The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[futurehermit]

Copper in capital + close, soft target that gives us ivory for a elephant war against Monty to give us control of our entire continent? That's a pretty smooth-sailing game imo. Especially, when you throw in stone for the pyramids to a leader that benefits from it the most imho (Pericles is pretty clearly a strong SE/warmongering leader).

That's not a criticism of Winston for picking this game, because it is still fun! I'm just being descriptive here.

I don't think we need to move up to emperor, but I do think we need to try and play some games that are not as good of fit. An industrious civ with cheap harbors on an archipelago map is excellent fit (GLH = win). An excellent rushing civ with copper in the capital and a close, soft target is excellent fit (rush = win).

I've been thinking a lot about leader/map fit lately (I made a thread on it). Some of the most entertaining games I've had recently (I've been playing a lot of random leaders) have been bad fit situations. One was really quite fun where I had GENGHIS on the coast with no close neighbour, lol. I managed to build the GLH and was settling a bunch of offshore islands, etc. before finally expanding enough toward Mansa that I could attack him and continue expanding my empire. That game was pretty interesting.

Something to think about

Do we want to use the setting to turn goody huts off? It is nice to keep them, because I always play with them in my games, but they seem to be tipping the balance a lot in making our decisions about the best ball saves. We're basically, usually getting great pops from huts and eliminating bad pops from huts pretty much entirely. That's making things easier for us imo. Like, we picked the save where we popped astronomy for free in the Bismarck game, and that was one of the main tipping points for picking that save. In the current game, Vale freely admits that pops from huts helped his rush go much faster than planned whereas I didn't have the same good fortune from huts and my rush was slower (I'm not saying I played as well as Vale either!! But popping two important techs from huts shaves a considerable amount of crucial early game turns).

Anyways, it is just something we can consider as an alternative to going up a difficulty level

 

[Bleys]

Turning off huts is an excellent idea. Getting a couple techs from huts is almost as good as rushing a neighbor or building an important wonder sometimes (in fact, sometimes hut-pops can LEAD to those things quicker).

I am not busting Winston for the map, though, we still have no idea what else is going on here. Monty is a PITA neighbor. If anything, perhaps the stone should have been deleted completely, or the copper. Either would have led to a much more challenging game (isnt there another copper in the Tundra? Not so easy to rush with bad-city copper, heh).

But I agree with hermit here, Mids plus PHI leader plus a whole continent that looks pretty rich resource-wise would be a pretty straightforward "turtle SE to space" thing. Maybe we can sort of "agree" to pursue a VC that will present the most challenging path once we figure out where we stand after the next couple rounds.

 

[vale]

Offline games I always turn off events and huts. So either of those options would be great in my opinion.

Incidentally, playing no huts might be why I'm not the biggest fan of hunting.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I agree with turning off both huts and random events. They're fun, and I rarely play without them, but they're unbalancing in this format.

On the question of using WB to pre-edit a map, although it goes against my gut instincts, the present game has just about convinced me that it's necessary. But only in a very limited manner.

Having copper in the fat cross was unfortunate here, and it counted heavily against the save when I made my choice. With another three hours of regens, I probably would've found a map as good as the present one, but without such a major early advantage. On reflection, I should've just moved or deleted the copper.

The danger, though, is that editing the map moves us in the direction of creating scenarios (I feel the same about choosing the AI leaders). It would be all too easy to start making wholesale changes, making the map feel contrived and reducing the range of choices available to the player.

Allowing a single action in WB - limited to changing, deleting, or moving a resource - would be the best option imo.

 

[futurehermit]

I don't think we should muck around with the WB. And I don't think we should bash strong starts per se.

Look at this current game. We had copper in our capital for our UU and how many people rushed??? Not everyone. Some that tried, failed. So, even a "strong" position doesn't mean that all monarch players can capitalize on it. And not everyone can recover from a successful rush either.

So, yeah, Vale had a monster save, but can every player working their way into monarch do that? No way. But seeing how powerful his approach was is educational imo. Of course it takes some of the "oomph" out of playing on, especially if we keep on rollin' in a strong way, but there is still a lot that can be demonstrated in this game.

Basically, I just think when looking for maps in the future, we should have fairly loose criteria and avoid mucking with the WB. But hopefully we can play some maps that are worse fit for the leader we get.

 

[Diamondeye]

Frankly I would like the starts more like the ones I normally play. Completely random. That way we will be thrown into some easy ones (like MC I), and some hard ones (looking foward to it!).

 

[Winston Hughes]

Frankly I would like the starts more like the ones I normally play. Completely random. That way we will be thrown into some easy ones (like MC I), and some hard ones (looking foward to it!).

