GOTM Suggestions

[Narz]

Hi. I'm not a moderator or anything and I have no idea whether these ideas, my own or anyone else's, will be incorporated but I figure I'll offer some anyway...

(1) I think the Fundamentalism thing was fun. Maybe one with Democracy could be interesting too (though on Diety it'd be damn hard in the beginning).

(2) Is there any way through scenerio editor or some glitch in the game that more than 7 civs could be alive at once? Imagine a game with 15 or 20 Civs, that'd be wild.

(3) One rule I use at times in Multiplayer games is no more than five cities (not including ones you conquer), this drastically cuts down on all the micro-managing you have to do (and also eliminates building extra cities just for score, which I definitly did in the last GOTM, I had over 150 cities ). This rule might favor a certain style of player over another but there are many different ways you could work with it.

(4) Make a scenerio where each of the AI already starts out with two or three cities (this might be best for King or Emp level rather than Diety)

(5) A scenerio where each of the AIs has one of the early wonders in their capital city. (this would definitely favor those who enjoy conquest over peaceful building)

(6) A scenerio where you start in the middle of unexplored ocean with your settlers in a carvel (sp?).

(7) Any interesting and varied maps would be cool (although obviously not downloadable ones), I'm not a big fan of the computer generated maps.

I can't think of any other interesting GOTM concepts off the top of my head at present. Anyone else have any ideas? Moderators, want do you guys think?

- Narz

 

[starlifter]

Hi. I'm not a moderator or anything and I have no idea whether these ideas, my own or anyone else's, will be incorporated but I figure I'll offer some anyway...

BTW, Duke of Marbrough is the GOTM Admin & Mod. My 2 cents, by number:

1. I think Dem-only for the Human could work. Based on quick testing a couple days ago, it seems something about King level works decent for average play. I think one concession should be giving the Women's Sufferage wonder to the Human (which also means starting the game with the Capital founded), though... otherewise, early game happiness is probably too frustrating for many players to use in early game.

2. Not possible.

3. This was originally suggested by noughmaster last year (September?). If I recall, he suggested 10 cities in our discussions.

4. Whoever does that would not be able to play the game that month (maybe TF could do it, since he does not seem to play GOTMs much anymore). Variations are things like giving the AI 5 settlers each. I do this in my own non-GOTM games at times, to force the AI to be more competitive without making drastic rules changes.

5. Hmmm... gifting specific AIs certain wonders. My personal input is yuck, at least at Deity/Emperor levels. Maybe at low levels, where the AI is sooooooo slow that they can't even build a market before the human smites them, LOL.

6. An interesting and original idea! Someone should test the concept before trying it in a GOTM, and see how it goes. Sounds promising. In mid ocean, probably need 2 settlers and maybe an archer (assuming Deity), due to other game balance issues like the 16 turn barbs.

7. Past GOTMs have used pre-made (or even real-world) maps at times. I remember one where the large world map was used (GOTM 7?). My input here is the GOTM players at large should basically nominate maps, and ensure everyone has access to the map (but not the specific game and specials seed) beforehand. IIRC, Matrix had a few minor troubles at first, and a well-known map (the big world map) was used in part because eveyone had access to it.




Personally, I like #1 the best, because it would help everyone learn more about Democracies, and Womens Sufferage seems to make it doable.

Humans will need to be the opposite of Fundy-only, at least early on (relatively peaceful, not relatively warlike).... that is, you can't demand tribute in Democracy, and can't field large armies with small cities. Another caveat is empire Anarchy.... you can't leave cities in Anarchy, or the Democracy will collapse.
If the AI is forced into a certain gov't too (like it was in the Set Fundy GOTM 18), then the AIs should all be in Republic and probably even be given a 3rd NONE settler.

 

[duke o' york]

I think number 6 is a great idea! You then have the choice of whether to land both your settlers on the same land mass or to explore and put the second one down somewhere else. That would be cool! Especially if you take the risk and lose the second settler. I can see that that game would have some very high scores and some very low ones if someone didn't found up to turn 16 and was attacked by barb ships. Putting both settlers on different continents at the start would be like playing two separate games, and although the corruption would be pretty terrible initially, you would definitely benefit later as your settlers spread across two continents.
An archer would be necessary I agree, but I'd love to see this implemented.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Originally posted by Narz
(7) Any interesting and varied maps would be cool (although obviously not downloadable ones), I'm not a big fan of the computer generated maps.

The computer generated maps have so little variation in them; I find them boring. This despite the fact that the startup gives you a choice of arhcipelago versus continents versus varied.

