 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I am looking forward to this game. I have followed the discussion over Nathan's points closely, and believe that I have a suggestion well within the spirit of AU:
How about allowing both approaches to the game?
For those that want to adhere to the culture win goal, all well and good. However, let us also provide an opportunity to those that want the flexibility of any kind of win; the requirements that I would suggest, however, be that they 1) ELECT such flexibility at some point, logically at the end of a given DAR, and 2) still exhibit how cultural development substantively supported their overall game strategy and hopeful win.
Learn, develop, share, have fun... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
How about allowing both approaches to the game?
For those that want to adhere to the culture win goal, all well and good. However, let us also provide an opportunity to those that want the flexibility of any kind of win; the requirements that I would suggest, however, be that they 1) ELECT such flexibility at some point, logically at the end of a given DAR, and 2) still exhibit how cultural development substantively supported their overall game strategy and hopeful win. |
This actually goes farther than what I'm suggesting since it allows all victory conditions. But considering that we now have two votes that dislike the idea of a culture game immensely (or so they say), it might still make sense.
If we want maximum flexibility, we could offer three different ways to play.
1) Dominae's idea of going all-out for the fastest cultural victory possible, 100K culture or bust.
2) My preferred approach of orienting heavily toward trying to get a rapid cultural victory but not going so all-out toward it as to seriously undercut the fun of other aspects of the game. The ideal is still to win a 100K cultural victory and to do so as quickly as seems practical, but the player approaches the game a little more like a regular game and a little less like he would a CivFanatics GOTM style competition seeking the fastest cultural victory theoretically possible. In this approach, being stuck winning by space race because time ran out for a cultural victory would definitely not be a good thing (especially all else being equal), but it would not automatically be viewed as a loss either.
[Technically, there be several shades of nuance within and between these two options. But note that in both/all varients, a 100K cultural victory is still definitely the goal.]
3) The "I don't really care about a cultural victory, but I want to play anyhow" approach. Obviously, people who play that way would be unlikely to be particularly successful in cultural terms compared with those who deliberately seek cultural victory. But if they have fun, and we can see the difference in the cultural development of their civs compared with civs that deliberatley pursue a cultural victory, the situation is better all around than if they did not play at all.
Players would be strongly encouraged to include mention of how they are approaching the game in their DARs (and would probably be asked about it if they don't). We could then look at how the differences in how players approach the game affect their strategies and choices and, in turn, how those strategies and choices affect the outcomes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If we want maximum flexibility, we could offer three different ways to play.
1) Dominae's idea of going all-out for the fastest cultural victory possible, 100K culture or bust.
2) My preferred approach of orienting heavily toward trying to get a rapid cultural victory but not going so all-out toward it as to seriously undercut the fun of other aspects of the game. The ideal is still to win a 100K cultural victory and to do so as quickly as seems practical, but the player approaches the game a little more like a regular game and a little less like he would a CivFanatics GOTM style competition seeking the fastest cultural victory theoretically possible. In this approach, being stuck winning by space race because time ran out for a cultural victory would definitely not be a good thing (especially all else being equal), but it would not automatically be viewed as a loss either.
[Technically, there be several shades of nuance within and between these two options. But note that in both/all varients, a 100K cultural victory is still definitely the goal.]
3) The "I don't really care about a cultural victory, but I want to play anyhow" approach. Obviously, people who play that way would be unlikely to be particularly successful in cultural terms compared with those who deliberately seek cultural victory. But if they have fun, and we can see the difference in the cultural development of their civs compared with civs that deliberatley pursue a cultural victory, the situation is better all around than if they did not play at all.
|
I'm sorry to be so obtuse about this, but I fail to see any reason to make this an official part of the course. The topic of the course is this: "Fastest 100k Culture victory, everything else standard". Whether or not you like what this entails is entirely up to you.
In the real world, you do not bid to change the content of a course because you do not like what it's meant to teach you (well, maybe at the graduate level, but rarely). There's no pass/fail in AU, so you're free to get as much (or as little) out of a course as you want. If you want to try a variant of a course for your own personal pleasure, you're free to do so.
The reason I'm putting my foot down about this (as much as I can, as I have no authority here whatsoever!) is that AU needs to maintain some level of structure. Else we have a free-for-all of DARs, random posted games, and commentary that looks more like the Strategy forum. In the interest of everyone learning something about a particular topic, I feel we should keep it simple and stick to the original plan.