Great. Since the current map was such a disasterous choice (as you have repeatedly implied), I won't offer my services in future. Frankly, I can do without being told over and over again that I've done a terrible job. Sorry for trying to help out.

 

[vale]

There is nothing wrong with the map or your choices that I have seen. I personally think this map combined with this leader is a great antithesis to the first games map offering a completely different play style to be exhibited.

 

[Winston Hughes]

There is nothing wrong with the map or your choices that I have seen. I personally think this map combined with this leader is a great antithesis to the first games map offering a completely different play style to be exhibited.

Thanks, I really appreciate your comments. It's so depressing to spend ages picking what you think is a great map (for many reasons, but mainly the one you mention), but then to hear seemingly endless complaints about the difficulty or whatever.

Oh, and... (for vale's eyes only)

Spoiler :

I just looked at your save. Wow. If anything that round was even more impressive than the first.

When I tested the map I tried several strategies, and the strongest one was very similar to yours (early rush on Pete, GW and Pyramids, most of the same city site and development choices, almost identical tech path). But I was nowhere near as quick to take out Monty or to discover the other continent. And your 700ad empire is far stronger than mine in pretty much every department. Edit: And, of course, I had the considerable advantage of knowing the map in advance.

I know from reading your comments here and elsewhere that you have a very deep understanding of the micro aspects of the game, and, for me, this was a great demonstration of how such an understanding can make a strong strategy much stronger.

 

[Bleys]

Frankly I would like the starts more like the ones I normally play. Completely random. That way we will be thrown into some easy ones (like MC I), and some hard ones (looking foward to it!).

Given the long, drawn out nature of our schedule, I dont think this "take anything" plan will work out very well. There is just too much chance of getting a really easy map. I think we are best off letting a non-Roster player who isnt planning to play the first few rounds themselves pick.

Great. Since the current map was such a disasterous choice (as you have repeatedly implied), I won't offer my services in future. Frankly, I can do without being told over and over again that I've done a terrible job. Sorry for trying to help out.

I dont think its a disaster Winston. Vales strong play (and a couple others, actually) made it LOOK easy, but it really wasnt. Copper in the BFC is the only "negative" IMHO, and I didnt even have that since I moved my settler NW, away from the corn, toward the sea. Dont worry about it mate, you did us a solid favor, half the random starts I generate these days look like a win before I even settle my capitol, especially on Monarch level, where the question isnt "can I win this game" its "how will I go about winning this game, because losing on Monarch isnt likely". Add the "Succession Game Extra Concentration" and its far more difficult to find a challenging map, for this group of players anyway.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I dont think its a disaster Winston.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but there was more than a little sarcasm behind my reference to the map as 'disastrous'. If an entirely random map would've made for a better game, then I must have totally messed it up. I don't believe I did. And, as you might have guessed, I found the suggestion more than a little irritating, especially given how early it is in the current game.

Indeed, most of this discussion about how to choose a map would be better saved until later, when I can properly explain my choice, and when any comments and criticisms will be based on how the map plays, rather than how it looks like it's going to play. I do wish I'd deleted the copper, but that's more because there have been so many comments (in this thread) about how easy the map is, than because it really harmed the game itself.

 

[r_rolo1]

Winston, remember the saga that was the first Saladin ALC because of the maps? People never get satisfied with the maps ( Why don't I have a grassland fur in my BFC? Why do I have a grassland gems ? ) , but they can brag with someone when the map was delivered by someone else...

And I really don't understand this kind of comments of cooper making the game easy..... The game isn't just about the starting BFC, you know.... Remember the obscenely good starting BFC that S man shun in the first Sal BFC? It only had access via galley to other civs , and it was only one.... the avaliable good land was few as well. This only to say that, not sawing the rest of the map, I can't really say if the map is good or not. But I believe that our current map maker had done a good job so far

 

[Winston Hughes]

Why don't I have a grassland fur in my BFC?

Thankfully nobody's been quite so demanding here.

I still don't regret choosing a map for this game, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing the different strategies people go for.

It's been highly educational so far, trying to figure out all the different approaches that could be taken, and watching to see which ones people adopt (btw, kudos to Bleys for trying something radically different from what I imagined in the first round). Plus it compensates (a little) for not being able to participate in the game myself.

And I think there's a very interesting debate to be had about what makes a good map (both in general, and for the MC format), and how to go about getting one. When the time comes (ie. once the results of the current experiment are known ), I'll be especially interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

 

[futurehermit]

I think there is nothing wrong with the map that was chosen at all. It just turns out that what we were given some of us were able to leverage it really well into a smooth-sailing game. That is still educational! It just makes it harder for the players to feel like there is "challenge" at a certain point, especially because we are playing on monarch and have a pile of good players. I love playing starts like this a lot, but I rarely finish a game once I have a feeling that it is in the bag. However, finding starts where you know you will struggle, but still probably win in the end is an extremely difficult tight-rope to walk.

