1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

ISDG ~ After Game Analysis and Discusion

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games' started by Cyc, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    This thread's title says it all. If you would like to discuss the game in detail, please post below. Pleas use English if possible. It was a wild and wooly game, with a lot to complain about. :) So let it fly, people.
     
  2. I. Larkin

    I. Larkin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,396
    Column 1
    Date Turn Bc-AD Events
    29 NOV 2010 001 3950 BC Game started
    09 DEC 2010 001 3950 BC Game re-started
    26 FEB 2011 035 2230 BC Anarhchy – Knights met
    03 MAR 2011 038 1950 BC Anarhchy – Knights trade Techs



    Looks that it works...
     
  3. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Column 1
    1122
    Column 1
    2233
    Column 1
    3344


    Column 1
    4455
    Column 1
    5566
    Column 1
    6677


    Column 1
    7788
    Column 1
    8899
    Column 1
    9900


    You mean something like this? Each group is a table. Each column is a stack of three tables. At least that's how I did it. Plus I put a space between each row. And two spaces between each table.

    Column 1
    APR
    Column 1
    MAY
    Column 1
    JUN


    Column 1
    5000
    Column 1
    6000
    Column 1
    7000


    Column 1
    8000
    Column 1
    9000
    Column 1
    10000


    Column 1
    APR MAY JUN
    5000 6000 7000
    8000 9000 10000


    I dunno. :dunno:

    Column 1
    apr
    5000
    4000
    3000[/plain]


    Column 1
    may
    5000
    4000
    3000[/plain]
     
  4. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,564
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Yes, at the moment there is a lot going on in the German ISDG forum, which unfortunately our English-speaking participants from over here can't understand. This is a pity, because most things over there are indeed highly interesting.
    I guess the reason is: the Küche was the team with the highest "member activity" right through the end of the game. A very "healthy" team with a lot of active contributors. Now these Küche members are quite active again in the "post-mortem", a few Anarchos have reappeared, and of course Eagles & Knights also had a few German-speaking members, so the discussion over there is thriving.
    I would love to translate some of that stuff for the fanatics forum, but first of all: I have a real life, so no way I could find the time for that, and second: the interest over here doesn't seem to be too intense?!

    Interesting point discussed right now: which settling pattern is better, the "tight, many size-7 cities" implemented by the Küche (and also by the Anarchos, if they would have had time to develop peacefully), or the "slightly wider, not so many size-12 cities" implemented by the Eagles (and also by the Knights, if we would have had time to develop peacefully)?

    Both options have pros and cons, and for me it is still not clear. Unfortunately it is not really possible to directly compare the Küche- and the Eagle-output, because the Eagles had such a super-über-start... (5fpt instead of 4ftp. With a granary that means 2-turn growth instead of 3-turn growth, so 33% faster growth in the early phase. What had the map creator been thinking here :shake:)
     
  5. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    That surprises me, too. :confused:

    The Eagles had to move one turn before founding Aerie.

    I would like to add that "tight, many size-7 cities" is a strong simplification. Here is a picture of what i had in mind.



    http://www.civforum.de/showthread.p...acestrategie&p=4953646&viewfull=1#post4953646

    In earlier stages of the game we had 5 additional cities for temporary use which might lead to the impression of a tight pattern.
     
  6. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,564
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    One turn means nothing...

    This pattern makes sense to me for a research game with a small number of units. FP in R14D9?
    On the other hand: if you have to move the palace, then why not even further north? E.g. R7D5 and FP in R37D17? (of course, everything would need to be readjusted a bit then.)
     
  7. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,564
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Ok, mathematically this is probably not correct. Let's say "one turn means less than epsilon"... :D
     
  8. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Eagles definitely started in a better location than the Kitchen, but the other continent had two decent starting loctions. It was a shame that the Kitchen got trapped with that one ring core. But stuck on that little wart of a land mass at the bottom DID allow them/force them to establish their core quickly and proceed "getting on" with building their empire to the North.

    I think the Eagles laid out there city planning pretty well. First we secured a lux and a strong second city on the coast. Then we established a strong Worker/Settler factory. As long as you have a Worker/Workers to build road, I think the size 12 cities are the way to go. Roads allow the Settlers to get to their destination quickly, plus give you the extra commerce for science research. We had a strong player base in the begining, so there was a lot of discussion.
     
  9. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    The Forbidden Palace was in R3D0(Weinheim) already. A Palace more in the north would have some negativ effects on the cities in the north and as cummunist distances does no longer matter. Communism is the way to max out research and production in C3C 1.22.
     
