is not irrelevant. By looking at each save you can tell what infrastructure and what units that civ has. There is no other way to find that information out.

Now, what is the purpose of "User def tech A", B, and C??

My guess is that these are an oversight by the creators. So is the Plumbing tech, which everybody has. When you create a scenario you can start from a clean plate and give each civ certain techs or you can start by giving them all techs and then take away certain ones. I bet you they used the latter method and forgot to clean up.

Also, I noticed that several cities are larger than size 8, but no one has built any Aquducts or sewage systems. Is this related to "User def techs" or just a screw-up?

Very good observation. That is the case in all the 3 civs that we can look at. My guess again is oversight.

whats with the non-aligned nations? They have 4 (count them) 4 Capitals

Another great observation. Thanks. The Europeans have 2 (Paris and Brussels); the Americans one. The multiple captials greatly reduce corruption in the non aligned cities that are spread over the entire map (they are in Republic). I wonder what happens if they launch a space ship and lose one of their capitals, is the space ship recalled or do they have to lose all 4 before it is recalled.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I am curious as to why we have been given the option of choosing which of 3 (out of the 7) civs to play. Why not all 7?

 

[Ace]

Ok, looking is not totally irrevelant, just almost.... The infrastructure and units could be found out by the use of spies if you must know. The data is only accurate at the start of the game anyway.

You are probably right regarding "user def techs", and plumbing is not used in the game, just leftover by Sid's people.

I guess we will find out about the aquaducts as soon as we start playing and get the message "city cannot grow without..."

The multiple capitals could be a way to reduce corruption or it could be an oversite too. The easiest way to create cities is to copy a previous one and maybe the creators forgot to delete the extra palaces. I guess we will find out if one is destroyed after a SS is launched. This could be interesting, it could crash the game, or it could treat it as "moving the capital". IIRC, when you destroy a capital, even with a SS in flight, if the AI has enough coins it can move its capital without losing the SS.

It would appear that the different levels are based on the starting location of the three choices and their relative strengths in relation to the other civs. All the civs seem to have the same number of cities*, advances, and coins in each save so its sort of like a WWII game where you can be either the Americans, Germans, or Russians.

*The only difference I found in the total number of cities is that Brasilia, a size one city near Rio de Janerio is missing in sav C. Maybe another oversite?

 

[Peaster]

Maybe the multiple capitals were intended to make bribery more expensive, but the corruption and spaceship explanations make sense too. I confess that I don't know how to play this GOTM yet. At first glance it seems that a landing should be easier than a conquest.

--------------------------------------------------------
There is very sad news about La Fayette in the General Forum. We have lost a great GOTMer and friend.

 

[mercurios]

First : thanks the stuff for this new kind of challenge.

o.k. the no-ones have a little lack of tech but they have the best position to found new citys. what's really the difference between a 'hard' and an 'easy' game? everyone needs a boost of income and shields and there is no settler.
imho the europe seem to be not in a comfortable situation.
spacerace seems to be simple for all - conquering hard.
where are the traps ?
btw you need aq's and sewage and the sculls scream: 'Hoover'

 

[URUWASHI]

First of all , I like to congratulate the Map creators and the concept.
Its is a wonderful Map.
I downloaded game C , in fact I did not look at " A " or " B", I just wanted the top challenge.
Im sure that creating this map and the game involved several hours.
I never realized that it was 4 capitals in the Non-align map, In fact I thought That Rio was the only Capital !
Out of respect for the creators , I build 5 more cities and place them in their proper locations and gave them the right name...

I feel pretty much this was a wonderful diner experience....the presentation..the idea ....the final product...was lovely.
To the creators again Kudos....what a great job!
Maybe because Im in the restaurant Biz....
The only problem ....it is , that is a shame to just play this game and ended in just a few hours
I downloaded yesterday and looked at the options , the AI ...and the general concept.
This afternoon I start playing it...and I just finished.Unfortunatly I felt this was , like a gourmet dinner that takes 6 hours to prepare...and 1 hour to eat!
I think I finished too quick...but the Americans and Europeans where right on my toes.
We launch at the same time what, threw me off, was when the AI launched the SS, it said " SS will reach Centaury in 24155 or something similar (? ) ....luckly they launched a 15-3-3 -1-1-1 ship 15 turns -
Luckly I had a bigger and faster ship.
Duke , Thanks again for a great Idea.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

The only difference I found in the total number of cities is that Brasilia, a size one city near Rio de Janerio is missing in sav C. Maybe another oversite?

Great observation. I missed that.

I confess that I don't know how to play this GOTM yet. At first glance it seems that a landing should be easier than a conquest.

