HOF Challenge Series X Discussion Thread

Ozbenno said:
My first thought if we do this, is to do a conquest victory across the ages. Do you think more participation would come about from a set leader or from any (except Inca) leader. Any leader might generate some discussion and participation to try and find the best leader for each age.
Click to expand...

Yea, any leader sounds more fun to me and promotes discussion.
(of course, allowing Inca would definitely increase my participation ;)
 
WastinTime said:
Yea, any leader sounds more fun to me and promotes discussion.
(of course, allowing Inca would definitely increase my participation ;)
Click to expand...

I think any civ other than Inca, Egyptian, or Persians would be fun. Allowing them makes it lame.

EDIT: Let's exclude India too!
 
Ozbenno said:
...
I might experiment with this in the G-Major 112 (have G-Major 112a, 112b, 112c etc) which hasn't been set up yet, if enough people think it a good idea.
Click to expand...

Sounds great!

Will this be Difficulty level or different Eras? I'd prefer Difficulty level.

I do believe that seperate threads per difficulty level would be best to avoid confusion. I'm not so sure that the lower three Difficulty levels are really necessary, unless there are players that really want them.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
shulec said:
I think any civ other than Inca, Egyptian, or Persians would be fun. Allowing them makes it lame.

EDIT: Let's exclude India too!
Click to expand...

Inca is in a class by itself, since it is banned already.

Why stop at War Chariots and Immortals? Just ban all Civs with Ancient Era and Classical Era (Praetorians, Keshiks) unique units.

Seriously, a ban on Inca should suffice. No unique unit is as overpowered per hammer cost and can be built so devastingly early.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
Sun Tzu Wu said:
Will this be Difficulty level or different Eras? I'd prefer Difficulty level.
Click to expand...

Spot poll!

I'll set up the gauntlet in a couple days. Would people prefer to see different sub-gauntlets per difficulty, speed or era?

Can't exclude Persia, Egypt or India although if we went by era they would only (except maybe India) useful on earlier eras, other civs shine later (part of the experiment is to see which these are).
 
Difficulty.

I'm sure folks have seen my explanation why enough already, so I won't repeat it yet again.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
Sun Tzu Wu said:
Inca is in a class by itself, since it is banned already.

Why stop at War Chariots and Immortals? Just ban all Civs with Ancient Era and Classical Era (Praetorians, Keshiks) unique units.
Click to expand...

You are right! How could I forget the Preats!

If these are not excluded, >95% of submissions will use Immotals, WC, or Preats. To me, that is lame.

Sun Tzu Wu said:
No unique unit is as overpowered per hammer cost and can be built so devastingly early. Sun Tzu Wu
Click to expand...

Agreed, but irrelevant. Those units are far overpowered in relation to their corresponding non-unique units at a time that is plenty early to be heavily imbalanced.

I'll play my game with War Chariots and I'll wipe my ass with your chariots!
 
Ozbenno said:
Can't exclude Persia, Egypt or India although if we went by era they would only (except maybe India) useful on earlier eras, other civs shine later (part of the experiment is to see which these are).
Click to expand...

Then please require a leader.

My suggestion to exclude those was top prove a point, not to serious suggest excluding them.
 
I prefer Speed but Difficulty is OK. This is terms of Gauntlets. Challenges should remain as is for the most part, other than previously agreed to changes. Again, my suggestions was 4 Gauntlets - 1 for each speed - with rotating difficulty levels. With 4 Gauntlets you'd have a good mix of easy to high difficulties. You can flip-flop difficulties with each new set of Gauntlet such as Setter/Noble/Monarch/Immortal and Warlord/Prince/Emperor/Deity. (Chieftain can flop with the Settler or Warlord spot every other set)

Definitely require leader. Glad to see folks advocating this point. No point in banning leaders if you require leader and cycle through the list....even Incas. This way not everyone chooses Egypt or India every Gauntlet.

Question: Are later era starts even stored in HOF tables? Not saying not to use them...they are a fun change of pace, but I can find no record of late era games. Anyway, I think later era starts can be saved for the Challengers.

Again, my point earlier was to keep Gauntlets HOF table focused and Challenges focused on more unique game setups for fun and change of pace, not that some of those games would qualify.
 
Ozbenno said:
Well we had one for Speed, one for Difficulty and one for Starting Era, so I got the casting vote and went for Starting Era. Have a look at the latest G-Major and take part.

Do people think that posting in S&T forum will draw in anyone. I'm going to post on the front page about our experiment...
Click to expand...

The just announed SGOTM-17 is a modified Classical Era start. So there may be some SGOTM players that might try Classical Era start just for a little practice. xOTM players might be interested too, but I rarely visit that forum.

Not sure whether Strategy and Tips players would be interested in later Era starts. They generally play a very narrowly defined "standard" settings which are usually Ancient Era, Normal speed, Standard size, and somewhat limited map types, and rarely isolated starts and No Huts and No Events.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
Is there a tentative start date for Challenge Series X? I would like to try my hand at it this time around.
 
I haven't read all the suggestions, so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

1. Modern Age, quick speed, cultural victory.
2. Play against Monty who wins a conquest victory. Ancient age start, small map.
 
lymond said:
^^^ I tend to like the Challenges to be more focused and different. "Focused" meaning set map and AIs and such, and "different" in that it offers set objectives and rules that go outside the norm to either create a "challenge" or a different setup to try out.
Click to expand...

Challenging and focused, yes. But totally random and barely winnable scenarios (i.e. VIII, game 10), no.

I also agree with the suggestion of 5-6 games over a much shorter time period. Even though I'm an Immortal player, I wouldn't mind competing at the Noble and Price level to complete an early victory.
 
One game I've been playing with recently is setting up a terra map to encourage new world exploration and settling, without vassals. It can crush your economy to settle so early, but with some defensive civs may be the easiest way to victory. I would be interested in seeing which way people choose to win. Higher difficulty needed so that players are forced to get to the later eras.

Settings:
Victory Condition - Domination
Difficulty - Emperor
Starting Era - Ancient
Map Size - Large
Map Type - Terra
Speed - Normal or Epic
Civ - Portugal
Opponents - lots of defensive minded civs (japan, native american, mali, etc.)
Options:
No Vassal States
No Tribal Villages
Choose Religions
No Random Events

Another idea based on the challenge of keeping up with AI tech when isolated.

Settings:

Victory Condition - Domination
Difficulty - Immortal or Diety
Starting Era - Ancient
Map Size - Large
Map Type - Islands (can we specify no tiny islands/high sea level???)
Speed - epic
Civ - - somebody not industrial or philosophic (Augustus?)
Opponents -- optional

Options:
No Vassal States
No Tribal Villages
No Random Events
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
You start with one Unit for free, what would it be?
Replies
18
Views
1K
PeterMoss
P
CGQ
[BTS] The Impossible Challenge 1: Advanced Barbarians
Replies
15
Views
1K
Henrik75
H
P
Antiquity Challenge - Punic Enlightenment
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bleidraner
B
CGQ
[BTS] The Impossible Challenge 2: No Food
Replies
13
Views
1K
pmarc
P
evonannoredars
Amina's Max Resources Challenge (Deity, Pangea+)
Replies
1
Views
3K
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
Back
Top Bottom