SGOTM 06 - Geezers

[AlanH]

I've replied. I was deep in a plumbing problem.

Sorry to hear you are retiring. I've marked your last save as a retirement. Please feel free to visit the other threads, but please don't post in any that are not finished.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Thanks for the post Alan.

 

[Harbourboy]

Just had a quick look at CRC, and it's just embarrassing how much they thrashed us by. This game was a complete walk in the park for them. How is that possible?

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Just had a quick look at CRC, and it's just embarrassing how much they thrashed us by. This game was a complete walk in the park for them. How is that possible?

Have a look at MW's thread (first few posts & the last couple of pages) to put CRC's time into context.

I'm not so much worried about how quickly other teams finished as trying to determine why we ended up having so much grief i.e. Did delaying our start and/or our start position make any difference? Should we have scouted more aggressively? Should we have geared up to attack one of the AI earlier? Did we neglect our science early on or did we concentrate too much on science early on? Are we a bunch of useless players? etc. etc.

 

[erikthecelt]

Look into the Xteam thread - Lief Erickson has posted a spreadsheet comparison of the 5 best teams. The lead teams all built the Oracle or Mids,or they captured the mids. Starting techs were either Agri or BW.
From the brief look I've had, they all started with plans to get Astro and to bulb their way with GP. They all moved the settler to different locations.
We built no wonders and grew no GP.
We were very timid at the beginning.

I'll try and make time to update that comparison with our info.

 

[Harbourboy]

No wonders and no GP. I think that is telling. In most of the good HoF and XotM games, the good players always seem to casually pull off CS slingshots and precise lightbulbing of key techs as a matter of course (other than in really quick conquest games). We did none of that (but also seemed nowhere close to being able to).

 

[Sam_Yeager]

I extracted some key dates from the log.

Spoiler Early timeline :

3940 BC - Found London.
3510 BC - Learn Agri, Dow Hanny.
3130 BC - Learn AH, Dow Alex.
3070 BC - Hanny revolts to slavery.
2950 BC - Mansa revolts to slavery.
2920 BC - Learn Hunting.
2860 BC - Alex revolts to slavery.
2650 BC - Learn Archery.
2260 BC - Learn BW.
2050 BC - Learn Wheel.
1840 BC - Learn Pottery.
1540 BC - Found York.
1300 BC - Learn IW.
1060 BC - Learn Writing.
760 BC - Learn Maths.
685 BC - Found Notts.
670 BC - Learn Sailing.
490 BC - Hanny adopts HR.
385 BC - Raze Corinth.
355 BC - Learn Calendar.
295 BC - Learn Masonry, Oracle built somewhere.
145 BC - Capture Kumbi Saleh.
130 BC - 'mids built somewhere.
100 BC - Learn Construction.
85 BC - Learn Mysticism.
40 BC - Learn Meditation.
25 BC - Learn Priesthood. Alex adopts HR.
125 AD - Mansa adopts HR.
170 AD - Found Iron city.
185 AD - Learn Col. Found confucianism.

We were slower than other teams at getting BW but I don't think that made much difference considering we took about 1500 years to found Notts to make use of the copper.

 

[AgedOne]

I think there's something about the way we make decisions as a team that results in a very slow, cautious style of play. Maybe something like the way design by committee produces deeply unsatisfying results. But I don't really believe that has to be true. A number of teams disproved that theory conclusively.
I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a pretty mediocre player - but one thing I'm always trying to do in my SP games is to force the pace and be dynamic and attacking. I have to force myself because it doesn't come naturally, but I recognise that all the better players never slacken off and drift, but always strive for the next objective.
Somehow the way we operate as a team we lose that incisive streak. All of the 'sharp edges' get blunted off in the discussions.
Not sure what to do about it, having said all that...

 

[Harbourboy]

Our mistakes and flaws must be really galring in this one, because the other teams completely left us in their dust. If only I was good enough to be able to see what those flaws have been.

But it must be something to do with the fact that our Geezer games do not seem to resemble anything else I see in HoF or XotM.

Maybe we need a more dictatorial approach to decision making, whereby we delegate all powers of decision making to once person for the whole game, and the rest of just:
-chip in with ideas and analysis
-execute the tyrant's vision in our turnsets

Of course, that puts a lot of pressure on one person and may be contrary to the Geezer spirit.

