Thoughts for SGOTM 14

[bcool]

A no artillery unit game would also be interesting.

I like the idea of an advanced start or a premade 1 AD start file, so we could have more time to focus on later game strategies.

 

[leif erikson]

Go to the Progress & Results page. Below the table and above the graph, there is a pull-down menu called "Display Format". Select List of Saves and hit the refresh button.

Depending upon what mod was used when the saves were made, you may not be able to play some of them unless you have all the various HoF Mods installed.

If you look below the "Title" of each game in the Progress and Results thread, you will see a link that says "Download Worldbuilder Save". Download this save and place it into your D:\My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Saves\WorldBuilder folder.

Start the game, load your HoF Mod and load the WB file as a scenario and you can replay it that way.

 

[MeowZeDung]

Go to the Progress & Results page. Below the table and above the graph, there is a pull-down menu called "Display Format". Select List of Saves and hit the refresh button.

That was easy. Thanks bbp.

 

[Gumbolt]

The idea that the game maker pre starts a game for us is interesting. The idea that we take over at 1ad is not hugely terrible. Or perhaps even at 1000bc? Again it would have to have a purpose why we were doing this.

As for the game and stages. I suspect the teams like OSS and PD would reach targets like Oxford and others well before the target dates. For instance you may get Oxford with 6 cities. it would need some thought to it. As for the timings that would be tough too. can a team reach a goal in 1-2 week?

None the less very interesting ideas. Personally I don't really want to roll the French again.

 

[Habitus]

How about a VC like earliest date to have every National Wonder built, it would require a mix of warfare for unit xp, and none standard tech pathing for the techs.

 

[Gumbolt]

What about a game where you have to capture every world wonder?? Obviously if the Ai destroy a wonder naturally this would be excluded.

Yes a war game but it would go to the bitter end. This also means you can't build a single world wonder too.

 

[LowtherCastle]

I'm watching the Tour de France on television and that gave me the idea that the next SGOTM could be held as a stage race. It's still supposed to be one game, but divided into stages with a specific goal for each stage. When the time limit is reached for a given stage the teams are assigned point according to how fast the stage goal was reached and the intermediate result is posted for all to see. Consider this as an example off the top of my head:

Stage 1 (Week 5): 4 cities
Stage 2 (Week 7): Currency
Stage 3 (Week 9): 8 cities
Stage 4 (Week 11): Oxford
Stage 5 (Week 13): One Civ eliminated
Stage 6 (Week 15): Biology
Stage 7 (Week 18): Any victory chosen by the team

So the winner of Stage 1 would be the team that first have 4 cities. Note that it should be mandatory to complete the stages in the given order i.e. in the example it would not be allowed to research Currency before founding 4 cities and city number 8 would have to wait until Currency was known. Stage 1 must be completed after 5 weeks, Stage 2 after 7 weeks, ... Of course, a team could play faster if they don't want to wait for the announcement of the stage results.

The advantage of the Stage Race is that it gives more information about how fast the rival teams are and it may even be possible for some of the "average" teams to snatch a Stage win. "Disadvantage" is increased work for the admins because results of each stage have to be compiled and announced as the game progresses.

This is an interesting idea.

Here's a twist that would be fascinating: We don't know what the next stage goal is till we finish the one we're on.

 

[babybluepants]

I actually really like that idea in principle, too. It adds a second layer of strategy and creates a real metagame. The only problems are:
- Would each stage actually be interesting? If the goals for each stage were meaningful in terms of overall strategy towards an end goal, then the winning teams would simply run away by mid game.
- Setting goals like first to a tech/wonder/etc tends to limit strategic options in game play. For instance, first to Currency basically means that everyone rushes to Oracle Currency.

 

[Keath]

The Benevolent Dictator:

You are the ruler of the planet. Your goal is to keep all your subjects equal in score. You must help the poor and needy and curb the desires of your more aggressive subjects.

The goal is to make every AI equal with as high an average score as possible. You can win the game on any winning condition but the turn before your victory, all the AI must be alive, have as high a score as possible and be as close to equal in score as possible. The winner is the team where:

Your score - AI average score is the lowest. No AI team can be too far ahead or too far behind the rest of the pack. To make it fair, no submission before say, 1 ad.

This would force each team to learn a lot about the game mechanics and how to manipulate the AI score through diplomacy, trading, war and cooperation.

 

[Alamankarazieff]

I was thinking that we could have an extremely isolated start, to force us to start later. Islands are not good enough, some people achieved ridiculously early astronomy dates.

I was thinking possibly in a place surrounded by mountains, with the only exit being guarded by a god or giant : meaning a custom built barbarian city with really strong modern units à la Humbaba in Botm.
That means that to go out and explore would need to first beat the guards of our prison.

 

[bcool]

I like the prison idea. An alternative way out might be paratroopers

 

[Gumbolt]

I was thinking that we could have an extremely isolated start, to force us to start later. Islands are not good enough, some people achieved ridiculously early astronomy dates.

I was thinking possibly in a place surrounded by mountains, with the only exit being guarded by a god or giant : meaning a custom built barbarian city with really strong modern units à la Humbaba in Botm.
That means that to go out and explore would need to first beat the guards of our prison.

Interesting but we don't want to totally kill the first part of the game as we are all trapped to a small land mass which could only hold 1-6? cities. This will force all teams into a certain strategy. Bad idea really.

You can't plan a game around the idea PD or OSS will finish the game at some ultra early date if you don't restrict the teams early on. You have to accept at times teams with players who have great understanding of the game will excel on these SGOTM as they have a few months to plan out a game they might otherwise of played out in a few days.

