Marsden's HoF Attempts

[Marsden]

I noticed, interestingly enough, at 15k an increase of 33% to 20k would hardly register and that a 30k would hardly increase my rankings as compared to a 40k which would really make a difference. From this I'd draw the hasty conclusion that 30k isn't really that big a deal and that 40k is something of a threshold to make a real attainment.

 

[Bartleby]

Maybe my sums are bad, but as the tables stand now I think that a score of 30k would put you ahead of me in the QM ranking.
I don't think that there's a threshold somewhere between 30 and 40k, it's as SpiffyKeen suggests; the conventional ways to get scores like that (i.e. Huge Monarch and Emperor) have been so competitive that you have to do really well to make the tables that way.
The "easiest" way to top 40k is to play Huge DG.

 

[SpiffyKeen7744]

I noticed, interestingly enough, at 15k an increase of 33% to 20k would hardly register and that a 30k would hardly increase my rankings as compared to a 40k which would really make a difference. From this I'd draw the hasty conclusion that 30k isn't really that big a deal and that 40k is something of a threshold to make a real attainment.

Yeah, for the Histographic category, only rank matters directly, not the score of the game. So, you would have the same rank and thus the same Histo rating with a Large Monarch game with a score of 17,100, 15,208, or 13,800. As you said, getting to 20k is almost nothing. However, if you could get a Histo game with a score of 30,001 somehow, you would jump to rank 25th. This would give you a histo rating of:

9*(25-1)/(73-1)+1 = 4.00

That would give you a QM rating of (4+1.5+1.4+1.25)/4 = 2.03

If you were to improve your other ratings all to 1.00, then your QM rating would be (5.25+3)/4 = 2.06

It seems that getting a Histographic game that scores 30k or more, you could improve your QM rating more than having all #1 spots. And you would jump me and Bartleby (though I might be improving my rating a bit by next update ).

True, 40k is a MUCH bigger jump, especially rank-wise:

Histo: 9*(14-1)/(73-1)+1 = 2.63
QM rating: (2.63+1.5+1.4+1.25)/4 = 1.69

That would get you up to where Tone is now, meaning that you would jump from 10th in the QM challenge to T-5th in the QM challenge.

 

[Marsden]

Well, here's a question for my fellow posters that are more in the know than I, well that's almost everyone here, but...


What's a good Domination limit? I haven't been able to divine the knowlege to operate Mapfinder but I can use the domination limit utility so what's good numbers on large and huge maps. I really don't know if I've got a good one or a so so one because of my lack of frame of refrence.

 

[SpiffyKeen7744]

There are different ranges depending on landmass type. I really only know Huge.

Huge 60% Archipelago: 4400-4600
Huge 60% Pangaea: 3900-4000? Tone had 3941

Moonsinger, while trying to get the largest score possible on Huge Sid 60% Archipelago, said that she managed to get on map over 4600.

I think zerksees just recently did a Large C3C Deity. He might have data on that map size.

 

[SpiffyKeen7744]

Looking back at some really old HOF threads, it seems that in vanilla civ, the Huge map size is larger than for PTW or C3C. Is that correct? 180x180 vs. 160x160?

Edit - Nevermind. It seems that old games on 180x180 were archived, and new patches limited games to 160x160 even in vanilla civ.

 

[Tone]

A good histo game would really help your QM ranking, Marsden. It'll need to be a Huge map though, DG or higher, so I'd say use the Histographic Challenge as a warm-up.

That makes good sense to me. I wish that I had done a warm-up before doing the serious Huge map attempt.

What's a good Domination limit?

Bartleby posted a really useful thread quite a while ago on this. >>link<<

You can push the boundaries. My Huge Pangea is above the max and I didn't have mapfinder going for very long IIRC but it gives a great starting point IMO.

 

[brennan]

I know it's established wisdom that Archipelago maps have higher domination limit, but how much of the increase is in useful squares (i.e grassland)? Do you actually get better scores or is the higher limit a phantom caused by all the coast?

 

[Bartleby]

If by "phantom of the coast" you mean free sea tiles, then definitely archipelago will give you more of these. I think (but can't remember for sure) that the number of grasslands is broadly similar. If you have MapStat, you could download a few 2050 AD saves from the HoF and have a look at the distribution of terrain types.

 

[SpiffyKeen7744]

The real issue here is domination limit vs. total land tiles. No matter what the map type, 67% of the map is far less than the total number of land tiles on the map. There are always going to be 33% of the tiles that you will not be able to work (coast or land). Therefore, a larger domination limit means that you can work more of the good tiles before getting a domination victory. If an archipelago has more coast tiles and about the same number of land tiles, it is still better, because on any map type, you will never be able to work all of the FP, grassland, and plains tiles.

On the other hand, if domination victory were disabled, the difference between archipelago and pangaea might not be significant... but I don't think anyone has looked into that variation, since it would not qualify for the HOF.

 

[Marsden]

How would having more coast tiles increase the amount of land you are able to use? Or am I asking the wrong question.

Why might an archepeligo be better? What about if you have one of those "pangea-archepelagos" and by that I mean you set it for archepelago and all the landmasses are conected by narrow isthmuses actually forming one huge one.

 

[ThinkTank]

Why might an archepeligo be better?

Because the domination limit is higher, and because of this observation by SirPleb:

There are 3 kinds of water tiles: coastal, sea, and ocean. Ocean does not matter here, it is not included in your territory nor in the domination limit. Sea is important though - it counts toward increasing your territory but does not count towards the domination limit. So getting more sea inside your territory is a good way to increase score.

