Is course 101 being thought out?

[Dubhghlas]

My guess is that it should present a problem in handling military issues; this game's tactics have to be somewhat different than those in prior iterations, especially Civ III. It feels to me a blend of SMAC (where the odds almost told you the outcome) and Civ II, where there were often some shreds of doubt. Also, cities appear to be very hard to take out, requiring some true effort at proper mix of units.

For me, this is what I'll need the most help with: I usually prefer to play as a pacifist and ignore fighting, which flaw will eat me alive in the multiplayer games!:eek:

[chriseay]

I like this idea, as I am just finishing my first big warmongering game (relatively, as I too am a pacifist in civ). There are many challenges to the fighting, beyond the units and combat systems, that I think we could explore.

This game was on noble, continents, small map, all other standard settings with Kublai Khan. Problems I had:

- Focus on an early rush precluded me from expansion, meaning while I destroyed my enemy and got three cities, it took forever to fill in the gaps on the continent that ended up being all mine.
- Because of the early rush and lack of expansion, science was hampered greatly. This coupled with no trading partners until optics caused me to fall far behind in tech.
- Once I filled in most of the gaps on the continent I ran out of money. Supporting a large remaining army and lots of cities without the prerequisite techs for markets, banks and courthouses was very hard. I ran on 10 percent research for quite a while.
- Once I decided to take out two other civs in the modern era, I lacked proper planning. I still took one out easily, and the other I should be able to defeat, but this is an area I think lots of people might need help on....tech advantage and numerical superiority alone don't make for an easy win.

If there had been someone else on that continent I would have been toast though. I'm also not nearly good enough at the modern war, because I know that I had the tech and the infrastructure to have won my two modern wars much more easily, but I don't know where or when to attack.

[Dubhghlas]

I think the game could be set up one of two ways:

1. Goal of game is win by conquest. Have a smaller board and three or maybe four AI civs.

2. Put you in a medium sized board, but include all the warrior civs, each one a bit further out from you. That'll make you work a bit!

[chriseay]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
I think the game could be set up one of two ways:

1. Goal of game is win by conquest. Have a smaller board and three or maybe four AI civs.

2. Put you in a medium sized board, but include all the warrior civs, each one a bit further out from you. That'll make you work a bit!

I like #2. Put all of the agressive AI's on a standard map and turn off all victory conditions but either conquest or domination. That'll make it so even us pacifist's are made to fight a lot! Should be a fun game even if it is a change of pace for me (I had zero, zero!, wars in the first AU game).

[Arrian]

I'm up for this sort of approach, sure. I too have been playing mostly builder so far. My wars have mostly been either defensive or late-game "sledgehammer" affairs.

My vote: standard size map, aggressive civ (Inca? Napolean's France?), continents.

If we wanted to make it even more challenging, we could make the home continent full of aggressive types and then stick some really solid builder-style civs overseas (Elizabeth, Mansu Musa... civs like that).

-Arrian

[Dubhghlas]

Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.

[Caligula 37 AD]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.
I suppose that means the AIs will get more units than normal on levels below Monarch?
I'm not against that as long as it is clarified in the intro of the course.

Some of us might plan to skip a level for the next course, in my case I plan to skip Noble altogether. :)

Anyone know what level the first course was made in, and what units the AIs got?

As for the theme; I never fight wars unless I have to. As chriseay I need fighting experience and vote "ja!". :b:

However:
1. Monarch AI start
2. Forced warmonger play
3. Aggressive opponents only
4. Skipping Noble
, might be one too many new factors for me. Must think :hmmm:

- C

[Dubhghlas]

Hey, if school isn't full of hard knocks, what good is it??:D :lol:

[chriseay]

Truthfully, I don't mind this game being hard. I want a challenging game, and if I end up losing that'll be ok.

I too am thinking about skipping noble all together, as I've been playing some personal games on that level, and I've been winning fairly handily. I've also started a Prince level game, and I am doing alright, though by no means well. I think I still at least have a chance to pull out some sort of win, but I'll probably lose.

I say go for the Monarch AI start to ramp up the difficulty a little, but more importantly to make military a more pressing concern. We'll be far behind to start, and that will make everyone who doesn't focus on military enough do so, or get a hurting. :bash:

[Arrian]

There's gotta be a way to set it up such that we can play whatever difficulty we want to play - starting units for the AI (or lack thereof) included.

