SGOTM 05 - Geezers

[ChrisShaffer]

First, let me say I enjoyed reading your thread quite a bit. Thanks.

Second, surely you don't have to check too hard for unpromoted units? They glow bright blue!

 

[Harbourboy]

Thanks Chris - I'm sure our thread is not THAT interesting, unless you want to see what NOT to do......

I am ambivalent on the whole promotion thing. One minor problem is how we go about getting a Medic, especially in vanilla games with no great generals. You kind of have to know which unit you want to develop in that direction because it does require some planning, which can easily fall apart in a poor succession game.

 

[AgedOne]

Not directly related to the unpromoted units, but it struck me that many of the reminders for team-mates as to what you were intending, what to remember next time out etc. can easily be lost if they are included in amongst the normal posts.
Maybe we need to make any strategic reminders stand out so that they can be found more easily by the next player.
Something like this post is my suggestion.

Oh. And I think one of the HOF options will highlight units that can be promoted by outlining their square icon in blue.

I think there are many units that can be promoted immediately, as we will all know what they are going to be used for, but imo we should leave a unit or two in each part of the world unpromoted to allow us to choose as the situation changes.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Not directly related to the unpromoted units, but it struck me that many of the reminders for team-mates as to what you were intending, what to remember next time out etc. can easily be lost if they are included in amongst the normal posts.
Maybe we need to make any strategic reminders stand out so that they can be found more easily by the next player.
Something like this post is my suggestion.

Sounds like a good idea. Of course if we start getting multiple posts then we may still have the same problem.

Oh. And I think one of the HOF options will highlight units that can be promoted by outlining their square icon in blue.

If true then that may allay some of The-Hawk's concerns.

I think there are many units that can be promoted immediately, as we will all know what they are going to be used for, but imo we should leave a unit or two in each part of the world unpromoted to allow us to choose as the situation changes.

I think we certainly want some flexibility.

@All - Please bear in mind that my post was merely designed to collect all the suggestions into one place. Whether or not we accept any of the suggestions, and in what form, is up to the team.

 

[markh]

Regarding promotion of units my "system" is as follows :

I never promote siege units until they arrive at the city I want to take. Then I promote them according to my needs.

When I assemble an initial stack for an invasion I promote the units promptly. Except swords which get CR all other units I tend to give Combat I as this opens more special promotions.

Reinforcements I hardly promote. When they meet up with the initial stack I'll give them promotions as needed.

Maybe I post here what helps me for turnsets in SGs. If I am up I make small notes on any handover notes the previous player has stated. Most things relate to the next turn and these small notes help me not to forget about this. Usually this takes not even 2 minutes. I also make notes what has been suggested by other players. In average I have 3 - 5 notes on my sheet, so it is nothing exhausting. However the most important thing is to take your time for your set. I usually need about 2 - 3 hours for my sets. I check each city each turn and also whether my builds match with the goals we have. Sometimes I even note down things I want to change next turn not to forget about it. Civic changes for example is something I tend to forget.

 

[drhirsch]

In this game, while attacking Saladin, I had a lot of prepromoted "Combat 1" tanks when I wanted "City Raider 1" tanks. That was somewhat annoying :-(

I aggree that in most cases the offensive promotion is more useful. I would call "City Raider" a offensive promotion, but not "Combat". Although you maybe want some defensive units/promotions in your attacking stack too. But why not leave this decision to the attacker? In this case someone had decided, that the tanks needed the more defensive "Combat 1" promotions, for whatever reasons, and I needed to take them.

OTOH, I think using some more strategic markers on the map are a good idea

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Whilst the issue of promotions for units, or not, is something that it would be helpful to resolve before the next game what does everyone else think of the rest of the ideas in my summary post?

Should we try and estimate a timescale for the game? Should we have rolling short term objectives? What about the idea for turn plans, brief or otherwise, before playing turnsets? Speaking of turnsets should we have variable turn length depending on whether we are at war? In amongst the part I nicked from MW it says that the next player should pick up within 72 hours. I'm surprised nobody has commented on that or do the rest of the team think that is a more realistic timescale?

To save you having to hunt down the post it is here.

On a totally different subject Balbes has posted a comparative analysis between CFR, MW & CRC in the CFR thread.

 

[Harbourboy]

I definitely agree with variable turnsets, depending on the situation. Sometimes it just makes sense to stop after 8 turns or 12 turns, especially when key strategic decisions are required. If you have to stop for a discussion then you might as just have the one break for the discussion and the handover at the same time.

 

[AgedOne]

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of the points.
My run-down:

Game Strategy and Management

1. If there's a suitable test game available then all team members should play it until at least the early ADs. This will help them to contibute more fully when the game strategy is discussed.
2. Decide on game victory condition.
   • what is our long term tech path?
   • What are critical builds?
   • What shouldn't we build?
   • What techs don't we need?
   • What types of units should we concentrate on?
   • Do we need defensive units, or only offensive?
   • Do we need a navy?
3. Estimate timescale for completion. (?)
   • Third place finish date has ranged from 1202 AD (257) - 1961 AD (571).
   • The vast majority of third place finishes were in the 300s (1544 AD - 1766 AD)
4. Identify a rolling list of short term objectives. (?)
   • Useful to check how well we are doing.
   • This is a continuing task throughout the game.
5. Regular review and refinement of overall strategy.
   • Is it still applicable?
   • How well are we following the aims of the strategy?
   • Does it need changing and if so how?

