March/April Gauntlet

[Tone]

Just in case you didn't see it, this was posted a few days ago in the February/March gauntlet thread:

I was looking at the statistics the other day, and I had the idea that it might be interesting to select a tribe rather than a victory condition. For example, Rome and England each have only 9 slots on any tables in the HOF. (Those are the least used tribes.) I would find it interesting to see what people would do with England (or Rome) if any victory condition were allowed. We could rank them by spot on the appropriate table and then turns behind the first spot on the table.

I personally like the idea and would be willing to try it out. The gauntlets have tended to focus on one table, with the main choice being who use choose to play with. This gives a different problem-what can you do with a specified tribe?

My preference is that we don't set any limits on VCs/map sizes/levels. Each competitor can then access the relative strengths/weaknesses of the chosen civ and look for an appropriate table. I am open to suggestions though.

We could also follow CKS's suggestion of ranking by position on the new table, followed by turns behind #1 slot with score. Should several games be submitted in #1 slots or an equal number of turns behind the #1 slot in the relavant tables, the final tiebreaker would be on score.

If we go down this route, it has been suggested that we try out England as they are tied for last place on submissions with Rome. (see http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ3/stats.php?show=civs)

So, is there some support for this? If yes, who do we play as? If no, what do we choose as our game conditions?

For this gauntlet, you must play as England. You are free to choose any map size, level, etc (subject to usual HOF conditions) and win by whatever VC you choose.

To determine which submission is the winner of the gauntlet, the following criteria will be applied:

1. Highest position on the appropriate chart.
2. Closest to the #1 game finish, in number of turns.
3. Points total.

Submissions must be in by April 15th. Good Luck to all competitors.

 

[Spoonwood]

We could also follow CKS's suggestion of ranking by position on the new table, followed by turns behind #1 slot with score. Should several games be submitted in #1 slots or an equal number of turns behind the #1 slot in the relavant tables, the final tiebreaker would be on score.

If we do this, I predict that if one has enough time to finish such a game in one month, the winning game will come as a Large Conquest, Huge Domination, or Large Histographic Sid game... or a pseudo-histographic Huge Space Sid game. Would we want that to happen?

 

[DWetzel]

If someone wants to take England to space in a Huge Sid game, I say more power to them.

 

[CKS]

Despite those being totally empty tables, I will not be attempting any of them. It would not matter how much time I had available. If we got some submissions for those tables, though, wouldn't that be a good thing?

I'm not attached to any particular ranking scheme. If you have one you'd prefer, Spoonwood, I'd be happy to second your choice.

 

[Spoonwood]

I guess to solve that sort of "problem" (given it qualifies as one, which I personally don't really think it does), we could reverse weight the tiebreaker in that a Chieftain # 1 has no weight attached to it, a Warlord # 1 game has a weight of 1 attached to it, Regent 2, Monarch 3, Emperor 4, Demi-God 5, Deity 6, and Sid 7. Thus a Warlord # 1 game has the same value as a Cheiftain # 2 game, ..., and a Sid # 1 game works like a Chieftain # 9 game. On the same level we use your original criteria CKS. Not sure I'll play though, so would anyone else take on those empty Sid tables? Ignas?

 

[Tone]

My personal preference would be that we would not have a ranking scheme like that. For example, it is often more difficult to get a #1 slot on chieftain than a #3 slot on Monarch but under this scoring system the Monarch game would rank higher than the Chieftain one.

I was happy with using ranks as this is what is used in the various QM sections, with score the tiebreaker. Personally I don't have a problem with someone heading for an empty table to secure a top slot, or playing a larger map/higher level to increase their score, should a tiebreak be required.

As always though I'll go with what competitors want. The views above are just those of one competitor!

I'm not sure how many people want this but the time for a new update is almost here and so I think that we should try it out. If it works we can switch between the more traditional format and this type of gauntlet.

 

[del62]

My personal preference would be that we would not have a ranking scheme like that. For example, it is often more difficult to get a #1 slot on chieftain than a #3 slot on Monarch but under this scoring system the Monarch game would rank higher than the Chieftain one.

I am in agreement with you on this Tone, maybe as a tie breaker level could come into it, but if anyone could get the English to a place on the tiny cheiftain conquest table, I will eat my hat (if I had one)

 

[Calis]

..., but if anyone could get the English to a place on the tiny cheiftain conquest table, I will eat my hat (if I had one)

You are not the kind of guy, who takes any risks, huh?

 

[DWetzel]

My personal preference would be that we would not have a ranking scheme like that. For example, it is often more difficult to get a #1 slot on chieftain than a #3 slot on Monarch but under this scoring system the Monarch game would rank higher than the Chieftain one.

I was happy with using ranks as this is what is used in the various QM sections, with score the tiebreaker. Personally I don't have a problem with someone heading for an empty table to secure a top slot, or playing a larger map/higher level to increase their score, should a tiebreak be required.

As always though I'll go with what competitors want. The views above are just those of one competitor!

I'm not sure how many people want this but the time for a new update is almost here and so I think that we should try it out. If it works we can switch between the more traditional format and this type of gauntlet.

I agree with everything you said here.

 

[Spoonwood]

I just wanted to point out a potential problem which might render things less competitive for some players. In reality, I agree with Tone

 

[Tone]

OK we'll give it a go. England to win under any circumastances you choose, subject to normal HOF rules of course.

I'll change my first post.

 

[Calis]

I had a break from civ for some time. But I like this challenge. I hope to have the time to give it a shot. I am planning to challenge a No. 1 position (and it's not an empty table)

 

[del62]

I had a break from civ for some time. But I like this challenge. I hope to have the time to give it a shot. I am planning to challenge a No. 1 position (and it's not an empty table)

Are you going to give us a clue?

My thoughts on England is they are best suited to Diplomatic, Spaceship and cultural victories, not conquest or domination as they do not have the UU or the traits for that fast ones of that type of game. Of course on an Archipelgo map England would do well i wars, but that rules against fast finish. I will probably have a go at spaceship or diplomatic, but I havent ruled out 20K.

England should be the fastes researcher after the scientific civs given the commercial and seafaring traits.

 

[Calis]

I agree with your evaluation of their traits. Their UU is useless for every single VC. I am going to try sending them into space...Not 100% sure which table exactly. So there is no need to be too careful with my rep.

 

[Bucephalus]

I'll be trying this one - I've been looking for something different since I returned to playing, and I've never played a gauntlet before; besides, I'm English, and I can play my favourite VC - SS.

 

[ignas]

Tiny, deity, diplomatic spot looks very tempting. Wondering will current #1 defend his title

 

[Tone]

Tiny, deity, diplomatic spot looks very tempting. Wondering will current #1 defend his title

Hmmm! I will do my best to find time to play at least one game for this, given that I am English. I'm not sure though whether I will be be defending any cuurent top slots but Space/Diplo does seem to be the route that complements the English traits.

BTW I did wonder about playing PTW for a EXP game but I'm not convinced. I'll give it some thought though.

 

[del62]

I have started a standard monarch spaceship attempt, libraries are exspensive though (after playing a number of scientific civs)

 

[D551]

Im totally going into this one. I started it a couple days ago and my score is looking good we'll see how i turn out

 

[del62]

I managed a standard Monarch Spaceship in 1290AD, the frustrating thing was that 7 scientific AI only got 2 techs between them on gift up to modern age losing me 7/8 turns.