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Based on the information obtained from Soren about scenarios saved rather than scripted, we might have to create the game at the Monarch level and save it. That way, the AI civs won't be handicapped by starting with too few units for the level of the game.
Read that information again, please :D

As I understand it, the current way of making scenarios will be unbalanced over the difficulty levels. However, by editing out the units, only having the starting positions, it should be corrected... every level starts like it supposes to. There is no problem here, only a bit more work needed to set it up correctly. Part of AU is that we learn how to set up good courses too ;)

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, and those asking for Monarch units everywhere: I think you underestimate what difference one little unit can mean... If you play on Monarch, there is one little thing that will hamper your early game and that's the free worker. The bonusses on research and production are moderate, and really kick in later.

Give that worker to Noble players, and they will have a very hard time. You might end up killing the early wars for them: by the time you can build 3 axes without utmost focus, every AI will have multiple cities with plenty of units (which is what you expect at Monarch. Not on noble). By the time their research and production can outpace that first worker, you passed the Ancient era, and might be half way trough Medieval

DeepO

[joncnunn]

Deep O is correct, in many ways Noble + AI with free worker is tougher than standard Prince.

And Emperor without the AI bonus units is easier than standard Monarch.

What we need is a way that the AI starts with exactly the proper units for the difficulty level chosen.

[joncnunn]

Well, there are the obvious options that we might try:

1. An Ice Age map (extra challenging map)

2. The no tech trades ever option. (To learn how to function in an enviroment where you have to reserach every tech yourself)

3. The always peace option. (For war monglers to build up their building skills)

4. The always war option. (For peace lovers to build up their war making skills)

[nbarclay]

The course number for the next course should be 141 to differentiate the Civ IV course numbers from the Civ 3 ones. AU 100 was a special case, since it's outside the normal pattern of themed courses and is intended not just as a Civ IV course but also to introduce Apolyton University to new students.

We also need to consider whether we want to have a 100-B game - another unthemed introductory one - before we move on to themed courses. I see two advantages to doing so. First, it would give players more time to get used to Civ IV and more chance to learn from other people's strategies so they'll have a better background to adjust their play to the theme, which in turn would make the themed course a little more valuable. And second, there may still be players who don't have the game -- especially if they're planning to get it as a Christmas present - and delaying the first themed course a little would provide less of a feeling that people in that position are falling behind. My inclination would be to go ahead and launch a 100-B now for whoever has time to play it and target the release of 141 for the Friday before Christmas.

[DeepO]

I can live with 100-B now, and 141 around Christmas... I'm still finishing 100-A...

One thing though: I strongly advice a religious leader for the next 'normal' one (so 141). That's really a showcase trait: it let's you swap civics every couple of turns, meaning all kind of short-lived combinations will appear in DARs. Very informative reading, with so many different playstyles passing the revue.

DeepO

[Dubhghlas]

While I agree that the religious aspects should be addressed, and fairly quickly, let's face it, the game is at its most basic level still a wargame, and the methodology for attacking and winning has changed. Towns don't just roll over and die any more; it seems to take some true co-ordination to achieve a military victory unless you have significant military technological superiority. So I would still vote for a military scenario first.

[ZargonX]

I think a 100-B is a pretty good idea, but mostly because I lost at 100-A and need to regain my confidence ;)

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
While I agree that the religious aspects should be addressed, and fairly quickly, let's face it, the game is at its most basic level still a wargame, and the methodology for attacking and winning has changed. Towns don't just roll over and die any more; it seems to take some true co-ordination to achieve a military victory unless you have significant military technological superiority. So I would still vote for a military scenario first.
Even if I don't agree with your wargame characterization, I don't oppose a military scenario. However, especially in war, showcasing several strategies through civics is needed right now.

REL doesn't exclude war: pick a map, pick any kind of REL leader, and hupsakidei... everybody's happy :D

DeepO

[Arrian]

Spi/Ind - Ghandi
Spi/Phi - Saladin
Spi/Exp - Isabella
Spi/Fin - Mansa Musa
Spi/Agg - Monty
Spi/Org - ?

I say we avoid Mansa, since we've used FIN in 100-A. I say either Ghandi or Monty.

-Arrian

-Arrian

[Snotty]

Ghandi vs the warmongers sounds like a good theme.

I think there is an option to make the AI even more aggressive.

