What would you do here?

Looks very interesting - will read carefully later, but there already seems to be an early rush, there most always is :thumbsup:

Hot Tip: Warrior rush on Deity
. Take a stack of say, 10-12 warriors. Expect to lose about 6-8 taking an AI capital (not on a hill).
8 warriors only cost 240:hammers:. Less than a settler. And I'm sure you'll pick up a free worker or two along the way.
 
How does one rush on giant maps anyway? I mean it takes like easily more than 20 turns of not twice as much just to walk to the next civ over with your units.
 
That is why maps for games like that are typically stuffed full of AIs. Shorter distances, and they won't grow large. Playing like that is a very different beast, though. Especially when going so extreme as in that game and a few others. It's kinda stacking exploits on top of each other. Very different to more of a builder's approach, or more leisurely play. I honestly don't recommend to try to follow such approaches, especially in a competitive environment. One of the most frustrating experiences with this game for me has been in such games, like Game of the Month or even more so the Gauntlets. In the latter, you stand zero chance to be competitive unless you try a zillion maps after rolling another zillion maps with Map Finder. Even with the most extreme RNG luck in 9 different domains, somebody will still beat you into the ground. It felt like an impossible thing to even be remotely competitive, because we weren't playing the same game, or on an even field.

Admittedly I'm in a new hiatus period now, but I had much more fun with the game when just playing my own way in more relaxed settings, than trying to do anything in the Hall of Fame or the Gauntlets. And simply going into Nobles' club or GOTM maps blind and doing my thing, instead of World Builder tests and trying 8 different openings or something. At the end of the day it is a game, and I want to have fun playing it, rather than feel depressed and woefully inadequate. So although some like to toot the horn of HoF games and suchlike, it isn't for everybody. Yeah, I've played a fair bit over the years, and maybe still have some #1s in there, but lately I've not done any at all I think, partly due to the above reasons. Same with Gauntlets and Challenge games -- though the latter series seems to have died by now.

Play in a way that is fun to you instead. It's not all about winning space on Deity by 1300AD or something (normal speed), or launching a spaceship by 1AD on Marathon, or winning domination in the stoneage. Ultimately it's about having fun. Some have fun by doing that, especially on this site, but it really isn't for everybody. Team games were more fun, but despite bumping a couple of them over and over, nobody else picked up on it :(
 
Yes - or try one of the many mods or scenarios, or fiddle with the settings yourself, there are any number of ways to play without resorting the classic, established patterns,


(...) Team games were more fun, but despite bumping a couple of them over and over, nobody else picked up on it :(

How does that work exactly ? Does it involve exchanging saves ?
 
That is why maps for games like that are typically stuffed full of AIs. Shorter distances, and they won't grow large.
Maybe it's the mods I play with that are doing this but when I set my games up with the largest map size available and the recommended (automatic) number of AI's for that map people are NOT that close. Do people like add every AI civ in the game twice over or something just to force things together? Or are vanilla map sizes just that much smaller. That could possibly be it. It's been a decade at least since I last played unmodded so I don't remember.

And I just realized how long it's actually been. I seriously have to run a vanilla game this weekend. Possibly without even BUG.

In the latter, you stand zero chance to be competitive unless you try a zillion maps after rolling another zillion maps with Map Finder. Even with the most extreme RNG luck in 9 different domains, somebody will still beat you into the ground. It felt like an impossible thing to even be remotely competitive, because we weren't playing the same game, or on an even field.
At that point why not just create one official competition map and always play on that? That's a serious question by the way. Why not just have an official map for such contests so that everyone has an even playing field?

Play in a way that is fun to you instead. It's not all about winning space on Deity by 1300AD or something (normal speed), or launching a spaceship by 1AD on Marathon, or winning domination in the stoneage. Ultimately it's about having fun. Some have fun by doing that, especially on this site, but it really isn't for everybody. Team games were more fun, but despite bumping a couple of them over and over, nobody else picked up on it :(
Can't fault that logic. I am however curious about the whole thing as this is an entire aspect of CIV4 gaming that I have had no contact with so far.
 
Maybe it's the mods I play with that are doing this but when I set my games up with the largest map size available and the recommended (automatic) number of AI's for that map people are NOT that close. Do people like add every AI civ in the game twice over or something just to force things together? Or are vanilla map sizes just that much smaller. That could possibly be it. It's been a decade at least since I last played unmodded so I don't remember. (...)

The default number of civs on a given map is determined by the mod maker I think, I play RI wich has 9 civs on a normal map iirc,

often these settings are adjusted by players to achieve a particular result - my next game for example will have the "raging barbs" setting on to test that,

so I will probably use a few less starting civs to give the barbs some room to grow, this in turn will affect my early game, obviously.
 
Last edited:
I have played a lot of oversize maps. There's a real knack to setting the right number of AIs for an interesting game, factoring in the map settings (landmasses, land %, etc) along with map size. Sometimes the results are comedic.
 
At that point why not just create one official competition map and always play on that? That's a serious question by the way. Why not just have an official map for such contests so that everyone has an even playing field?
This is in fact the entire concept of the BOTM (BtS/game of the month) contest. A mapmaker makes or rolls a map, and everybody play that, so it's a totally even start there. Though things can quickly go differently ofc, especially if random events are on. But I like that setup much better than HoF, because you can just jump in and play a map, and everything is more or less comparable afterwards.

I didn't really mean to badmouth HoF here, but it is a very specific way of playing, and it's certainly not for everybody. Yeah, there are still many slots that can probably be beaten with a more normal map and without lottery numbers luck, but that also means that somebody else can easily beat your score/date if they really try.

For these games there are some rules that the required mod checks, like min/max amount of AIs. On Huge maps you can choose 18 civs, which is the most possible without mods. On some map types, the land will then be pretty filled up, and there won't be long stretches to the nearest AIs. Some map types are larger than others. You can pick and choose depending on what you want to achieve, then roll 1000 to 10 000 maps (with a program called MapFinder), and pick what looks most promising. So first you stack luck on top of each other, then play a bunch of super start maps, and continue the one where you have godly luck with RNG or non-hill cities or whatever. Another person that go for the same "slot" and just roll a random map with random civs and "let's go" will naturally then stand zero chance to compete. It's the nature of the HoF beast. For better or worse.

BOTM is more interesting (to me) for a few reasons. 1) it's a level playing field, and 2) the maps or scenarios can be very unique, in ways that is impossible with a randomly rolled map. Those are probably the two main reasons. Plus it feels a bit more friendly in nature than some of the other types of contests on this site.

About the team maps, then yes, several people play on the same save. Let's say you play 20 turns, then hand over the save to me, and I play 20 turns. Then somebody else plays 20 turns, before perhaps you play 20 again. Or any number of turns really. It's more for fun and cooperation than anything else. Even winning is secondary. Then you have discussions in between sets, or during them, about what we as a team will try to do. Kinda similar to the SGOTM, except much less competitive, with less strive for perfection.
 
Top Bottom