SGOTM 18 Pregame Discussion Thread - Austin Powers

[kcd_swede]

Sorry if this had been mentioned somewhere... Which leader (traits) is that?

You'll find out soon enough, but to give you time to prepare I might as well tell you now. Austin is played by Rooseveldt. The others you will have to figure out.

Not that it changes something, because if I recall correctly, once the Mids are lost, your civic are returning to your last one.



Does it mean we get a free GEngineer?



OMG! That's the very suggestion I have made.

Be careful what you wish for.

That would be nice!

My assumption was that this was his evil way of keeping us from getting a GEngineer.

You won't get a Great Engineer for Fusion.

If i'm not mistaken (it's impossible, but just for nicety), we already discussed the "Require Complete Kills" option in BtS and we decided that it's broken due to spies and so we (the people active in the GotM Forums and the Staff) decided to avoid it.

I don't think anyone would play a game with a broken option.

then, this is not clear to me: Does not 5) overrun 4) ?
As i understand it, while 4) ties to three specific VCs at choice, 5) opens any VC, making 4) null.

Please reformulate the quoted points. Since this time are not required 2 simultaneous VCs, they won't make sense.

If you cannot achieve #4 (I'm not guaranteeing its even possible), go for 5 rather than lose the game. Otherwise, you'd be wise to go for option 4 (and 5 is automatically completed).

^^I think it's more like achievement 4 automatically fulfills achievement 5, isn't it?

Also, as for require complete kills: since apparently the capital will be taken next turn and there is no guarantee that the second city could be settled prior to that it is actually necessary to stay in the game? I agree on the spies issue though.

The require complete kills option was necessary to get you to witness the destruction of the Swinger's Pad while not being forced to settle on turn 1. My original plan was to just have the Swinger's Pad already in Dr Evil's possession, but my co-designer thought it important. We can leave it as it is or return it to the original way and get rid of the "complete kills" requirement if enough people want. Gameplay is more important than gimmick, I think.

Yes and no.
I see a restriction in 4 and an open choice in 5. It's true that 4 is "included" in 5, but remains the fact the 5 overrule 4, making it useless and confusing.

If the intention of the game designer is:
a) allow only the VCs listed in 4, 5 must be deleted
b) allow any VC of choice 4 must be deleted.
It's a matter of logic, not opinions.Yes, that can be the reason, but remains the fact that that option is broken and can cause many problems in a BtS game. I suggest to the mapmaker to find a solution which can avoid that option. Some suggestion can be to presettle the city which will soon became the Capital or to move away the units to give 2-3 turns to settle the future Capital. I suppose noone will SiP or just 1 tile away from the start.

Hmmm... the logic is that winning the game with the restricted VC's is twice as important as any other objective you might have. But I suspect that to win laurels you will need all objectives completed. On the other hand, teams that might come up short in the restricted VC's will prove themselves ahead of all the teams that Dr Evil destroys utterly. (Not saying this will happen, just... well... it could happen). Imagine a scenario where evil mapmaker did something screwy making his own objectives unobtainable. Would you be happy that laurels went to a team with 3 objectives complete that was defeated by an AI winning over a team that won the game but only managed 2 of the objectives? That's a rhetorical question. The mampmaker would not be happy. Go for the gold, ignore existence of option #5. For now.

 

[kcd_swede]

Thus the meaning of #4 and #5 is that you can continue play after the Victory screen to achieve another VC. Does this means also that you can win - say - by Domination and then satisfy #4 in any way you like? Which one is mandatory for a Medal? I presume #4, but just to be safe...

About Liberalism, i understand it in this way: you're forced by the rules of this particular "scenario" to adopt FR as soon as you get Lib and to stay in it. But FP is not mandatory, thus it's a player's choice.

Correct, after Liberalism Free Religion is mandatory, Free Speech is optional.

 

[kcd_swede]

I am confused also.


This seems very clear, must switch to Free Religion if/when Liberalism is learned.

.....but then the confusing part,
This is the ONLY reference to Free SPEECH I can find in the game announcement post.

Sorrry for the confusion. I'll ask AlanH to edit for consistency. Free Religion mandatory once / if you get Liberalism, (Free Speech optional).

 

[LowtherCastle]

The require complete kills option was necessary to get you to witness the destruction of the Swinger's Pad while not being forced to settle on turn 1. My original plan was to just have the Swinger's Pad already in Dr Evil's possession, but my co-designer thought it important. We can leave it as it is or return it to the original way and get rid of the "complete kills" requirement if enough people want. Gameplay is more important than gimmick, I think.

Require Complete Kills is only problematic for the Conquest Victory Condition. Since Conquest is not included in Objective 4, Require Complete Kills is not problematic for this scenario. We're not required to kill off Dr. Evil, Goldmember, or anyone else.

I don't see Require Complete Kills as gimmicky. It is a full-fledged game design option with consequences, although inability to kill AI Great Spies and spies is not a consequence of significance in this scenario.

I see no reason for a vote to inhibit the creativity of the game creators.

 

[RagingHordes]

A complete noobie question, from a complete noob: can it be confirmed that the two screen shots are actually taken from the starting save?
Not that I would suspect anyone of deception.
... but all this evilness makes me paranoid!

