Qsc16-Rome Results and Strategy Discussion

[cracker]

We would like to announce the results of Qsc16-Rome and congratulate all of our participants in both the Qsc and Gotm16-Game as a whole.

We received 67 total submission for this QSC game which is truly fantastic. The games and timelines represent an invaluable resource that will help our newer members of the GOTM community to better understand how some thoughtful early decisons can be much more important than trying to rush to try and get an elusive technology advantage or in-game freebie that may never come.

Our top seven QSC finishers played very strong games that demonstrated the power of their opening strategy and management decisions.

Ribannah
Kemal
mikellos
DaveMcW
Adel
Anarres
Justus II

and all our special awards winners deserve special applause for each us for sharing their approaches to this game.

Taken together with the Qsc15-Russis results and timelines, this Qsc game represents a unique opportunity to look at some aspects of game play and ask some big picture questions sucah as how the civ traits and starting position may influence opening move decisions.

Here is a link to the complete Qsc15-Rome:

Qsc15 Results and Data Tables

 

[Jurimax]

Congratulations to everybody. Especially The top 3 players: Ribannah, Kemal and mikellos. IMHO everybody is a winner, just for submitting the QSC.

I'd also take this opportunity to thank everybody for the fantastic QSC's of GOTM 15: because of those I really learned a lot about the opening sequences of the initial game turns.

Because of the knowledge gained there, I was able to finish 9th in my first ever QSC cool: ).

A special word of thanks to the GOTM staff (cracker, Creepster, ...) you guys (girls?) have lifted the Civ III experience to another level. THANKS

 

[Moonsinger]

Congratulations to the winners and all the players! Now, I know how important that DEER was.

I have learned few valuable lessons in this game:

1. It's possible to build the Pyramid from scratch and finishe it before 1000 BC.

2. Always pay attention to the deer even when it is deep inside the forest.

3. Always establish the embassy ASAP after making contact(because it's much cheaper at the beginning)

 

[Ambiorix]

Congratulations to everyone, indeed.
I'd like to add the perspective of a newbie here. I fall into the categorie 'failed to irrigate the deer, but permitted to survive' (group 7). It's not difficult to grasp the lesson 'when you see a deer, think about developing it', but to me it still doesn't sound evident to just stop thinking at that point and start cutting trees in a sort of Pavlov-reflex ('must...develop...deer').
I mean, when you're standing on the hilltop with your settler, thinking about settling there or someplace else, and wondering about where to send your worker first, it doesn't seem evident to spend 10 turns cutting trees, thereby giving up two shields, to gain some food in return.
The whole deer-discussion would seem to indicate that an emphasis on food is always good, while I can imagine that in another starting position the two shieldst may be considered deerer (uhm, sorry...couldn't resist the pun).
No ? Am I still missing the point ? Tell me.

In this respect it would be handy to see timelines of top players that mention more often WHY a certain action was taken, rather than just 'went east, started granary'. The pre-game discussion thread certainly is a very nice effort in the same direction.

 

[Email10]

Congratulations deer friends! (also couldn't resist

First QSC for me and I must say I still fail to see how choping down those trees can be decisive for the rest of your game. How can it be worth it? Obviously it is...

Thanks cracker for your great work! I really enjoy this and hope to take part in QSC 17 too if I can find the time!

 

[Darkness]

Congratulations to all the players and thanks to cracker and the GOTM staff!

46th in my first ever try at this thing (and 2 levels above my normal difficulty level), not bad at all, even if I say so myself!!

I didn't irrigate the deer... That probably was my biggest mistake in the early game. Oh well, I know better now...

It will be interesting to read all the other approaches to this game...

 

[Justus II]

The reason the deer was so strategic is partly based on food, but also on the surrounding terrain. The key is to have at least one tile that can get you a food bonus (i.e. more than 2 food/turn). Rome had a great setup, all of those wine hills w/ 2 food each are excellent tiles, and plenty of bonus grassland, meant that sheilds were readily available. Each of those tiles, when mined, could generate 2 shields. However, at 2 food/turn, growth would always be limited to one citizen every 10 turns.

By cutting the forest, AND irrigating the deer (both key steps in this case), it is possible to create a tile that is +4 food per turn, even under despotism. This cuts the growth rate in half, adding a new citizen every 4 turns. It is equivalent to a free granary, just for cutting the trees and irrigating. Plus, you get 10 shields. Now, if timed right, those 10 could be added to a real granary, which would reduce the growth time even further, in this case one citizen per 3 turns. The key point is that with so many +2 food/+2 shield tiles, the deer in the forest is just average, and has no impact on growth, but as a +4 food, it allows Rome to grow twice as fast.

Again, it is dependent on the terrain. If for example most of the terrrain was flood plains, and the deer was one of the few shield-producing tiles, it might be better to leave it as it is.