In the OCC course, we did not "allow" players to turn it into a 5CC if they so wished. In the Peacekeeping course, we did not "allow" players to declare war when they felt like it. Thus there was a minimum basis for comparison between games. Again, the purpose of this course is to learn what strategies are best for a fastest 100k Culture win. Changing the victory conditions, etc. will result in different strategies, and thus little basis for comparison in DARs.
We of course aim to please at AU, so if most people want a system as proposed by Nathan we'll certainly go through with it. But I fail to see the scholastic value in a course where "everyone does what they want".
quote:
Players would be strongly encouraged to include mention of how they are approaching the game in their DARs (and would probably be asked about it if they don't). We could then look at how the differences in how players approach the game affect their strategies and choices and, in turn, how those strategies and choices affect the outcomes. |
Again, we're looking for strategies related to a specific goal, not strategies related to any old goal. At least that's my understanding of what AU courses are all about.
Last edited by Dominae on 14-09-2004 at 01:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?
|
It's certainly possible. Someone at CFC did it a while back. I heard it requires a lot of arithmetic...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pedrojedi
|
 |
of old men bearing big Ankhs
Nov 2002
time: 02:23
|
|
quote:
It's certainly possible. Someone at CFC did it a while back. I heard it requires a lot of arithmetic... |
And free time.
quote:
In the OCC course, we did not "allow" players to turn it into a 5CC if they so wished. In the Peacekeeping course, we did not "allow" players to declare war when they felt like it. Thus there was a minimum basis for comparison between games. Again, the purpose of this course is to learn what strategies are best for a fastest 100k Culture win. Changing the victory conditions, etc. will result in different strategies, and thus little basis for comparison in DARs. |
Agreed.
I think that if people don't like waiting for the culture bell to ring, maybe the threshold could be pulled down a little, as an option - a 90k, or 80k cultural victory for instance. It does not feel like that magical number, 100k, but at least there'll be more people practicing (theoretically, counting on those people that don't like waiting) that can contribute with their DAR's, and then it is just a matter of analysing the progression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
UU's aren't going to be terribly important in a game of this type. Most players will probably end up triggering their GA in the Ancient Era with Wonders with most civs. Regular Swords, Knights, and Cavalry are good enough for the conquest that needs doing because the speed of the conquest will be limited not by military strength, but by the speed in which improvements can be built up in the territory claimed territory.
Religious and Scientific are pretty well balanced.
Religious is better on higher difficulties because cutting out X turns of Anarchy is X turns sooner you can finish. Religious buildings are quicker to build, quicker to get to in tech tree, and help you keep higher populations earlier.
Scientific is better on lower difficulties. Happiness is easier to deal with, Anarchy times are down, and the tech rate is faster so the Scientific improvements are buildable earlier. That leaves the main factors being Scientific buildings are slightly more efficient culture:shield (3:40 vs 2:30) so are better to build first, and that Scientific gives more shields off than Religious so you spend overall less shields as Scientific. For Temple+Library for example, Scientific spends 100 shields, and Religious spends 110.
Ag is probably more powerful than either of them still. Faster pop growth means everything builds faster. Wonders, terrain improvements, required non-cultural improvements like Markets and Aquaducts in core cities, and of course cultural improvements.
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?  |
I've tried this before while fooling around with a GOTM start that I wasn't going to be able to play anyways.
It was GOTM 20 with Spain, Deity. I got most of the wonders without delaying Temple or Library builds, and not much interferance on the other cultural improvements other than Colloseums. I ended up with 4 cities that would hit 20k all at the same time (a few turns before 2050AD IIRC), but a 5th was going to be short even if I kept the others from hitting 20k till 2050AD. It was a pretty good start, but not terribly great. There was a lot of food, but not a lot of Hills for production. The difficulty was way too high to get all the wonders and Spain isn't the best civ for a game like this.
C3C for more wonders. Get an SGL or 3. Settler(s) from huts. Use the Babs. Lower difficulty so you can build all the wonders and have a faster tech rate while fighting easy leader farming wars. Throw in a really great start and it should be possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
One or two civs, I'm fine either way.
If it's only one civ, India would be my choice. Commercial is a nice second trait for 100k Culture victories.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:23
|
|
I've only just come across this thread and found it has over 50 posts already!
100K Culture victory sounds very interesting and challenging, and I can say with reasonable certainty that I have never achieved this victory condition in any version of Civ3....nor even consciously attempted it! So yes, I'll definitely play this one, though it may take a lot longer than past AU games due to RL commitments.
