Immortal Holiday Challenge

Rusten

Deity
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
3,213
Location
Oslo
Finally holiday so I have time to play some SP again. I thought about whether to make this an open game or not, but in the end I went for the open game. I'm a little worried nobody's going to try to play though, so maybe it's a mistake. ;)

Game settings:
- pangea
- immortal difficulty
- all the usual variables are set to standard, but there's one exception which I'll get to shortly.

Here's the start:
Spoiler :
I picked Aztec. If you read my other threads you'll know they're my favourite and I figured they were a good fit for the variant after thinking about possible strategies. The corn tile has fresh water.



Great starting position and immortal difficulty; this doesn't seem too hard -- why's this a challenge? The challenge is that the AIs are teamed up and you (human) are all alone (3 AI teams and 2 AIs on each team).

I've played some always war games, but I usually find them boring for reasons I won't get into now so I tried to come up with some alternative setting to increase the difficulty. I'm not sure what difficulty this would relate to, but at least it's harder than a usual immortal game. :cool:

Seeing as this is an open game I won't be extremely detailed with my own game so I hope there will be some other players.

Good luck! :)
 

Attachments

  • AutoSave_Initial_BC-4000.CivBeyondSwordSave
    41 KB · Views: 90
Interesting idea. can teams of 2 immortal AIs stop the Aztec hordes?? Might be interesting if there are 1 team of 2 AIs and 1 team of 4 AIs to ensure competition through out.

With 2 AIs we could play D against 1 with ease and conqure the other. But AI teams of 3 and plus will be very tough.

About this game, how about Oracle to COL (Sacri. Alter) and whip all your infrus by 1AD :p
 
This could get pretty tough...the effective bonus of teaming the AIs might make this feel harder than a standard diety game, depending on who you're up against etc.
 
This looks like an interesting game and an interesting start. There's some temptation of moving 1NW and getting marble for the Oracle but in place is probably better, Aztec starting techs kind of suck and the resources here are diverse so lots of techs will be needed for the workers. Corn looks to be irrigated.
 
Rusten, have you played this sort of thing before? I believe immortal teams against a single human opponent is more harder than a solo deity.
 
I have played this setting one time before.
Spoiler :
I won that one.
 
As you win with some consistency on deity, that doesn't mean much ;).

I do like making attempts at games that should be outside my skill range though (struggling immortal player). So why not? Maybe I'll get lucky like in that Cam_H RPC which was like my 3rd or 4th monarch game ever and I high-score dominated it :p.

I get the feeling that we won't be horse archer charging the AIs in this one though.
 
Rusten, have you played this sort of thing before? I believe immortal teams against a single human opponent is more harder than a solo deity.

Not to mention making it a pangaea, lol. :)
 
Not to mention making it a pangaea, lol. :)

Actually that might help ---> diplo manipulation = :backstab:. It's a lot easier to deal with AI troop spam when they put their troops somewhere else!

With low # of teams, diplo won't be very complex. Taking a side to temporarily make it 3v2 and grabbing more cities than your "allies" seems a solid move, actually.
 
Actually that might help ---> diplo manipulation = :backstab:. It's a lot easier to deal with AI troop spam when they put their troops somewhere else!

Yeah but the techpace is also significantly higher and there's often fierce competition over land. I'm actually thinking about moving down to immortal again for offline games but playing on pangaea as I think it's like increasing the difficulty half a notch.
I've played some offline deity games now that I consider a win (though not finished) but with strong leaders + good starts (like Gandhi +2gold) but I still have a hard time with more average games.
 
350 BC.
Spoiler :
I decided to settle in place. Plenty of options, but it seemed fine in place. 1NW and 1W drops grassland hills and settling in place allows a city on the plains hill picking up flood plains and clams. The capital won't have that much surplus food so a filler city there could spawn a GS. We don't know if we're going to get blocked in very early so keeping the option of a city open adds safety.

I ended up getting a map from a hut which usually provokes moaning, but in this case it probably had a big impact on my strategy.



