SGOTM 21 Pre-Announcement Discussion Thread

[Deckhand]

Now that SGOTM20 is behind us, let's talk about SGOTM21.
I've been (slowly) playtesting another scenario from BSPollux. I will say that it is very different from #20 and interesting with lots of decisions. We would like to hear your feedback on the following:

1. When to start? We are targeting a December 1 start date. Is that too soon? Do you need a longer break? How much time from Game Announcement/SignUp Thread is needed (we probably won't have the announcement until mid November).

2. Progress Graphs accessibility? Some have expressed concern about the information available in the Progress Graphs. With some effort, AlanH could probably implement some scripts to delay their publication. It's my belief that speculating about the other team's graphs is part of the fun; so I wouldn't change how it's been run the last several games. But, what do you all think?

3. Related, how do you feel about having all teams submit saves at particular dates to facilitate comparison?

4. Finally, as in previous Pregame Discussion threads, any and all ideas are welcome. They may or may not get into SGOTM21, but could also be used in a later game (or an xOTM).

Thanks, Deckhand and BSPollux

 

[haphazard1]

Pre-game discussion already? Excellent!

First, I want to thank AlanH and Deckhand and BSPollux (and all other Civ Fanatics admin/staff) for all the work they put into setting up and running these SGOTMs and the forums. Your efforts are much appreciated, even if us players sometimes complain. (Sometimes complain a LOT. ) I hope you get plenty of entertainment following our games.

On the questions:

1) December 1 sounds good to me. A break would be nice to have, and time is needed to get the scenario finished. Of course if the scenario was ready I would not object to starting sooner.

2) I enjoy the discussion and wild (usually wrong) speculation that watching the graphs produces. Teams that play more slowly do get an advantage, though. If some kind of time-delay could be done, with graphs only visible up to the in-game date of the least-advanced team, that would be fairer while still allowing some discussion of what other teams are doing.

3) If there was a time-delay implemented then I don't think this would matter much. Having saves for particular dates might be interesting for after-game comparisons -- seeing where each team was at 1000 BC, 500 AD, etc. could make contrasts more evident.

If frequency of saves is more the concern, then maybe just require at least one save per N turns played? For a team game, I would think no individual turnset would last more than (grabbing a number) 30 turns at a time even in the early game. Particularly in the early game, even. This number could be smaller.

4) Ideas.... In one of these games the map maker really will get evil and require paratroopers or subs to go under ice or something. Of course that means more turns needed in game and thus a longer game...not necessarily a good thing. I trust the scenario designers to do something interesting.

 

[enKage]

1) 1st december sounds good, but for opening sign ups. Starting just before Xmas time is weird.... Initial turnset has often the most discussion + grand strategy has to be worked out, so better have all players involved.

Start 1 Jan IMO is better, we really need some rest

2) doent matter

3) Yes for certain dates savegames + screens + reports

4) isolatated/semiisolated start, wonders restriction, more hidden goals, random personalities , start as horde in barb land and have to capture cities, civic restriction: can only choose among some of them,

I especially like some wonders restrictions:, fe.:
1) you are not allowed to build more than 3 during the game
2) if you capture one, you get a mission or are forced to a certain decision. Fe - capturing GLH forces to create at least 1 colony in a period of time, capturing GW forces to build walls in certain number of cities,
3) constructiong wonders in players cities does not bring mission or after-built requirements

 

[WastinTime]

1) agree with enKage, Jan 1

2) leave graphs as-is. It's fun and harmless.

3) don't care either way

4) Suggestion: Something that makes us build or at least rewards a 'tall' empire instead of 'wide'. Seems like too often the only building we construct is granary. The game would need to go deep into the tech tree, but somehow limit us to 10? cities. (and I don't mean...gift away all but 10 cities on the last turn )

 

[nocho]

1) As our team finished well over a month ago, I'd be fine with December 1st, but January 1st sounds good too.

2) Graphs are fine with me, add to the fun. While slower playing teams might have some advantage, I don't think anyone deliberately plays significantly slower just to get to read more from other team's graphs. And if they do, it comes at a price (less time for remaining moves and might draw wrong conclusions). Sounds sooo civ4.