Originally posted by Dubhghlas


For me, this is what I'll need the most help with: I usually prefer to play as a pacifist and ignore fighting, which flaw will eat me alive in the multiplayer games!:eek:

Its quite possible to play MP as a pacifist and only defend yourself from attack, but your ability and foresight in how to defend youself will be stretched in a way that the AI doesnt seem to stretch you. To run a AU course on attack or defense I think we need to simulate this aggression and these huge unexpected stacks as best we can

[Blake]

How about Asoka (Spi/Org, the Forgotten Indian) for a more balanced approach?

Ghandi seems to be a bit too much of a "Wonder fest", you pretty much grab a whole heap of wonders to properly leverage Industrial. I think that Asoka would involve more interesting strategy, Wonders are a bigger gamble and the investment needs more rigorous justifaction.

Isabella would also be an interesting leader.

[Arrian]

Ah, yes, the leader I couldn't remember. I'm ok with Asoka, although we did just play an ORG civ...

-Arrian

[Konquest02]

If you want a religious theme, let's go with Isabella, she can be a monster if she starts on a lake... :D

Or I'd go with Monty as many people do not go warmongering enough... That might get them out of their comfort zone a little bit... :)

[Dubhghlas]

I think the University course aspect should bifurcate the religion track and the military track. We shouldn't work on combinations of techniques learned until the basics have been explored.

Probably a military game could be played at a fast tempo, rather than Epic, because it's more about tactics than it is about careful development of resources, etc.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
I think the University course aspect should bifurcate the religion track and the military track. We shouldn't work on combinations of techniques learned until the basics have been explored.

Probably a military game could be played at a fast tempo, rather than Epic, because it's more about tactics than it is about careful development of resources, etc.
Woaw! I twice disagree :cute:

It's not because your SPI (sorry, still use the Civ3 term for the trait :o ) that you have a relgious game. On the contrary, I'd say, warring games are extremely helped by switching your civics every few turns. relgious games are builder games, which are more fixed...

Further, it's exactly comparison games that give most insight. Everyone is up to the level they can fight a war with an agressive civ. Not everyone is using civics efficiently in all situations, including war.

And war being only tactical, and not strategic in CIV? Huh? It's your larger strategy that decides things. Battles themselves might be more tactical than strategic (CIV is not a true wargame after all), but all the stuff that happens in between battles is a lot more important.

Last thing: Epic is not so much slower as you might think: you will build the same amount of units in your games, only tend to use them longer (and more carefully, you can't afford to lose them at the same rate as on Quick). It's in the thinking part that Epic slows down, not in the playing part. Epic warfare: a must for an AU course, but only once we handled normal warfare.

Quick, OTOH... I'm not sure we sould focus on that one asap. Certainly not as the first true course.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I imagine that on Epic you fight more battles w/your units (before they need upgrading) and thus have a better chance to actually get them up to level 5 or higher. True in your experience, DeepO?

Playing normal speed games, I rarely get a unit that experienced. I've built West Point once (in AU100-A). Another time I got a unit up to 18/17 XP - was to be promoted the very next turn... but the AI counterattacked and killed it (Cavalry hit by 2 pikemen. The first got it over the XP threshold... the second killed it).

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I imagine that on Epic you fight more battles w/your units (before they need upgrading) and thus have a better chance to actually get them up to level 5 or higher. True in your experience, DeepO?
Well, like I said, you tend to safeguard your units very well, this includes the promoted once. For instance, you can more or less rely on barbs to get all your units promoted to 10 XP, but you've got to be careful: by letting the barbs lose, you can also unleash something you're not prepared to deal with. Barb cities can be terrible.

On of the main difference between speed is that Quick will greatly emphasize logistics and efficiency (you need to get that unit to the front before it is obsoleted), while Epic will let you focus much harder on strategic and tactical choices (you need to protect every unit with a suitable defender, or you are risking too much. Losing one unit can hurt your entire game in some instance (Grog's alive!) )

XP is part of that, yes. Level 6 and above is reachable, and many of your units are at 17XP or higher. I got a level 7 one once, too (that might have been an always-war variant, though)

But also on normal games, it's fairly common to get Level 5 units long before you can build Westpoint. Especially macemen and elephants seem to get there... although I had a level 5 cat once :)

DeepO

[Arrian]

I'll have to give Epic a try at some point...

-Arrian

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'll have to give Epic a try at some point...

-Arrian
I love it. I've not played a decent huge epic game yet, but I'm looking forward to it...

