GOTM scoring formula and number of cities

[Ali Ardavan]

The GOTM score rewards the player rather substatially for finishing early. This is a good thing, even though overdone in my opinion, as otherwise all comparison games would drag out to 2020 and become too demanding to play for most of us.

Another factor in any strategy is how many cities one builds/captures. Obviously the more cities, the higher the Civ2 score. In fact, the largest part of the Civ2 score is the population which increases proportionally with the number of cities. It takes more skill to accomplish the same results with fewer cities. But there is no reward for that in the GOTM score. Thus, I propose to enhance the GOTM scoring formula to account for the number of cities the game ends with. The fewer cities one has the higher the applied bonus in the GOTM score.

I have thought about the specifics of how this can be accomplished. I am going to put that in a reply. At this point I am interested to see what others think at a general level about this idea.

 

[Ace]

Ahh, not too be a wet blanket or anything, but that sort of change would mean that an OCC player would automatically win....

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Ahh, not too be a wet blanket or anything, but that sort of change would mean that an OCC player would automatically win....

Only if it is done carelessly.


One system I have in mind (there could be many others) would work as follows: multiply the current GOTM score by f(n) where n is the number of cities. The range of n is 0-255. Function f will have the following characteristics:

1. f(n)>0 for all n

2. The function is always decreasing over its range.
In other words if m>n then f(m)<f(n)

3. f(0) = 5
OCC score will grow enough to be competetive but not so much to be unbeatable.

4. f(50) =1

 

[Andu Indorin]

Ali: As a member of the Game of the Month staff, I usually avoid weighing in on GOTM debates. The Game of the Month is for the players, and not my particular whims. Nor do I wish to discourage any input from the players. However, this issue of scoring the game is sufficiently important that I see a need to raise a question concerning the premise of your argument.

Another factor in any strategy is how many cities one builds/captures. Obviously the more cities, the higher the Civ2 score. In fact, the largest part of the Civ2 score is the population which increases proportionally with the number of cities. It takes more skill to accomplish the same results with fewer cities. ...

The last statement more or less makes an assumption that the object of the game is either global conquest or be the first to Alpha Centauri. (And perhaps it also serves as a criticism of the ICS "strategy" ...) The assumption strikes me as problematic. The name of the game is "Civilization," and as such, I believe the real object of the game is to build, not conquer. This is reflected in the way scores are calculated in the Civ II, which emphasizes population and happiness. To be sure, being the first to conquer the world or arrive at Alpha Centauri requires skill. But so does building world-encompassing civilization. And all things considered, I think the current Game of the Month system developed by Matrix does excellent job of balancing the overall score vis-a-vis number of turns played to achieve one's results, be they early conquest, first to AC, or global civilization.

Granted, my argument is philosophical. But let me also add a pragmatic point. It seems to me that your proposal would also reward the disbanding one's own cities and -- egad! -- the razing of AI cities. (This might also lead to some curious results in a "scenario" style game like GOTM 60, which proved to be a popular game.)

And as long as I'm on the topic of scoring, your proposal for adjusting the Barbarian bonus does seem to carry weight. However, how great is the need for an adjustment? That is to say, has there been any game to date where the application of the Barbarian bonus has proven to be the deciding factor in final standings of the game? If there has been, then there probably should be an adjustment; and knowing exactly when and how it has been a determining factor would give us a better idea of the extent to which an adjustment must be made.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

As a member of the Game of the Month staff, I usually avoid weighing in on GOTM debates... However, this issue of scoring the game is sufficiently important that I see a need to raise a question concerning the premise of your argument.

I appreciate your input.

The last statement more or less makes an assumption that the object of the game is either global conquest or be the first to Alpha Centauri. (And perhaps it also serves as a criticism of the ICS "strategy" ...) The assumption strikes me as problematic. The name of the game is "Civilization," and as such, I believe the real object of the game is to build, not conquer.

Good point. I agree with you.

And all things considered, I think the current Game of the Month system developed by Matrix does excellent job of balancing the overall score vis-a-vis number of turns played to achieve one's results, be they early conquest, first to AC, or global civilization.

But the lack of reward/penalty for number of cities means that any strategy invovling a small number of super cities has absolutely zero chance of being a serious contender. The extreme case of this, OCC, gets special recognition and a small reward but if I try to win by making only a handful of cities I may as well not bother turning it in. I am not against ICS, but that should not be the only viable option for getting a good GOTM score.