  10. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,564
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    We would never have accepted Communism as part of the joint research program, so you would have had to research it on your own afterwards. Could you really have afforded to lose 4 turns plus another anarchy?! In this case I think we would have won. Republic plus science farms in the corrupt areas would have been sufficient for 4-turn research.
     
  11. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    Of couse we could not have accepted to lose turns with the used research rules. At Sid the problem would have never arised in that way. Due to low research costs the space race was little of an option. The one who plays poor for the sake of his nations would have won the race.
    Chosing emperor was the most important mistake when starting the DG.
     
  12. templar_x

    templar_x usually walks his talks

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,560
    Location:
    on a learning curve
    you repeated that a couple of times now, but i do not understand it. i must assume that this again is some of your "the game is not good enough for the greatness of my ideas" notions :)
    if the goal is set clear, and i have been trying to say that for quite a while now, then only a strategy that leads towards this goal is a good strategy. strategies that "would be good if the goal/the circumstances/the game software/... would be different" may be intestesting, but are no good strategies.

    thus, if being first to the SS by skipping Communism, this would in my eyes *not* be "playing poor for the sake of one´s nation", but just how to do it. i really did not understand that part of your argumentation over at the civforum...

    Emperor was a given, so what you did with it could be right or wrong, but i absolutely do not agree to say in hindsight that this setting was the most important mistake, or even a mistake at all.

    t_x
     
  13. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    My point is exactly that the difficult setting was the most important mistake. Research is much too cheap, the 4-turn limitation becomes relevant much too early. If it weren't for that communism etc. would pay off long before the Spacerace is finished. But the chosen circumstances make it pretty dull. Hampering the progress of the nation will give victory in way that i feel is wrong. Somehow you think 4-turns limitations is a feature, i think it is a bug.
     
  14. templar_x

    templar_x usually walks his talks

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,560
    Location:
    on a learning curve
    "feature" in a sense as a pure matter of fact, yes. i remember civ1 where this was not installed. sometimes i researched a few techs in one single turn. of course this was mathematically correct, but yes, i think the 4-turn (or any) limit makes sense for a certain idea of the game.

    if you are saying that *your* idea of the game is a different one, everything is fine. but words like "mistake" and how you describe the effect for the teams in the ISDG go much too far in my eyes. your very different ideas about how the game should be can not at all imo be transferred into the strategies of the players who simply play the game "as it is".

    t_x
     
  15. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    The 4 turn limitations is not bad per se. But in combination with low research costs and the unability to research more techs than 1 at once is undesirable.
     
  16. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    In every mod I make, I reduce the minimum research time to 3. I makes the games so much nicer.
     
  17. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,564
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    The world in turn 150:


    F8:


    F11:
     
  18. templar_x

    templar_x usually walks his talks

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,560
    Location:
    on a learning curve
    it is not that i do not see where you are coming from. but i hardly see this point so decisive for the gameplay. of course it would have been smarter if they had not hardcoded it, so you could change it.

    BUT: if guys like you and me decide to play Sid level, really, why worry about tech speed (of the HI) or long revolution phases? if i want the AI to have only 40% of my costs for everything, then i really do not mind that i need to stay in anarchy for e.g. 5 turns and them only for 1.

    therefore, and in this sense, yes, i see those as "features", while in a contrary the "no-attack bug" for armies in open field is a real and very bad bug, the unability of the AI to undertake D-Day-Operations or use artillery is really really bad and at least the latter on bug-level. the unability of the AS to understand and not accept "fake peace"-deals is a bad bug also.

    so, it is not that i love the features which you don`t, but merely i want to give them the weight they have, and for 4-turn-minimum research... i would not give that a sweat if the AS finally learnt to shell me down ;)

    t_x
     
  19. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    844
    Location:
    Germany
    First of all i need to tell you that the 4 turns are not hardcoded. You can change it in the editor easily. The feature is not bad, my comparison was a little bit spiced up. The problem is that each team in the ISDG reached a level of excellency that made chosing Emperor a bad joke. 4 turns should remain the exception, not relevant for approximatly 50% of all cases. Only Sid or above had been a proper choice under the given circumstances. You can still reach 4 turns then, but by then you might have finished all "relevant" techs and future techs are not far away.
     
  20. templar_x

    templar_x usually walks his talks

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,560
    Location:
    on a learning curve
    :lol: your remark on this sounded so general, that i assumed it had to be. and i have not ever opened the editor in my life...
    t_x
     

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop