News: Game of the month for Civ V - feedback appreciated

[Hammer Rabbi]

glad to have you back! GnK was a nice way to refresh interest in game-play with some new (to civ 5 at least) concepts like religion and spying. i'll read your progress write-up in the morning, i stayed up way too late playing and need to hit the hay. cheers.

 

[Halcyan2]

I don't know if it's a good or bad idea, but I was wondering about the feasibility of future GOTM's allowing the option to choose (from a small number) the civ you are using, but otherwise having the identical map and other stats.

So, for example, maybe you could have a Science game where there are three different save files, one each for Babylon, Korea, and Maya. And players could then choose which civ they wanted to use (downloading the appropriate save file), but the rest of the game (map, AI values, etc.) were all the same.

Of course, offering the choice (with all other things being the same), does reveal the info that those other civs aren't among your possible opponents.

But I think it might add a little bit of variety. In addition, it makes things interesting when players have to decide which civ to use for a given map, and allows for some interesting comparisons between civs.

Has something like this been tried before?

 

[leif erikson]

Appreciate your thinking out of the box.

The concept of the GOTM is that players participate using identical saves in order to compare games. Having three saves with different Ai's or the player civ would not facilitate the concept. In addition, this would complicate the submission system and trying to determine results.

In Civ4 GOTM, three saves are often used to provide different levels of difficulty, but the same map, playable civ and Ai civs are used, to enhance comparability.

We hope that there is variety in the number of games prepared and the different civs used in those games.

 

[Halcyan2]

Appreciate your thinking out of the box.

You're welcome!

The concept of the GOTM is that players participate using identical saves in order to compare games. Having three saves with different Ai's or the player civ would not facilitate the concept. In addition, this would complicate the submission system and trying to determine results.

Well, the different AI's would all be the same (it's just obvious that the AI's would not be any of the three given options).

So everything (game settings, map, starting position) would be identical except for the actual civ you are playing. That way you would still be able to compare games. Plus, there's also more interesting replay ability if you want to go and replay the exact same map and settings but with one of the other civ options instead.

In Civ4 GOTM, three saves are often used to provide different levels of difficulty, but the same map, playable civ and Ai civs are used, to enhance comparability.

I never played those, but recall seeing them and thinking it was a cool option.

A similar option might be to allow a second, alternative victory condition. So for a given game (same map *and* same civilization), you have two options for the victory condition. Ideally, half the players will use one while the other half use the other. Then you can have some interesting comparisons, especially since all the settings are otherwise identical.

 

[leif erikson]

Well, the different AI's would all be the same (it's just obvious that the AI's would not be any of the three given options).

So everything (game settings, map, starting position) would be identical except for the actual civ you are playing. That way you would still be able to compare games. Plus, there's also more interesting replay ability if you want to go and replay the exact same map and settings but with one of the other civ options instead.

Unfortunately, Civ5's tools, especially WorldBuilder, are not very flexible. I know I need to learn how to better learn to use them, but they are nowhere near as intuitive as Civ4's are. And, as I said, I think this will play havoc with the submission system.

It creates a new element of difficulty in an already taxed system for staff, so I do not see us doing this.

A similar option might be to allow a second, alternative victory condition. So for a given game (same map *and* same civilization), you have two options for the victory condition. Ideally, half the players will use one while the other half use the other. Then you can have some interesting comparisons, especially since all the settings are otherwise identical.

Allowing players to select the VC they wish to achieve has always been the norm in Civ4. We changed it here, at least at first, to assist in learning the new game, much greater comparability and finding different aspects of the game.

Keep your eyes open for the upcoming game.
If I can get the kinks worked out...

 

[bc1]

IGE is much better than worldbuilder
Also, it would be nice to be able to select desired difficulty level; perhaps this could be done by distributing the save as a scenario...

 

[leif erikson]

That requires a mod (I assume that is what IGE is?) and we have established that the community, at this time, is not really interested in mods.

Also, when we start this, it defeats the purpose of comparability. Many are playing a custom game instead of the GOTM.

 

[bc1]

IGE ("in game editor") is a mod which could be used to build the save game in a more convenient way than WorldBuilder. The resulting save game is no more custom than one built with WorldBuilder, it can be played by anyone without IGE (of course IGE must not be used while playing, that would be a worthless cheat)

 

[leif erikson]

I'll check it out. You may get a PM asking questions.

 

[Moriarte]

Another advantage of IGE is that you can edit computer generated maps with AI player locations fixed, where as in SDK you have to place them all manually. Saves time.