Look at GOTM 57. We had a special rule of reward/penalty for number of cities. And it was a refreshing experience. You cannot pursue that kind of strategy (win with less than 10 cities) in a typical GOTM and expect to be a contender.

There is another point here as well. The reward for fewer number of game turns that is already part of the GOTM score not only rewards faster finishes but also makes it practical to play the game in decent amount of real time. Likewise, the more cities you have, the longer it takes to play the game in real time. If there is a reward for fewer cities, it would encourage game plays that are shorter in real time and hence more appealing to everyone.

let me also add a pragmatic point. It seems to me that your proposal would also reward the disbanding one's own cities and -- egad! -- the razing of AI cities. (This might also lead to some curious results in a "scenario" style game like GOTM 60, which proved to be a popular game.)

Good points. If we ever get serious about this change we have to find ways of dealing with these issues.

 

[Peaster]

I tend to agree with Andu on this. There are lots of ways we could make gotm's harder, but we can't reward all of them. I would not object to a few one-shot rule-changes for the sake of variety, but I wouldn't want this for the long term.

 

[Andu Indorin]

There is another point here as well. The reward for fewer number of game turns that is already part of the GOTM score not only rewards faster finishes but also makes it practical to play the game in decent amount of real time. Likewise, the more cities you have, the longer it takes to play the game in real time. If there is a reward for fewer cities, it would encourage game plays that are shorter in real time and hence more appealing to everyone.

The weighting for the OCC award should be of secondary concern; as a matter of fact, in terms of "overall" standings, I'd weight the results somewhat differently ... And, speaking personally, I've never cared for the ICS approach to the opening game.

But the issue of a "decent amount of real time" is of primary importance. However, as yet, it is subjective aspect of the overall problem. Perhaps what is require here is a poll designed to elicit that type of information from the GotM players; i.e., "What constitutes a "decent amount of time" for the average player to finish a GotM?"

 

[golem]

But the issue of a "decent amount of real time" is of primary importance. However, as yet, it is subjective aspect of the overall problem. Perhaps what is require here is a poll designed to elicit that type of information from the GotM players; i.e., "What constitutes a "decent amount of time" for the average player to finish a GotM?"

I absolutely agree. I have played last GOTMs OCC, because lack of time. The right way should be to have 50-100 cities and trade as a hell. But I do not have time for it - ane even if I have - it is boring.
We do not need to change scoring (but I would vote yes), but special restrictions could help too - to make games faster and more interesting.

The games should require MORE THINKING, LESS WORK.

 

[Peaster]

You guys should try playing for Early Conquest!!

When the rules allow that style, I can usually finish in a few days, and it's lots of fun. When the rules are changed [eg current gotm 63], the game can slow WAY down [planning trade routes, shifting workers for celebrations and bonuses...] often over an hour a turn.

BTW - To me "ICS" begins with about the 50th city. Quick growth in the early years is simply good strategy; it does not necessarily lead to ICS. However, the best guide to quick growth is still DaveV's write-up of ICS, so we tend to use those phrases interchangeably.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

When the rules allow that style, I can usually finish in a few days, and it's lots of fun. When the rules are changed [eg current gotm 63], the game can slow WAY down [planning trade routes, shifting workers for celebrations and bonuses...] often over an hour a turn.

That is exactly the point. If you cannot afford one hour per turn you may as well forget about space ship victory with tens of cities. That should not be the case. I repeat: look at GOTM 57, where we played with less than 10 cities due to special rules. Not only was it a fun unusual experience, but also it got done a lot faster than any other GOTM for space ship players.

Following a strategy of playing with a few cities, whether aiming for conquest or landing, will never be a serious contender given current GOTM scoring system. But very good results can be achieved that way and in much less real time. As golem said:
The games should require MORE THINKING, LESS WORK.

 

[Peaster]

Ali: Gotm 57 is probably the only one I've skipped since I started, so I can't truly appreciate your remark. 57 didn't appeal to me. Out of curiosity, I just checked the length of its spoiler thread, the number of players, etc. Judging just from those stats, it seems most players liked 57 less than 58 or 59, for example. [GOTM 58 was "The Gauntlet", which was quite long even for EC players, but enjoyable IMO, and GOTM 59 was a simple standard-map game]

I too agree with golem's slogan about thinking vs work. But people probably have different notions of what that means. We probably have some [quiet] blue-star players and Power Democracy people who could claim that they also think. And that long games are not "work". It seems that your style (landing) conflicts with your enjoyment, with your desire for a high gotm score and with your schedule. So, my point was - why don't you adjust your style ?