 

[AlanH]

kcd_swede is evil. However, I don't think he's that baaaad!

Of course, your system may display the map differently - you may have different graphics settings and so on.

 

[RagingHordes]

Thank you! It's just that so much is given, yet even more is hidden away, obviously on purpose. I was thinking the screenshots might be just a decoy. I must say, so far I am pleasantly confused.

 

[Gumbolt]

Dr Evil still has time to kidnap the Royal new born for us to save?

 

[UnforcedError]

The require complete kills option doesn't actually work like that, IIRC. Any AI with some leftover units will show up as 'alive' but as soon as you take all AI cities you will still win conquest (unless someone settles / takes a city IBT of course).

 

[BLubmuz]

The require complete kills option doesn't actually work like that, IIRC. Any AI with some leftover units will show up as 'alive' but as soon as you take all AI cities you will still win conquest (unless someone settles / takes a city IBT of course).

You don't RC
This is how it works in Vanilla/Warlords. And not exactly: "require complete kills" means that once you take all the cities, if one or more units are scattered on the map (ships, workers, or military) you need to kill all of them to eliminate that Civ. If there's a settler somewhere and he can settle a city, you must locate and conquer that city, and all the units scattered. This happened in Civ 2, i remember for sure. Not sure about Civ 3.

In BtS there're invisible units (spies) which can't be killed, but only caught and only with RNG luck. This is the real problem of that option.

I suggest to KCD to give to the settler sentry 1 and 2, navigation 1 and 2, morale and mobility to let the teams decide where to settle but to not use that broken option.
In case, change also the position (1 E or NE). No one will SiP, sure like hell. But that option can't be left on a competition game.

 

[shakabrade]

Like PD needed any more support to rock on Good to see you return to the SGOTMs, anyway...

It seems we'll be more Plastic than Ducks for this SGOTM

 

[Deckhand]

It seems we'll be more Plastic than Ducks for this SGOTM

Aren't those little ducklings freezing in the snow in your avatar?

 

[WastinTime]

I prefer the gimmicky, fun start the way it stands. Fresh new options to explore and abuse, or just to add new twists! I don't see it causing any problems as LowtherCastle explained.

 

[Ronnie1]

I feel like some of this thread is starting to border on "strategy".

I believe the game parameters were posted July 14.

 

[vranasm]

You don't RC

I remember playing either an AW BOtM game or G-minor with AW require complete kills and you are only partially right

even though to completely eliminate an Civ you indeed need to kill all units of that civ, but to win conquest victory you have to kill all cities of all civs only...

even though it doesn't make much sense I remember couple of people finishing conquest with AI's alive, but cities killed... I remember that even I was surprised by this behavior in my runthrough.

 

[WastinTime]

Remember the BotM where we started with 4 keshiks on a Great Plains and 'the swede' put a bunch of AI scouts on islands in the corner?

IIRC, That was 'require complete kills' and many players accidentally won conquest because the scouts failed to prevent it once all cities were gone.

 

[vranasm]

Remember the BotM where we started with 4 keshiks on a Great Plains and 'the swede' put a bunch of AI scouts on islands in the corner?

IIRC, That was 'require complete kills' and many players accidentally won conquest because the scouts failed to prevent it once all cities were gone.

yeah that should be.... i didn't even knew we had to kill some scouts on islands in the corner since it wasn't needed...

 

[kcd_swede]

I prefer the gimmicky, fun start the way it stands. Fresh new options to explore and abuse, or just to add new twists! I don't see it causing any problems as LowtherCastle explained.

My question is this:
If you capture all of a civ's cities but it has an unkilable spy/great spy left, DO THOSE CAPTURED CITIES SUFFER from "we yearn to join our motherland"? Can the AP or UN vote to "return city X to its rightful owner"?

There are some game mechanics which are affected by whether a civ is "alive" or not, but I'm not sure which. If two teams capture the same civ, but in one team's save there is a spy left and in the other the civ is dead... how are those games different? Is it a big difference or a negligable one? Most notably, (given the UN VC requirement) do civs with no cities get to vote in AP/UN elections (even if it is zero votes for you, it could be a big problem for me)?

Unless negligable, I'm inclined to remove the "require complete kills" setting, and make changes so you don't all lose conquest defeat in turn 0.

 

[Jastrow]

IIRC, That was 'require complete kills' and many players accidentally won conquest because the scouts failed to prevent it once all cities were gone.

Even worse... Many players accidently LOSS by conquest, when they killed the last city, before actually capturing one (we started without a settler in that scenario). I guess with no cities on the map, EVERYONE loses!?!

 

[UnforcedError]

even though to completely eliminate an Civ you indeed need to kill all units of that civ, but to win conquest victory you have to kill all cities of all civs only...

even though it doesn't make much sense I remember couple of people finishing conquest with AI's alive, but cities killed... I remember that even I was surprised by this behavior in my runthrough.

Yep, that's exactly what I said as well. BLubmuz just keeps misunderstanding my posts.
I think I actually prefer this start to a Dr.Evil auto-win. Who knows, that scout might actually be able to defend the city...