The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[r_rolo1]

^^ If we want to do bigger turnsets I agree ( in fact , most of the people in game would agree that 2000 BC saves are still very incaractheristic to choose effectively from ... bigger turnsets would ease the choice between saves), but playing outside of weekends will draw people out ( believe me, most of the people of the LHC plays and post at the weekends.... I think that forcing a deadline during the week would draw a lot of people out ). and "I have my reasons" : I simply can't sustain a faster pace than this to balance all my game plate ( still have to finish my LHC, have a SG to play and two coming, just for a example )

 

[Bleys]

I wasnt trying to suggest ANY rounds after 2 land off-weekend, I totally agree that as the game gets farther along, the weekend is a KEY to the success of the schedule.

I like simply making the first and second round longer, and sticking to a week each. That seems much more fluid and easy to manage. 4000 - 1000 BC, 1000 BC to . . . 200 AD? That sound about right? Had we went that way this first game, I think we would have had a vastly different look to all the saves.

 

[Nares]

Had we went that way this first game, I think we would have had a vastly different look to all the saves.

That will be true of nearly every round (except the very last rounds).

A better idea would be to make the first round longer, say 4000Bc-1000BC.

I already raised this issue before. It was dismissed then. Have you changed your mind about it?

 

[r_rolo1]

After seeing how "unmatured" the 2000 BC saves were, I tend to agree now that 1000 BC would have been a better time ( at least would had allowed the axerushers to show their gamble ).

 

[Bleys]

A better idea would be to make the first round longer, say 4000Bc-1000BC.

I already raised this issue before. It was dismissed then. Have you changed your mind about it?

I certainly didnt dismiss it, in fact, I brought it up almost immediately after playing my round.

I like the idea of turning the first 3 rounds into 2, or maybe not quite the full rounds. 4000 - 1000 BC, then 1000 BC to 300 AD ish. That may be just about right. Most players should have at LEAST gotten Alphabet by then so the trade situation wont be as one-sided, and anyone who doesnt have CS by 300 AD has no excuse.

 

[Diamondeye]

That will be true of nearly every round (except the very last rounds).

A better idea would be to make the first round longer, say 4000Bc-1000BC.

I already raised this issue before. It was dismissed then. Have you changed your mind about it?

We dismissed it because the early turns are crucial (had we not drawn a water map with a PRO neighboor, rushes would mean more), meaning that, if you decide to rush, you might want a turnstop after that, so that a player, per example, doesn't do a succesfull rush and then throw it all away (we were planning to make first round 4000BC-10AD), leaving an unusable save.

After seeing how "unmatured" the 2000 BC saves were, I tend to agree now that 1000 BC would have been a better time ( at least would had allowed the axerushers to show their gamble ).

I think we should do this from the next game. I would like to hear some opinions on this from OTAKU and FH, first, though.

I certainly didnt dismiss it, in fact, I brought it up almost immediately after playing my round.

I like the idea of turning the first 3 rounds into 2, or maybe not quite the full rounds. 4000 - 1000 BC, then 1000 BC to 300 AD ish. That may be just about right. Most players should have at LEAST gotten Alphabet by then so the trade situation wont be as one-sided, and anyone who doesnt have CS by 300 AD has no excuse.

4000-1000 BC, 1000BC-300AD sounds good to me, although I still havent learned to calc turns from years properly

 

[OTAKUjbski]

On a different note, I think we need to hammer out the voting system more before the upcoming rounds (and especially if we intend to shorten future game rounds at all).

First, I think we need to answer 5 questions:

• Which saves are eligible for voting? ("Are non-roster player saves eligible?")
• Who is eligible to vote? ("Are non-roster players eligible to vote?")
• Do all votes hold equal weight? ("Do roster players hold more weight?")
• Can players vote for themselves?
• When does voting occur?

----

Independent of those answers, we need to choose a voting system and stick with it.

Based on past input, I think 3 different preferred methods have arisen (NOTE: all tie-breakers are decided by the thread starter king or his deputy scan.):

• One player, one vote, one winner. This is basically the idea we started with. Every player casts a single vote, and the save with the most votes becomes the best ball.
  
  Pros: Simple and easily understood.
  Cons: More likelihood for inconclusive tallies (ties).
  
  
• Strategy voting. This is the system we used for Game 1 Round 2. Every player votes for the strategy they prefer. They then vote for the saves which best support those strategies. The voting is then repeated for an alternate strategy and save. The strategy with the most #1 votes wins ... that strategy's individual save votes are then tallied to determine the 'best ball' save.
  
  Pros: More control over how the game is played (Victory condition).
  Cons: Difficult to explain/understand. Possibility of an inferior save winning because of a preferred strategic preference. The 'strategies' should be defined/explained every round prior to voting.
  
