Darkness
Shadow creature
I can only echo that sentiment, but I seem to have forgotten to do so in my earlier post in this thread....
Gotm18-Celts Results and Congratulations
- Thread starter cracker
- Start date
I can only echo that sentiment, but I seem to have forgotten to do so in my earlier post in this thread....
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Gaining 8 turns in a speed game is HUGE.
In my own game, there is absolutely nothing I can think of (but others might, of course), that I could have done after 1000 BC that could have gained me that many turns. Maybe one or two turns, if I had been real lucky and gotten a bunch more Great Leaders, but that's about it.
On the other hand, 337 points gained by milking doesn't seem to be such a big deal, at least at first glance, yet it gets you past someone else's equally excellent game.
This is not to belittle Shillen's peformance, he played a fine game himself and milking is a real art, but to put some perspective on how the scoring formula is working out.
Milking still pays off, it can gain you places 'coming from behind' others who didn't postpone their victory.
The question is, as I asked last month with little response, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Hum...that could be me
I did play a totally different way than I normally play and for once forgot to play under Honourable rules and tried to replicate GOTM tactics of players like Bamspeedy or Cartouche Bee. It was a one-off for me I think but I thoroughly enjoyed this game.
What a great result it was and what an honour to be eleventh with all those great players in front of me
Of course my biggest thank goes to Aeson and cracker for implementing the Jason score which I think allows player of my style to participate more interestingly to the GOTM. The results show a great array of different styles at the top of the table and that is really great.
The Jason score is a HUGE success !
Capt Buttkick
Emperor
I think I saw some discussion on this. I for one think it works out amazingly well as is. The milkers can have their fix and the rest of us only have to play marginally better games to be competitive.
Now, how do I improve 40 placings in the gotm?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Also, keep in mind all these scores were using the old curve. Remember the 'changing the curve' thread? Unless they've changed their plans, there will be a slightly better curve for future games, and that may eliminate some of these small % of score differences that some people are worried about.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
Thanks for reminding me Bamspeedy. I'll have a comparison out shortly showing how the new curve would have affected this month's results. Probably better that I forgot about it, as the spotlight definitely should have been on the actual results rather than the changes.
Well my game seems to have brought up some debate here.
Originally in the scoring system thread I did state that I thought I was getting an unfair advantage by milking. If I had finished as soon as I was able to get conquest I would have scored 7500 on the Jason scoring system. But by milking the last 300+ turns I was able to increase my score by 1540 points.
But Aeson brought to light another point that I hadn't thought about. That was the speed I had forgone in order to set up my milk. I definitely could have reached conquest much sooner had I not planned to milk the game. I went for the Pyramids first, and they were built by the Aztecs, which were one of the hardest civ's to get to from our starting position. This caused me to go in a wild conquest pattern which involved shipping my troops between the western and eastern fronts a couple times during the game. Had I gone for straight conquest I wouldn't have done this and would have acquired territory quicker (gotten more early score) and achieved victory quicker. So had I not planned to milk all along I would have scored much higher than 7500.
Do I think I played well enough to get 8th place? Not really. There were several mistakes I made and I feel going for the Pyramids at all costs was a bad decision. I feel I did make up for it in the milking phase though. As Aeson said the score reflects how you're doing at that point. Since my Jason score was rising as I milked, that means I was playing better during the milking period than I did during the conquest period. Should that count for increasing my standing? I don't know, I guess so.
I originally posted in the ethics of milking thread that I didn't think milking took any skill and was only useful for an artificial increase in score. Well I don't really think that anymore. After a discussion in the HoF thread a lot of different strategies came to light that I hadn't thought of. If I compare my GOTM18 to my regent game that I was milking for the HoF there's a huge difference in how I did it. And my GOTM18 game is just so much better it isn't funny. So obviously I improved my strategy which means there must be some skill to it. But I still think milking isn't enjoyable. And based on that I don't feel that I deserved my score increase just because I milked better than I conquered.