Anyway, I've ploughed through the discussion and I'm definitely in the Dominatrix camp on this one  All victory conditions on, and only 100K Cultural victories to be awarded a "pass" grade
As for civs, like Alexman I'm also not a big fan of giving choices and I also would like to see only one played. There will be enough interesting strategy decisions in choosing the path to "100K" without trying to analyse why someone with different traits/UU did or didn't manage to do it. I find when playing AU games, one puts one's entire mind to optimising strategy for the civ of choice, and personally I have little interest in reading DAR's of someone who picked a different civ because I really won't learn as much about the effectiveness of my own strategy and the longer term effect of my inevitable mistakes.
Now I'll try again and throw Korea into the ring  I still want to see how people play the Hwach'a. Failing that (as is expected), I love the idea of War Elephants wandering the globe......now THAT's Culture! My "also rans" in no particular order would be Arabia, Ottomans, Russia and Spain (and then only because Conquistadors REALLY rock!).
Map size - I have a hard time bothering with anything over standard. And I hope the resource situation is reasonably fair.
Whatever is decided, the idea of going for 100K at Emperor level sounds quite daunting to me 
So, roll on AU602.....or is it AU504? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The reason I'm putting my foot down about this (as much as I can, as I have no authority here whatsoever!) is that AU needs to maintain some level of structure. Else we have a free-for-all of DARs, random posted games, and commentary that looks more like the Strategy forum. In the interest of everyone learning something about a particular topic, I feel we should keep it simple and stick to the original plan.
In the OCC course, we did not "allow" players to turn it into a 5CC if they so wished. In the Peacekeeping course, we did not "allow" players to declare war when they felt like it. Thus there was a minimum basis for comparison between games. Again, the purpose of this course is to learn what strategies are best for a fastest 100k Culture win. Changing the victory conditions, etc. will result in different strategies, and thus little basis for comparison in DARs. |
In case I haven't made myself clear, I am not in favor of anarchy in which players play however they want to. I very much like the idea of a game focused on pursuing a cultural victory, and of doing so as quickly as possible "within reason," however indiidual players define "within reason" in their minds.
But take a look at the definition of a 100K cultural victory. That victory condition requires only that a player get 100K culture with twice the culture of the closest rival. That's it. Period. And that is what I think a cultural game should focus on.
The problem is, when the space race victory condition is left on for the AIs but is denied to the human player, the end result is to add an additional victory condition that is not a natural part of the game. Players are required not only to meet the requirements of a cultural victory, but also to make sure no AI can win the space race first. That requirement is not part of the fundamental definition of cultural victory. It is not a natural product of game mechanics, because the game is designed with victory conditions either available for everyone or available for no one. And it is not merely a pro forma requirement that is unlikely to have any significant impact on people's play.
If I felt like the only thing the extra requirement did was to add some time pressure for additional challenge, I would not consider it particularly objectionable. But that is not all it does. It does other things as well, things that I consider perverse from a cultural perspective.
The goal that I would like to see players set for themselves as their ideal is to win a 100K cultural victory without deliberately choosing in favor of a slower tech pace and without needing to attack AIs to thwart threatened space launches. If they make it, great. If they don't make it, but the only reason they missed is that the technological pace was relatively fast, the fact that the bar was eight feet high instead of six feet high does not make a seven-foot jump any less of an achievement.
But leaving the space race victory condition available to the AIs while denying it to the human player even if an AI is about to launch undercuts that ideal in three ways.
1) It encourages players to opt for a slower tech pace. If players go that route, they are not even trying to meet the ideal of aiming for a 100K cultural victory without any deliberate effort to slow down the tech pace.
2) It presents a somewhat perverse standard of success in which a civilization that is clearly more successful by objective measures can lose where a civilization that is clearly less successful by objective measures would have won. Imagine if Russia could have put a man in space a century earlier than it did, but in order to do so, it would have had to improve the rest of the world's technology an equal amount. Clearly, such progress would be a sign of greater success. But under the proposed rules of this game, assuming equal cultural achievements at any given time, the more successful civilization could find itself at a disadvantage because its rivals would be in a better position to win the space race before the player's civ can reach 100K culture.
3) It encourages less focus on one's own cultural achievements and more focus on damaging one's rivals. There is always a back door available to cultural victory: if you pound every oponent back into the stone age and keep them there, cultural victory sooner or later is essentially guaranteed. But the really impressive route to cultural victory is to achieve it entirely by building up one's own culture and not by going out of one's way to damage the culture of rivals. (Fighting wars to gain territory to build up one's own culture is one thing, but fighting wars mostly for the purpose of tearing down rivals is something else.) If players are encouraged to weaken any AIs that might be in a position for a space launch before the player can get 100K culture, that actually shifts focus away from a pure cultural race and toward improving one's relative cultural standing by weakening opponents.