The thing is that my scout died as early as turn 7 or something (to a bear IIRC) and as a result I didn't map much land. On pangea it can matter a lot in which turn you settle eastwards/westwards/etc as some spots are very urgent and now I'll lack that info. Well, this map showed me that Bismarck settled aggressively towards me in a pretty good spot so an early rush is a good option seeing as the city is not on a hill. Not only does it guarantee me more land, but it weakens one of the teams making them a softer target later on. I <know> that I'll have decent attackers even if I don't find metal as jaguars are resourceless and I have a lot of forests to chop them out with.



His teammate is JC though, which is a little troublesome. However, I have the aggressive trait, so shock axes can hold at least temporarily if he decides to interfere. My gold allows early alphabet which can be used for a peace treaty if necessary.

The other teams are Hannibal/Peter and SB/Ramesses.

Copper pops up close to Tenochtitlan and within the range of that filler city. I decide to put my first city there as it's going to be up to speed very quickly. It won't need a monument and thus can contribute to the rush. It'll allow axes to compliment my jaguars.

I get the herbalist event on turn 48. The timing couldn't have been worse as I've started the rush preparations. I can't afford the loss of population and annoyingly drop the experiments.

I get my first jaguar 2000 BC. I promote it to woodsman and send it out hunting for barbarians. I want it to reach 5XP and use it for healing.



Next time I create a game via "custom games" I'll probably remove random events while I'm at it. There's enough of a random element in civ already (as you'll see later as well) and I get a slave revolt in Tenochtitlan on turn 56. :(

I check Biz/JC turn 67 and find that they have enough on their hands. Hah! I guess we're both planning to rush each other.

I declare on Bismarck 1200 BC and you'd think this was enough to take Hamburg.



But it's not. At least not right away. I end up with poor combat and one of the archers stand remaining. That really pissed me off. I do take the city the following turn, but I lost a lot of units while doing it. The city also gets a slave revolt at about the time it comes out of revolt (yay random events!).



Here's the power graph a little later -- you can see the "Hamburg effect".



I stopped the build up in favour of 2 settlers as I found some amazing spots to the SW. Again, if my scout hadn't died before I could reveal anything but coast I might've played this game differently, but this is the way it turned out. I think an early rex/Oracle approach is doable as well, but I don't want to vouch for it as this is only my 2nd game with these settings.

Settle Tlatelolco 925 BC and another city 1W of where the settler is standing. I wanted it on the grassland hill picking up the rice (and copper though not present on this map) but a barbarian city got up before I got there.



I continue my war capturing Berlin at about 600 BC and follow up with Munich 400 BC. Berlin holds the Oracle and SH so I will probably chop the GL and the NE there for GPP. Munich holds the ToA, a settled MI and a settled GP -- both great cities!



I'm forced to stop the war here as JC has a stack capable of taking some of my cities. Still, despite the unlucky starting attack I ended up having a successfull war. At least Gibbon supports me:



Now I have some great land and plenty of luxury resources so things are looking quite OK. The plan is to grab the GL/NE in Berlin. I'm going to run 2 scientists in Berlin for my first GP. If I spawn a prophet I will probably use him on theology and if I get a GS philosophy is coming. A GS is obviously going to be much better, but the prophet will have the most GPP.
 

Attachments

  • Rusten BC-2080.CivBeyondSwordSave
    78.1 KB · Views: 77
  • Rusten BC-0350.CivBeyondSwordSave
    147.6 KB · Views: 79
How exactly does the team function work? I've never played a team game of any kind.
 
How exactly does the team function work? I've never played a team game of any kind.

It works to screw up AP cheese, apparently ;).

I was totally going to carbon copy Sun Tzu Wu's approaches to spitting out 1 city AP wins, but I don't 100% understand how the diplo with those leaders works. My guess is that it averages, but that makes the AP a tad unrealistic here.

I might replay and actually try to win a more standard victory type, but this map does indeed seem hard.
 
How exactly does the team function work? I've never played a team game of any kind.

Gliese,

I forget the exact numbers, but if 3 people are on a team, and they're all producing 100 beakers, the end result is NOT 300 beakers towards the next tech. It's much closer to 100, though it is still greater than 100 beakers. Four people on a 4 person team producing 100 beakers each would be greater than 3. 5 > 4, and soforth.