DeepO

[Arrian]

Heh, a huge map would probably kill my computer. Standard epic will be fine for me. I've a feeling that I'll enjoy the pacing better. But for now I'm sticking with normal speed... plenty of time to try Epic down the road.

-Arrian

[Dubhghlas]

Hmmm.

1. I am a teacher by trade. I think that you are incorrect in your evaluation of how to best present simple basic lessons.

2. Epic-Huge is the only way to play a real SP game at home! It allows so much more in the way of decisions (and recriminations over your decisions).:D

3. However, I suggested the shorter time span simply because it takes less time to complete, would likely offer the same chance to learn, and therefore be more likely to be completed by all who participate.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Dubhghlas
Hmmm.

1. I am a teacher by trade. I think that you are incorrect in your evaluation of how to best present simple basic lessons.
I was an assistant professor for 3 years, and have more then a little experience in industrial trainings and knowledge dissemination within companies. But that's besides the point: there were two things I wanted to say:

1. religious track is not the same as SPI track, on the contrary. SPI goes better with warfare than with religions. Or better yet, SPI allows for games where a lot of different civics combinations are used, many of them good for warfare, many of them good for building. Some of them even good for religions.

2. I think that right now, main priority should fall on understanding civics better. If you can do this in a war-scenario, all the better. If you can do this in a more balanced scenario (where some will go for war, some not), also nice. What's a necessity, though, is that you can compare. Different situations --> different civics.
Right now, with the basics covered by anyone (I mean, everyone will more or less now how to use cats), it's IMHO very important to get up to speed to civics, and in which situation to use what. Diplo is also important, but civics are still not that well understood, it seems.

DeepO

[Blastum]

Hello everyone. This is my first post here on Apolyton; though I have been surfing here for a while. Just wanted to say I am very impressed with AU and that AU100 was a blast. I beat AU100 with about a 19500 score at monarch; so I guess I don't totally suck at this game like I had originally thought. Huge/Epic/Island maps are much harder at Monarch level, apparantly.

I am looking forward to the next lesson, I think that people have brought up valid lesson plans; covering the big 3 topics war/enonomy/religion. All these topics should be covered, does it really matter which one is first?

Anyway, just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed the lessons; great work!

[joncnunn]

I perfer normal size maps and normal production rates.

Either Egypt or Louis XIV would be a good next pick.

Both are Creative so we can see the +2 culture per city in action.
Egypt is Religious, and Louis is Industrious.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Blastum
I beat AU100 with about a 19500 score at monarch; so I guess I don't totally suck at this game like I had originally thought. Huge/Epic/Island maps are much harder at Monarch level, apparantly.


The reason you probably felt a difference in difficulty was that the scenario that got set up was somewhat flawed: the AI didn't get its free units (on Monarch, this would mean a free worker). It still had its other bonuses, but that worker is a big deal. The other thing, obviously, is that we had awesome land. :D

-Arrian

[Blastum]

Yep. I read about the trouble of scaling the maps with the difficulty levels. Unfortunately I don't know enough about scripting to be much help solving that problem.

Courses could be generated as 1 map with several difficulty levels; but that may lead to a bit of confusion if there are 6 files/difficulty levels for map 101.

However; if the point of AU is to learn strategy then it isn't really neccessary for the difficulty of the AU courses to correspond to the single-player generated games. As long as there is good learnin' happening, then it doesn't really matter.

Just my 2 1/2 cents.

[Strollen]

Let me put in a strong agreement with DeepO on the need to make sure that AU course actually match the standard AI bonus.

I got into AU100 late and didn't bother to finish the game or post an AR (I bad). I normally play on Monarch and restart if I get a bad position. So for AU 100, I figured well if I can beat this one with a Random position, it is time for me to move up to Emporator.

In AU100 I played really badly, lost a lot of units to barbarians, and tried to build the pyramids in a dumb location etc.
Despite making all of these mistakes I was still leading the game at the end of the classical era. I am pretty sure it was as a result of the missing units the AI didn't get.

As for theme, I vote for a AU 100B, with a slightly different twist maybe a Pangea map or something.

[joncnunn]

As long as each file is clearly marked with the difficulty level, I don't see the problem with having a seperate file per level.

[Blastum]

After just having my butt handed to me playing a normal map on monarch (again); I have decided that it would nice to see several game files at different difficulties.

I would really like to play a course through on an easier level, then replay it on a harder level. I think I might try out the au100 map again at monarch; and just give the AI a worker with the map editor.

