Request for a Civ4: BtS "Intermediate" Succession Game

[Jamesds]

If you haven't done so already you could check out the current many leaders game hosted by Ozbenno. You could also check out the Save the Trash Game threads which operate on parallel games from a comon starting position.

15 turns per set could potentially make it a very long game. By the time people play their games, post their reports, discuss and anaylze each other games etc it could easily take 3-5 days per set(maybe longer).

Thanks, we'll be looking at these.

So, maybe 50 turns to each post will be better for the start. Then reduce that as game time increases. We don't want to rush this, otherwise the whole idea won't work; too quick a SG and we won't learn as much from it.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

I'm happy enough with the Dutch. My last game with them failed miserably, so I should have another go. Creative's always nice.

 

[rrau]

If we do play parallel games, I think we need to start each turn set from one person's save or it will quickly become meaningless as the games diverge wildly.

 

[Jamesds]

If we do play parallel games, I think we need to start each turn set from one person's save or it will quickly become meaningless as the games diverge wildly.

Which isn't parallel gaming, but I see what you mean. However, if we continued on our own paths with our own saves, we could see whose strategy works best.

Thinking about it, continuing from one person's save (the save we vote for) is a good idea for a 'training' SG. It gets a bit disconcerting when you have to continue from where someone left off though.

frob2900, I've not heard much from you - you still in on this? Everything A-OK so far?

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Agreed (is less than ten characters long).

 

[Jamesds]

keep checking the first post, it contains a summary of what has been decided so far, and what is to be discussed

 

[frob2900]

Ok, I'm cool with prince. I usually play Monarch/Emperor on Warlords, but I haven't played that much BtS so a step down is probably good

Are we really going to be the dutch? Everybody and their cousin is playing the dutch. I say we be an offbeat BtS civ that hasn't been tried much. (of course, I won't argue. If everyone wants to be dutch, I'm ok with it)

 

[Jamesds]

Go on then, name a few new Civs you want, we're open to suggestions

 

[Putchuco]

I'd be interested to join and discuss/learn with all of you.

Personally, I used to play Monarch level on Warlords, but that has been tough on BtS, maybe just a matter of me getting used to it.
Also, I played a lot more on Epic, very few on 'Normal' speed, I just dread the fast pace where units become obsolete so fast. Don't get me wrong, I'm game either way, and I'm sure there's tons of things to learn for me.

So, sign me up if there's still room.

 

[Jamesds]

You're on Putchuco! Glad to have you Have you played an SG before? It would be helpful if we have someone who has played one recently. Do you know anyone who might be able to help?

Since the game hasn't begun yet, please read the first post and discuss anything you would like changed. Should there be a player limit, anyone?

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Beyond 8, I think it might a get a little messy.

Edit: Can I request that everyone not upgrade to 3.03. It sounds horribly buggy and it's plausible that a follow-up patch might come out soon to fix the Civilopedia related crashes and animation problems?

 

[Jamesds]

Beyond 8, I think it might a get a little messy.

Edit: Can I request that everyone not upgrade to 3.03. It sounds horribly buggy and it's plausible that a follow-up patch might come out soon to fix the Civilopedia related crashes and animation problems?

Sounds good, I'll say 7 for now - so one more person only.

Unfortunately, I already have upgraded to 3.03 , I don't want to uninstall it though, if possible. It hasn't crashed with me yet...all I have noticed is the weird combat animations (in the bug forum).

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Okay, nevermind, I'll guess I'll just have to take the plunge already.

 

[Jamesds]

Still looking for a leader - if no one turns up, then I'll keep an eye on proceedings here since I started it. Zetetic Apparat - I'm going to check out some other SG threads to get an idea of what they do - do you want to do the same? Especially since you have volunteered to collate the data from the saves.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Thought:
Random events? Assuming a static seed, they occur at the same time, given the same game conditions?

Yes, I'm looking at other games. Most of them seem to played in a serial, true-succession manner. That'd be fine, except we'd probably need shorter round lengths (25 turns?). (Noting this means that everyone does their own round reports as well.)

 

[frob2900]

Go on then, name a few new Civs you want, we're open to suggestions

Well, I suppose it should be a new one.

Ethiopia? or perhaps the HRE?

 

[Putchuco]

You're on Putchuco! Glad to have you Have you played an SG before? It would be helpful if we have someone who has played one recently. Do you know anyone who might be able to help?