3) Don't care much. Hope teams won't get penalized for forgetting to upload their 1AD save though.

4) Anything is fine, some variant theme adds to the spice. As long as it's not a fantasy map or marathon, I'll gladly play anything.

 

[elitetroops]

1) Agree with Jan 1.

2) No problem with graphs. Let people guess, most of the guesses are wrong anyway.

3) PR uploads like 7 times/turn. Is there any other way to do it?

4) We've been given some extra techs at the start. How about getting to choose a tech, for example pick one out of 3-4 options (not necessarily limited to ancient techs). When team threads are opened, teams must decide on this first, then get the starting save with the tech added after reporting their choice by pm. This could lead to teams taking different paths right from the start. Though it would be difficult to come up with what techs to offer, so that they would make at least some difference to the game, without being too overpowered and without making one choice the obvious choice... AI would have to get some bonuses also, of course.

 

[Gumbolt]

Jan 1st sounds fine. Whatever will get more teams involved. I assume this is the date the game will actually start as opposed to sign ups.

Graphs are not that useful. Sure we may have guessed chariots and oracle but by time PR had done this this game we were too far in to change our plans. Show me a SGOTM where a team has not gone for Oracle??

Agree with Elite our team was uploading by turn anyway. I guess we could do a summary on turn x if required. Might get lost among other posts unless the scribe puts something on the first page? I thought BS Pollox did a great job writing up the games anyway.

Try to make teams get out of their comfort areas. I always like at least 1 challenger AI. I still remember the invading vikings on our game 2 or so SGOTM's back. (Perhaps a bit too hard. Really unlucky RNG on our side.) You could limit teams to x cities? Max 10? Isolation could be interesting but may limit teams in terms of options. You could remove all easily accessible horse to stop chariot/HA rushes.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Now that SGOTM20 is behind us, let's talk about SGOTM21.

Thanks guys - thoroughly enjoyed my first SGOTM and intend to play this one, hoping everyone in CGU will sign up again.

• The Festive period is a funny one with some people having less time and others more. Happy to go with the consensus, which seems to favour Jan 1 at the moment. Not sure what the ideal timings are and have little experience so hard to say.
  
• What is the plan re the Lurker's thread this time - it was a fun place to be once we had finished playing but with some teams struggling for players would like to see as many people as possible on teams, even as observers. Is it possible for there to be a private thread where the staff can post to each other that is then opened up to the teams as they finish?
  
• I think the graphs are ok as they are but would be good if teams were encouraged to upload at specific points.
  
• What level will this game be at? I got the feeling Immortal scared people off, given the competition is between teams rather than against the AI I think anything Monarch or above would be ok (although a SGOTM on Settler would be a different kind of fun!!).
  

 

[Noble Zarkon]

somehow limit us to 10? cities. (and I don't mean...gift away all but 10 cities on the last turn )

 

[astre]

1- 2 -3 don't care, will follow

ideas for a possible future xOTM:
all civ are completely mountain lockeded with a circle river flowing. space for 3-5 cities only. no gift city possible (teleport stuff).
add some well chosen resource from our side (like no marble, stone, oil or alu, ... from our side) and the experience should be very interesting

 

[LowtherCastle]

I think the better question for #1 is whether anyone is not going to play if it's sooner or later. Participation is rapidly dwindling and my hypothesis is that one possible reason is the lengthy gap between games.

 

[LowtherCastle]

One idea I toyed with in BOTMs I never made: Provide some variety of units at the beginning of the game. Enough that there is a maintenance cost for keeping them all. This creates a trade-off decision from the beginning.

Possible units:
1. scout(s) placed here and there
2. worker(s) placed in remote locations (unknown whether or not they are on the home landmass)
3. settler(s) placed in far apart locations
4. a caravel with scout or other sea vessel that is landlocked until a fort or city is placed on an adjacent tile
5. a galley stuck on the ocean until city culture allows it access to a coastal tile
6. other units of any flavor
7. decoy units that scout to a dead end making it obvious they should be disbanded
8. et cetera

 

[Gumbolt]

I think biggest risk for next game is number of teams. I do hope FE stick around and find new players. Will PR rise again?