  
• Cumulative. This is a method not yet mentioned. Each player has n number of votes (perhaps n = the number of roster players) to distribute across all the saves. Players can distribute portions of their vote between a set of saves, fully upon one save, or a mixture. The save with the most number of votes wins.
  
  
  For example, if a player has 5 votes, they can distribute all 5 votes to one save or perhaps 3 to one and 2 to another.​
  
  Pros: Simple to understand. Innate ability to "rank" saves. Allows for certain voters to hold more weight than others.
  Cons: not sure yet

 

[OTAKUjbski]

• When does voting occur?

I think voting should happen only on the last day of the Round (one day prior to the next Round, which is currently Thursday).

In addition, I think ONLY VOTING should occur on that last day of the round. All 'discussion' ceases for the last day, which is reserved for only voting, the tallying of votes, and the declaration of the next Round's best ball.

--------

I like the idea of using a Cumulative Voting System.

Roster players have 5 votes. Non-roster players have 3 votes. Non-roster non-players ("lurkers") have 1 vote.

Players may cast a maximum of 1 vote for their own save.

Non-roster saves may receive no more than 3 votes from any one player.

Spoiler an example of how my ballot might look for Game 1 Round 2 :

OTAKUjbski: +1
Vale: +3
Bleys: +1

 

[Diamondeye]

On a different note, I think we need to hammer out the voting system more before the upcoming rounds (and especially if we intend to shorten future game rounds at all).

First, I think we need to answer 5 questions:

• Which saves are eligible for voting? ("Are non-roster player saves eligible?")
• Who is eligible to vote? ("Are non-roster players eligible to vote?")
• Do all votes hold equal weight? ("Do roster players hold more weight?")
• Can players vote for themselves?
• When does voting occur?

1) All saves played from the Best Ball save of last round are eligible.
2) Roster Players, plus the featured player (once that becomes actual)
3) The thread starter is a tiebreaker, but is not allowed to vote unless the situation of a tie (?).
4) Yes, players can vote for themselves.
5) Voting occurs when there is serious doubt/debate about what save should be picked as the best ball (it is up to the thread starter to do this), eventually at a crossroads between two strategies.

Independent of those answers, we need to choose a voting system and stick with it.

Based on past input, I think 3 different preferred methods have arisen (NOTE: all tie-breakers are decided by the thread starter king or his deputy scan.):

• One player, one vote, one winner. This is basically the idea we started with. Every player casts a single vote, and the save with the most votes becomes the best ball.
  
  Pros: Simple and easily understood.
  Cons: More likelihood for inconclusive tallies (ties).
  
  
• Strategy voting. This is the system we used for Game 1 Round 2. Every player votes for the strategy they prefer. They then vote for the saves which best support those strategies. The voting is then repeated for an alternate strategy and save. The strategy with the most #1 votes wins ... that strategy's individual save votes are then tallied to determine the 'best ball' save.
  
  Pros: More control over how the game is played (Victory condition).
  Cons: Difficult to explain/understand. Possibility of an inferior save winning because of a preferred strategic preference. The 'strategies' should be defined/explained every round prior to voting.
  
• Cumulative. This is a method not yet mentioned. Each player has n number of votes (perhaps n = the number of roster players) to distribute across all the saves. Players can distribute portions of their vote between a set of saves, fully upon one save, or a mixture. The save with the most number of votes wins.
  
  
  For example, if a player has 5 votes, they can distribute all 5 votes to one save or perhaps 3 to one and 2 to another.​
  
  Pros: Simple to understand. Innate ability to "rank" saves. Allows for certain voters to hold more weight than others.
  Cons: not sure yet

I prefer the two first, the cumulative, I find silly. How about the 111 voting system, unless at a crossroads between strategies (like we are now, game 1, round 2 played), in which case Strat voting would be used?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

2) Roster Players, plus the featured player (once that becomes actual)

Excluding non-roster players from voting limits lurker interaction. (Which I think we want to encourage .?.?)

As long as non-roster player saves are eligible for best ball consideration, though ... I think excluding non-roster players from voting will be ok.

5) Voting occurs when there is serious doubt/debate about what save should be picked as the best ball ...

I think we're going to find every round will see serious doubt/debate ...

 

[Diamondeye]

Excluding non-roster players from voting limits lurker interaction. (Which I think we want to encourage .?.?)

As long as non-roster player saves are eligible for best ball consideration, though ... I think excluding non-roster players from voting will be ok.



I think we're going to find every round will see serious doubt/debate ...

Both good points, sorry for being so brief, I have to go work now. We'll have to figure something out. Since I think cumulatie is bad, I am having a hard time figuring out how we include shadowers without losing too much influence. I'll be back

 

[Nares]

I think we're going to find every round will see serious doubt/debate ...