Also, comparing my game to Ronald's game doesn't make much sense. His game was a completely different type of game. My game was recorded as a cultural victory but it was really a multi victory. I could get conquest, domination, or cultural victory depending on what you did in 2049. I gradually gained cultural throughout the 540 turns and didn't hit the limit until 2050. You'd be better off comparing my game to a domination or conquest game because I reached both of those much earlier in the game before I started milking.
Originally in the scoring system thread I did state that I thought I was getting an unfair advantage by milking. If I had finished as soon as I was able to get conquest I would have scored 7500 on the Jason scoring system. But by milking the last 300+ turns I was able to increase my score by 1540 points.
But Aeson brought to light another point that I hadn't thought about. That was the speed I had forgone in order to set up my milk. I definitely could have reached conquest much sooner had I not planned to milk the game. I went for the Pyramids first, and they were built by the Aztecs, which were one of the hardest civ's to get to from our starting position. This caused me to go in a wild conquest pattern which involved shipping my troops between the western and eastern fronts a couple times during the game. Had I gone for straight conquest I wouldn't have done this and would have acquired territory quicker (gotten more early score) and achieved victory quicker. So had I not planned to milk all along I would have scored much higher than 7500.
Do I think I played well enough to get 8th place? Not really. There were several mistakes I made and I feel going for the Pyramids at all costs was a bad decision. I feel I did make up for it in the milking phase though. As Aeson said the score reflects how you're doing at that point. Since my Jason score was rising as I milked, that means I was playing better during the milking period than I did during the conquest period. Should that count for increasing my standing? I don't know, I guess so.
I originally posted in the ethics of milking thread that I didn't think milking took any skill and was only useful for an artificial increase in score. Well I don't really think that anymore. After a discussion in the HoF thread a lot of different strategies came to light that I hadn't thought of. If I compare my GOTM18 to my regent game that I was milking for the HoF there's a huge difference in how I did it. And my GOTM18 game is just so much better it isn't funny. So obviously I improved my strategy which means there must be some skill to it. But I still think milking isn't enjoyable. And based on that I don't feel that I deserved my score increase just because I milked better than I conquered.
Also, comparing my game to Ronald's game doesn't make much sense. His game was a completely different type of game. My game was recorded as a cultural victory but it was really a multi victory. I could get conquest, domination, or cultural victory depending on what you did in 2049. I gradually gained cultural throughout the 540 turns and didn't hit the limit until 2050. You'd be better off comparing my game to a domination or conquest game because I reached both of those much earlier in the game before I started milking.
Zwingli
Prince
Congratulations to everyone who participated. Especially those who resisted the pangea induced urge to destroy the world. 
As for my #155 placement and low scoring victory award, I can only hope to be the most improved player next month.
As for my #155 placement and low scoring victory award, I can only hope to be the most improved player next month.
Hey lowest scoring win has a long and honourable history - and it aint that easy to get that award either!
I think it's very doable. Just find a good spot and fortify your first settler until 1000BC or for as long as you can before founding your capital.
PS: Originally, it was Ribannah's idea; I'm just adding just a little bit of stuffings onto it.
hotrod0823
Deity
Just a quick thing I noticed when reviewing the results. I don't know what to make of it but I think it is important enough to share what I've found.
In Game Jason
Cultural 100K 7022 6411
Domination 6230 6076
Conquest 8781 6405
Diplo 3765 4272
Space 3224 3987
These are some data points I pulled when I just looked at the Victory types and noticed a trend in the scoring.
The above are scoring averages from GOTM18 with all victories included except for Zwingli (2CC conquest). And of course Moonsinger's stand alone 20K cultural win.! And I didn't know where to put SirPleb or Bamspeedy's multi win games.
The question I have is a Diplo or Space victory less valuable than a Domination, cultural or Conquest Win. I am not sure why but this would appear to mean that for this game setup a Diplo/Space win was a loser from the get go.
Why is that ?