Thus, I do not view the space race situation as merely something that adds challenge without causing any harm. Rather, I view it as something that has side effects on gameplay, side effects that may be fun for some players but that can actually be perverse if players prefer to focus entirely on cultural matters. If some players feel like having to preempt AI space race victories would make the game more challenging or interesting for them, I have no problem with that. But I don't like the idea of forcing that condition onto everyone as an integral part of the course requirements. (Imagine trying to sign up for a history class and finding some reqirements from a chemistry class mixed in and you get some idea of how I feel about the situation.)
As for the qualification "within reason," it is one thing to define a course in terms of trying to do something quickly, but something else to define it in terms of focusing on that one goal so exclusively that nothing else matters. Even "Total Eternal Forever War" did not mandate focusing on the earliest possible domination victory without regard to other considerations.
The words "fastest possible," if taken literally, leave no room for players to decide that a particular approach feels too cheesy and unrealistic for their taste, or that it would make the game less fun for them without making much difference in the outcome, or things along those lines. Thus, the focus becomes less on building a great civilization and having fun along the way and more on manipulating the game's mechanics. Worse, such a focus can actually make what players learn less relevant to their future games because what they are doing is too different from anything they would do in a more normal game to be applicable. The concept of "within reason" leaves players some room to decide that focusing on manipulating the game mechanics for the fastest cultural victory theoretically possible without regard to other considerations is not worth it.
(Actually, I'm starting to think I probably will try something pretty wild in this game in an effort to explore the limits of what is possible. But I'd prefer not to make doing such a course requirement.)
Dominae and Tall Stranger make it sound as if what I am proposing would lead to total anarchy in which players would do whatever they want to. But the reality is that if players follow the intent of the game, they would all focus very heavily on culture. Everyone would be playing toward a goal of winning a cultural victory. And while space race victories might sometimes preempt cultural victory as the official victory condition if players are not inclined to go far enough out of their way to prevent such a thing from happening, such would occur only by accident, not as a result of players' deliberate intent to choose a non-cultural victory condition. Personally, purely from my own perspective, I'd rather turn the space race victory condition off so we don't have to worry at all about space race issues contaminating the focus on culture. But if other players like the idea of having to preempt AI space launches, I have no problem with leaving the space race victory condition on for their sake.
Finally, I do not consider what I am proposing analogous to a student asking a university to rewrite a course syllabus to suit his preferences. Rather, we are a group of students discussing the parameters of a course that has yet to have its description finalized. All I'm really proposing is that the course description be defined broadly enough that players can decide for ourselves whether or not we want to face the extra, artificial obstacle of AIs being allowed to win space race victories when we humans are not allowed to do so.
To the extent that I go beyond that and bring up the possibility of players' deliberately not pursuing a cultural focus, I certainly do not view the choice to do so as being within the spirit or intent of the course. Nonetheless, having such people not play at all, or play but not post any information about their games, would tell us nothing. In contrast, if they play some other way and post DARs, we could at least get a little information that might have some interest or value in regard to how different types of cultural focus affect course of the game. So if people are dead set against playing for a cultural victory but want to play the game anyhow, I don't see how it hurts anything to let them do so and to encourage them to post DARs if they do. They aren't really taking the course, but the fact that they are playing the same scenario a different way still provides a basis for comparison - especially since the special rules for this game are defined entirely in terms of what kind of victory to pursue rather than in terms of explicit special rules regarding how to play during the course of the game.
Nathan
Last edited by nbarclay on 16-09-2004 at 10:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I have to say, I am still pretty much with Nathan here... perhaps not in the specifics of logic and argument, but in the general intent.
AU is about learning, sharing, and having fun. Not competition, except in a friendly way. And not about iron-clad rules, unless a specific lesson/strategy/technique is being explored... and even then, I've always been hesitant in that regard.
Simple to me, at least: We play a game all about culture. We have a stated goal. If players choose to explore beyond the goal, WHATEVER THEIR REASON, then FINE, but SHARE!!
- Theseus, who in any given course, and for whatever reason, always finds a way to generate a KAI (or KHI, Nathan) and face pitched battle to overcome same (or not).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2004 19:25
|