 

[Xevious]

You say that irrigating the deer is worth +4 food, even under despotism, but according to my chart (and the civ3 book) the deer is only +1, irrigation is +1 and grass is +2, making +4. Under despotism this is over 3 so you cut one off leaving +3. What am I missing here? Have there been changes to the bonus tiles that I'm not aware of?

I'm still happy to say that I finished in group 7 at 41st in my first QSC and also still managed to win this game albeit by Diplomacy (which I'm finding to be a pretty easy way to win if you can survive long enough and be far enough ahead in tech to build UN first.)

I THINK I did much better in this month's QSC despite the fact that I forgot we were on archipelago (I was halfway through bronze working when it became apparent I was on an island :/).

Anyway, it does make you think a lot more about opening moves when you have to keep track of them on paper (so to speak).

 

[Email10]

Thanks for the great description of the deer tactic Justus. I can see now the benefits that you guys had compared to us others.

Entering QSC17 I will definately analyze more in the first precious turns =)

 

[Justus II]

Deer is +2 food according to the Civstats file and Cracker's Terrain Power chart, and also from my experience in GOTM16. I don't know why it is wrong in the book, it may seem like only +1 because with a forest at one, add game and it goes to 2 under despotism, losing one. But it is actually 2, plus grass =4, -1 for despot back to 3, then plus one for irrigation = 4.

 

[BillChin]

A few general comments: I finished 50th. I believe I played an average game with a sound conquest strategy. I did not irrigate the deer. However, I did replay the start doing that and that would have only increased my score about 10% (using the same Swordsmen conquest plan). I expect my percentile finish for the complete game to be significantly better than my bottom quartile in QSC.

One conclusion is that for QSC, a militarist is better off with a much earlier archer or warrior rush in order to get the peace treaty techs before 1000 BC. This earlier attack is tougher on Emperor or Diety because of all the free AI units.

Techs also seem to be very important in QSC. Many top players have 40% of their points in tech. Exploring, trading, and selection of early techs with trading in mind, are important for Emperor and above. Again, for QSC there is not really enough time to beat the techs out of the opponents (my usual preference).
+ Bill

 

[Xevious]

Well I found the deer change:

Changes v1.17f:

* Game bonus resource now gives +2 food to its tile.

Obviously I have an old copy of Julian Egelstaff's excellent Civ3 reference. I will have to get a new one or pencil in changes.

If any of you use the civ3 manual as a reference you may want to run through the patch changes. v1.17f made a HUGE number of changes to different shield costs, tech costs, etc.

I'm sure this change is updated in the pedia, but really, who looks there for something like a deer? Looking at it in the city isn't a big help either since +1 or +2 food on a forest tile in despot is still going to look like 2 food. At least I'll know this for future games.

 

[gskyes]

I also failed to chop the forest and irrigate the deer until much later in the game. This is because when I see a deer in a forest, that means to me that I can get 2 food and 2 shields without having to do any extra work, so my worker can improve other tiles and build a road network. I found with 2 terrain squares each making 2 food and 2 shields (mined bonus grassland or game in forest), I can time a settler to complete when the town grows to size 3, with warriors spaced between them. In this game I tried to build as many warriors as possible for a mass upgrade to legionaries. By 1000BC I had build a total of 8 towns, 6 workers and 19 warriors by this method.

 

[planetfall]

What I'm not in last place, Check the scoring. There must be a mistake.

I look forward to seeing how the rest of you solved the problems I didn't solve.

I was hoping the results would be available for review this weekend so I can start next GOTM.


CrackerKeep up the good work. I almost got one son reinterested in civ after talking about your GOTM's.

== PF

 

[Bamspeedy]

Great Job everyone! I see (if my calculations are correct), that if I had been able to play and submit the QSC before the deadline I would have finished 3rd, just barely (before the timeline bonus). Only 3 pts ahead of mikellos. I would have been just a little behind Ribannah in building/ population pts, but way down the list for technology points. I got the Pyramids from a leader before 1000 BC, so that what boosted my score way up. For Technology I only had 2,682 pts, but in other areas I had 3,380 pts. I irrigated the deer. I would have had more points, but I upgraded 13 warriors to legionaires (and still had 10 other warriors), so I would have to figure out that effect, since the upgrades were after 1175 B.C.

 

[Justus II]

Here is some analysis of the QSC results based on how the deer was handled. 13 of the 65 players irrigated the deer (plus Anarres, who is listed as 'late'). That's 20%. Nearly half of the top 20% of all scores (6 of 13) irrigated, so obviously it was possible to get a top score without doing it.

However, it is definitely related to scoring overall. The average QSC score was 3903 (total power, not counting timelines). The average for those 13 who irrigated was 4966, over 1000 points higher. If you compare that average against the average for the other 52 who didn't, which is 3637, it is an increase of over 30%. In fact, all but 3 of those who did irrigate beat the overall average.