Anyways, in there somewhere is a division by the number of teammates or a number based on the number of teammates. This means the human can greatly abuse this feature by not killing off one of your opponents teammates, and instead hearding him or her to a horrible spot on the map (hopefully somewhere in the arctic, antarctic, or some bastard city on a 1 square island) so his or her team still suffers from the extra person tech penalty without him or her being able to contribute very much to the team.
 
Gliese,

I forget the exact numbers, but if 3 people are on a team, and they're all producing 100 beakers, the end result is NOT 300 beakers towards the next tech. It's much closer to 100, though it is still greater than 100 beakers. Four people on a 4 person team producing 100 beakers each would be greater than 3. 5 > 4, and soforth.

Anyways, in there somewhere is a division by the number of teammates or a number based on the number of teammates. This means the human can greatly abuse this feature by not killing off one of your opponents teammates, and instead hearding him or her to a horrible spot on the map (hopefully somewhere in the arctic, antarctic, or some bastard city on a 1 square island) so his or her team still suffers from the extra person tech penalty without him or her being able to contribute very much to the team.

It's a nice thought, but in practice pounding an AI that hard early on is pretty difficult. You can get marked results by merely beating an AI down to one city, even if it's somewhat good. However, if you got to the point where you could actually do that, you're probably in a winning position regardless!
 
TheMeInTeam,

Who said anything about "early on"? ;) This strategy works just fine in the medevil era, or even the industrial era. Anything to slow down the AI is okay in my book.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you're presented with the decision of complete annihilation or leaving a single crappy city in the hands of 1 of the enemy civs in a team, it would be better to leave the single city there to leave them to hamper their teammate's teching.
 
This looks interesting indeed, have to find out what advantages teamed ais get, do they share techs/resources? It certainly makes it more risky to declare on them.
 
Dirk1302,

They tech together and share World Wonder benefits, but as far as resources go each individual Civ on a team requires their own Iron to make Iron units. However when an AI is on a team, they very quickly throw their spare resources at their comrades. However they still don't know how to coordinate the usefulness of trading unnecessary resources. For example, if Monty has Iron and Copper, he won't give his partner, Augustus, the one Iron he owns. Also, if Cathy has Stone, and Ramesses is building The Great Wall while Cathy is city spamming, Cathy won't ever give Ramesses that Stone to help out.

This does make trading (both exporting and importing) resources a bit tougher as most redundant resources will probably go towards their teammates, as there will be fewer resources available for trade and fewer "needs" if their partners have any resources left.

Regardless, I still think the humans have an advantage in a "team game" so long as the teams are kept to a reasonable level (3 or less) once you learn how they function. A friend of mine and I used to play a lot of 2v5, 2v6, 2v7 etc. games where we'd square off vs the AI. We played like this until I found out that when you only have 2 teams you cannot build the AP nor the UN, which makes sense I guess but I wanted those hammers! Anyways, then I swapped them up to 2v3v3v3 or 2v4v4 etc depending on the map sizes.

Oh yeah, diplomacy is freaky wacky as heck in team games too. I believe the final leader attitude is the average of all 3 teams members. Since the teammates won't care about each other's religions, you can and probably will end up with multiple religions in a single team, reducing the amount of diplomatic bonuses adapting "the right" religion can have.
 
A very interesting challenge.

Some general questions about a team game:
It teams tech together, do they also have a single cash pool? Can you individually trade excess resources for GPT to team members or only to teams?

Does a team research 1 tech at a time, or does each member individually research a different tech and they effectively "gift" each other all techs as soon as they discover them?

How about espionage - do you need to accumulate points against a team or against individual members?

Last question - can a team capitulate?
 
A very interesting challenge.

Some general questions about a team game:
It teams tech together, do they also have a single cash pool? Can you individually trade excess resources for GPT to team members or only to teams?
They don't share gold pool. You can sell/trade resources with them individually.

Does a team research 1 tech at a time, or does each member individually research a different tech and they effectively "gift" each other all techs as soon as they discover them?
From what I've seen they usually tech the same thing.

How about espionage - do you need to accumulate points against a team or against individual members?
EP goes to the team as a whole.

Last question - can a team capitulate?
Yes.
 
Top Bottom