The key thing really is to find an interesting idea or concept to offers teams some freedom to play the game in their own way. Yet give them some direction where the game must conclude. Not just a straight one option path that all teams should follow. No one wants to be pressing enter for 75 turns or so till we get a paratrooper.

 

[bcool]

You wouldn't necessarily be completely isolated. There a lot of ways out of a prison like that. Certainly how you break out of the prison would be something teams would have to consider. You can fight your way out without paratroopers. You can send spies out to make contact with the AI (I think) or at least explore the land. And you could conceivably win the game (via space, culture, and diplomacy) without ever breaking out of prison. I think the idea has a lot more to it than you are giving it credit.

 

[Gumbolt]

You wouldn't necessarily be completely isolated. There a lot of ways out of a prison like that. Certainly how you break out of the prison would be something teams would have to consider. You can fight your way out without paratroopers. You can send spies out to make contact with the AI (I think) or at least explore the land. And you could conceivably win the game (via space, culture, and diplomacy) without ever breaking out of prison. I think the idea has a lot more to it than you are giving it credit.

Well when we were talking a prison I assumed a small cell with a few bars to hold us in. If we are talking a whole prison with many cells, shower blocks, guard rooms with a few exits for the prisoners to escape then we have a game on our hands. You could even split up the world into segments using mountains.

You could create a devil like barb unit. Strength 99 that roamed map. I think this was done in one of the scenario maps.

Of course you still need a game objectives. The game in theory has options for a skillful mapmaker to abuse.

I would like to see a map where barbs knew how to make privateers. Not sure how possible this is. Really bring a element of pirates to civ 4. Not sure how the AI might be nerfed by this. E.g. whipping galleys each turn.

What about a minimalist game? The idea to win the game with the fewest cities and resources used. The game could limit number of cities we can build or own at one time. I know a certain series in the forum is causing much debate. Which begs the question just how little can you do to win a game on emperor or immortal level??

 

[babybluepants]

I was actually toying with just that scenario (mountains around, one barb megacity passage) for WOTM a while ago. The problem with advanced barbs is: either you actually give them tech and production for advanced units, in which case they are seriously dangerous, or they do something really stupid with the few units they were given. It's too unpredictable and impossible to balance for competition purposes, IMHO.

 

[Gumbolt]

I was actually toying with just that scenario (mountains around, one barb megacity passage) for WOTM a while ago. The problem with advanced barbs is: either you actually give them tech and production for advanced units, in which case they are seriously dangerous, or they do something really stupid with the few units they were given. It's too unpredictable and impossible to balance for competition purposes, IMHO.

Perhaps if the player still has options of the great wall. Then the issue would be how the player gets past the barb super units. It would be an issue if the barbs started spawning rifles early on.

For a laugh I started a game and gifted the barbs all the techs possible. my first suprise was when a barb HA appeared and killed my warrior.

I then took a peep in world buider. The barbs had grenadier, rifles among other high tech units. They also had a holy city that started all 7 religions.

The main issues with this is the stronger barb units could happily wipe out an AI randomly. 1 grendier would soon take out a archer defence. That or a human warrior defence.

The point is the barbs could be tweaked so they had some earlier techs like feudalism? Maybe not give them rifles too early!! If you fancy a suicidal game do try playing a game gifting the barbs all the techs!!

 

[shyuhe]

I was actually toying with just that scenario (mountains around, one barb megacity passage) for WOTM a while ago. The problem with advanced barbs is: either you actually give them tech and production for advanced units, in which case they are seriously dangerous, or they do something really stupid with the few units they were given. It's too unpredictable and impossible to balance for competition purposes, IMHO.

How about a mech infantry barb unit in a city with a city defense script, CG3, and drill 4? I don't think it'll move and it'll be a PITA to kill it.

If that doesn't work, why not make it an AI civ who is locked in war with the player with a city that has no workable tiles? I don't think the mech infantry will leave under those circumstances and the AI should never be able to build more than a few warriors over the course of a game.

 

[kcd_swede]

Some very interesting ideas here. I wouldn't be suprised if some of them start showing up in various xOTM's.

My preference for a SGOTM would be a fairly normal style game with unusual objectives. The reason is that a heavily modified game would need a LOT of mapmaker testing to make sure random and unforeseen factors would not be the deciding factor between similarly skilled teams. Better to set conditions and let the teams do their own testing.

Instead of finding the optimum path on a singular objective, I would like to see a game with multiple somewhat contrary objectives. For example, must have 2 legendary culture cities, all original AI capitols must be razed and no AI can control any WW when you win by Space Race, but all AI must survive to the end, and you must be the sitting AP resident when AP becomes obsolete, as well as the UN Sec Gen at game's end. Oh yeah... and at no point can you have more than X% (X=30?) of the land area.

This leaves more up to the teams to decide how to do it, instead of some of the ideas that leave too many decisions in the hands of the mapmakers.

 

[LowtherCastle]

I actually really like that idea in principle, too. It adds a second layer of strategy and creates a real metagame. The only problems are:
- Would each stage actually be interesting? If the goals for each stage were meaningful in terms of overall strategy towards an end goal, then the winning teams would simply run away by mid game.
- Setting goals like first to a tech/wonder/etc tends to limit strategic options in game play. For instance, first to Currency basically means that everyone rushes to Oracle Currency.

I would think an initial goal might eliminate certain possibilities. For example, the need to settle X cities makes the Oracle slingsot and The GL hard to get. But then the next stage goal is somehow tangential to the first, so that any initial strategy might be somewhat contradictory to the next. Just keep things loose and a bit crazy.

 

[LowtherCastle]

How about the goal of revealing every tile on the map first (including map trading or satellites)? Mapmakers could have a lot of fun with that without necessarily doing too much map building.