Everyone round can virtually be labeled "the first."

With everyone picking up the same save to start a round, I don't see how there will be significant differences between saves, excepting radically different approaches, and...RNG benevolence.

I'd hate to see the RNG be the deciding factor in which save is played, but a campaign that fails due to RNG disaster is just that, a failure.

I think this may begin touching on an issue someone else raised earlier, which was that the format encourages "risky" or "dangerous" play. If you get lucky with the RNG, then you win. If not, you've lost nothing, because someone else (hopefully) took a more practical approach.

 

[Bleys]

I like a "voting period" rather than a single day. If we limit the window to vote, especially to a weekday like Thursday, its possible some folks may not be able to get their vote in. Perhaps adding a time from the day before or the day after, like starting Thursday until 6 PM Friday, votes will be accepted.

I also dont think we want to limit the votes to roster-only. However, I think we should limit eligibility to Roster only. For now its only been a couple extra saves to analyze, but what if 6 people decide to play a round from the Best Ball? We have 11 saves to choose from? I think we risk some real problems down the road if this idea gets more active players in future games.

This leaves a problem of adding guest-saves though, not sure how to deal with that.

For voting, I like the cumulative idea, but limited to 2 games. So you get 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2. That would allow for a war-peace preference, and would weight that preference.

 

[Winston Hughes]

For the time being, I think you should just leave it as "whoever posts a save and a (decent) report gets a vote" and "all saves with decent reports can be voted on". I don't see a load of new players joining the current game, so it's not likely to get out of hand.

For the first round of the following game (assuming there is one), you may need to restrict it to the roster players' saves (unless there's something really special or different amongst the others), just in case there's a lot of new interest.

Oh, and I think that a "no voting for your own save" rule will be necessary. As the games go on, it'll be all too easy for players not to give proper attention to other saves, because they're too wrapped up in their own pre-determined strategies. I'd like to see people advocating other players' saves, rather than just going on about how their own one is the best.

Too much self-promotion may unbalance the best ball decision, drawing attention away from the saves of less vocal/more modest players.

I would suggest that, in each round, every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect). If anyone else asks for clarification on some point, then the player can respond. But beyond that, he/she should focus on analysing other players' saves.

btw, I'm not really talking about a formal rule here - just a guideline encouraging analysis and discussion, rather than self-promotion and self-justification.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect).

That sounds like a good idea.


Perhaps this should be a separate section at the end of the Report.

It could also contain a brief summary of the overall future strategy the player has in mind for their game (including likely Victory Condition(s)).

 

[Bleys]

I would suggest that, in each round, every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect). If anyone else asks for clarification on some point, then the player can respond. But beyond that, he/she should focus on analysing other players' saves.

That sounds like a good idea.

Perhaps this should be a separate section at the end of the Report.

It could also contain a brief summary of the overall future strategy the player has in mind for their game (including likely Victory Condition(s)).

I like that idea, but speaking from my own experience, I didnt really include all the information about my "plan" in my summary, and only thought of additional comments as other posters reminded me of some of the choices I made and why.

I dont actually mind extended info on why people support their own save. Getting to the meat of the issue is very important, and some people articulate their thoughts better than others. I spent quite a bit of time looking through the saves, and each time I looked at futures, for example, I saw another positive that kept bringing it closer and closer to being "as good if not better" than my own. Like the Colossus thing, I didnt realize he had planned to try to crank it out ASAP after the Forge until he mentioned it in a later post (uless I missed it in his earlier posts, which is possible) and was concerned about being late, but checking his save, none of the AIs he knows has MC, and so far he didnt get the Ramesses Colony thing that screwed up Diamonds bid at the Colossus. So noticing that Colossus was open in his game, and the fact that he can crank it out pretty quickly with strong whip-overflow into War Units like Cats, I started looking at his save as better and better. My biggest hang-up with his save was ONLY the Wonders and GPP generation, so scoring Colossus and simply delaying his early GPs to a later time is workable from my perspective. Heck, if he runs an Engineer SPecialist right away he would probably get a 33% shot at a GE in 20 turns instead of 50 (adding Colossus GPP + Engineer GPP would bring that 50 WAY down, dont feel like doing the actual math, though, so I am guessing on those numbers)

Hope thats not too confusing.

 

[Nares]

and so far he didnt get the Ramesses Colony thing that screwed up Diamonds bid at the Colossus.

Before we begin speculating on how a random event might have tanked Diamondeye's save, are we even sure that the spawned civ even built it?

Also, are there any predictions as to what degree of "appeasement" might be encountered in future rounds?