Now, as Gskyes mentioned, it didn't have as big an impact on his score, because it does depend on overall strategy. If you are going for an early warrior or archer rush, and are short of workers, the easy 2 shields may be worth more. But for most quick expansion strategies, the production of settlers is the pacing item, and the limitation is usually food production, especially in a setup like this with plenty of shield-producing tiles. Without a bonus, settler production is limited to one every 20 turns, (10 with a granary), no matter what else you do. With the food bonus, the time between population growth can be reduced to 5 (3 with granary), basically doubling the rate of settlers.

 

[ControlFreak]

Congratulations everyone!

Stuck in group 5 means to me that I have a chance at learning what to improve and doing better in GOTM18 (I'm already too far into GOTM17 to correct my poor start again.)

Irrigating the deer seems so obvious now.

 

[cracker]

JustusII,

I just want to reinforce and encourage the process that you are following in looking at some of this data. Many players make the wrong first step in looking at game play decisiions by trying to micro-analyze theire individual game and compare it to one other player that seemed to do better than they did.

The big picture comparisons are the ones that give everyone a clearer perspective of how the game is played and at the same time equip you with decision skills that you can carry forward to other situations.

The answer from this example in Qsc16-Rome should not be an edict that players must always chop down the forest and irrigate the deer to get ahead in the game. This is the wrong message if anyone happens to be thinking along this line. The real answer is that you have to develop some basic terrain assessment skills and learn how to use your workers and settlers to increase the power of your civilization to support the strategy that you want to follow. Each city and site location is different and requires that you be a thinking sensient human being and not just a mindless AI clone. Use the basic terrain power table that JustusII refers to in the Improving Your Opening Play Sequences Article and hone your play skills to be able to identify and use at least the three or four most powerful terrain squares in any city position that will fit in with the mission that you assign to that city. You can play well on almost any difficulty level if you master this skill.

Looking closer at the Qsc16-Rome results, I think that an averaging comparison between groups 2, 5, and 7 will actually lead to some clearer indications of how important these early management decisions may be. All of the players in these three groups share common characteristics of not being warmongers, not being dominantly in control of some well played builder or gambit strategy, and not (for the most part) irrigating the deer to go for maximized population growth in Rome.

(note, for any one who vies this thread and wants to better understand what is being discussed, you can download the actual scoring worksheet for this Qsc16 by visiting any of the Qsc16 web pages - if the server is up)

What conclusions might we draw when we look at the average results produced by the games in groups 2, 5 and 7??

There are couple of games inserted into group 5 by caveat of the scoring gods, but in general if you ranked the three groups from strongest to weakest group and then looked at the common characteristics of play, what recommendations could me produce that could be extended to other game play situations that may not have the "deer in the forest next to a river" as such a strong example of a dominant opening move?

We do not want to discuss anything about Gotm17 here in this thread because that game is currently open, but this big picture discussion of the Qsc16-Rome results has broad implications for almost every game of Civ3 that anyone would play.

 

[Ronald]

Originally posted by BillChin
Techs also seem to be very important in QSC. Many top players have 40% of their points in tech. Exploring, trading, and selection of early techs with trading in mind, are important for Emperor and above. Again, for QSC there is not really enough time to beat the techs out of the opponents (my usual preference).
+ Bill

I completely agree with your remarks BillChin.
We had similar discussions going on at the preparation of this game, the QSC_C2r succession game thread that the tech advance {may be} too over valued.

I also try in many of my games, when it is not about early space race or early diplomatic victory, to slow down deliberately the tech pace in order to gain early war advantages.

{snip}

Nevertheless, the early timelines of the top players give extremely valuable advice to all of us how to improve our games.

Once again highest marks to cracker and all who support the Gotm qsc and games for their contribution to bring civ3 play to a higher level.

Ronald

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Ronald
I completely agree with your remarks BillChin.
We had similar discussions going on at the preparation of this game, the QSC_C2r succession game thread that the tech advance {may be} too over valued.

I also try in many of my games, when it is not about early space race or early diplomatic victory, to slow down deliberately the tech pace in order to gain early war advantages.

I agree. In all of my previous QSC (GOTM14, GOTM15, GOTM16) so far, I was among many players who had the lowest score in tech. I prefer the Crouching Tiger - Hidden Dragon style. I usually just stock up the gold and wait for the right moment to make my move. The longer I wait, the cheaper the tech will get. Unless it's something important, I'm in no hurry to get them.

Nevertheless, the early timelines of the top players give extremely valuable advice to all of us how to improve our games.

Once again highest marks to cracker and all who support the Gotm qsc and games for their contribution to bring civ3 play to a higher level.

I concur! There is no doubt about that.