Playing a GOTM the way Civ should be played.

[Grazzit]

With this last GOTM i noticed that one person won by 640ad, he did this by using every trick civ allows. but the biggest two were pop rushing and making cities very close together.

What i would like to see is a GOTM that teaches how to win without what i consider cheap tactics (imho of course) Its easy to beat the AI, but can you beat the game?

Now i know a lot of people will disagee and thats fine, but think about it. How long has it been that you actually played the game the way it was ment to be played?

I don't know if it is possible, but it would seem a lot more fun to me then what i see now.

Discuss, plz no flames..

 

[ainwood]

What is wrong with close-packed cities and pop-rushing? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'the way it was meant to be played'. The main problem is that the programmers had a vision of what they wanted, but its not entirely clear as to what that was, nor whether the programming actually implimented that vision.

 

[Megalou]

The very existence of random results - regarding battle, regarding turns in anarchy - indicates that the programmers weren't really interested in whether someone could finish a game in 600 AD or 640 AD, but many of us are interested in that.

Where do you draw the line? Mass upgrading? Researching other techs than the AI? Researching a tech for trade reasons, for example Polytheism, is just as good as researching a tech for the direct benefit it gives, for example Map Making. Should we pretend that what we want is to sail around in a galley when we might actually want something else?

I think we'll have to wait for Civ4 before your vision can come true.

 

[Dianthus]

What i would like to see is a GOTM that teaches how to win without what i consider cheap tactics (imho of course) Its easy to beat the AI, but can you beat the game?

...

Discuss, plz no flames..

Hey Grazzit, what constitutes "cheap tactics"? Maybe we could have a mini-competition next month (you, me, and anyone else who's brave enough!) and call it the "Grazzit" variant .

 

[AlanH]

If Civ wasn't intended to be played with pop rushes then pop rushing wouldn't have been included as an option. The programmers didn't allow two cities to be placed next to each other. If they had intended it to be played with cities further apart than one or two tiles they could easily have made that the limit instead, but they didn't.

You might suggest the manual that comes with the game describes the design intention, but that was probably written before the final play testing and tuning were done, and certainly there are places where the game just doesn't match up with what the manual says. In any case, it only offers guidance on what features the game includes, not rules about how and when you are allowed or expected to use them.

By all means, put together a set of variant rules for discussion, but remember that we, the gotm staff, would have to find ways to police them

 

[Dianthus]

By all means, put together a set of variant rules for discussion, but remember that we, the gotm staff, would have to find ways to police them

Surely that only applies if this is going to be "official"? If myself and Grazzit want to play his variant as our own private competition then that should be OK (as long as his variant doesn't break any GOTM rules).

 

[Lord Jimbob]

With this last GOTM i noticed that one person won by 640ad, he did this by using every trick civ allows. but the biggest two were pop rushing and making cities very close together.

What i would like to see is a GOTM that teaches how to win without what i consider cheap tactics (imho of course) Its easy to beat the AI, but can you beat the game?

Now i know a lot of people will disagee and thats fine, but think about it. How long has it been that you actually played the game the way it was ment to be played?

I don't know if it is possible, but it would seem a lot more fun to me then what i see now.

Discuss, plz no flames..

hmmm... when I first read your post, Grazzit, I thought maybe your conception of 'cheap tactics' was a little subjective, but upon reflection, maybe I can tap into your sentiment:

As I was admiring our hero's culture post in the spoiler#3 thread this morning, I realized that a lot of high-scoring victories are becoming incredibly formulaic (well, I haven't been around here very long, so maybe I just noticed it... ): blistering fast research up to a point, rapid conquest and ICS expansion to max citizens, and a) set pre-builds for SS parts or b)UN, or c) build knights/cavalry ad nauseum (conq/dom), d)happiness improvements or wealth for lux tax (histo) or for 100k, e)libraries/temples! I made my own feeble (and a little schizophrenic) attempt at such a formula this GOTM and I think I got a personal record score. Although these victories are technically demanding and impressive, the formula seems kind of prosaic.

I have been playing a culture 20k game on my own recently and it's A LOT more gratifying to me to just try and carve out my little niche and hoard wonders for my 20k city and use the rest of my civ for support- it does seem a little more in keeping with (IMHO) 'the spirit of the game'. In the end it is purely a choice of playstyle. If you want to be competitive for medals in GOTM, I guess these amazing games can become formulaic, but this has neither deterred other players from attempting 5CC and OCC games nor kept most of us from admiring their games!

I too am looking forward to hearing what the 'Grazzit variatin' will be (don't get me wrong- I'll definitely be putting in a formulaic performance for GOTM32- I'm still drawn by the luster of five-figure Jason scores!)

 

[AlanH]

Surely that only applies if this is going to be "official"? If myself and Grazzit want to play his variant as our own private competition then that should be OK (as long as his variant doesn't break any GOTM rules).

Of course. But I think Grazzit's original post was indicating he'd like to see the whole competition encourage a different style of play.