I have created dozens of maps for personal use. Unfortunately I have not had time to play on many of these. But I have played on some REAL archipelagos and I can tell you it is an entirely different game. Kind of like the difference between playing OCC vs regular strategy.

One such map which I have called 49Isles is a small world which consists of 49 islands. Each island has only 4 land tiles and is shaped like a star. There are 7 isles right in the middle for the starting positions of the 7 civs. Each isle has a forest in the center and 3 plains on the sides. This middle column of 7 isles is flanked on each side by 6 isles each flanked by 5 isles ... down to 1. The isles are made up of single or double combinations of all possible land types. There are no rivers anywhere. The islands are far enough apart that no city built on one may share a tile (ocean or not) with another city built on another isle.

One of the things I found playing on this and other archipelago maps (of my own creation) is that the AI is totally clueless as how to play on an Archipelago. Most of them fail to even get out of their home isle. They offer next to no challenge. The barbarians are the biggest military threat you have to deal with. This makes possible a peaceful strategy throughout the game without tweaking any rules.

One other thing that has bothered me since Civ1 and unfortunately it is still with us in Civ3 is lack of an option to have the world map be seen by all from the beginning. (I even suggested this to the civ team through www.civ3.com.) This option makes the game slightly different but no less challenging. And it is the only way to be fair if you are going to play on known maps such as the map of the world.

 

[Smash]

Some good ideas.Keep in mind something like putting settlers in a boat somewhere will require the creator to be disqualified from playing it.I like the idea but I must be eligible .I am the only one who has played every Civ2 GotM.Someone else would have to make anything that requires seeing alot of the map.

 

[Old n Slow]

The game this month was a refreshing change -- although I’m still on the learning curve. I think that Narz’s five city challenge has a lot of merit -- playing with that limit of cities upgrades the level of difficulty about one notch IMHO -- so a King 5 should play like an Emperor. We may want to caveat dismantling captured cities or something like that as well.

Another thought might be to see what folks would do with a “quick start” -- something I’ve never done (would that help or get in the way?).

I like the idea of islands as a variation.

Is there some way that one can limit certain units from play? Say for example, give everyone 2 Settlers, 2 Engineers, 2 dips, 1 spy & not allow the creation of these units? (This might make an awkwardness if no additional dips means no libraries nor tech advances afterwards…) Or perhaps 5 Settlers, but that unit cannot be built…(no growth beyond 5 cities until captured cities, bribed settlers, or discovery of explosives) -- Hmmmm the 1 AD stories might really be different.

Or make it a two parter -- one month, no caravans or freight, the second month, a real crimp on most military units (say 2 move+).

Running a Democracy (maybe a mid size map & prince/king level) at the start wouldn’t be too bad -- dramatic search would be limited to settlers, dips & explorers roaming, with little shipping until magnetism, or the build of one of the appropriate wonders (delay of the great boat chains). -- Wouldn’t affect my old playing style too much.


Another thought might be to just go ahead & show us all the fun of the One City Challenge -- but I think that we should do that at a Prince or lower level; I think that the lower levels often are more generous with starting positions.

Giving us all one spy but never being able to research espionage would be a twist -- maybe we could ask folks to post the year that their spy died & see what effect that had on their games? (probably best at Emporer/Diety level)

 

[Smash]

Most of that could be done by editing a rules.txt and including it with the game save.This would require players to backup and replace their original copies.Don't know how much problem that would be.

If everybody had at least Fantastic Worlds then events could be added which could do almost anything desired.But alas, 2.42 does not have this capability

 

[Old n Slow]

I generally play MGE for the GOTM, since my classic version is 2.4 (I don't see the 2.42) I once went to the update place & got a null page -- haven't been back, tho.

 

[Old n Slow]

Another thought:

Democracy (emporer level, only one Settler); no Mike's; Bloodlust.

 

[starlifter]

Here is my suggestion to the game situation... before implementing a non-standard method, make, test, & post a sample game to playtest it. You'd be surprised what the effects of some seemingly simple changes are on gameplay. About the actual game .SAV, I personally prefer that it go thru Smash, as he likely has more experience than most at what will and won't work.

If it gets too esoteric, what we're talking merges into Scenario Design, which is OK in theory, but should not be the "norm". Event-driven, and really even custom Rules.txt, game.txt, etc. should be carefully considered (e.g, not done without long thought and full 2.42 & MGE testing). If it won't work in 2.42 and 5.4.0f, then it should not be considered. This means, in essence, it must be in 2.42 format, run in 2.42. For instance, levels higher than Diety are out (e.g., Deity + 1), since MGE cannot load/save them properly.


by Smash:

Some good ideas.Keep in mind something like putting settlers in a boat somewhere will require the creator to be disqualified from playing it.