 

[golem]

You guys should try playing for Early Conquest!!
.

OK, next time I will.

 

[Peaster]

OK, next time I will.

NO!! Not you!! [Readers can check the most recent gotm results are from GOTM 59, where golem won a green star by conquering in 700BC]. I was really thinking of Ali and Andu [I assume he plays for a Power Democracy, but don't really know his preferred style].

 

[grigor]

 

[Andu Indorin]

That is exactly the point. If you cannot afford one hour per turn you may as well forget about space ship victory with tens of cities. That should not be the case. I repeat: look at GOTM 57, where we played with less than 10 cities due to special rules. Not only was it a fun unusual experience, but also it got done a lot faster than any other GOTM for space ship players.

Following a strategy of playing with a few cities, whether aiming for conquest or landing, will never be a serious contender given current GOTM scoring system. But very good results can be achieved that way and in much less real time. As golem said:
The games should require MORE THINKING, LESS WORK.

This is a valid point (at least if the "never" is qualified with an "almost.") In the late game, running a Power Democracy to maximum efficiency requires a great deal of logistics; and this requires both more thinking and more work. Likewise, establishing a Power Democracy relatively early in the game requires considerable skill and foresight.

That said, there are at least two possibilities that might be considered here. The first is to adjust the GotM scoring system along the lines suggested by Ali by somehow factoring in the number of cities, without weighting this variable so much as to completely "penalize" players for whom the goal is civilization building. Concurrently, on the pragmatic issue of razing and disbanding cities, one way of approaching this problem is to penalize players for cities that are disbanded and or razed. I.e., if a city built counts as "1" toward n in the provisionally proposed equation suggested above, then a city lost (i.e., disbanded or razed) counts as "2" toward n. This would probably require that the players submit more and earlier saved games as a part of their submission to ensure that no one is taking unwarranted advantages vis a vis other players.

Another alternative is for the GotM to offer more games with special rules and conditions -- scenarios if you will -- designed to present fairly specific challenges that will require more thinking and, hopefully, less work. And here it's possible that the players can offer ideas for specific challenges that we can then incorporate into games on regular basis.

I was really thinking of Ali and Andu [I assume he plays for a Power Democracy, but don't really know his preferred style].

The Power Democracy is like an amphetimine ...

 

[golem]

Another alternative is for the GotM to offer more games with special rules and conditions -- scenarios if you will -- designed to present fairly specific challenges that will require more thinking and, hopefully, less work.,

I agree with this alternative. I would suggest to play 50 percent normal games, 50 percent scenarios or games with different rules (like gotm 57,60).

 

[Ali Ardavan]

This is a valid point (at least if the "never" is qualified with an "almost.") ...
That said, there are at least two possibilities that might be considered here. The first is to adjust the GotM scoring system along the lines suggested by Ali by somehow factoring in the number of cities, ...
Another alternative is for the GotM to offer more games with special rules and conditions -- scenarios if you will -- designed to present fairly specific challenges that will require more thinking and, hopefully, less work. And here it's possible that the players can offer ideas for specific challenges that we can then incorporate into games on regular basis.

I like your suggestion. We can do both . I take it as a personal challenge to develop a modified formula for GOTM scoring that takes into account the number of cities. Then you can arrange for us to play a few special-rules GOTM games using my formula to see how every one feels about it.

 

[Peaster]

The Polish GOTMs (at civ.org.pl) have had many interesting rules. You can get extra points for protecting certain AI civs from harm, for building a certain combination of wonders in the same city, for irrigating your entire island, for defeating the Romans soonest, etc. Unfortunately, their scoring formulas are often ambiguous, and those GOTMs have not attracted many players.

 

[Andu Indorin]

I like your suggestion. We can do both . I take it as a personal challenge to develop a modified formula for GOTM scoring that takes into account the number of cities. Then you can arrange for us to play a few special-rules GOTM games using my formula to see how every one feels about it.

That seems like a reasonable proposition ...

 

[geofelt]

How about a Subjective score? Entrants could submit a .SAV at around 1750. Anyone who has submitted at least one gotm score could vote on who(other than themselves) had the best civ on the ending date. The criteria(size, military,science,wonders,appearance, etc.) could be up to the voter. I usually start a new game, and go to about 1750 when I retire. This takes me one or two evenings at the most. By 1750 the issue has become clear.