Immortal Cookbook rules poll

[carl corey]

Since IMC II is almost over, let's see what people want for the next game(s).

 

[Monsterzuma]

Keep the old system. The reason threads like these exist is to compare progress and exchange criticism and advice. Both are badly watered down when people play from different saves.

 

[carl corey]

Those were my thoughts too actually. But quite a few people got vocal about wanting different systems. If nobody's interested in keeping the actual system nobody will play the series anyway. Of course, if the option that gets chosen will turn out to be uninteresting, with everyone playing their own game without much constructive comments for example, we could revert to the original rules. Anyway, let's see what the poll says.

In the meantime we can also discuss what leader/map/speed we want in here.

I'm for keeping things at normal speed, as that will make the games shorter. Epic speed will mean more rounds, which in turn means a longer game. Playing a game over two-three months might be a bit much.

As for leader, someone talked about Isabella of Spain, I'd like to give her a try. On a Continents or Custom Continents map, to make things harder. We'll have to deal with not knowing what happens on the other continent(s) for a while, or with mounting an overseas invasion.

 

[CellKu]

Carl, I would like to join your immortal cookbook series, if time permits. I would vote for Dirk's system that he proposed in Gliese's deity cookbook discussion thread ("if your save is not the best, you may continue it for one more turnset, but if it is not selected after that next round you then take the best save"). It's not really your version 3, as you could end up with the "next" turnset being an odd round.

Speed: definitely normal.
Maps: Fractal or continents (nice would be the "perfect world"-map, but I am not sure how difficult that is), plz NO archipelago.
Leader: Whoever you like. What about Liz?

 

[carl corey]

Understood. Please vote for "other" then. It will let me know in the end how many "other" proposals I have to search for in posts.

Liz is quite a powerful leader. Some people might complain that the game is won because we chose Liz. I won't.

What's a "perfect world" map?

 

[carl corey]

And yes, you can join the series. The roster was definitive only after round one was over. I'd like people to play all rounds, from the start, that's why I chose not to allow others to join in the middle of the game.

 

[CellKu]

Okay, I voted for "other" as you told me.

The "perfect world" map-script you can find here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239982

As I said, I am not sure whether that is suitable for your series, but the map you get do look more realisitic IMO.

 

[carl corey]

I've seen some interesting maps there. I hope I have the time to generate a few maps to see how they look from inside the game. I'll decide later on whether to use them or not for the series, but anyway thanks for bringing them up.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Hi,

I voted the third option (I am not fixed on a particular format though)...
I think the most valuable in these threads is the possibility to compare each player approach on a particular game, and to discuss (and learn new stuffs in the process) the various saves... So basically, from the moment there is still votes and discussion, I could go with any format (I know, I am not really helpfull Carl )

Cheers,
Raskolnikov

edit: agreed Carl, the more players the better

 

[carl corey]

Actually, I agree with you about the purpose of these threads. The problem is to find out which format will best meet that purpose. Also, if due to the format many people won't play or will lose interest fast, I'd rather change the format. So far it seems that the original format still has support, but I'll let the poll run until IMC II is over and we'll see then.

 

[Kaleb]

Carl, I would like to join your immortal cookbook series, if time permits. I would vote for Dirk's system that he proposed in Gliese's deity cookbook discussion thread ("if your save is not the best, you may continue it for one more turnset, but if it is not selected after that next round you then take the best save"). It's not really your version 3, as you could end up with the "next" turnset being an odd round.

I also prefer this way, so I'm voting 'other' also

 

[Abegweit]

Add me to the "other" category. One of the worst problems of this type of format is that some folks will genuinely prefer their own game to the selected one (it caused much dissension in the original Monarch game). Give them a chance to prove they were right. It's also a very small change to the format, unlike some of the others.

 

[carl corey]

Of course they will prefer their own. One's shooting for Cavalry because he says it's faster, one's going for mass drafting, one's going for Cannons/Grenadiers. Look, no one's saying different strategies don't work, but the point of the series is to learn, not to show how good you are. If you can constantly win on Immortal and "know" that your strategy in a position is better than the others', maybe you shouldn't play as a part of the learning guys, simply post a shadow, a kind of way to measure how much the rest of us have advanced. I could go play Monarch with people who have just started on Monarch, but what's the point of having my save in the vote?

Everyone is of course free to argue in favor of their or someone else's save. Try to convince others through your arguments. If they're not convinced, and you are not someone who's at ease at that level, but instead are simply trying to learn as me, try to understand that your reasoning might not be the best. A little humility here, guys, that's all I ask. If this devolves into everyone playing their own game, then the series hasn't served its purpose.

If you want to have a series in which to simply compare saves and to see who wins, then start one, nobody has the monopoly over anything here.

 

[Diamondeye]

This vote has been added to the Bullpen under Immortal Cookbook Series, and the Game Status has been corrected for EMPC and IMC.

 

[carl corey]

Oh, you're really going all out hunting all these threads, aren't you? Thanks.

