GOTM Techniques, Cheats, Rules & Discussion Thread

[Bestbank Tiger]

Here's my suggestion: Get rid of ALL cheats.

Play like a man (or woman whichever the case may be).
If the game was not intended to allow it, get rid of it.

No black clicking.
No IRB. Nope, none.
No moving a settler,then beginning work, then waking them and repeating next turn.
(Not explicitly listed in your cheats).
No rehoming caravans.
No mining cities on hills.
No avoiding ZOCs with diplomats.
No using find city to locate unknown cities.
No ship chaining.
No using K to irrigate waterless squares.
No bomber stacks to avoid attacks.
No Odeo years - change govs as if you had no idea about Odeo years.
No unnaturally large cities.

If the game was intended to allow it, you can do it.
Yes multiple settlers on a project.
Yes supply and demand.
Yes food caravans. (but no unnaturally large cities).

If you get rid of the caravan rehoming trick, get rid of them all.

I can see some of those like black-clicking and Find City. But why are ship chains cheating? Don't they come at a significant price (the production required for all those ships, plus the support for them, plus the unhappiness factor if they have any attack value?)

Also, why would Oedo years be cheating? That's just understanding how the game works.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

molesworth, keep in mind that the acquired techs are all the techs you currently know minus how many you knew at the start of the game.

If you are playing with less than 7 civs, your key civ may be missing in which case it counts as having no techs at all. This is a major problem and part of the reason most games are played with 7 civs. However, since the power ratings start at the top (that is if there are only 2 civs one would be Supreme and the other Mighty; as opposed to, for example, one being pathetic and the other weak) in a 6 civ game missing the white civ is immaterial. Similarly in a 5 civ game missing the white and the green is immaterial ...

 

[ElephantU]

To reorganize what Ali said, if there are only 6 civs none of the remaining civs will be rated Pathetic, but if you are rated Supreme and the Purple civ is missing you will suffer a major increase in beaker costs because the KeyCiv thing works based on the difference in number of techs and the missing civ is considered to have zero techs. The point is that the rule holds true, even if one or more of the civs is missing.

 

[molesworth]

Thanks that helps to explain things. I have a question about research beakers and power ratings which is: Is your power rating always related to the key civ? i.e: I know power rating depends, amongst other things, on your tech level. If you are far ahead in the game of all civs including key civ will your power rating and thus beaker costs come down if other civs apart from key civ catch up? Sorry if I should be able to work this out from your previous replies but I find it rather complicated!

 

[ElephantU]

The power rating depends partially on how many techs you have, how big your treasury is, and how many citizens you have in your cities. These are then sorted and the highest number becomes Supreme. Then your number of techs is compared to the number of techs of your KeyCiv only. So if other civs catch up some in techs the relative order of civs power ratings may change. I find that the biggest short-term swings happen when treasuries are changing rapidly, like from caravan deliveries or relocations of the AI capitals. All the civs power ratings are fixed at the beginning of each turn, even if you majorly cut down another civ.

 

[molesworth]

Thanks, that helps my understanding. Just to clarify - whatever your power rating is, the key relationship is your power relative to the key civ at any stage even though this maybe altered by other civs catching up? Is that correct?

 

[ElephantU]

Yes, your power rating is recalculated at the beginning of each turn, so if you slip from Mighty to Strong one turn then back to Mighty the next turn, and you have a big tech difference with the Cyan civ but not with the Orange civ, your beaker requirement will go way up for the one turn but come back down the next turn. I've run into this several times, particularly since I track exact beaker production versus requirements each turn playing OCC. A sudden rushbuy can shift my power rating enough to drop me a level, so I usually tech-gift civs above and below my KeyCiv so they don't get too far behind me (at least till the late game when I hold back a few like NucFis...). Playing OCC, though, I'm often trying to keep several alliances going so it's usually not wasted.

 

[Magic_gorter]

In another part of the forum there is a discussion about sabotaging you're spaceship. This causes the possibillity to play the rest of the game in 1 year turns till 2020.

A question I now have is, how to deal with this when playing a GOTM. Will the original max turns be used in the formula??? The other question is that if you launch a ship (when playing GOTM) should this moment be submitted. Because if I should play till 900 AD and my first ship is launched in 650 AD. Nobody will ever know that 900 AD is turn 415 and not turn 190 (which is a huge difference in score).

Please let me know you're opinion.

 

[Peaster]

On Magic Gorter's sabotage idea, my opinions are:

The mods should use the original max for everybody.
You should report both launches, so the mods can check your game more easily.
They CAN determine your total number of turns (using a utility if needed).
If your total exceeds the max, you are eligible for the Gold Star, but not the Blue Star.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

My opinion is that as long as the number of turns can be detected, as Peaster showed it can in another thread, no special rules are needed.

Going for the Blue star is more a matter of available real time than anything else. A look at archived results shows that more often than not the player who gets the blue star did not bother playing all the available turns.

I achieved a score of 8912 for GOTM55 by only playing till 1904 in an emperor game on a large 100x100 map. By then I had already maxed out my future tech score (all 255 of them).