You mention spawning a GE. While I personally wouldn't choose to run the engineer to spawn one, I wouldn't be opposed to making my save more "appealing" by running one for the chance at a GE pop. While I think there are better ways to approach this particular game, I think the cost would be low enough to me to be acceptable, provided I felt it increased the chances of my own save being chosen for the subsequent round. Presumably, I can make more out of my save than the next player, and would be in a better position to have my save continually carried forward in such a manner, with the majority of my gameplay focused on my own strategy, and a small portion focused on making my save appealing.

 

[Bleys]

You mention spawning a GE. While I personally wouldn't choose to run the engineer to spawn one, I wouldn't be opposed to making my save more "appealing" by running one for the chance at a GE pop. While I think there are better ways to approach this particular game, I think the cost would be low enough to me to be acceptable, provided I felt it increased the chances of my own save being chosen for the subsequent round. Presumably, I can make more out of my save than the next player, and would be in a better position to have my save continually carried forward in such a manner, with the majority of my gameplay focused on my own strategy, and a small portion focused on making my save appealing.

I cant help but disagree. If the plan is a military move on Sal, a GE to bulb Machinery would almost lock that down completely, especially since he already has CS. Besides, its FUN that way. Boring no-wonder grinds suck and make this game too much like work. Of course, after Construction comes in, self-teching Machinery while building Cats and Galleys is also a solid alternative, but can you not understand that we are NOT trying to play Immortal level here? This is a Monarch AI, and like it or not, this stuff WORKS on Monarch, and also adds a HUGE element of "fun" to the game that I find lacking in higher level "grind-fests" where you count every hammer, every TR, and every move triple analyzed. I LIKE Wonders, and fun GP gambit moves, and such, its why I play this level and not Immortal, where most of my game is I am playing this as if it was Monarch, not Emperor, not Immortal, and not Deity. If this was the Prince Cookbook, you probably would cringe noticeably when I added the Mids and GW to the list I already built, LOL.

 

[Diamondeye]

Everyone round can virtually be labeled "the first."

With everyone picking up the same save to start a round, I don't see how there will be significant differences between saves, excepting radically different approaches, and...RNG benevolence.

I'd hate to see the RNG be the deciding factor in which save is played, but a campaign that fails due to RNG disaster is just that, a failure.

I think this may begin touching on an issue someone else raised earlier, which was that the format encourages "risky" or "dangerous" play. If you get lucky with the RNG, then you win. If not, you've lost nothing, because someone else (hopefully) took a more practical approach.

Oh, and I think that a "no voting for your own save" rule will be necessary. As the games go on, it'll be all too easy for players not to give proper attention to other saves, because they're too wrapped up in their own pre-determined strategies. I'd like to see people advocating other players' saves, rather than just going on about how their own one is the best.

Too much self-promotion may unbalance the best ball decision, drawing attention away from the saves of less vocal/more modest players.

I would suggest that, in each round, every player who wants his/her save to be considered should make ONE fairly brief statement as to why that save is a worthy contender (ie. no essays, no sustained arguments over multiple posts - a few bullet points would be perfect). If anyone else asks for clarification on some point, then the player can respond. But beyond that, he/she should focus on analysing other players' saves.

btw, I'm not really talking about a formal rule here - just a guideline encouraging analysis and discussion, rather than self-promotion and self-justification.

That sounds like a good idea.


Perhaps this should be a separate section at the end of the Report.

It could also contain a brief summary of the overall future strategy the player has in mind for their game (including likely Victory Condition(s)).

Sounds good both of you.

Before we begin speculating on how a random event might have tanked Diamondeye's save, are we even sure that the spawned civ even built it?

Nope, it was merely a guess considering none of the other saves had the Colossus stolen. Perhaps I was merely out too late

I cant help but disagree. If the plan is a military move on Sal, a GE to bulb Machinery would almost lock that down completely, especially since he already has CS. Besides, its FUN that way. Boring no-wonder grinds suck and make this game too much like work. Of course, after Construction comes in, self-teching Machinery while building Cats and Galleys is also a solid alternative, but can you not understand that we are NOT trying to play Immortal level here? This is a Monarch AI, and like it or not, this stuff WORKS on Monarch, and also adds a HUGE element of "fun" to the game that I find lacking in higher level "grind-fests" where you count every hammer, every TR, and every move triple analyzed. I LIKE Wonders, and fun GP gambit moves, and such, its why I play this level and not Immortal, where most of my game is I am playing this as if it was Monarch, not Emperor, not Immortal, and not Deity. If this was the Prince Cookbook, you probably would cringe noticeably when I added the Mids and GW to the list I already built, LOL.

I agree with the major point here, although I think you should try and watch your language a bit, sorry to say

 

[Bleys]

I agree with the major point here, although I think you should try and watch your language a bit, sorry to say

It wasnt my language, it was my tone, and I apologize if it seemed overly abrasive.