Unless done on a "known" map, like the big World map (We played that one a year ago), European map, etc.

If we wanted to do a particular concept in the future, maybe we can get someone like Matrix or Thunderfall to set it up, since they don't play Civ 2 anymore.


by Old n Slow:

Say for example, give everyone 2 Settlers, 2 Engineers, 2 dips, 1 spy & not allow the creation of these units? (This might make an awkwardness if no additional dips means no libraries nor tech advances afterwards?) Or perhaps 5 Settlers, but that unit cannot be built?(no growth beyond 5 cities until captured cities, bribed settlers, or discovery of explosives) -- Hmmmm the 1 AD stories might really be different.

I have tried variations like these. Game balance is pretty drastically affected. The AI will not make proper use of such restrictions, and will play crappy. The human will (excessively) dominate with a spy that early.

The AI will not be able to handle it if it cannot build settlers. Of course, at times it can't handle city management even when if does build settlers, so maybe it's not too bad, LOL. But test it well, ahead of time, to see how a concept like 5 settlers only works.


One thing that has worked well in my own individual play, to toughen up the gameplay, is a main city for each civ at the start, with certain advanced improvements and developed terrain to get fuel the empire. Although I'm pretty handy at making such minor games that balance pretty well, there is no way to do it without totally disqualifying myself from playing it.

A while back, I had the "great" idea to make a "baloon" unit to float around and explore. Thought all was going well, until I realized the AI (esp. the French) valued it so much that they built little else. Ditto for most variants of the SR-71. On the other hand, I developed a unit called the Alpine Settler (AS)... a totally new settler unit.... and among other things made it tough. I could not figure out why the AI was suddenly so stunted after Construction (where the AS became avalable). Turned out the AI decided the AS should defend cities, LOL, and built almost no "normal" settlers. But made weaker, the AI used the AS properly and the games went well. So my own rule (for my own games) is that if it can be used properly by the AI (and tests well), a slight rules change is OK. Anything too major and you're really making a full scenario.

BTW, for people like me who enjoy Modern Combat, a true ICBM (like range =30+) tests well. But I've never had a GOTM last until the Modern era, and I'm not even a fast conqueror like some are. ICBMs can actually make the Manhattan Project quite dreaded if the AI is close (or ahead!) in tech.... the AI knows all about how to use such a weapon .



Basically, my suggestion is to game test (to validate the balance & AI capability) any significant deviation from the normal setup.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Originally posted by Old n Slow
I think that Narz’s five city challenge has a lot of merit -- playing with that limit of cities upgrades the level of difficulty about one notch IMHO -- so a King 5 should play like an Emperor. We may want to caveat dismantling captured cities or something like that as well.

I like the idea too but rather than putting arbitrary limits on how to play which would always have gray areas (one you mentioned, the other is advanced tribes), I rather do these things with a custom map.

In fact, I have designed a large map where the world consists of seven islands each home to one of the 7 groups of 3 same-colored civs. The white civs (Russian, Roman, ...) start on an island which can fit 3-4 cities. The gray ones start on an island that is about 30-40% bigger. The blue ones' is still bigger and so on. The purple ones get the largest island. These islands are far enough apart that going from one to another with triremes is next to impossible (you cannot get from shore to shore even in 2 turns).

I have played once on this map as the Russians. I conquered Babylonians with Knights and Crusaders. When the last defender of Babylon (their last city) was killed, they offerred me all their money and all their tech (they had 2 or 3 that I did not have) to spare them and I agreed. Babylon then became my main trading partner. They sneaked up on me many a times but never managed to do much damage. Then I turned to French and destroyed them with Dragoons and Cavalry.

By this time, Egyptians and Carthaginians have grown quite strong; Chinese and Indians not. I tried invading the very large Indian homeland but failed. I could not concentrate efforts there due to large naval battles with Egyptians and Carthaginians. Invading the Egyptians looked nearly impossible as they became allies with Carthaginians. The war of attrition went on with no clear winners till Carthaginians launched a space ship and won. I could not keep up the space race because Egyptians nuked me and I was busy defending and cleaning up the mess.

 

[Old n Slow]

Two other thoughts are simple (neither of which I’ve done) -- flat world & head start. Given the computer’s city placement capabilities, how many of us perfectionist types would dismantle the starting cities during the course of the game? Or maybe the question should be not how many but when does the re-organization start?