@Lord Jimbob: You are absolutely right, after all, it's only a silly computer program! But since it's apparently such a straightforward formula, why can't *I* get to 5-figure Jason scores

 

[stormbind]

The score takes both population & land area into account. Maybe Grazzit would prefer more emphasis on land area.

Personally, I prefer to play for strategic locations more than sheer bulk.

 

[Offa]

With this last GOTM i noticed that one person won by 640ad, he did this by using every trick civ allows. but the biggest two were pop rushing and making cities very close together. ..

I think anyone finishing at 640ad is mainly guilty of playing very well. Pop rushing isn't used that much by most players now anyway. Building cities close together is hardly a trick and if they had to, good players would achieve excellent results using ocp instead. It is all very well accusing players of following a formula, but it isn't that easy to do: I certainly can't conquer as quick as the best players despite trying to follow the formula.

How long has it been that you actually played the game the way it was ment to be played?

Do you mean played badly?

In a related way, I have recently been playing a bit of Civ 2. I used to play a lot of this, all self taught, and could win at deity if I had a good start position. However, I have now read about early landing games and read Solo's guide which is a superb but extremely formulaic way to win ( Alpha Centuri pre 1000ad deity medium map raging barbs). This involves playing the game in a way that is not at all "as it is meant to be played", but is far superior to anything the game designers ( or I) would have thought possible. I feel simply in awe of these games and recognize them as superbly played. I certainly feel pretty envious of the civ2 skills of some of these players, and would like to improve to be a bit closer to them. The only underhand thing the players are doing is achieving an astonishing understanding of the inner workings of the game and playing very well.

You could argue that players should work out how to play themselves rather than copy tips from stronger players. However, to me this is like arguing that it is cheating to read a textbook before sitting an exam.

 

[AlanH]

I play badly every time, so I think I qualify for Grazzit's hall of fame

 

[Grazzit]

First let me start off by saying I think a lot of the people here are great, and winning by 640 ad is a huge achievment. This was not ment to put anyone down.. It's just that I am a gaming nerd 8D. i never use cheats, and i don't use exploits.. to me it isn't fun. (Exploit; Any tactic that the computer does not understand and cannot do well)

There is a very good point in all your replies, I didn't explain what i ment very well.

I try to play civ without doing things that i believe (omg i could be so wrong) the creators were aiming for, because the AI is no where near good enough.

In my mind I see what they were aiming for and try to play it that way. Like if you were playing against another person, would they trade 500gp, 100 per turn, and 4 techs for railroad? The AI will.

Now before i get into this, let me say that I usually play Emp, because if i play a higher level I usually lose by limiting myself.

As for making a GOTM I am not sure which of my ideas are possible or not.

Things I have stopped doing in my own games:

1. Trading 1 tech for huge amounts. Or making any insane trades.
2. Upgrading my units in mass (only because the computer doesn't)
3. Building cities closer then 4 squares to each other. ( i might break this 1 or 2 times a game)
4. Mass pop rushing (i do this like 1-3 times a game maybe)
5. Mining every piece of land. (I mine hills, mountains and the grasslands that give 1 shield, i forget their name)
6. Destroying cities.
7. Limiting the size of cities if i can help it.
8. Making killer stacks of units (usually 15 tops, not counting troops in ships) I make what i think of as armies/fleets

Things I do because I think you should have to in the game.

1. I use combined arms. (Army, Airforce, Navy, Marines) (when i atk i send in special forces, have bombers atk the closest cities, then move in with "armies".)
2. I only allow Curtual, Domi/Con victories.
3. I play with Mass barbarians
4. I almost never use nukes, maybe once in the last 40 games

Now that i reread this list I see that a lot of it is most likely not changeable in a GOTM without "scouts honor". Most of it is my personal play style.

What i would like to see, if it IS possible, is a game where we:

1. Don't have that great of a starting position.
2. Have a defender able to fight off cavalry (maybe move riflemen to Metalrgy)
3. Remove poprushing
4. Make cities no closer then 4 spaces (5 exceptions allowed) (city,space, space, space, space, city)
5. Reasonable mining
6. (Here i would add reasonable trading, but i think that is not possible to change without taking out trading.)

OMG this is getting long.

So am i a tard or what 8D.. If people wouldn't quit, or i had reallife friends who are into civ as much as me, i would play with no AI. But i don't and even with cable modems, me and my one friend who i can force into playing (One game of WC3 to One hour of Civ 8D) it takes a long time between turns.

OMG SID MAKE THIS A DECENT MP GAME!!!!! (as it is now its just lame MP)

So, anything any of you can suggest to break away from poprushing 50 cavelry and wiping out the AI?? (yes i know it isn't quite this easy)

whew.. need a lil DOTA now to relax.. later

 

[grahamiam]

sorry, but i felt the need to post to this thread imho, your restrictions seem pretty well thought out but not very attractive. for instance, why limit city size? i've seen the ai with size 26 cities so i don't see the point. well, i don't want to go point by point, but make a suggestion.

if your looking for a game with restrictive honor-based rules, you may be able to find it at RBCiv (realms beyond civilization). there are some very good players there with very creative and informative write-ups too. they play c3c, though. they do have a large list of exploitative tactics that are not allowed, much larger than CFC GoTM. finishing before 640AD is not one of them but you may find the rest to your liking

for me, gotm is ideal and more fun. plus, i have learned a lot here as well as developed my current addiction imho, we don't need another alternate rules game, just some future course that takes us up the c3c (assuming 1.22f is the final patch).