I think teams need to be inviting more players on here to join. I know most of PR started out because someone emailed them and asked them to join. Same is probably true of other teams.

Not saying we should start a revolution but getting 7+ teams would be good.

 

[enKage]

And another idea - Teams should be created by drawing

 

[lymond]

one possible reason is the lengthy gap between games.

I'd hypothesize the opposite actually. Seems the last several games started rather fast after the previous one, giving no time to catch up on other things. I think a good break is nice. I'd vote for waiting until after New Year's for the new game. The team could do a better job of advertising the game. Overall there is no question that things have died down a bit, but I see no reason why a sufficient competition can't be held in a couple of months.

I definitely think mandatory uploads at milestone is a good idea. PR uploads consistently because it just makes sense. I don't think holding uploads for ages provides that much of an advantage, and the only team(s) that seem to do are miles better than the other teams anyway. Likewise, I don't understand ruffled feathers over Graph info. This is a friendly competition. As long as all teams are held to the same milestones, graph reading is just part of the competition and fun.

 

[Jastrow]

The graphs are fun and harmless... Uploads... It might be nice to have uploads at specific dates to make compairison easier at the end... I personally never do some compairisons, but I like to read them if other do the work . Not a big deal either way to me.

For ideas, I for one would like a space race teams game... Perhaps one which is forced "small empire" as well... I may well be in the minority on this tho...

For scheduling... I am OK either way... I will likely not have access to a civ computer (but will have access to forum discuions) from December 20 to Jan 10, so maybe a Jan 1st start would be better for me, but not a big deal either way...

 

[BSPollux]

My design goal goal is to reward team play rather than individual skill. That's very difficult because Civ is quite predictable and most mechanics are known. So one very well informed player can make a big difference. I try to offer choices and force the teams to make an informed decision. The best example I can give you is the inner sea in sgotm20. You had to decide if you wanted to get a fleet going or not. If you decided you want to fight back the pirates, use the seafood and conquer the HC early on you'd have to concentrate on that. You couldn't do it 'just a little bit'. It didn't work out too well, as no one tried it, but that's the idea.

About the start date: The map is done. All that's needed is play testing and adjustments based on the results. I want the AI to behave similar all the time, in terms of who founds religions, who build wonders etc. So far its working well, but when Deckhand finishes play testing this version I'll have to make small changes and afterwards test the start again. So extra time will help comparability between the teams by increasing predictability of the AI.

Some things I can say about the new scenario without spoiling anything: I am trying to make you use more turns, I am making the map less rich and the AI more capable of challenging your dominance, map size 'standard' and less restrictive victory conditions.

 

[nocho]

Sounds good, BSP! In any case, your efforts and Deckhand's are much appreciated.

 

[Gumbolt]

Don't over cook the AI. Strong resources are not a bad thing. Of course that hardly mattered on the last map as chariots and HA walked over the map. When you have 21 or so cities before 1ad you can normally sense the game is pretty much already over. I still wonder how the Ai with archers at start would of played out?

Although in previous maps a strong warmonger can make things interesting. Celts and Mongols always make life interesting.

The key to a good map for me is one that does not make one direction the most viable choice. Last game it was chariots/ha and Oracle. Next game?? GLH, Mids and something else?

I like the idea of a wonder based quest based on type of GP points a wonder produces. So a science quest would require Great lib and other GS producing wonders. You could even give the teams the choice. Then require them to settle 5? of that kind of great person. Might work well for GS/GM/GA. Not check GE or GP.

Settling of all GP might also make games more interesting.

 

[FiveRings]

And another idea - Teams should be created by drawing

Yes, add another layer of competition as in HOF but for team play: drawn teams; fixed (max) number of players (so that there is no greater difference than 1 player); start assigning points to the members of the teams for the next 10 games: 8 to winner, 5 to 2nd, 3 to3rd, 1 to 4th, 1 to 5th; get an intermediate list of personal scores after game 4, then after game 7, then after game 10. Could be made with an additional layer of multiplying the scores of the members of the winner of the each cycle of 10 games (or 7 games, or 5 games) by 1.3, the 2nd by 1.2, the third by 1.3; keep a list to show standings after each game. Get some prizes from Firaxis.