You are not alone. I play landings more often than conquest and occasionally fight wars in modern age. But this is going to be a different experience for sure because the rivals are just as powerful and technologically advanced. Space race against rivals who have nukes and are advanced enough to join the space race soon after you is not going to be easy.

Right now, it seems to me that for a landing victory Europe is the best choice as it is easiest of the 3 to defend (all cities are close by), has more techs than Non Aligned and as many as Americans, and has superior infrastructure to both. Europe is inferior in growth potential and production compared to Non Aligned; but for a landing victory you have to rush towards that and growth becomes irrelavant. Production problems can quickly be remedied with Hoover dam.

For conquest, it seems to me that Non Aligned are by far the best choice. They are the only civ that is spread all over the map, they have 6 more cities than the alternatives, a larger population, and more military units. They only lack in tech but not by much.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

The only problem ....it is , that is a shame to just play this game and ended in just a few hours. I downloaded yesterday and looked at the options , the AI ...and the general concept. This afternoon I start playing it...and I just finished.

Congradulations. You should have started the spoiler thread even though what you said here has no real spoiler info in it.

Wining by landing will be quick no matter which side you pick. Once anyone starts the space race, others join if they can and here most can. Then it is a race to the finish line. You happened to pick the hardest for a landing victory and still finished pretty quickly; great job . It would have been even quicker for the other two alternatives. Conquest, by contrast, will be long and drawn out.

 

[Andu Indorin]

Great observation. I missed that.
You are not alone. I play landings more often than conquest and occasionally fight wars in modern age. But this is going to be a different experience for sure because the rivals are just as powerful and technologically advanced.

Agreed. It's been a long, long time since I've been presented with such an interesting challenge. One drawback with employing the principles of the Power Democracy is that you wind up with Howitzers facing off against Musketeers -- at worst. And equally, it has been ages since I've had to worry about "eating mushrooms." So I've decided to try my hand at this game, conquest style. Indeed, there are the makings of many "Stories & Tales" in this game.

Right now, it seems to me that for a landing victory Europe is the best choice as it is easiest of the 3 to defend (all cities are close by), has more techs than Non Aligned and as many as Americans, and has superior infrastructure to both. Europe is inferior in growth potential and production compared to Non Aligned; but for a landing victory you have to rush towards that and growth becomes irrelavant. Production problems can quickly be remedied with Hoover dam.

Off hand, I'd say the Americans are easier to defend with, since they have only one opposing Civ to worry about, and they have a clear technological superiority. I'm thinking about testing that hypothesis once I've finished my "bloodlust" game.

For conquest, it seems to me that Non Aligned are by far the best choice. They are the only civ that is spread all over the map, they have 6 more cities than the alternatives, a larger population, and more military units. They only lack in tech but not by much.

Not sure I agree with you on that. I'm playing the NONs and being spread all over the map presents its own challenges, at least for my style of play and especially with Nuclear Arsenals. Had no real chance at Hoover and Women's Suffrage. (Fortunately, the AIs did not place as high a priority on the UN and the Cure.) And I almost suffered a round of global warming when that democratic pacifist by the name of Gandhi preemptively nuked Bangkok; took me a long time to give my Engineers adequate cover to clean up that mess. ...

I feel pretty much this was a wonderful diner experience....the presentation..the idea ....the final product...was lovely.
To the creators again Kudos....what a great job!
Maybe because Im in the restaurant Biz....
The only problem ....it is , that is a shame to just play this game and ended in just a few hours.

My impression is that as a challenge, bloodlust is the way to go.

btw, speaking as a simulation designer, the lack of aquaducts and sewers seems to indicate that the scenario designer wants to provide each city and each civ with a starting position consistent with the "contemporary global power equation" without making projections as to future growth. A sound design decision.

 

[URUWASHI]

I agree Andu.
When I looked at the map, at the start of the NON-align nations, I considered playing for conquest ..... conquering the US, Chinese and the Europeans could be an easy feat, not complex at all, all 3 can be conquered easlily. ( im guessing they all could be wiped out by 2013- 2014 ..or 30 + turns )
Conquering the Indians ( after taking the Chinese ) and the Russian ( via conquering Europeans ) it will take about another 20 turns or 2015- 2016 )
Thats why I decided to go for the space ship conquest. I though would be a lot tougher, but it was not. I finished in less than 30 turns.
IF I knew it I would have play conquest instead.
I will replay the game and I will post the outcome.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I'm thinking about testing that hypothesis once I've finished my "bloodlust" game.

IF I knew it I would have play conquest instead. I will replay the game and I will post the outcome..

I think we all should play this game twice. Once as conquest, once as space race. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152448 and vote!