Since the game hasn't begun yet, please read the first post and discuss anything you would like changed. Should there be a player limit, anyone?

Great.
I haven't played an SG yet, but followed one or the other.
Was it Sisutil that had a few famous SG games going? Loved those.


On the number of players: in general, doesn't matter to me, the only issue is that each one of us would want to actually 'return' to the game themselves, cause I think that really keeps you involved. So, I would agree that 8 is the max.

On the other settings, I'm OK with any map, settings, only on speed I would vote for 'Epic' instead of 'Normal', but maybe that's only my preference.
I'm also not a big fan of the 'Vassal' option, it is too buggy and turns entire games upside down in a heartbeat.

On that same thought, should we consider using Solver's unofficial patch?
I just put that on myself and it really resolved quite a few issues, like the 'city killing' through espionage, ie incredibly high unhappiness.

Should we give ourselves a goal in terms of how we want to win, what general strategy we pick, cultural, domination, etc. ?
I usually start my games without a set goal and go with the starting position, and how the AI opponents play it out. But that doesn't mean that we would have to do that the same way. I could see us having a fixed winning strategy and sticking to it.

Do we have a schedule yet, when to start etc?

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

I'd also go for Epic over normal.
Prefer Vassals here.

 

[Jamesds]

On the other settings, I'm OK with any map, settings, only on speed I would vote for 'Epic' instead of 'Normal', but maybe that's only my preference.
I'm also not a big fan of the 'Vassal' option, it is too buggy and turns entire games upside down in a heartbeat.

Well, I'd be happy to keep things as they are, but since vassals aren't a big part of my strategy it wouldn't matter I guess. As for epic, maybe that could be the next game, but I'd prefer a slightly quicker setting for this first SG.

On that same thought, should we consider using Solver's unofficial patch?
I just put that on myself and it really resolved quite a few issues, like the 'city killing' through espionage, ie incredibly high unhappiness.

As long as we all use the same config, that's ok. I haven't used Solver's patch yet, but if it will lead to a smoother game then it's a good idea. I'll install it as a mod so I can use the current CoreGame dll for my other BtS games. Is everyone OK on this?

Should we give ourselves a goal in terms of how we want to win, what general strategy we pick, cultural, domination, etc. ?
I usually start my games without a set goal and go with the starting position, and how the AI opponents play it out. But that doesn't mean that we would have to do that the same way. I could see us having a fixed winning strategy and sticking to it.

I don't have a starting goal either. I think it might be better, in this training SG, for us to consider all possibilities as we might in a real game.

Do we have a schedule yet, when to start etc?

Well, I was hoping for a more experience SG player to lead us. I say we start soon, how does tomorrow afternoon (I live at GMT +0:00) sound? Maybe around 1500 GMT. If we want to wait for another player/leader, lets wait until someone else joins.

As for how it will all progress, I'll work that out as we go, in a leisurely fashion (if that's ok with you). I think we should aim to finish the first 50 turns in 1 day, since they are very quick.

 

[Putchuco]

Well, I'd be happy to keep things as they are, but since vassals aren't a big part of my strategy it wouldn't matter I guess. As for epic, maybe that could be the next game, but I'd prefer a slightly quicker setting for this first SG.

I was more referring to the sudden 'vassalizing' of an opponent you're just about to break, possibly even to one of your 'friends' and before you know it you're at war with them too. Just a thought, not a biggie.

I don't have a starting goal either. I think it might be better, in this training SG, for us to consider all possibilities as we might in a real game.

That sounds good.

Well, I was hoping for a more experience SG player to lead us. I say we start soon, how does tomorrow afternoon (I live at GMT +0:00) sound? Maybe around 1500 GMT. If we want to wait for another player/leader, lets wait until someone else joins.

As for how it will all progress, I'll work that out as we go, in a leisurely fashion (if that's ok with you). I think we should aim to finish the first 50 turns in 1 day, since they are very quick.

Starting that quickly sounds good.
Should we plan to actually discuss the starting position, the pros and cons of the leader/civilization etc right at the beginning for a bit?
Also some general strategies, like what to go after in general terms, what technologies, religions etc? Or do we anticipate that each player pretty much decides that by themselves?
I'm mainly asking since I haven't done an SG, but have seen those initial discussions and I found them very enlightening.

BTW, I'm on ET (GMT-5), but I don't see the time zone becoming a problem, or?