Second March HOF Update

[LulThyme]

Just a suggestion, but how about drawing the line at real lists, all difficulty fastest isn't a category. Lul's game topped a list so should be mentioned, and really its shouldn't be compared to Moons, warlord is easier to get military leaders and so it should be *expected* that the time would be faster. Two turns later in chief compared to warlord is a superior game IMO. But its pretty difficult to compare different difficulties like this.

It's weird.
I agree with your general idea, but maybe not with you example.
Warlord is easier to get mil leader, thats for sure.
But you get slower techs in return no, and also he was playing a std map which complicates matter further (more AIs, more huts, slower absolute tech pace).
I'm certain I can beat my game , but Im not sure I can beat Moon's (mostly because Ive played almost only tiny's and Im not sure how big an effect the map size has...)

So I agree with Superslug that its hard to compare.
I sorta agree with your argument that its hard to compare different difficulty level, but you could argue the same about map size, specially for some types of game (conquest, say).

Then the only conclusion becomes to only note games which have been fastest for their map size, diff, and type.

(Is that what you proposed?)

At the moment, a lot of games would get mentionned as the tables still have a lot of empty space.

 

[Smirk]

At the risk of being a bit offtopic, warlord may give a slower tech rate but this isn't all that important since you have to build these wonders. Getting a tech with a wonder at any point before when you need it to be built can be seen as inefficient, thats ignoring the science leader aspects. However, in tiny you are geographically bound, and in warlord chances are you can get a faster tech rate from small and standard than tiny. I've only played chief and sid and used tiny in both case because of tile concerns, now that Moon (she BTW) has shown that larger maps work well I would be more likely to try small or larger for the intermediate difficulties.

I understand that the tech factors (for map size) are close estimates but in reality are probably pretty arbitrary so there are no doubt caes where size can be played to take advantage of this. Think about the increased 100k values for map size, does 60% increase in huge account for the less corruption and better potential land? And the enemy being further away lets you have more unimpeded development.

So yes comparing difficulty levels and map sizes leads to a lot of variables, but I don't think for a minute Moon was playing standard because she perceived it as a more difficult game. I would suspect she did because the larger maps lets you get to 4 turn research faster, and easier, while not really affecting your culture cities production and quality in any meaninfully negative way.


I wasn't suggesting slug post about anything in particular, but since his ("drawing the line") post annoyed me for some reason I was being sarcastic about the imaginary list he used to compare those two games (yours and Moon's).

Although clearly a highscore in an empty list is of note only that the list is no longer empty, its true quality is unknown until more games are competing. But any new #1 in a default list is of note (default being one you see when you select the game types, Score, Domination, 20k etc). The further distinctions of map size I never bother with, maybe others do, but my perspective is based on this.

 

[Dianthus]

... now that Moon (she BTW) has shown that larger maps work well I would be more likely to try small or larger for the intermediate difficulties.

One thing to bear in mind with the bigger maps is that there are more resources on them, so you're more likely to find a tasty start:

Settling 1 tile north would have meant getting Game and another Cattle within the 21 tiles! Unfortunately there was no fresh water and being on an island away from the other civs wasn't very good for a huge domination attempt. Might have made a good 20K start though!

 

[LulThyme]

20 K is probably the type of victory for which map size has the least effect though.
For Conquest, changing map size is almost like changing victory type, so splitting by map size is very important, and leads to a variety of games IMO
Dianthus also brings a good point, which I noticed only a few weeks ago.
On tiny, getting more than 3 cows in starting view is almost impossible, while on a huge map, ull get 4 or 5 not that rarely.

So , once I go back to 20 K (Id like to finish quartermaster), Ill probably try small maps.

This leads me to ask, where can I find the multiplier for tech cost per map size.
I am confident I can find the value for diff. but dunno where to look for map size.
EDIt
Ok I did a search and got this : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29485

Food for thought :

1.Small is only a 25% increase in tech cost over Tiny, and Std is 20% increase over Standard.
With less corruption, more AIs, more huts, more space, Im increasingly thinking, the best 20K dates are going to be on small-std.
Which also increases the chance that something else than Babs will be useful.

2.Tech cost dont change from Chieftain to Regent? (Im not sure I understood this properly...)

3.More AIs in the game means techs are more expensive!!
in particular, techs get cheaper if you kill off AIs !!
Thats good to know, and would be useful in certain circumstances...
So its important not to add more AIs than necessary...

 

[Sandman2003]

2.Tech cost dont change from Chieftain to Regent? (Im not sure I understood this properly...)

Chieftain tech is at a 50% discount, so tech costs double from cheiftain to regent.

 

[LulThyme]

OK but warlord and regent would be the same?

 

[Sandman2003]

No, warlord tech costs are 10/12 times the cost of regent, so also at a discount (about 83%), but much more expensive than cheiftain. Of course the four turn max tech rate, and the much better developemnt of AIs under warlord (if you can call it that) almost makes up for the increased tech cost (ie you can actually get almost reasonable sums out of the AI to help fund your self research).