What about if you have one of those "pangea-archepelagos" and by that I mean you set it for archepelago and all the landmasses are conected by narrow isthmuses actually forming one huge one.

The form would probaly qualify that as archepelago, though likely one with a smaller domination limit.

 

[Marsden]

I understand what you quoted from SirPleb, but I've also seen many final saves that have size 19 metros with no culture expansions. Should I want to grab as many coast/sea as I can or limit myself to grass/plains?

And furthermore, all of these questions would only apply to after the AI have been neutralized, so the begining expansion wouldn't necessarily reflect this, right?

I think I've just got myself too worked up about this and should just do it already.

 

[Chamnix]

I'd hate to be the one to suggest that SirPleb could have been mistaken even briefly, but I seem to recall a pretty convincing proof that sea tiles did not count toward your territory, and I did find this quote from the Master himself:

Edit: description of sea tiles below corrected, 2002/6/3
There are 3 kinds of water tiles: coastal, sea, and ocean. Ocean does not matter here, it is not included in your territory nor in the domination limit. Sea can be important - citizens working on sea tiles count as happy citizens and produce food. But sea tiles do not count toward your territory score nor toward the domination limit. (They do count in your land area as shown on the F11 display, but not toward score.)

In any case, to answer Mardsen's question, it is all about food. You are allowed a fixed number of tiles in your territory (the domination limit), and you want to have those tiles support as many citizens as possible.

Assuming you are agricultural, then the city center provides 3 food. If you have a hill in your territory, then putting a city on it increases your food from that tile. Railroaded irrigated plains provide 3 food, so settling on them is harmless (unless you are up against the maximum number of cities limit) but also unhelpful. Settling on grasslands costs you food, so it should be avoided where possible - you want as many grassland tiles as you can get inside your territory and worked by citizens, but not directly settled on.

Sea tiles are good because they provide 2 food without counting toward your tile limit. Unfortunately coast tiles are bad because they only provide 2 food while grass and plains provide 4 or 3 each. You need to pick your spots where you can get maximum sea tiles for minimum coast.

 

[SpiffyKeen7744]

How would having more coast tiles increase the amount of land you are able to use? Or am I asking the wrong question.

No, that is the right question. Let's say that an archipelago map has 4000 land tiles and 600 coast tiles, and let's say that a pangaea map has 4000 land tiles and 300 coast tiles. Both maps will have the same landmass size (4000), but you will be able to work more of those 4000 tiles. Why? Because there were more coast tiles to increase the domination limit.

Again, in other words, the archipelago map will have a domination limit of 4600*0.66=3036, while the pangaea map will have a domination limit of 4300*0.66=2838. So, both maps have 4000 land tiles, but you can work 3035/4000 land tiles on the archipelago map, but 2837/4000 land tiles on the pangaea map.

As for sea tiles, don't worry about them. There are not many places on most maps that have good locations, or at least good enough to get some sea tiles without getting more than that many coast tiles along with them. I would think that trying to squeeze a few extra hundred points that way is not worth the time it takes to figure it out. Just use grass, FP, and plains (and desert if you are agricultural). However, if you have a city that uses coast already but you don't want to remove the city (in your core, for example), know that expanding the borders into sea will not hurt you. Only expanding into coast will hurt you.

 

[Marsden]

Mardsen's

That's my name now is it?


But thank you for your answer.

 

[Marsden]

I think I'm to the point where I can not do any better on the lower levels, I have to take on the Demi-gods if I want to see any results. Unfortunately, I can do just about what I want on Emperor but on Demigod I don't do too well. I've barely had any decent victories at all on that level. When Chamnix and Elear are talking about beating Sid I just can't imagine ever being able to do that. I beat Sid once by tying his hands behind his back and blindfolding him first and that was a close one. I'm going to have to get started on those games I've been putting off.

 

[Spoonwood]

I guess you're looking for tips Marsden for histographic games? I have some ideas, but I don't want to co-opt your thread if that's not what you're looking for.

 

[Elear]

I think I'm to the point where I can do any better on the lower levels, I have to take on the Demi-gods if I want to see any results. Unfortunately, I can do just about what I want on Emperor but on Demigod I don't do too well. I've barely had any decent victories at all on that level. When Chamnix and Elear are talking about beating Sid I just can't imagine ever being able to do that. I beat Sid once by tying his hands behind his back and blindfolding him first and that was a close one. I'm going to have to get started on those games I've been putting off.

One thing I'll tell you is to achieve success consistently at higher levels, it's necessary to continually push yourself beyond what you know you are capable of -- not necessarily far beyond, but somewhat. By doing this, you learn the finesse needed to gain victory.

That's why I continue to play Sid level (and document those games) even though I often lose. Every time I play, I have a little more experience, and make fewer detrimental mistakes the next time. This not only brings me closer to consistency at that level, but certainly makes levels like Demigod almost a sure win because it seems so forgiving in comparison.

I'm sure others would agree with this thought.

 

[Spoonwood]

Not really Elear. I think a person who plays Sid a lot will delay attacking a little too much at say Emperor or something like that. In more fast research-oriented games, at lower levels, you can probably more cheaply take territory for more beakers than build too many libraries, universities, or markets. But, at higher levels, it's probably more cost effective to put in libraries, universities, or markets first, since you'd need a lot more units to take a comparable amount of territory for its gains. Tech research might also need tweaked depending on the level... 20k games of going for Astronomy earlier or to Free Artistry earlier comes as an example. And then there's barbarians (like Archphoenix's Cheiftain 20k game). Sure, higher levels make it so that you can win at lower levels with ease... but just because you can win there, that doesn't mean you'll play at a high level for lower levels.