GOTM submissions

[Major Advantage]

Having had some great success with QDEC (quick & dirty EC) the previous Gotm, I tried it here as well. Things started off pretty smooth, I got a lot of units from huts, two rivals eliminated by the AI, one by me...and then there was this one battle, I think I would have conquered the world very early if only this battle had gone the other way...hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette...

Bottom line: No submission from my this time. Log follows later.

 

[Jokemaster]

No submission for me either. I initially played with an MGE copy of Civ2 and got my butt kicked by the AI diplomacy, gave up after a while. Replayed again after obtaining an AI patched Civ2 executable, and managed to land, although it got real hairy by the end (thank god for no paratroopers, my capital was empty for one turn)

It goes without saying, I was trying OCC. Didn't feel like spaceship, and EC would have been unlikely with all capitals on rivers (and we all know that the AI loooves to build city walls early on in the capital, so...)

GL to all submitters!

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Bottom line: No submission from my this time. Log follows later.

No submission for me either.

Folks, please consider submitting under all circumstances. We do not have that many players and the competition looks hollow when there are few submitters.

 

[Jokemaster]

Would I have permission to replay this map as an OCC yet again? Sadly, I do not have much in terms of log, so I can't replicate all moves/hut outcomes 100%. I also noticed a tendency from the AI to dip-bomb an OCC spaceship city after Apollo when I was playing GOTM145 for fun, so I might also have somewhat of an unfair advantage since I'd know what's coming this time, and can physically block the way to my city with dips.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Would I have permission to replay this map as an OCC yet again?

What happened to your first attempt? You have no saves?

I also noticed a tendency from the AI to dip-bomb an OCC spaceship city after Apollo when I was playing GOTM145 for fun, so I might also have somewhat of an unfair advantage since I'd know what's coming this time, and can physically block the way to my city with dips.

That is common in OCC games, I would not consider that an unfair advantage.

 

[Jokemaster]

What happened to your first attempt? You have no saves?

Hummm... seems like I have a 3000 BC save and a 1766 AD save. Thought I only had the 1766 save left at first. (I had also forgotten to do the customary AD1 and AD1000 saves as well)

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Hummm... seems like I have a 3000 BC save and a 1766 AD save. Thought I only had the 1766 save left at first. (I had also forgotten to do the customary AD1 and AD1000 saves as well)

I say submit what you have. But Inkerman or Magic should approve as well.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Major, how about you? Why did you not submit?

 

[Major Advantage]

My game technically is not over, but my civ is in a terrible situation that I do not want to play any more: It is 1550 BC, I have 3 pathetic cities left, that are suffering heavily from corruption because I have lost my capital! I have also ruined my reputation by various sneak attacks, so the Vikings won't sign peace with me.
Even though I might be able to turn things around, I chose to spend that time on #173 instead, which is a home game for me, so I want it to be a good one.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Thanks Major. Understood.

I believe you can submit a loss as well, but again I have to defer to Magic or Inkerman.

 

[Major Advantage]

I don't know if I would want to know the WWW about that messy game of mine...

On a second thought, maybe we could make "turn-Major's-messy-game-around" a Gotm ?!

 

[Inkerman]

On the question of what will be OK to submit and get in the results the first thing to say it is Magic who makes the call. I assist with the scoring, and we do discuss things, so I have learnt a bit about the reasoning, and appreciate it. I think the decisions are appropriate, and long may Magic continue to do this. By the way not infrequently he exchanges messages with players whilst the scores are being prepared. If you've never had a message you must do a good job with your submissions!

I could suggest two principles:

1. The GotM staff care more about having appropriate files from medal winners than from games that didn't go so well.

2. Generally the staff are flexible on the question of exact dates. We know it is not always easy to remember to make saves in specific years (but it is not too hard if you keep a log.) We do however need files that show progression of the game. But their being exactly AD1 (almost always turn 100) and AD1000 (usually turn 150, sometimes turn 200) is less important. It is better if all the files are the same date, as cross-player comparison works much better. But, and especially for newer players, it is usually OK to send files from roughly the right stages of the game than not submit at all.

My personal view on how hard to try and submit differs from Ali's. I do appreciate a note in the spoiler thread about any games that a player experiences but doesn't follow to the end, but I don't mind about non-submission. I think that in the highly competitive struggle to do well players may take big risks. When they come off it goes very well. When it doesn't you can have something quite unpleasant on your hands - such as a game with a lost capital - and the time is better spent on a different game.

With that thinking I concur with Jokemaster and Major on not sending in files in this particular game.

And yes, maybe it would be good if we all play a game from a lost capital position. We might need come scoring time to check the rules on who's got the least worst loss, but I suspect not: some will turn it around.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I could suggest two principles:

1. The GotM staff care more about having appropriate files from medal winners than from games that didn't go so well.

2. Generally the staff are flexible on the question of exact dates. We know it is not always easy to remember to make saves in specific years (but it is not too hard if you keep a log.) We do however need files that show progression of the game.

Good points. Exactly what I expected.