That's why I like to think about it in terms of "fit". It would be nice if we could get some average-to-bad-fit starts, but again that is not a criticism of Winston at all. I think the map was fine and as I mentioned not everyone rushed, not everyone built the pyramids, etc. etc.

 

[r_rolo1]

@ Winston

It depends strongly of what I pretend for the map....

In the LHC I normally try to get a island that can harbor 8 / 9 decent cities, because the games can get really twitchy if you use a smaller island ( and bigger than that is just crazy in standart maps.... Gilga one had a land mass that covered 25 % of the tiles and the game was obscenely easy ).

In the NC I have some more liberty and try to make more tematic maps. The last one ( the Sitting duck one ) I made with the express propose of making a peaceful victory easily acheivable, but with a interesting twist if you wanted to go war ( the U shape forced SoD vs figths and to eliminate one enemy at the time... ), the KK was a natural shore Pangea tailored for Keshik spree, the Brennus one was more costumer tailored ( Bleys asked for a global highlands one and Agg AI, I choosed one with fractal like shoreline and the map became somewhat bitter sweet, too dificult for a easy peace path ( your only land neighbour was GK ) and too easy for a bloody one if you took care to not let one AI became a mogul )....

My worse experience so far was the Sal ALC. S man asked me some very specific stuff that gave bad maps ( in spite of looking in the starting BFC ) in the first try and in the second S man choosed on propose the worse map, both in BFC as in showcasing ( IMHO it needed a determined axe rush to take advantage of the Louis capitol, but S man wanted to showcase the Pro trait ..... ).... not that I'm blamming S man, but he heard too much the peanut gallery on that one....

If you want some more insight on this, there is a " Guide to map creation" in the strategy articles. It is a nice reference of what to expect of all the mapscripts in all of their possible variances (and has lots of pictures too ). It doesn ot substitute some hours looking at WB regens, but it is a good place to start....

To end , my experience says that the maps result better when the "costumer" has a smaller shopping list ... Unfortunately most of players don't go far beyond the major scripts ( Pangea, Continents, B&S , Fractal, Hemispheres ) and even in this ones they don't fully explore all the options ( to give a example, playing in a Natural shoreline Pangea makes Collosus far more useful than a normal Pangea, because it has far more lakes and coastal tiles ). It is far easier to give them a cool map that they didn't expected than if you are more streamlined by the purchase.....

 

[Diamondeye]

Great. Since the current map was such a disasterous choice (as you have repeatedly implied), I won't offer my services in future. Frankly, I can do without being told over and over again that I've done a terrible job. Sorry for trying to help out.

Hey! I was not trying to bring you down or anything, sorry mate. I was merely stating that I ususally play random starts and I am mostly used to that. Having a map generated for me with the greeks, a soft neighboor and nice terrain was just what I felt like biased. But as I have said in the MC II thread, I trust your word that this won't be as easy as someone makes it look.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but there was more than a little sarcasm behind my reference to the map as 'disastrous'. If an entirely random map would've made for a better game, then I must have totally messed it up. I don't believe I did. And, as you might have guessed, I found the suggestion more than a little irritating, especially given how early it is in the current game.

Indeed, most of this discussion about how to choose a map would be better saved until later, when I can properly explain my choice, and when any comments and criticisms will be based on how the map plays, rather than how it looks like it's going to play. I do wish I'd deleted the copper, but that's more because there have been so many comments (in this thread) about how easy the map is, than because it really harmed the game itself.

Sorry, I was not trying to rack you down and I am sure none of the others were either. I think the problem here is that we are actually getting safe an Monarch, so a start that looks easy becomes a problem.

Thankfully nobody's been quite so demanding here.

I still don't regret choosing a map for this game, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing the different strategies people go for.

It's been highly educational so far, trying to figure out all the different approaches that could be taken, and watching to see which ones people adopt (btw, kudos to Bleys for trying something radically different from what I imagined in the first round). Plus it compensates (a little) for not being able to participate in the game myself.

And I think there's a very interesting debate to be had about what makes a good map (both in general, and for the MC format), and how to go about getting one. When the time comes (ie. once the results of the current experiment are known ), I'll be especially interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

Hmmm. I wouldn't have anything against playing a map you generated for MC III, although that is Bleys' choice, since he will probably be in charge of MC III.