 

[Abegweit]

Of course they will prefer their own. One's shooting for Cavalry because he says it's faster, one's going for mass drafting, one's going for Cannons/Grenadiers. Look, no one's saying different strategies don't work, but the point of the series is to learn, not to show how good you are. If you can constantly win on Immortal and "know" that your strategy in a position is better than the others', maybe you shouldn't play as a part of the learning guys, simply post a shadow, a kind of way to measure how much the rest of us have advanced. I could go play Monarch with people who have just started on Monarch, but what's the point of having my save in the vote?

Everyone is of course free to argue in favor of their or someone else's save. Try to convince others through your arguments. If they're not convinced, and you are not someone who's at ease at that level, but instead are simply trying to learn as me, try to understand that your reasoning might not be the best. A little humility here, guys, that's all I ask. If this devolves into everyone playing their own game, then the series hasn't served its purpose.

If you want to have a series in which to simply compare saves and to see who wins, then start one, nobody has the monopoly over anything here.

Heyy. Slow down. I'm an Emperor player who doesn't have a single Immortal win under his belt so I certainly don't feel at ease with the level, let alone feel good at it. I don't know who you think you are talking to but it ain't me. I do think that letting someone play out his strat for one additional turn is a learning experience.

For example in ICII, we played two completely different approaches until 1200AD, at which point it became clear that both were crushingly strong on this map. It actually took that long to make it clear. In my view, it's still not sure which one would lead to a faster victory. I do think that my approach was more fun.

I didn't realise the power of both approaches at the beginning and I am sure that ABCF (who, unlike me, is an Immortal/Deity player) didn't either. So we both learned something. I'll be writing up an analysis of the differences on the thread shortly. Hopefully it will lead to an interesting discussion. In looking at the position, I am coming to conclude that his approach was better in the typical Immortal game. In contrast, I was playing the same way that I have always crushed the opposition in the lower levels. The map fitted my approach well. Snaaty saw it and played it better. Unlike me, he is above this level.

Coming back to this thread, I have two objections to the poll. First, it doesn't lay out the suggested alternative as an option. Secondly it's not public. I really don't care what Joe Noble thinks. Well, that's not exactly the right way to put it. More accurately, if you ain't gonna play you have no right to vote about how it's played. Snaaty's vote don't count either, even if his play was instructive.

Finally, a bit of advice. It's your Cookbook so don't put up any dumb polls. Instead run it the way you think best. If you want to insist that we always play from the best save (which seems to be your position), then come up with a tie-breaker. I suggest score. It's simple, reasonably accurate and highly unlikely to result in a further tie. Unfortunately that means that I would never have realised how strong ABCF's approach was.

 

[carl corey]

Coming back to this thread, I have two objections to the poll. First, it doesn't lay out the suggested alternative as an option.

Unfortunately I can't add options anymore once the poll is started.

Secondly it's not public.

True, didn't think about that. On the other hand the number of votes is pretty consistent with the number of people who have played or have expressed their interest in playing the IMCs, so I hope we don't have many votes from people who won't play them. Anyway, my bad, I hadn't thought about setting it as public.

It's your Cookbook so don't put up any dumb polls.

It's not, really. I'm just organizing it for now, but if nobody liked a format I propose I expect there wouldn't be too many players and I'd crash in the first rounds each time.

come up with a tie-breaker.

Oh, I don't really mind ties, in the unlikely event that they happen. I've already laid out the rules and I thought it worked ok in the last game, but I don't think the situation will repeat itself a lot in the future. I assume that the people who voted for one or the other save in the tie have already taken into account things like score, potential (a save that has Gunpowder and Chemistry may be ahead in score compared to one that's one turn from Liberalism, has Gunpowder and is also one turn from Chemistry), diplomacy and other parameters. If, on the other hand, after making your arguments you still haven't convinced enough people that your save is the best (and you think it's so), well, you haven't met some of the purpose of the series, which is to teach others. We're all teachers and students here, much as people will hate me using a school metaphor.

 

[pigswill]

'Best' is a tricky concept because it can either mean the most developed game in terms of cities, hammers, beakers, techs, units etc or it could also mean the best developed example of a particular player's preferred strategy (which may or may not be their own game).

 

[carl corey]

Any other leaders people would care to see in this game? We've had proposition for Izzy and Liz so far.

The current Deity Cookbook has Gilgamesh. There are a few other deity games out there, Gliese with Izzy, Dirk with Pacal II, DMOC with Gandhi. I understand if we want to avoid all these, and I'll take back my nomination for Izzy.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Heyy. Slow down. I'm an Emperor player who doesn't have a single Immortal win under his belt so I certainly don't feel at ease with the level, let alone feel good at it. I don't know who you think you are talking to but it ain't me.

I have immortal wins and from I have seen you are far better than me
More seriously I agree with you about the rest of your post, letting develop several approachs was indeed really interesting in the IC2... (looking forward your analysis ). I think your approach (less "centralized" empire than the one of ABigCivFan) worked so well because of the generous map and the lack of competition in the REX (AIs were far away). Also Pericles is very good.

Cheers