 

[ainwood]

Well, what about Ring City Placement? That was certainly not what the designers intended (they admitted that the entire corruption model was wrongly implimented from what they envisaged). To me, this is much more exploitave than the tech trading or pop-rushing examples.

But if you look closely, you'll see that the AI does it too..

 

[Dianthus]

But if you look closely, you'll see that the AI does it too..

, though the AI only does this by accident because it can't do it's OCP build pattern on certain maps.

The one I think is the most powerful out of Grazzit's list is the unit upgrading. The AI does upgrade, but doesn't do it with quite the flair the human players do (I.e. building lots of old units with no intention of using them until they are upgraded), and definitely doesn't disconnect resources to build obsolete units and upgrade them. It might be interesting to mod the units so they can't be upgraded. That would apply to the AI as well. It would be especially interesting (but evil ) if that mod was done with telling us .

 

[AlanH]

If you want evil then Ainwood's your man

 

[samildanach]

The one I think is the most powerful out of Grazzit's list is the unit upgrading. The AI does upgrade, but doesn't do it with quite the flair the human players do (I.e. building lots of old units with no intention of using them until they are upgraded), and definitely doesn't disconnect resources to build obsolete units and upgrade them. It might be interesting to mod the units so they can't be upgraded. That would apply to the AI as well. It would be especially interesting (but evil ) if that mod was done with telling us .

I like that suggestion and I don't think it is particularly evil. Might be interesting to introduce this perhaps for a predator class game. See how it works out before landing the wider community with it.

 

[DogmaDog]

I'm a complete n00b, but what I see as the major "exploit" used by the players who win in 620ad, or whatever, is that they plan from the start on a specific victory condition, and are able to make every move contribute to that goal alone.

In my game, my civ is well rounded, which means I could probably win any of the victory types, but no victory will come very fast.

Most of the things you mention don't seem especially like "exploits"...and if you push your definition "doing something the AI can't do well", then winning is an exploit.

Anyway, as the whole premise of the GOTM is to remove the AI as the standard against which your performance is measured, and allow you to play against other humans (even if indirectly), I'm all for allowing players to choose certain subsets of rules, and compete against each other...5cc, always war, no pop rushing, always research what your sci advisor suggests...whatever.

DogmaDog

 

[Moonsinger]

(Exploit; Any tactic that the computer does not understand and cannot do well)

1. I use combined arms. (Army, Airforce, Navy, Marines) (when i atk i send in special forces, have bombers atk the closest cities, then move in with "armies".)

I think you are exploiting the game too much! The AIs can't possibly understand how to use combined arms. Even if they do understand the concept of combine arms, they can't possibly do it well. Sending special forces while having bombers attacking closest cities, then move in with "armies". One thing we know for sure is that the AIs do not know how to use the army either. IMO, This tactic is a lot more exploits than pop rushing. At least with pop rushing, there is a price to be paid (losing citizen, increasing unhappinesss, etc).

 

[Lord Jimbob]

The one I think is the most powerful out of Grazzit's list is the unit upgrading. The AI does upgrade, but doesn't do it with quite the flair the human players do (I.e. building lots of old units with no intention of using them until they are upgraded), and definitely doesn't disconnect resources to build obsolete units and upgrade them. It might be interesting to mod the units so they can't be upgraded. That would apply to the AI as well. It would be especially interesting (but evil ) if that mod was done with telling us .

yeah, the AI definitely doesn't do the mass upgrade thing- how about limiting upgrades to one per city (similar to being able to only airlift one troop out of your city)?

I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but the 'resource disconnect followed by mass upgrade' ploy is really obnoxious IMHO. It does not correspond to reality by any strech of the imagination and really makes it easier for players to run all over the AI in conquest fests.

What i would like to see, if it IS possible, is a game where we:

1. Don't have that great of a starting position.
2. Have a defender able to fight off cavalry (maybe move riflemen to Metalrgy)...

re: #1- yeah, my ego has been getting pretty big by getting to smack around the AI in the GOTM b/c of the capitol settler factory phenomena- nothing wrong w/this savvy use of food resources IMO, but it's a bit of a spoiler getting to start out multiple wheats/cows next to one's settler...[insert 'look gift horse in mouth smiley here'].

re:#2- earlier riflemen would definitely take the wind out of the domination steamrollers among us. Not like I have anything against you folks (aside from being green w/envy ) but when was the last time somebody won GOTM w/anything but conquest or domination victory? Like, GOTM 3 or something? I'd love to win a GOTM someday, but I didn't sign up for multivariable Risk when I started [cough]compromising my academic career[cough]- I mean playing civ3 last year...