I confirm that IGE is more advanced than SDK. And easy to use.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i'll definitely look at it. WB is a pain sometimes.

 

[Hyperion529]

i dont really want to complain or start a wishlist or anything, as the games are almost always very fun to play, but any chance we will see some of the old vanilla civs in future gotms? i just think now that we have cycled once through all the new civs and with the last 3 games (TSG52-54) bringing back civs previously featured since g&k was released, it would be nice to have a few games with "oldschool" civs as well.

 

[leif erikson]

Yes, we plan to run through the original civs again.

Keep a list of who has been played, what vc and difficulty. We have been through all the vanilla civs twice and are nearly through the second time with G&K. We also want to work in some of the dlc civs, so we will get there.

Any one, in particular, you's like to see?

 

[Halcyan2]

Since we're on the second round of the G&K civs, I personally would like to see:

Austria: Domination on Continents
Byzantium: Diplomacy or Science
Carthage: Something on an Archipelago
Ethiopia: Domination
Huns: Diplomacy
Dutch: Culture or Diplomacy


I had fun with the Babylon Deity "Any Victory" scenario. Maybe we could do another Deity level challenge which lets you choose any path to victory.

Also, at some point, an Immortal or Deity Diplomacy game where the AI's are all genocidal CS killers would be fun (Temujin, Attila, Askia, Montezuma, Bismarck, Catherine, Napoleon, Oda). Maybe you could have extra city states. It would be amusing to see which city states would actually make it to the end....

 

[beezany]

Maria Theresa would be good for that "elimination Diplomacy" game.

 

[apocalypse105]

Since we're on the second round of the G&K civs, I personally would like to see:

Austria: Domination on Continents
Byzantium: Diplomacy or Science
Carthage: Something on an Archipelago
Ethiopia: Domination
Huns: Diplomacy
Dutch: Culture or Diplomacy


I had fun with the Babylon Deity "Any Victory" scenario. Maybe we could do another Deity level challenge which lets you choose any path to victory.

Also, at some point, an Immortal or Deity Diplomacy game where the AI's are all genocidal CS killers would be fun (Temujin, Attila, Askia, Montezuma, Bismarck, Catherine, Napoleon, Oda). Maybe you could have extra city states. It would be amusing to see which city states would actually make it to the end....

Ethiopia: Domination ha now that would be a challenge


As a side note to all the game of the months I played why are ancient ruins allowed? Why are they turned on?

it can give some players a great advantage and start if they get the right ancient ruin like free technology free culture and so on. And it gives you a snowball effect where he will get a high score

In civ 4 random events and huts where olso disabled for hall of fame SO why isn't it here the same?

 

[leif erikson]

As a side note to all the game of the months I played why are ancient ruins allowed? Why are they turned on?

it can give some players a great advantage and start if they get the right ancient ruin like free technology free culture and so on. And it gives you a snowball effect where he will get a high score

In civ 4 random events and huts where olso disabled for hall of fame SO why isn't it here the same?

Please read this thread.

 

[Halcyan2]

Ethiopia: Domination ha now that would be a challenge

Ethiopia Domination would be interesting because to take advantage of the UA, you would have to carefully manage the number of cities. That might mean razing cities instead of puppeting them. Or targeting the stronger civs first (because consuming weak ones means you lose the combat bonus against the later strong civs).

Alternatively, Ethiopia Domination is one of the few cases where OCC actually becomes an *advantage* because you could potentially stay at one city and then raze capitals, ensuring you almost always get your combat bonus. However, it lacks the depth I think you would get from needing to balance the number of your cities.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i think Ethiopia's UA is just short lived. It's no real biggie though. The first couple civs, if planned accordingly, will get the bonus but after that it's just normal combat. I'm just glad it doesnt become a penalty. By the time you get Mehal Sefari's youve prolly lost the bonus, assuming a lower diff. On diety, you'll prolly have it the whole game cuz at least 2 or 3 Civs will have 15+ cities. If they made it so puppets didnt count it would be just boss. OCC puppet empire every time for me, haha. And gifting/selling extra cities to the guy yer gonna attack so you can keep the bonus might be interesting, haha.

 

[Monthar]

... And gifting/selling extra cities to the guy yer gonna attack so you can keep the bonus might be interesting, haha.

That's down right devious. Doing this you could stay at one city the whole game. Capture cities until you lose the bonus then sell them to the other AI's. Use the cash to buy whatever building and troops you need. rinse and repeat until you have just the one capital left to take. You don't even need to kill off anyone.