Tweet
This is a follow-up to Lord Nuclear's thread, Apolyton University: Expanding Its Roots.
Why have you bothered me!?
My goal here is to throw out some ideas I have for updating AU for CIV. With these ideas I also have a lot of questions, so please feel free to post feedback. AU is not an exclusive club of strategy experts; it's as much yours as it is mine or anyone else's, and you can participate as much or as little as you like.
Let me just say that personally I'm very excited about AU in light of the upcoming release of CIV. When AU was first created, Civ3 had already been available for quite some time and on the whole players at Apolyton had played it quite a bit. So, although a lot of people learned of Civ3 strategy via AU in those days, AU was never really there for the original process of discovery. It's my hope that, this time, AU will not only help players perfect their game, but also take their first few (many!) steps as well.
So, what does AU do, exactly?
At it's most basic level, Apolyton University "produces" two things:
a. A series of thematic games designed to teach various aspects of Civ3 gameplay.
b. A mod (the AU mod) for "enhanced" gameplay.
It also "provides" something, namely:
c. A forum for reporting and comparing thematic games.
I think it's uncontentious to state that #1 and #3 form the "core" of AU, and should make the transition to the CIV version. Let's discuss #2, the mod, in a little bit.
Ok, so how do these "thematic games" work, anyway?
The idea is simple: every month or so, a game is posted for all to play. Since the point of AU is to learn about the game and not (directly) to compete with other players, you can play at any difficulty level you like.
When you're done or while you're playing, you can come back to the forum and (optionally) post a report of your game for all to see. By posting your report and reading those of others, you will develop awesome CIV skills!
As those who frequent CFC may know, this is a lot like the GOTM games. The key difference between the two is that one is competitive, the other is not. This is most obvious from the fact that you can play AU games at any difficulty level you like.
But I like getting a score and comparing it to that of others, why is AU against that?
Personally, I'm not. I think a ranking system is a good idea. Here's a draft of what we could implement:
For playing an AU game ("course"): 3 points
For achieving a victory condition: 2 points
For playing the game more than once: 2 points
For posting a report: 1-3 points
For actively/constructively posting in other peoples' reports: 1-3 points
For completing a course on Chieftain difficulty: 0 points
Warlord: 1 point
Prince: 2 points
Monarch: 3 points
...
Deity: 6 points
For playing 3 consecutive AU games: 2 points
For playing 5/6 consecutive AU games: 4 points
For playing 8/10 consecutive AU games: 6 points
For winning the "most interesting report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most entertaining report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most helpful" award: 3 points
For winning the "most innovative" award: 3 points
For winning the "most impressive overall" award: 5 points
etc.
Obviously the exact numbers need some tweaking, and we could add or drop some categories altogether.
Points would be tallied and kept in a AU "Hall of Fame" (pending a better name).
The idea behind this scheme is that by accumulating points players would feel a sense of progression within AU. Since the categories are not all "competitive", gaining points would not strictly about competition and therefore would not be against the philosophy of AU.
We can even give certain rewards for accumulating certain amounts of points. The most basic would be simple titles, such as: Egg, Freshman, Senior, Tutor, Instructor, Advisor and Overlord. I'm sure the AU Dean could also figure out some better awards (such as custom civgroup-type icons).
What kinds of "themes" can I expect from these "courses"?
It's really up to you! In the past we've focused on anything and everything that you could craft a strategy around:
a. Traits (Industrious, Religious, etc.)
b. Civs (Romans, Persians, etc.)
c. Maps (archipelago, pangea, etc.)
d. Victory Conditions (space race, cultural, etc.)
e. Golden Ages
f. Scenarios
Of course, since CIV promises so much more, we could also do:
g. Great People (how to use/abuse them)
h. Civics (what combinations are best)
i. Maps (more variety than in Civ3)
j. Other stuff yet unknown...
Typically we have a vote on what the theme for the next course should be. In the early courses after CIV's release, though, I think "random" should be the default, since everyone will just be getting to know the game. Or am I wrong; would it help to learn if you have a focus?
What about recording all this great knowledge created via AU courses?
I'm glad you asked!
As discussed elsewhere, a new responsibility AU could take on would be to create a "Grand CIV Strategy Database" (pending a better name).
