Making the GOTM more accessible...

[Bachus]

I have a sugestion for atracting a larger number of people to Civ2 : let them finish it!!!:crazyeyes . It can happen to anyone at the end of the month to have a few problems, and ...oops, you didn't finish the game

Now really, make it more flexible. I was thinking of having 2 months for each game, so that you can take your time if you really want to play one game. So, a new game each month but the deadline and the results only in two months, or even after 45 days.

What do you think??

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

As much as I always need more time to play the GOTM, I think it should stay the way it is. If you can't get the game done in a month, keep playing it. See how you do in relation to others and feel good (or bad, depending on how you play ) based on that. You don't have to have a medal or be on the 'offical' listing for it to be a meaningful game.

 

[noughmaster]

It's very hard to devote the time to finish a GOTM by anything other than conquest in a month.
I haven't finished either of the last 2 GOTMs. Looking at the scores in GOTM10, I certainly would have gotten a medal, quite possibly the gold. I was also doing well in GOTM11.
I haven't even had time to play the Civ3 GOTMs.
Maybe a longer submission time would be good (or only play maps with small land areas).

 

[Chofritz]

As you've probably noticed I think we should have small maps every month instead of making the GOTM go over a longer time,

Small maps can be played fast or slow but you still don't have to farm 255 cities...

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Small maps definately help give people a chance to finish the game. For some reason all the games seem to mostly be large continents, no matter the map size.

Maybe if the number of participants gets really low, then we can think about extending the time allowed to play it. That could also relieve Matrix from having to process two GOTM every month.

Just like some of you, I haven't even tried to play the Civ 3 GOTM. I would rather play the Civ II GOTM first. I have only been able to submit my game, by the dealine, twice, but I have played 5 games out with very good results.

I think before they think of stopping the Civ II GOTM they should extend the time period between games.

 

[Lucky]

I would like to see more smaller maps, too, but keep it a Game of the (one) Month.
In GOTM12 it will interesting to see whether an early conquest can beat a SS landing.
Maybe it is possible with a BC finish and 2 or 3 wonders.

Concerning the landmass I would suggest using custom made maps. This will be something different and more interesting to play.
For example a GOTM map with 6-7 civs, each civ with an identical island of its own and place for less than 10 cities. This could be pretty difficult and definitely something new for us, because early elimination and/or getting a decent science/productivity/trade lead will be harder to achieve. Especially on Emperor and Deity!

Another option could be to play a scenario as a GOTM.

Either way I think it would be much more fun to try something new in a GOTM.

I´m also playing Civ2-GOTM first, exept this month, because it was late. But somehow the Civ3-GOTMs are even more tedious than some Civ2 games, even before the industrial age.
Civ2 is in several ways still my favorite.

 

[Lucky]

Here is a small example of a map I quickly made.
It´s 6 identical islands with identical starting locations.
Here is also a screenshot of the map (hopefully not too small :crazyeyes).

Hmm. Pretty bad quality , but I think you get the idea. You are only able to build as much cities as the AI and you can´t wipe him out really early. On Emperor/Deity this will be difficult.

Maybe Matrix or TF could tell me/us if this would be a viable possibility for a GOTM!

Here is the zip with the map and a Deity save:

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

We've had the scenario discussion before. It reduces the level playing field for those who have played the scenario before. The end result was a GOTM on the earth map.

I don't see why we need to change the type of map we play. The main issue seems to be the time element that everyone has to finish the game. Making equal starting locations that are segregated just make it so you can pick and choose your battles easier. Build the lighthouse or push for Navigation first and you rule the seas and can take out whomever you want very quickly. Plus, then you know what their continent looks like so fighting is even easier. Also, the exploration of the map is a big part of the game (for me at least).

I think changing the size of the map and/or the amount of land should be enough. A medium map with less land can be played just as quickly as a small map that is mostly land. Please, just no accelerated start-ups.

 

[SunTzu]

ITs called the Game of the Month for a reason.
I can finish a game with no problem within a months time.
You people must play slow as hell to not be able to finish.

 

[Chofritz]

Lucky,

Your idé will eliminate really early finishes, isn't that what we want to have more of? SS has been dominating the top for far too long.

BTW I have another idé. If we want to make the GOTM more even i suggest removing all gody huts, they make the game really unfair in the beginning. I really love the huts BUT if we want it fair we should remove them. This can be done with the cheat menu I think, when it's done we can resave it as a scenario. I don't know if that would work, but I though I would suggest it.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by SunTzu
You people must play slow as hell to not be able to finish.

Well, I know I don't play slowly, I just don't get too much time to play at all. It sounds like those of us that have jobs and families and other commitments don't have the GOTM as their top priority in life, but would still like to try and participate in it when possible.

