Types of Test Maps as Originally Defined by DynamicSpirit:
A couple of general observations in response to various posts here:
Test maps can mean very different things depending on how customized they are. Examples are:
1) You set up a game that has the same difficulty and map script etc. as the (S)GOTM, just to get a feel for what playing Civ is like with those parameters.
I would call this a 0 dimensional test game, because it is similar to the real game only in the map script and those game and map parameters available in the Options tab of the F8 Window. Note that some map types have sub-parameters that may not appear in the Options tab, so one would only know the values of those sub-parameters, if the scenario designer published them as part of the scenario description. So, depending on the map type, the test game might have normal islands whereas the real game might have tiny islands, assuming the scenario designer did not publish that particular map type sub-parameter.
The advantage of the type 0 test game is no "evil" World Builder editing of the underlying map is required.
The disadvantage of the type 0 test game is the starting position of the map is determined by random. The game also randomly positions the players units such that each unit's visual ranges are either adjacent or overlapping with at least one other player's unit. The visual ranges of each player's unit are modified as usual by being on a hill, having a view from a hill/shore be obstructed by an adjacent hill/forest/both, etc. There is virtually no chance that the terrain and position of the units will even remotely match those in the real game. The players' optimized progress of the test game and the players' optimized progress of the real game will likely only be the same only for turn 0 prior to ending the turn. From that point forward they will most likely rapidly diverge.
I like the name "type 0 test game", because the zero helps to remind me that its not really a test game at all, since it is effectively a completely different game, just on a vaguely similar map.
2) You do (1) AND you edit the starting area so it looks the same as in the advertised starting screenshot.
I would call this a 1 dimensional test game. because it adds the first useful dimension, the knowledge of the area near the the Settler as revealed in the real game which is quickly expanded to what the initial City and first 1-2 turns of unit movement in the real game reveal.
Probably all SGTOM Teams will also move all non-Settler units in the real game such that maximum or more important plots are revealed to provide the best BFC information that permits the locally optimal place for the Settler to build the initial City. The Settler is usually not moved. It is normally at this extremely early point in the real game that the test game is made by first creating a type 0 test game (step 1 above). Next use World Builder to modify the start area of the map to precisely match exactly what terrain and all units visible in the real game. Lacking any reason to do otherwise, the test game's Settler can be left in position and the terrain under and around be changed to match what is visible in the real game, including other units.
This type 1 test game can be used to decide where to settle the first City. Next actually settle the City on the test game "winning" plot in the matching plot in the real game. This may reveal a few more plots and will reveal the entire BFC of the new city. The type 1 test game undergoes another round of World Builder, so it is again in visually identical to the real game.
The advantage of the type 1 test game is it can now be used to plan the City with perfect precision until a second City is settled or until the enemy enters the city's BFC or a neighbors trade network connects with it via River/Sailing or Road.
A type 1 test game is usually finalized by cloning the visible aspects of the real game by the end of turn 2 or maybe turn 3. The exploration progress in the real game can be just as easily tracked in the real game, so there is no point replicating additional revealed plots in the test game, other than make it appear more like the real game. Thus, a type 1 test game is last modified by World Builder in turn 2 or turn 3. Further modification turns it into a type 2 test game as described below.
3) You do (2) AND as you explore the map, you edit your test game and perhaps replay so you're testing on as near as you can get to the same map as the real game.
I like to call this the type 2 test game, because it adds the second and final dimension, the rest of the real map as it becomes available via exploration.
The advantage of the type 2 test game is additional cities can be precisely modeled as well as unit movement over already revealed territory.
The disadvantage is every time the test game's map is modified by World Builder all of the internal, mostly hidden, state of the game is forever lost. This is particularly noticeable in Diplomacy values. The problem is World Builder doesn't have the capability to set this internal, mostly hidden, game state. Even if it did, "thank god" its impossible (due to Civ IV's design and failing that the BUFFY module) to get this internal, mostly hidden game state from the real game.
Sun Tzu Wu's request for coordinates (although he later said he didn't actually want the info) appears to imply he was planning to do (3).
Yes, I was planning a full type 3 test game, otherwise I wouldn't have been concerned about the test game's map edges coinciding with the real game's map edges.
