RBCiv Conquests SG Discussion Thread

Will be watching. That is o'lot of rules. I will enjoy watching this variant. It will be a while before the you get the keys for the handcuffs you have restrained yourselves in. Looking forward to a possible early game deciding decision. This will be interesting. Have fun guys!
 
@Sirian: Sounds like a great SG concept, I'd love to play but will be out of the loop for another week and a half, at least. Will definitely be following with interest, and if you need a back-up player later, I'll be waiting on the bench!
 
I'm back in town, although still trying to get caught up on work and RL stuff. Still interested in a Prussian game, if there's some other latecomers who would like to play. It looks like Kylearan was going to be gone until the 30th, so I'd wait at least until then to get started, but if we have some interested players, we could start a discussion thread over the next few days.
 
What level would the Prussian game be?
 
The British have leveraged their control of the seas into control of the continent and the destruction of Napolean. Read all about it Here
 
LKendter said:
What level would the Prussian game be?

Based on Doc's original difficulty suggestions, Prussia was to be a 'challenging' demigod-level game. I'd be inclined to shoot for that, unless a majority of the players disagree. Primary disadvantages are the long front on multiple (potential) enemies, and lack of a Golden Age. I haven't played this scenario before, but have read some of the other game threads, and I'm looking forward to it!
 
I can deal with Demigod.

I just wanted to make sure that Sid wasn't being planed. I still haven't tried that level.
 
The main problem for me when playing Prussians was that France accumulated VPs faster than I did.

Probably a mistake to pound on Holland followed by Austria.

I do not know if you perhaps should tackle France after turn 20 when their GA ends.

Be sure to bring lots of Artillery.
 
First, please let me apologize for the temporary threadjack. I tried posting the following request in both the Creation and the PBEM forums to no avail. So, much like sending up a signal flare hoping an ally will see it, I'm posting here to see if anyone will help with a simple request. A friend and I would like to play a PBEM game before my Civ burnout gets too strong. We'd like to pattern our game after T-hawk's wonderful Speed Racer variant at Realms Beyond.

Here's the request: Will someone please create a map on which we can play the game? I'll mod the rules and send the modded .biq file and a list of specific map parameters to the volunteer. All you'll have to do is open the .biq in the editor, create the map according to the specs, save the .biq, and ship it back to me. We want to play on a small or standard map with quite a bit of water, so it shouldn't take more than two or three hours to build the map. I'll be happy to return the favor sometime. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
 
You try the creation thread? I don't really understand why you can't make your own map, really, since when creating a .biq, you can keep the map random anyways.
 
I just found out about yet another Conquest bug, this one affecting non-standard map sizes. I’ve been working with Watorrey on testing and updating Thamis’ mod, The Ancient Mediterranean, and along the way, Watorrey discovered that Conquests does strange things with custom maps. Apparently, when reading in a .BIQ with a non-standard map size, it retains all map settings from the most recently played ‘standard’ map. This primarily affects OCN, and the Tech price multiplier. This is true not only for player-made mods, but also for the Conquests themselves, which shipped with the game.

I asked him to post it in the Conquests/Bugs forum, which he has, at this link:
World Size Bug Alert Strangely, he received the response that this has been known since the Beta. I certainly wasn’t aware of it, although I wasn’t part of the Beta, but I heavily followed the various bug reports when Conquests was released, and don’t remember any mention of it.

For example, if you had recently played a small-map game, then start a Rise of Rome scenario, your OCN and tech price multiplier will be the default for a small map. Conversely, if you had recently played a huge map, then load up Mesopotamia (smaller map), it will retain the Huge map settings (OCN of 32!). Since all of the Conquests use a non-standard size, this affects all of them.

In most cases, the conquests are larger than average maps, so the most likely effect is a smaller-than-expected OCN (which should raise corruption) and a smaller-than-expected tech multiplier (which would speed up tech pace). However, that’s not going to be true in all cases. More to the immediate point, it means that two different attempts at the SAME conquest could have widely varying rules.

For example, within this SG series, it would be possible for one team (who happened to have recently played a huge map game) to have an OCN of more than twice as much as someone else (who started their team after finishing up a Tiny map game). Of course this series has never really approached these Conquests as competitive, rather more as exploring the possibilities, but it still could (and maybe has) led to some wide variations in the progress of various games. It certainly could explain a lot of the strange tech cost problems we dealt with, specifically in Middle Ages. (I know a lot of that was related to the Flavor settings, but I seem to remember problems in determining the true tech costs, and getting odd comparisons when looking at different games).