The motivation here is that there's a lot of great strategy stuff posted on Apolyton (in the Strategy section, in the AU forum, and elsewhere), but once it's day in the sun has passed, it gets lost in the shuffle and becomes completely inacessible to newcomers (or us forgetful types). How inefficient! Here are some better ways:
a. A topped list of "must read" threads. This is what we had previously. Although it did a good job of weeding out the chaff, the ideas themselves were not really organized in a systematic way; it would still take a while to find stuff.
b. A curated repository of CIV information and strategies. This would work rather well for information (like little-known game mechanics), but less well for strategy since it's tough to take it out of context. Furthermore, it's unclear what makes up a "strategy", and from where we would accumulate them (direction poaching of the Strategy forum!?).
c. A series of "guest lecturers" or "feature articles". Going along with the "university" theme, we could release periodic strategy commentary from resident (or guest) experts. I know this is done on forums for other games, and it works quite well.
d. A collection of "lessons learned" from each AU course. This would require the players themselves to submit their list of lessons, from which a few of the best would be kep (or maybe all, to be fair?). To me, this seems like an attractive option, since AU is all about the thematic games anyway.
All right, I'm ready to talk about the AU mod now.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it's a bit premature to discuss gameplay modifications to a game that's not been released already.
However, it's not a bad idea to get a head start on some discussion. Here are some questions (skip this if you're not interested in the AU mod):
a. Should we revisit the AU mod philosophy?
b. Does the "panel" system work?
c. Should we really encourage players to play the mod at the risk of alienating some?
Anything else that's not been covered already?
Here are some outstanding issues:
a. Organization: who does what? Right now we have an AU Dean, and that's about it. Should specific roles be defined, and people found to fit them? Or should this remain "grass roots" as it was in Civ3.
b. Courses: should they be totally random, crafted by a scenario designer, or something in between? When should the first one be released? At what intervals?
c. Multiplayer: I think AU should form a CIV multiplayer clan! Who could possibly defeat us?! Perhaps we could even have multiplayer AU courses? What about PBEM games? Perhaps a more basic question is appropriate: should AU "teach" MP as well as SP skills?
---
Whew! Long post. Anyway, as I said above, please provide feeback on all this: the above is just my thoughts on paper; nothing is yet final.
I hope this has whet some of your appetities for participating in Apolyton University when CIV comes out. As many of the old regulars have discovered, playing Civ as a community is much more fun than playing it alone!
Are you done yet!?
Yes. Now it's up to you:
What would you do with AU?
Why have you bothered me!?
My goal here is to throw out some ideas I have for updating AU for CIV. With these ideas I also have a lot of questions, so please feel free to post feedback. AU is not an exclusive club of strategy experts; it's as much yours as it is mine or anyone else's, and you can participate as much or as little as you like.
Let me just say that personally I'm very excited about AU in light of the upcoming release of CIV. When AU was first created, Civ3 had already been available for quite some time and on the whole players at Apolyton had played it quite a bit. So, although a lot of people learned of Civ3 strategy via AU in those days, AU was never really there for the original process of discovery. It's my hope that, this time, AU will not only help players perfect their game, but also take their first few (many!) steps as well.
So, what does AU do, exactly?
At it's most basic level, Apolyton University "produces" two things:
a. A series of thematic games designed to teach various aspects of Civ3 gameplay.
b. A mod (the AU mod) for "enhanced" gameplay.
It also "provides" something, namely:
c. A forum for reporting and comparing thematic games.
I think it's uncontentious to state that #1 and #3 form the "core" of AU, and should make the transition to the CIV version. Let's discuss #2, the mod, in a little bit.
Ok, so how do these "thematic games" work, anyway?
The idea is simple: every month or so, a game is posted for all to play. Since the point of AU is to learn about the game and not (directly) to compete with other players, you can play at any difficulty level you like.
When you're done or while you're playing, you can come back to the forum and (optionally) post a report of your game for all to see. By posting your report and reading those of others, you will develop awesome CIV skills!
As those who frequent CFC may know, this is a lot like the GOTM games. The key difference between the two is that one is competitive, the other is not. This is most obvious from the fact that you can play AU games at any difficulty level you like.
But I like getting a score and comparing it to that of others, why is AU against that?
Personally, I'm not. I think a ranking system is a good idea. Here's a draft of what we could implement:
For playing an AU game ("course"): 3 points
For achieving a victory condition: 2 points
For playing the game more than once: 2 points
For posting a report: 1-3 points
For actively/constructively posting in other peoples' reports: 1-3 points
For completing a course on Chieftain difficulty: 0 points
Warlord: 1 point
Prince: 2 points
Monarch: 3 points
...
