Originally posted by DaviddesJ
It seems to me (and cracker has tried to emphasize this, I think) that you should play to "play well" by your own standards, not play to the score system. Set your goals and try to achieve them, but I think it will be a bit sad if everyone plays the same game just because that's what they think will get them the highest score.
I just have to comment on this because Cracker indeed does seem to support this postion. But it makes no sense to me at all. It's like you guys are talking in Martian.
What is the point of playing comparative games in the first place if its not to get the best result? I don't see anything sad about it at all. In fact I think it would be pretty darn sad if everyone isn't striving to play the game that will get them the best outcome. It would seem to render the whole concept of GOTM moot.
Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Well, it does seem that if you want to go for a "late" victory, and have a good score (even relative to people playing for the same victory type) then "milking" is going to be important.
On the other hand, I'd probably argue that the date of the space race victory is more "meaningful" than the score.
I agree with you here. In my previous TBS gaming experince "speed" was always considered the primary mark of excellance in comparative games. In the CFC GOTM you essentially have to throw that sort of mindset out of the window.
In playing #19 to a space race victory I had to totally and radically force myself to play in a way that, based on my previous experience, seemed illogical and pointless. "Milking" as I go and still trying to maintain some semblence of a speed run to satisfy the dual demands of both the whacky Civ3 scoring system that values only happy population and territory to the exclusion of everything else, as well as the Jason scoring system that seeks, probably hopelessly, to balance out the different victory types.
Playing for speed and high score at the same time is like taking a bath in a tub of mud. Scrub all you like but you'll never feel clean. But like a good little boy I "milked as I went", which was very demanding and almost exhausting. Learning to milk draws one to micromanagement misery, though I am sure that as one masters the art of milking one would learn to do it properly without extreme nitpicking.
Yeah, plainly, I blew GOTM #19 by chosing the space race victory condition and sticking to it. Because of the Sipahi and the configuration of the map early conquest and or domination was the way to go because
Aeson sets the best dates based on map parameters and doesn't adjust it based on factors like "how will the UU affect the game" . Essentially for about 70% of the effort, time and skill I put in my game I could have scored much higher by simply going for domination from the opening bell. But I didn't recognize that, nor did I recongnize that Cracker set this up to be an "easy Emperor level" game.
Doesn't bother me though, win some, lose some. In future games I will be able to draw from experience and hopefully be able to figure out how to take advantage of the way cracker has modified the particular games.
To get the best result, comparatively speaking, you have to combine solid play with insights into the bizarre scoring system with intuitive glances into the mad mapmakers mind.
Experienced, expert players like Sir Pleb and Moonsinger can "see" these things pretty clearly and will place very well each time. The flip side of that is that in any given month there will be players who stumble in to a high positon on the final list because they accidentally picked the best victory condition, and players who bumbled into a lower position because they blew the same call.
The only way to equalize the victory conditions would be to base the curve on results. You can't get it right based on projections.