Watorrey has found a (relatively) simple fix, if you are willing to go into the editor, by changing the OCN and Tech Cost settings for each world size to be the same, choosing whichever setting most closely approximates the actual map size. Of course, editing the Conquest .BIQs makes them no longer count for Hall of Fame, etc. The other option would be to determine in advance which of the normal sizes is the best fit for the scenario, then make sure each Captain loads an epic game of that size before starting the Conquest. Once opened (and saved), the current world setting is locked into the save file, and so passing the saves around should have no effect.
 
1) This bug, if at all, should only affect the first player here, since then everything is stored in the save.
2) I think it is the same problem as that one with the messed-up Civ colors in the conquests. For example, in the Middle Ages SGs at least one team hat a dark-red Norway (the generic Byzantine color).
3) I frequently switch between scenarios and random maps, and it does no longer happen to me, but it did with one of the earlier patches.
4) Something that always happens is when you start a conquest, and a random game after that in the same session, you get the Victory/game settings from the scenario.

Fix:
Clean your conquests.ini file (except for your personnal settings, of course).
 
Doc Tsiolkovski said:
1) This bug, if at all, should only affect the first player here, since then everything is stored in the save.
Yes, everything is stored in the save, but that means whatever world size is selected (i.e., the last random-map game) for the first player, is retained for everyone else. The problem is that that is likely to be different for each team. Therefore, the French (for example) could be playing with Tiny map rules, while the Russians could be playing with Huge map rules.

2) I think it is the same problem as that one with the messed-up Civ colors in the conquests. For example, in the Middle Ages SGs at least one team hat a dark-red Norway (the generic Byzantine color).
3) I frequently switch between scenarios and random maps, and it does no longer happen to me, but it did with one of the earlier patches.
4) Something that always happens is when you start a conquest, and a random game after that in the same session, you get the Victory/game settings from the scenario.

I understand the preferences effect, and I also made sure to exit completely out of civ and then going back in to open a conquest, same thing. The problem is that there IS no world size associated with a custom map, so Civ has to assign one, and it uses the most recently used one.

Fix:
Clean your conquests.ini file (except for your personnal settings, of course).
I don't see how this fixes it. You could go into the .ini file and deliberately set your world size to = what you think the closest approximation is (i.e. Large for Rise of Rome, for example, or Small for Mesopotamia) before playing, and I agree that would fix it for that game, but that means you need to change your .ini before playing each conquest.

Examples
I tried loading the Napoleonic scenario a couple times, first after a Huge map, then after a tiny map. Here's some quick samples:
French, Emperor, Huge: -52 lost to corruption at 100% science, Advanced Tactics requires 19 turns at 328 beakers. If I work forests, Marseilles can get 8/13 uncorrupted shields.
French, Emperor, Tiny: -100 lost to corruption at 100% science, Advanced Tactics requires 10 turns at 254 beakers. If I work forests, Marseilles can get 3/13 uncorrupted shields.

You can see that having different world size settings can effectively make it into a different game. I think that has a lot to do with why some teams have felt that the science pace in their game was too fast (or too slow) compared to others. Corruption is more subtle, but could certainly hinder or help one nation relative to the others.

We do need to ensure that before playing any other Conquest series, we agree on the appropriate world size, and then either edit the .BIQ (not recommended) or the lead-off player will need to edit the .ini (or load up a random game) for that world size before starting the conquest.
 
I wonder if this explains the tech pace issue for my last WM game.

This is so big I have printed in to remember before I start any non-random game.

I will be changing the WM game. This does explain some oddness during my testing.
 
Aha - this explains some weirdness I found when setting up maps for the two most recent RBCiv Epics that I sponsored. They were small maps, but wound up with standard-map values for OCN and tech costs (verified by looking at the beaker cost in-game to research Alphabet or something and calculating it against what it should be). Eventually when I recreated each scenario the problem went away, and that must be why.

I'm pretty sure this problem affects all .biq scenarios, not just the Conquests, but of course that's where it's most meaningful...
 
Good catch. :goodjob:

I think I saw the effect of this in playing successive games as the Ottomans in the Napoleonic Scenario. On Emperor, it took > 60 turns for the tech tree to be completed. On Demigod, by turn 30 the tech tree was complete. :eek:

Methinks I played one of Handy's Tiny AW games in-between ...
 
Kiech said:
You try the creation thread? I don't really understand why you can't make your own map, really, since when creating a .biq, you can keep the map random anyways.

Yes, I tried the creation forum. The reason we need help is because we need a customized map (everyone isolated on their own continent with one of every resource on it) but don't want to know what it looks like.
 
Top Bottom