 

[Peaster]

I defer to Ali's opinion about the Blue Star... I've never tried for one.

 

[Magic_gorter]

I agree with Ali. If this style of playing gives you more turns it is always a matter of available real time to get those max. points. This method is IMO not cheating because if you destroy an enemy spaceship the same will happen. So playing for the blue star should count.

I agree with Peaster on the total turns for the Gold star. It will give a to big advantage for playing early landing instead playing early conquest (playing EC will never get an higher score if the total turns were addapted).

I also agree with Peaster on reporting both launches.

 

[LordValuna]

If this style of playing gives you more turns it is always a matter of available real time to get those max..

I believe no extra turns turns are given by this trick (edit) my mistake and the programmers for allowing such sacralage(/edit)
and you can tell with utilities that it has happened

 

[Peaster]

LordValuna - Check this thread. Magic Gorter used his method to play a game way past the 520 turn "max". I checked his 2019AD save with a utility and found he had actually played over 1500 turns ! I get antsy when my games go much past 100 turns.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182802

 

[ElephantU]

Part of the GOTM score is based on number of turns elapsed, so getting more turns is not an advantage because your score continues to decline. I cannot remember what the "rule of thumb" factor for how much you need to increase your score each turn to make continuing a game worthwhile was, but I doubt you can keep up that rate over hundreds of additional turns.

 

[Ace]

IIRC, its 20 points per turn just to stay even in the gotm scoring.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I cannot remember what the "rule of thumb" factor for how much you need to increase your score each turn to make continuing a game worthwhile was, but I doubt you can keep up that rate over hundreds of additional turns.

ElephantU is right. One cannot keep up the score for 2 reasons, one, you need more as your score increases; two, certain things like future techs get maxed out at some point.

The GOTM scoring system rewards you for a higher base score but it also highly rewards you for finishing early. At higher levels, for every extra turn you take to finish you better be increasing your base score by 2% (1.88% to break even) or your GOTM score will not increase. See http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=27238&page=2&pp=36
for details.

But as I said before, this whole discussion is besides the point because there is no way one can afford the real time it takes to do this (play over a thousand turns) in a month (or two for that matter).

 

[Magic_gorter]

Ali you probably mean discussion about the blue star. The discussion about the Gold star is an other. I'll try to explain .....

The GOTM score is calculated with

G = sqrt(N) * 50 ^ ((M - T) / M)

G = GOTM score
N = normal score
M = maximum number of turns
T = turn finished

If a normal game would be 520 turns and I could build an 100 points spaceship at turn 200 (1000 AD) and let’s say you get an 1000 points score you get a GOTM score of 351 points (based on 520 turns). Most of the times playing EL I could still build 10 – 15 wonders. Lets asume I could build 10 more wonders (200 points). I could also build a 400 points spaceship. This is at least 500 more points (200 for wonders and 400-100= 300 for the spaceship). Those wonders and spaceship can easily build in 20 turns (let’s asume that my spaceship was captured before turn 220). A 400 points spaceship takes 11 more turns to arrive.

Total points with max turns (max turns -> 200 +1020 = 1220 turns) is (at turn 231) 923 (GOTM) points. So for playing this style you can easily get a lot of points more.

If the original max turns (520) counts, I only get 340 (GOTM) points. Which is less then my first score (351 points).

That’s why it is important to stay with the original max. turns to give an early victory or landing an advantage for a good GOTM score. If the max turns change to in this case 1220 turns you get a score which is IMO not possible with an early conquest and win a gold star.

 

[Millman]

I'll try to keep my questions to a few since this is a long thread. It would be easier if the next Civ game, if it isn't done already, to be fair to the player the same way.

I'm typing this while reading the first page. Maybe the AI Civ has to know where you are for there to be any real challenge, because in the end, the computer at this point is as only good as the ones programming it.

You see what I'm saying. I guess you have this all figured out already. The only thing I really do is look at the top five cities or the city that has built a wonder, just the location of one civilization is a lot of info.

I'll stop quickly before I repeat someone.

Samson says:

How do you know what your number of acquired techs is (apart from laboriously keeping count as you discover them!)? There seems to be no record of your own acquired techs in the playstation version that I play. Is it recorded somewhere in the PC version?

It should be recorded in the Playstation version. When you would end the turn, cancel and see the side bar of options. Under Advisors, go to the science advisor and it will show you everything you learned. You can count them up one by one or count one collumn, and double that to know how much you have learned. There's 88 total, so it is kinda a lot. As a matter of fact you have to learn fundamentalism after democracy which is a significant waste of time in this case if you need futuretech.

All the advisors are important, but the trade advisor is just really important in this case, as it shows you the cost as well as the turns for each advance.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Ali you probably mean discussion about the blue star.

I did; but everything I said applies just as well to the Gold Star.

Interestingly enough, the GOTM scoring formula works just as well when T (number of turns played) is greater than M (max turns). You get the same continuous slowly depreciating function. Thus, the formula (including the associated maximums) need not be changed.

I think you are saying this as well:

That’s why it is important to stay with the original max. turns ...