Hotrod
In Game Jason
Cultural 100K 7022 6411
Domination 6230 6076
Conquest 8781 6405
Diplo 3765 4272
Space 3224 3987
These are some data points I pulled when I just looked at the Victory types and noticed a trend in the scoring.
The above are scoring averages from GOTM18 with all victories included except for Zwingli (2CC conquest). And of course Moonsinger's stand alone 20K cultural win.
! And I didn't know where to put SirPleb or Bamspeedy's multi win games.The question I have is a Diplo or Space victory less valuable than a Domination, cultural or Conquest Win. I am not sure why but this would appear to mean that for this game setup a Diplo/Space win was a loser from the get go.
Why is that ?
Hotrod
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
Using averages like that will lead to faulty conclusions. Not all the victory conditions are as difficult (by skill and/or time necessary to complete a victory) as the others on a map. On some maps Conquest/Domination are very quick and easy. On others they are much more difficult and time consuming.
Because this map had a 'Large' landmass setting, Spaceship/Diplomatic were probably the two quickest victory conditions, other than a small empire 20k type game. Conquest and Domination were going to take a while because so many units had to be moved around. Cultural 100k was probably somewhere inbetween. Because of that, the 'easy' victories were Spaceship/Diplomatic, and so the players struggling to win gravitate to those victory conditions, while the players having an easier time of things could go for whatever victory condition they wanted to. On most maps this is going to be the case, and I'd expect the average Jason and in-game scores to be lower for Spaceship/Diplomatic because of it. Even if the map favored Spaceship/Diplomatic through the scoring system (this one actually favored any game played to ~14-1800AD).
Because this map had a 'Large' landmass setting, Spaceship/Diplomatic were probably the two quickest victory conditions, other than a small empire 20k type game. Conquest and Domination were going to take a while because so many units had to be moved around. Cultural 100k was probably somewhere inbetween. Because of that, the 'easy' victories were Spaceship/Diplomatic, and so the players struggling to win gravitate to those victory conditions, while the players having an easier time of things could go for whatever victory condition they wanted to. On most maps this is going to be the case, and I'd expect the average Jason and in-game scores to be lower for Spaceship/Diplomatic because of it. Even if the map favored Spaceship/Diplomatic through the scoring system (this one actually favored any game played to ~14-1800AD).
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Not necessarily. Since you are including the average of all scores, this can skew things. For some of the players that are newer to Civ3, they may be more tend to finish with a late victory (space, diplo), because they may lack the skills at this point to militarily decimate their opponents, or have the ability to freely choose which victory to take, so they just hold on for the wild ride and may squeek away with a victory when the AI falls apart in the very late game. These newer players would then be bringing down the average of the top players who chose diplo or space and played extremely well.
The same can be said for milkers. If 3 top players all happen to milk and score well, that doesn't mean that the scoring curve favored milking for that game, or that those 3 wouldn't have scored just as high if they finished in some other way.
hotrod0823
Deity
So it is implied that it doesn't take any skill to launch or win a diplo vote? I understand that is not what you are saying but the implication is that a diplo victory or space victory is easier and deserves a lower score. That shouldn't mean that there game is any less valueable. I didn't find myself "struggling" at all I knew I was going to win.
In GOTM 19 I chose a more balanced approach but still had space as a goal. This is not to say I didn't have the skill to win by domination or conquest. In 18 I made a choice to play a peaceful builder/trading game and had no designs on conquest or domination. I like the variety and found both games enjoyable.
It just appears that the Scoring is schewed to benefit the warmongers. That is just the way it is.
As far as the milkers go they are in a class by themselves and I make no attempt to even compare my games to those.
In GOTM 19 I chose a more balanced approach but still had space as a goal. This is not to say I didn't have the skill to win by domination or conquest. In 18 I made a choice to play a peaceful builder/trading game and had no designs on conquest or domination. I like the variety and found both games enjoyable.
It just appears that the Scoring is schewed to benefit the warmongers. That is just the way it is.