My personal view on how hard to try and submit differs from Ali's. I do appreciate a note in the spoiler thread about any games that a player experiences but doesn't follow to the end, but I don't mind about non-submission. I think that in the highly competitive struggle to do well players may take big risks. When they come off it goes very well. When it doesn't you can have something quite unpleasant on your hands - such as a game with a lost capital - and the time is better spent on a different game.

While I have turned games around, and find it satisfying to do so, I can understand why one would want to simply give up when a big risk turns into a big disaster.

Remember the Orwellian game we played a couple of years ago? The 2000 year stalemate created by Lycerius? I found it to be quite interesting. I think haleewud got the mother of all green starts finishing that one in a few turns.

However, that was not my point. My point was that even if you give up on finishing the game, turn in what you have. Yes, I mean submit your losses as well as your wins. The reason is that with few submissions the competition looks hollow. It is one thing to get a medal competing against 7 other players, it is quite another to get it competing against just one or two.

Every once in a while I design real tough games that are hard to win. Remember the one played on 256 islands, all of which were 2x2 tiles? We started with just two of those islands and 1 city; our rivals had progressively more easily accessible land and more cities; with the Romans starting with 7 cities and 64 islands. That game was a big struggle till mid game for me and I did not know if I could win or not. I recall at least one player who played and lost (to the Zulu, who had the second most powerful starting position). I think some others gave up midway as well.

 

[Magic_gorter]

The problem with losses is that the game should be ended to get a score. This means retirement (2020AD), other civ lands first or no cities and units left. Otherwise it is not possible to calculate a gotm score.

So only those (lost) games can be submitted and get a score.

Replaying a game is normally not allowed, but if there are no objections from other players it's ok with me because it was an OCC game. It must be another OCC game as Jokemaster already mentioned.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Thanks Magic for the clarification. I neglected to consider the scoring problem properly. I was thinking that you just score it like other games but since the score only depends on what you have, two identical empires in terms of population and wonders will score the same regardless of how many rivals are left. If we were to accept losses at any point, we either have to assign a score of zero regardless (not very interesting) or come up with a way to enhance the GOTM scoring formula to accommodate such cases.

 

[catalin72]

The problem with losses is that the game should be ended to get a score. This means retirement (2020AD), other civ lands first or no cities and units left. Otherwise it is not possible to calculate a gotm score.

So only those (lost) games can be submitted and get a score.

Replaying a game is normally not allowed, but if there are no objections from other players it's ok with me because it was an OCC game. It must be another OCC game as Jokemaster already mentioned.

I have last 5 GOTM's already submitted(169-173),maybe I will start 174 these days,for me is OK Jokemaster replaying the map.And with this ocasion I want to remember for my friends,that nice small circle of Civ II players this:
I don't have time or I don't like to write all in a notepad,or I have bad scores GOTM(poor player),but I'm a GOTM submitting player like Mercurios,who not have posts in this CFC,I'm 'alive'
A good year all and good results !

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I'm not have time or I don't like to write all in a notepad...

I can relate to that. Everyone finds that unnatural at first but most get used to it after a while. Reading about how others play is interesting. You do not have to be detailed. In fact, a paragraph about your goal and strategy is worth a lot more than the details. Status updates are very informative too.

 

[catalin72]

I can relate to that. Everyone finds that unnatural at first but most get used to it after a while. Reading about how others play is interesting. You do not have to be detailed. In fact, a paragraph about your goal and strategy is worth a lot more than the details. Status updates are very informative too.

Hi Ali,HNY,I play more TBS games,Civ IV Beyond the Sword,Heroes III,Heroes II,Panzer General II,not just Civ II.And a part of these online with friends or others.My opinion about Civ II you know,is a nice game,but have more more problems.I like to play,sometimes a GOTM and a random map in a day,next day day just GOTM,etc and to spend more time writing all in a notepad instead of play not OK for me.Now I found in YouTube a movie with WW II map(GOTM159) and a possible partner for WW II map in comments.
Sure,I read in spoilers about strategy of other players and friends from here.
Yes,goal and strategy worth,but in my case,is simple,late conquest or spaceship,I don't like republic,and the strategy from Apolyton 'Small Gods' not work all time.More engineers,more cities,big score of a normal game.
But I will try with the next GOTM to write goals and strategy.
Good luck all !

 

[lasingularidad]

Every once in a while I design real tough games that are hard to win. Remember the one played on 256 islands, all of which were 2x2 tiles? We started with just two of those islands and 1 city; our rivals had progressively more easily accessible land and more cities; with the Romans starting with 7 cities and 64 islands. That game was a big struggle till mid game for me and I did not know if I could win or not. I recall at least one player who played and lost (to the Zulu, who had the second most powerful starting position). I think some others gave up midway as well.

Do you remember which gotm it was ?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

No, but I do not have to. You are obviously unaware of Peaster and Inkerman's great initiative, the GOTM index:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13849926

I looked through there and found it; it is hard to believe it was over 4 years ago:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=436320