Steep learning curve without some DAR's to study, tho.

[DrSpike]

I think we should consider having a suggested level for the game. It will make for a better comparison game, and we might not even need to be a scenario then if we can play from a normal save.

Of course, the suggested level should be something low like Prince to start with.

If the makers are willing to set it up as a scenario where difficulty can be chosen, that's fine for those who absolutely do not want to play the suggested level. I personally don't care what level we play, as long as more people play the same game.

[joncnunn]

DrSpike, saying everybody has to play at the same level would decrease the number of people who participate.

Those who have already won on Emperor just wouldn't find Prince challenging enough to play.

Conversely anyone who hasn't won on Prince wouldn't try an Emperor one because it wouldn't be fun.

[DrSpike]

I'm not sure you can speak for everyone. :)

I for one don't care what level we play, within reason. Obviously it could be chosen to be neutral territory, like Prince or Monarch.

As to the challenge, well the challenge is in the comparison of your game to other players, not the challenge of the game per se. It is just as hard to play a perfect game on noble as it is on Deity.

[Arrian]

I personally strongly favor the ability to play AU games at any difficulty.

And yeah, maybe we should start thinking about setting up the next game?

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

How about the ability to play at any difficulty but with a suggested level that people will play if they feel able to?

[TheBeast]

Surely the whole point of this forum is to allow people to learn?

If so, then it makes sense to allow people to play on whatever difficulty they choose. This allows strategy comparisons across difficulty levels, and, hopefully, will help us all to work out which strategies are viable at which difficulty levels.

[DrSpike]

It would, if there were a sufficient playerbase for there to be meaningful comparison within level.

Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out. Since there doesn't seem to be any support for my suggestion I'll stop. :D

[Hauptman]

you guys will have to forgive me. But just taking time to read these AU threads (sorry i'm a "general" and "tactics" troll) My intrest is sparked.

Who set up the AU100? I'd be more than happy to set up one, I made the HUGE EARTH map with all 18 civs for myself and posted it on the mod forum, its not hard to set a game up.

I will set it up as a noble game but give a few civs something extra, and perhaps weaken a couple others for a good mix. that way choosing a different (lower OR higher) difficulty setting will still have effect.

I love the idea of a warmonger game but feel free to toss ideas at me. Likely, if i dont play the american au100 tonight Ill set up a map and post it... you dont have to consider it an official AU game but we can still all play it through.

[billones]

Of course, the suggested level should be something low like Prince to start with.

And those of us who can't win a game at Noble should just not learn, I guess? :p

[Konquest02]

For now, I think we need to stay on a standard map, as many people have trouble running anything larger.

As for the game in itself, it must offer some nice strategic challenges. And above all, it must be fun to play!

I think it should offer many difficulty levels, as not everyone are at the same point in their CIV learning.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by billones


And those of us who can't win a game at Noble should just not learn, I guess? :p

As I said, it would just be a suggested level. Besides, the only way to learn is precisely to step out of your comfort zone. But never mind. :)

[xxFlukexx]

When another 'official' AU game is made it has to include the starting bonuses for the difficulty levels in them. I mean it HAS TO. No offense, but all of the AU-100A stuff above Prince are just worthless because the AI did not receive its initial bonuses. I usually have a very difficult time on Emperor, but in the AU game I flew through the game very easily and played very slowly because I was expecting a 10+ man stack to come for me and AIs to blitz very fast through the tech tree, but it did not happen. The only thing we can salvage from AU-100A is starting positions and city placement (and even then some people did very sub-optimal things and still easily won their games) The rest is all junk, you can't really learn in any of the games because the AI was so weak.

Difficulty should definetly be selectable or at least put in a few difficulty choices. People are not all on the same skill level and it will take years if we play one AU game a month starting at noble and work our way up.

Oh, and why is SPI good for warmongering, DeepO? I find that when I war a lot I just hit Theocracy + Hered Rule + Slavery and don't look back. Switching to OR for a few turns is nice inbetween peace treaties, but I can live without it playing aggressively. I think SPI goes well with religions because you can fast build the temples, waiting for a religion to spread to you can take a while. SPI is the bomb in Renaissance+ that's when switching really hurts.

Oh and let's get another AU game up by this weekend, let's start the voting for map type and everything. I prefer a land map and since I don't play with SPI leaders much so I think using a SPI leader would be fine.