Deity: 6 points
For playing 3 consecutive AU games: 2 points
For playing 5/6 consecutive AU games: 4 points
For playing 8/10 consecutive AU games: 6 points
For winning the "most interesting report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most entertaining report" award: 3 points
For winning the "most helpful" award: 3 points
For winning the "most innovative" award: 3 points
For winning the "most impressive overall" award: 5 points
etc.
Obviously the exact numbers need some tweaking, and we could add or drop some categories altogether.
Points would be tallied and kept in a AU "Hall of Fame" (pending a better name).
The idea behind this scheme is that by accumulating points players would feel a sense of progression within AU. Since the categories are not all "competitive", gaining points would not strictly about competition and therefore would not be against the philosophy of AU.
We can even give certain rewards for accumulating certain amounts of points. The most basic would be simple titles, such as: Egg, Freshman, Senior, Tutor, Instructor, Advisor and Overlord. I'm sure the AU Dean could also figure out some better awards (such as custom civgroup-type icons).
What kinds of "themes" can I expect from these "courses"?
It's really up to you! In the past we've focused on anything and everything that you could craft a strategy around:
a. Traits (Industrious, Religious, etc.)
b. Civs (Romans, Persians, etc.)
c. Maps (archipelago, pangea, etc.)
d. Victory Conditions (space race, cultural, etc.)
e. Golden Ages
f. Scenarios
Of course, since CIV promises so much more, we could also do:
g. Great People (how to use/abuse them)
h. Civics (what combinations are best)
i. Maps (more variety than in Civ3)
j. Other stuff yet unknown...
Typically we have a vote on what the theme for the next course should be. In the early courses after CIV's release, though, I think "random" should be the default, since everyone will just be getting to know the game. Or am I wrong; would it help to learn if you have a focus?
What about recording all this great knowledge created via AU courses?
I'm glad you asked!
As discussed elsewhere, a new responsibility AU could take on would be to create a "Grand CIV Strategy Database" (pending a better name).
The motivation here is that there's a lot of great strategy stuff posted on Apolyton (in the Strategy section, in the AU forum, and elsewhere), but once it's day in the sun has passed, it gets lost in the shuffle and becomes completely inacessible to newcomers (or us forgetful types). How inefficient! Here are some better ways:
a. A topped list of "must read" threads. This is what we had previously. Although it did a good job of weeding out the chaff, the ideas themselves were not really organized in a systematic way; it would still take a while to find stuff.
b. A curated repository of CIV information and strategies. This would work rather well for information (like little-known game mechanics), but less well for strategy since it's tough to take it out of context. Furthermore, it's unclear what makes up a "strategy", and from where we would accumulate them (direction poaching of the Strategy forum!?).
c. A series of "guest lecturers" or "feature articles". Going along with the "university" theme, we could release periodic strategy commentary from resident (or guest) experts. I know this is done on forums for other games, and it works quite well.
d. A collection of "lessons learned" from each AU course. This would require the players themselves to submit their list of lessons, from which a few of the best would be kep (or maybe all, to be fair?). To me, this seems like an attractive option, since AU is all about the thematic games anyway.
All right, I'm ready to talk about the AU mod now.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it's a bit premature to discuss gameplay modifications to a game that's not been released already.
However, it's not a bad idea to get a head start on some discussion. Here are some questions (skip this if you're not interested in the AU mod):
a. Should we revisit the AU mod philosophy?
b. Does the "panel" system work?
c. Should we really encourage players to play the mod at the risk of alienating some?
Anything else that's not been covered already?
Here are some outstanding issues:
a. Organization: who does what? Right now we have an AU Dean, and that's about it. Should specific roles be defined, and people found to fit them? Or should this remain "grass roots" as it was in Civ3.
b. Courses: should they be totally random, crafted by a scenario designer, or something in between? When should the first one be released? At what intervals?
c. Multiplayer: I think AU should form a CIV multiplayer clan! Who could possibly defeat us?! Perhaps we could even have multiplayer AU courses? What about PBEM games? Perhaps a more basic question is appropriate: should AU "teach" MP as well as SP skills?
---
Whew! Long post. Anyway, as I said above, please provide feeback on all this: the above is just my thoughts on paper; nothing is yet final.
I hope this has whet some of your appetities for participating in Apolyton University when CIV comes out. As many of the old regulars have discovered, playing Civ as a community is much more fun than playing it alone!
Are you done yet!?
Yes. Now it's up to you:
What would you do with AU?
Comment