Also, I did want to be able to do this without knowing the Settler's coordinates. I realize now that's not possible even with a GOTM staff provided test game until its BUFFY locked, since otherwise the first attempt at editing the test map would reveal the Settler's coordinates (at least approximately, while trying not to look
.)
The question then is, how far is this within the spirit of the (S)GOTMs? Different people will have different opinions. Personally both (1) and (2) strike me as quite acceptable for getting a feel for the game and starting area, but on a game that is very clearly a completely different game.
A type 0 test game isn't really a test game at, since there's no editing of the map at all. There's really no justification for banning type 0 test games, because you really can't tell all players in a SGOTM that they can't play any SG, GOTM or HoF Game that happens to use the same map type, and map/game parameters.
A type 1 test game is equally as bad as a type 2 test game. The greatest benefit in using a test map is for micromanaging the initial expansion phase. Small gains early on reap huge benefits later. Due to the internal game disconnect (losing the mainly hidden internal game state with each World Builder update), type 2 test game are much less reliable and thus less useful in helping to plan for the real game.
I'm enthusiastic about banning both type 1 test games and type 2 test games.
As an example of the other extreme, suppose in a GOTM we'd decided to reveal the entire map upfront, including locations of resources. Now, someone who had enough patience with worldbuilder could do:
4. Build a test game that happens to have exactly the same map in every detail as the real game.
I think everyone would agree that is completely unacceptable, since playing this test game then playing the GOTM would be no different from playing the real GOTM twice through.
Just curious, do GOTM players use test games? Theoretically, a GOTM player could play several practice runs based on a type 1 test game and then be well practiced for the real game that is the only one that counts. Also, a GOTM player has no team mates, so his use of a test game is much easier to keep secret without even actively doing so.
Back to your interesting example. Let us call this a type 3 test game where the test game is identical to the entire map. The type 3 test game has the major advantage of needing no World Builder changes after Turn 0; this means there will be no mostly hidden internal game state resets due to World Builder invocations. However, a type 3 test game may be surprisingly not much worst than a type 2 test game, because the Random Number Generator is used by over half of Civ IV's game subsystems. The type 3 test game and real game may appear identical until opponent contact and that will be radically different, simply due to a different sequence of random numbers.
So where do you draw the line? Personally, I'm inclined to draw it at (2) (provided the revealed starting area is small), because that seems to me to mark a clear boundary: You are using no more information than is available before playing the game. I stress that's my personal opinion, not a GOTM staff opinion. (3) makes me uncomfortable, since it seems to me potentially too close to pre-playing the actual game, so personally I'd prefer people not to do that, but obviously there's no rule against it (partly because we'd have no way of enforcing such a rule, partly because I'm not sure there is a consensus on whether that's OK or not).
Would a useful way forward for this discussion (which btw I do think is worthwhile, so I'm happy that Sun Tzu Wu's request brought it up) is to try to figure out if there is a consensus on how much information from the real game it's OK to feed into a test map before the test map becomes 'unacceptable'?
I believe your concerns about type 2 test games that are used throughout the game are mostly unwarranted, because they require a lot of effort to maintain and they probably are very inaccurate due to World Builder resetting much of the test game's internal state each time the map is updated, typically each turn set.
I would definitely be in favor of banning all test games, except type 0 test games, which are simply games with the same settings, untouched by World Builder.
How can I want information to make test games easier to maintain while wanting all test games banned:
I have a similar issue with HoF rules that, gasp, allow Tribal Villages. Many very strong Deity Religious Leader Diplomatic Victory #1 games were achieved via popping a critical Technology from a Tribal Village. Though I loath Tribal Villages, it can be next to impossible to beat a #1 game that got such a free Technology via a Tribal Village, so I'm almost forced to use Tribal Villages to compete effectively.
The issue I have with SGOTM is quite similar, I'm strongly against using test games, but it seems no Team has a chance of winning without using them, so I'm reluctantly pursuing the use of test games in SGOTM-13.
Sun Tzu Wu
It serves as a valuable source of inspiration for potential future SGOTM maps 
, in which I case I reserve the right to change my mind!) 