1. Yes. This is part of our pre-game preparation.

2. Yes. We can all discuss this around the start - and it will evolve in the early stages of the game as we find out more. Once decided, the strategist should post a statement, saying what we are all heading for.

3. Yes. Although this is where we need someone with experience to step in and fill the rest of us with confidence that we can do this thing!

4. Yes.

5. Yes. The strategist (or whoever is currently filling this role), can keep an eye on this.

Game Playing

1. Post brief outline of goals for turnset.
   • Leave sufficient time for comments. 24 hours should be enough
   • Amend as necessary based on feedback
2. Give feedback in writeup on which goals were achieved.
3. Turn lengths
   • Adopt differing turn lengths depending on whether we are at war?
   • Report on progress part way through turnset if at war e.g. 5+5 system used by CFR?

1. Yes. Let's make it a habit to say "Playing in 24 hours. Here's what I plan to do..."

2. I suppose... Although I guess what's more important to know is what was left undone, or still to be done in the next turnsets.

3. I'd like to see more flexibility about turnsets (and we're not bad at this!). If you're still in the thick of something - take another 2 or 3 turns to sort it out. If you're getting the shakes and you know a prime warmonger is coming up in the next turnset - break off early and leave it to them.
And definitely lets break off in mid turn if things are hectic and you want advice.


As for Erkon's MW "Rules of Engagement":

Reading the rules etc. Yes, naturally.
"Got-it"s: I think we are working this OK, generally.
Swapping turns: We've never stated this, but I'm sure that's fine.
Emotes etc. Yeah. We're fine. Don't think we upset each other
Self-evident posts: I could probably learn a thing or two from this. Why act all macho and pretend you understand 'Not polluting the GP pool' and then suddenly do something that shows you didn't understand after all?
Gaining consensus: Yes. A big one in view of some comments we've had within the team.
Promotion: We're still deciding, aren't we?
Intoxication etc: Dear god, when would I play??
Checking cities: good habit to get into. (I wish I did.)
Autosave: Must have.
PM team: Why PM the whole team and not post in the thread?
Don't dis other teams or players: Geezers don't do this anyway.
Test games: We've talked about

 

[erikthecelt]

Being the new old guy on the block, I'm happy to go along with what the team leaders decide. I like what is in the list.

As far as promotions are concerned, I tend to have a standard set, C1 + Medic for a spear or two, C1, C2 for axes the leave until needed for specialty promotions, CR for swords and cats. (BTS has changed the cats promotions).

Looking at the stats, Geezers had as good or better a start than the Laurel winners so the discussion on focus especially at the transition from the opening play is very appropriate.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

[ Intoxication etc: Dear god, when would I play??

I think the idea is not to drink half the bottle before playing rather than having a glass or so during the game.

Checking cities: good habit to get into. (I wish I did.)

Snap! I do check reasonably regularly but it's easy to overlook during a war.

PM team: Why PM the whole team and not post in the thread?

I was in two minds as to whether to leave this bit in. There are rare occasions when team members might want to inform the team of something without necessarily posting in the thread. It's happened in past SGOTMs.

[ Test games: We've talked about

Yes I overlooked this part.

 

[AgedOne]

I think the idea is not to drink half the bottle before playing rather than having a glass or so during the game.

Ah! Did it show?
Perhaps we should patent an invention - the civalyzer - which can detect from your play whether you should really be doing something else.

 

[Harbourboy]

Do we want to do a practice game while waiting? Maybe redo a previous SGOTM or GOTM to see if we can do any better?

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Do we want to do a practice game while waiting? Maybe redo a previous SGOTM or GOTM to see if we can do any better?

I suggested doing a WOTM here but nobody expressed an interest at the time. Judging by the discussion in the results thread it looks like the next game will be Warlords so a WOTM, not necessarily the one I suggested, seems appropriate if there is enough interest.

 

[AgedOne]

I suggested doing a WOTM here but nobody expressed an interest at the time. Judging by the discussion in the results thread it looks like the next game will be Warlords so a WOTM, not necessarily the one I suggested, seems appropriate if there is enough interest.

Hey, I'm sorry I missed (or ignored ) your post. That sounds interesting. Also, it's a WOTM that I didn't take part in at the time (I checked back and I downloaded it but didn't play).
How much time do you think we have before we're back to SGOTM06?
We might get a bit of WOTM03 done - up to AD at least.

 

[Harbourboy]

I'm up for it. Seeing as there is no real deadline, it might not matter if everyone wants to do it or not, or how long it is until the next official SGOTM.

I certainly never did WOTM3 and have never played as the Celts so it would be all good.

 

[erikthecelt]

I'm in

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Ok I'll generate a start save from the WB file. The game was originally played using 2.08 but hopefully we won't have any side effects using 2.13. Because there's the problem with locked assets in Warlords depending on whether people have BTS 3.13 or not I won't use the HOF mod. Regrettably that means we miss out on the functionality of the HOF mod. I'll also create a new thread in the Civ4 SG forum for the game and post the link in this thread.

Obviously WOTM03 has already been played so we'll have to rely on team members honour not to read any writeups. Equally going into world builder to look at the map is a big .

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Save generated and thread created. The new thread is here.

 

[Pariah]

I don't have Warlords, sorry. Can I run it on BTS? (Silly question perhaps).