As far as the milkers go they are in a class by themselves and I make no attempt to even compare my games to those.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
You are right, in that is NOT what I meant. Of course they don't deserve a lower score. I'm just saying that there may be some players who let's say normally play regent or warlord. They come into this game on monarch and are overwhelmed and need much of the game to catch up. By the time they catch up, then diplo/space is already available, or available pretty soon, so they go for that method instead of tediously moving MA all over the map.
I'm talking about late victories in the 1900-2000 A.D. or later(ranks of #110 and below, for example)., and you will see many of the victories that late in the game are spaceship, so they bring down the average of other spaceship/diplo victors who finished much faster, such as yourself.
I'm talking about late victories in the 1900-2000 A.D. or later(ranks of #110 and below, for example)., and you will see many of the victories that late in the game are spaceship, so they bring down the average of other spaceship/diplo victors who finished much faster, such as yourself.
hotrod0823
Deity
I think what I am trying to get at is there is no way to "equalize" the difference in scoring that is built into the difference of victory condition. Because score is heavily weighted on population, territory and power it is always going to favor the war monger.
The Jason scoring balances the milked domination win with the non-milked win but I doubt there is any way to compare a peaceful 1640 AD diplo/space victory of a small technically advanced civ with a military powerhouse that dominated the world in 1000 AD.
My sole purpose was to point out that there is a difference in how the scores relate and it may never be overcome due to built in Game score calculations that favor the military heavily.
I am sorry I got a bit defensive but I realize that I made the choice to go the tech route in 18 and 19 and I may have to pull out the warmonger in me for GOTM20.
Hotrod
The Jason scoring balances the milked domination win with the non-milked win but I doubt there is any way to compare a peaceful 1640 AD diplo/space victory of a small technically advanced civ with a military powerhouse that dominated the world in 1000 AD.
My sole purpose was to point out that there is a difference in how the scores relate and it may never be overcome due to built in Game score calculations that favor the military heavily.
I am sorry I got a bit defensive but I realize that I made the choice to go the tech route in 18 and 19 and I may have to pull out the warmonger in me for GOTM20.
Hotrod
@Bamspeedy: Talking about me? (111th)
I guess you're right, the later in the game the bigger the human advantage gets. For one new to the level, like myself, you are trying to stay alive in the game, and at some point you realize you can win it. But time is running out at that point so, like Aeson says, you're gravitating towards spaceship. My personal opinion is that a diplo win is harder and takes more planning. People that find diplo too easy, will mostly not hold the vote to find out how unpredictable the AI can be. (There are some good articles about AI moods towards you, but you have to have good memory to know how they feel about each other )
(111th)I guess you're right, the later in the game the bigger the human advantage gets. For one new to the level, like myself, you are trying to stay alive in the game, and at some point you realize you can win it. But time is running out at that point so, like Aeson says, you're gravitating towards spaceship. My personal opinion is that a diplo win is harder and takes more planning. People that find diplo too easy, will mostly not hold the vote to find out how unpredictable the AI can be. (There are some good articles about AI moods towards you, but you have to have good memory to know how they feel about each other
)
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
The problem arises because a 1640AD (or earlier) Diplo/Space win is not mutually exclusive with a 1000AD (or earlier) Domination. The player can conquer out to the Domination limit while keeping a pretty good tech rate, and then launch/hold the vote at a decent date still. So if you're comparing 2 games which both launch at or near the same date, why shouldn't the one that controls most of the world score more than one that controls only a small part of it?
hotrod0823
Deity
I see your point. You have to make a distinction between the two and score is the only way to do it.
Hotrod
Hotrod
congratulations to Moonsinger, Ribannah, Bamspeedy and all the others who have shown their great skills in civ. I'm quite new to the GOTM (didn't play gotm18, gotm19 will be my second) and I'm really impressed with your games. Hopefully, one day I'll have learned enough to be able to compare with all these great players.
Similar threads
- Sticky