 

[AgedOne]

Maybe we need a more dictatorial approach to decision making, whereby we delegate all powers of decision making to once person for the whole game, and the rest of just:
-chip in with ideas and analysis
-execute the tyrant's vision in our turnsets

Of course, that puts a lot of pressure on one person and may be contrary to the Geezer spirit.

I'm pretty sure that would be unappetising not only to the 'tyrant' but also to the rest of the team.
I would imagine that each member of the team joined up because they wanted to be part of it, and to contribute. If 5 people act as slaves to the one master, I think it would lead to unhappiness for all 6.

And I'm not so sure that the elite teams work like that either. We have seen teams where one person tends to dominate, but there are several teams who have found a way of sharing control around very successfully.

It's not the most pleasant thought, but maybe our mixture of playing styles is wrong...
When you have (say) 2 people with very different approaches to a situation, then they might both succeed in a single-player game, each using their own approach. However, tell them that they must achieve consensus and you get a middle-ground approach that they both grudgingly agree to, but which is weaker than the approach that either would have taken alone.

We don't have 2 players at loggerheads like this, but perhaps we get the same effect from having several players - each quite able to win the game playing single-handedly - who get their strategy watered down by the group.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Our mistakes and flaws must be really galring in this one, because the other teams completely left us in their dust. If only I was good enough to be able to see what those flaws have been.

Thankfully the Trash team seemed to have joined us in getting massively out teched by the AI. It looks like they're going for the wooden spoon.

But it must be something to do with the fact that our Geezer games do not seem to resemble anything else I see in HoF or XotM.

In previous SGOTMs and in this one a number of teams have successfully managed slingshots and bulbed techs as part of a predetermined plan. I may be wrong but I don't believe that this is something that Geezers have ever really achieved or even planned.

However slingshots and light bulbing would only have helped on the tech side. Having skimmed a few threads it appears that we left the AI alone for too long which allowed them to expand and overtake us in tech. The result is that we had a hard time taking them out.

 

[Harbourboy]

Some of the other teams seem to have just taken over AI cities at will whenever they felt like it.

I love the comment in the CRC thread that when they saw that Alexander had built the Pyramids, their reaction was celebration that they would have Police State soon because they knew they could just go and take the Pyramid city.

 

[Harbourboy]

!!

X-Team had eliminated Mansa Musa by turn 56.

But Murky Waters had eliminated Mansa Musa by turn 48! 2560BC! When did we eliminate him? 1600 AD?

We were facing Grenadiers, but they had done it before Mansa even got Skirmishers!

We were on a completely different planet from those teams.

Maybe we have better social lives...............

 

[Sam_Yeager]

I've just been looking over the first few pages of our thread. There are a number of things that stand out for me.

• None of us really had experience with AW.
• We had lots of discussion about where to settle. Strategy was mentioned and discussed to an extent but wasn't our main focus.
• At that stage I don't think we really expected to be on a large continent with three AI. As a result our plans were for a less warlike start. Unfortunately we failed to change to change our plans when it became clear that our initial assumptions were wrong.

EDIT: Regrettably we were isolated in my test save which may have contributed to us going down the wrong route.

 

[AgedOne]

So what goes wrong with our thinking when we are part of a group?
When playing single-player, we all consider things like specialists, bulbing techs, slingshots (occasionally). I'm sure we have all done this - some more than others, obviously.
I noticed one team (GK?) were trying out the chances of an early warrior rush taking a nearby capital, before they even opened the save.

We really need to start thinking like we would in SP games. Then, present those thoughts to the team and - crucially - when someone tries to water down those ideas you need to stick to your guns and use the argument that you have a strategy that might work - but only if it is left untampered with.

 

[markh]

• None of us really had experience with AW.
• We had lots of discussion about where to settle. Strategy was mentioned and discussed to an extent but wasn't our main focus.
• At that stage I don't think we really expected to be on a large continent with three AI. As a result our plans were for a less warlike start. Unfortunately we failed to change to change our plans when it became clear that our initial assumptions were wrong.