On an entirely different topic:
I just had this idea - inspired alot by the Nobles Club originally led by Bleys.
We start a MCSG aswell! I suggest that the difficulty is around Emp-Imm, since we are getting comfortable at Monarch and SGs often draw out a higher level of play. My idea is something like this:

Idea I:

We start a SG with the Roster players as, well, roster players. We then find some of the shadow players / lurkers to start another SG from the same save, simultaneously.​

Idea II:

We start a SG with some of the roster players and some featured players (I am thinking 3-3) in the roster. Both the roster players and the featured players will change from SG to SG.​

Comment please

 

[Winston Hughes]

Hey! I was not trying to bring you down or anything, sorry mate.

Sorry for being snappy. I was having a very bad day, plus I was getting rather tired of all the comments about the map. Your remarks just pushed me over the edge.

I think the problem here is that we are actually getting safe an Monarch, so a start that looks easy becomes a problem.

I take your point, though there is a difference between an easy-looking start and an easy map.

As it is, you guys having played from vale's monster-save, the latter part of this game could well prove too easy. Had you played from a different save, then it definitely would've been more of a challenge. If I'd realised just how high the standard of play would be (from vale), I would've chosen a nastier start to prevent such a super-charged first round.

Even then, I doubt any game on Monarch is going to present a really long-lasting challenge for this group of players in this format (with or without vale-esque brilliance).

Personally, I find all but the very toughest maps (which aren't much fun - eg. totally isolated with room for only three crappy cities) to be easy wins on Monarch, and my impression is that this is true of most MC players. Combined with the best ball format, this will make it nigh-on impossible to find a suitable map where the AI still poses a real threat in the modern era.

Hmmm. I wouldn't have anything against playing a map you generated for MC III, although that is Bleys' choice, since he will probably be in charge of MC III.

Well, I'm hoping I'll have time to play the next MC. As educational as it's been, picking a map isn't nearly as much fun as actually participating in the game.

 

[Bleys]

OK. a couple topics to discuss before we start the next round. Picking a leader and having someone outside the series create a map that isnt a "good fit" for that particular leader.

As I said in the other thread, random leaders is fine for offline play, but I dont think its the best option for a series like this. We want to avoid the "easier" leaders, dont we? Not only that, but once we pick a leader (and I think we should pick mostly underused leaders who rarely get games showcased) it makes the job of picking a map that much easier. With a specific leader, and an outsider choosing a specific map (but not telling us, which will keep it "random" in our own minds), the map-chooser can look for specific conditions that arent the best fit.

I would like to start the next round pretty quickly, so lets get this issue resolved. The current game is pretty much over, so I was hoping to start the next one before next weekend.

 

[Winston Hughes]

On getting a suitably difficult map:
Taking into account both the strength of the players and the fact that the format itself makes a game much easier, to find a map that will retain a genuine challenge much past the third round would require a bad start in a bad area for the player, and AIs with strong starts and plenty of good land to settle.

Using Refar's script chooser with all or most options open, you could spend days regenerating and not find a map like that. Sticking to Hemispheres and Continents would give a much better chance, though there's still no guarantee we'd find something tough enough in reasonable time. Alternatively, Tectonics might be worth a shot. I've seen it produce some insanely tough starts (mostly for AIs, though). However, in my experience the maps tend to be very different from what most players play on, so it could compromise the educational aspect a little.

In any case, given that we also want something that's not a good 'fit' for the leader/civ, whoever chooses the map (not me, I want to play this time) will have to be very patient or very lucky.

Oh, and btw, do we still want to avoid isolated starts?

On the length of turnsets:
From the point of view of a non-player, I didn't think the longer early turnsets in MC2 were especially helpful. They made it harder (that is, more time consuming) to compare different saves/reports in any detail. I'd suggest going back to the timescale used in MC1.

On the choice of leader:
Let's narrow things down.

Creative, Philosophical, Industrious and Expansive can be excluded for the sake of variety. For the sake of difficulty, I'd leave out Financial and Spiritual too (although others may disagree on the latter). We can eliminate a couple more by avoiding leaders being used in other current (or just finished) games on this forum.

Of the remainder, Julius and Cyrus both have overpowered UUs, so I'd leave them out too (it'd be a bad idea to ask the map-maker to avoid Iron or Horses imo - not only could it make the process even more time consuming, it'd also give us a bit of an artificial advantage, knowing that certain resources were not available).

By my reckoning that leaves:

Genghis
Hammy
Toku
Churchill
Napoleon
Charlemagne

Any of those would be fine by me.

 

[futurehermit]

I would be in favour of any of those as well, although I think Napoleon is clearly stonger than most of the rest of that list.

I think Genghis, Hammy, Toku, or Charlemagne would present a challenge assuming we didn't get a solid start/fit. Churchill is strong once his UU comes online.

I prefer shorter turnsets, especially earlier on. I know that people like to play out what they had in mind, but I would rather have more rounds during the crucial early periods and check our egos at the door when it comes to voting