 

[Smash]

I can finish a large map game in approx 6-8 hours.However, it wouldn't be a high gotm scoring system score.
I voted keep as is....but....if participation continues to fall off..it becomes difficult to justify continuing.I don't think 2 months will help.
If 12 has less than 10 participants,perhaps the time has come to close up civ2 gotm ....at least till all you realize how "average" civ3 is

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I guess I do play slower than some, but the type of game that I could play in 6-8 hours is not one worth playing to me. The goal of the GOTM is to play well, not as fast as possible.

The amount of participation is my overall concern. I don't want Civ II GOTM to go away. So, I'm hoping that changes can be made that would allow all those who do want to play a chance at it. If that is smaller maps, less land, more time, then so be it. I would much rather play Civ II than Civ 3 any day.

 

[Bachus]

I agree with the idea of smaller land mass, no matter how it is achieved, as long as it is a random map.

But don't worry about the smaller number of players, as a matter of fact I didn't submit this month because I hadn't finished until deadline. That's why this thread crossed ny mind .

Second, if there will be only 5 players, I think we should keep the GOTM, as there will be a tight competition for the medals.

Turning back, we play a game every month. Just that first month we don't submit, then it comes to normal-every month a new game to play and also the deadline for the game two months ago. This means quite much (you could forget how the game was when the results came) but it can be done.

But do it only if necessary. As for me, I'll pay special attention to deadline and probably I'll make it in time next months. But for many others, 15 days could mean a lot of time.

I like the idea of no huts because it equalizes things. But I also like getting NON horsemen or chariots in the beginning. However, reading the spoiler I found out that by having a good first hut, Smah had almost twice the number of cities I had by getting 50g and in GOTM11, by having good huts, I easily led in demographics at 1AD compared with other players(as much as I read in the spoiler).

So, I'll call it a tie. It is interesting to have a bit of unknown in your game. But don't forget that by eliminating huts you can also eliminate cheating by reloading huts.

What do you think about huts? Perhaps another poll would help ?

 

[Smash]

I think a game with no huts is a good idea.Maybe we could add no wonders either.You learn more playing these type games.

 

[Chofritz]

No huts would make thing a lot more equal...

 

[Lucky]

Huts and Wonders add a lot of spice to the game but a GOTM without them would also be something different!

IMHO it would be great if we add some difference to the GOTM. I thought that could be achieved by custom made maps or scenarios.
Concerning the problem of some people knowing a map and others not:
Several scenarios start with an explored map, e.g. the original Rome and WW2 scenarios and a lot from the scenario expansion and FanWorld.
And custom made maps, e.g. my example map above, could be made by someone not playing the GOTM or with an explored map, too. And they have the advantage of less landmass -> less cities -> less micromanagent -> less time needed!

Before we disband the Civ2-GOTM or make it a GOT2M we should exploit all the different possibilities this great game has to offer!
And I´m NOT suggesting to totally change our current style of playing but with new challenges we can gain new experience and have more fun than simply playing the same old way on different random maps over and over!

 

[ainwood]

Here's a random idea: How 'bout Game Of The Day? (now wait for the boo's and spits).

Have it on a weekend, with lots of advance warning. Basically lets people play to a specific timescale, and therefore benefits those who don't have much time throughout a month to farm all their cities and build millions of trade caravans. IE - a bit of a leveller.

 

[Chofritz]

I don't know if I like the idé of removing the wonders though. It's still skill that will determine (I don't know if this is the right word) if you'll get them. But sure it would be pretty intresting to play without them. After a while it'll be pretty hard to expand without the chapel and the gardens, This also means no using caravans when building SS's,

Let's see if Thunderfall or Matrix awnsers to this.

 

[Leowind]

I've been arguing for a long time to expand the time alloted for GOTM's. Sure I've continued GOTM's I didn't finish on time just to see how I did. I think I now have three of those games still unfinished, because new GOTM's keep coming up that I start hoping I'll finish one in time to submit If Civ2 GOTM is in danger of being discontinued I say lets experiment with longer playing time before we take that drastic a step. If participation doesn't come up, then we can still disband it later.

I agree with the Duke, it's not necesarily that I play slower, but I'm married working full time with a family. I'm lucky if I get 3-4 hours per WEEK to play Civ. And I have to agree too, I don't understand how anyone could play an entire game in 6-8 hours and spend any time thinking about their decisions. If you want to play that fast play a RST game. That's not what Civ is about , IMHO.

I also like the idea of making some differences in GOTMs, like no goody huts, or no wonders. Just one time games to force us to play a little bit different. different shaped maps. I even like an occasional accelerated startup like we did once so we all have to deal with the same interesting situation to start the game. Not everyone will like every thing we do different, but others will.