Well, I have some experience in AW. Especially in Civ3 I exclusively play AW for years now, but I also got myself in Civ4 AW. I just needed 3 attempts for the Monarch AW HOF gauntlet 2 months ago having Monty, Alex and Shaka on my starting continent and these guys are no real fun to play with in AW in the beginning. I did not finish the game with a high score, but I easily won it. This is what is important to me. Scores or virtual awards do not matter to me.

Our strategy was wrong and I disagreed with several things being discussed. I was trying to give more options, but maybe I should have been more "convincing" by giving more arguments. Obviously things that appear clear to me I have to explain more detailed. However do not misunderstand me. I would not claim that we might have won the game playing it more according to my experience.

Coming to HB's post I would not want to play in a group in which one player decides what has to be done. Playing just from a list of what has to be done would not be fun for me and I wouldn't see myself as the one guiding the others.

@AgedOne : I think we have played well as a team this time, but our strategy was just not appropriate. We stuck to our decisions and executed them. This certainly is an improvement to our last games. Unfortunately we made the wrong decisions.

Furthermore we do not have players in our group that look into the code to see how the AI is programmed and I would say we are a group of "inexperienced" players (except The-Hawk) compared to other teams. Other teams have players among them who play various test games and try this and that before the game starts. I just do not have the time to do this and to be honest I am not interested to do so. I want to have fun playing the game in my spare time and up to now I can say it is fun to play with you guys, although we were not very successful lately.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

I did not finish the game with a high score, but I easily won it. This is what is important to me. Scores or virtual awards do not matter to me.

My comment about AW experience was only based on the posts of the first few pages of our thread so I'm happy to be corrected. Regrettably we failed to make use of this experience. FWIW I'm not that bothered about awards although it's always nice to get one. I'm definitely with mark about wanting to successfully complete the challenge.

Maybe we need a more dictatorial approach to decision making, whereby we delegate all powers of decision making to once person for the whole game, and the rest of just:
-chip in with ideas and analysis
-execute the tyrant's vision in our turnsets

Of course, that puts a lot of pressure on one person and may be contrary to the Geezer spirit.

IIRC a similar suggestion cropped up at the end of the last SGOTM when the The-Hawk's name was mentioned as the "dictator". I certainly remember The-Hawk rightly shooting it down in flames for a number of good reasons. Not least being the fact that it's hardly a SG if only one person makes the decisions.

I'm keen to try and learn the lessons of this SGOTM. Reloading the saves of some of the successful teams in conjunction with the turn writeups is proving interesting. Sadly we may not quite have learned the lessons from the last SGOTM as well as we thought.

However let's not rack ourselves with guilt. At least one other team did as well (badly ) as we did. More to the point those team members are not exactly inexperienced.

 

[Harbourboy]

So who is keen for the next one?

 

[Harbourboy]

See this, posted by ShannonCT in commenting on our Geezers strategy:

Well, in 99% of Civ4 games, you should be looking to capture a neighboring capital ASAP. Geezers might have been able to do this if there had been horses near the starting position. Xteam sort of lucked out that not only was there copper in our BFC, but it was next to a river so that we didn't even need to research the Wheel to use it.

In hindsight, your choice of capital location was unfortunate because the copper was not in the BFC. But this was just bad luck. The one decision I would question though is going for Hunting and Archery after you got Animal Husbandry. Archers are very passive units. Axemen are better than archers for actively defending against the AI, and obviously better for taking cities. If your team asks itself, "How can we win this game faster than all of the other teams?" instead of, "How can we survive and eventually win this game?" you'd actually make decisions that made you more likely to acheive victory. You should be actively seeking to make some game breaking play, or as Murky Waters calls it, a "power move". For us and MW, that was taking Timbuktu early. For Short Straw, that was Oracling Machinery. There's really no way to make a power move with archers.

Maybe we need to ask more outside players to criticise our strategies.........

 

[Sam_Yeager]

The one decision I would question though is going for Hunting and Archery after you got Animal Husbandry. Archers are very passive units. Axemen are better than archers for actively defending against the AI, and obviously better for taking cities. If your team asks itself, "How can we win this game faster than all of the other teams?" instead of, "How can we survive and eventually win this game?" you'd actually make decisions that made you more likely to acheive victory. You should be actively seeking to make some game breaking play, or as Murky Waters calls it, a "power move".

Good point on the "game breaking play" attitude although he obviously didn't realise we didn't make use of copper until long after we got it.