September Civ2 Tournament: Rules/Ideas Discussions

[Ben Kenobi]

How would we establish a proper player handicap? Have people play games and then post their records, like they do in golf?

It would encourage some of the newer players to play because it would level the playing field, but if the handicaps are not calibrated properly, then you will see some odd results.

[-Jrabbit]

MGE this time, please.

A spotless rep rule would be nice, since I could then play in my normal style.

I do like the idea of AI WoW = endgame, but this would have to be played on a smallish world. Also, is there any way to track the year that the AI WoW is completed??

I must remember to get my new Mac set up with upzip software so I can play this time...

[La Fayette]

1) IMO 'no helper programs', 'no black-clicking', 'no bribe' and perhaps 'no tribute' and 'no huts' should be discussed or at least clearly chosen or forbidden.

2) I like Dave's idea of a No Wonder game.

3) A simple way to create handicaps = starting techs (MarkG would upload ten '4000BC' saves, with 0 to 9 starting techs on the Monarchy-Trade path, and any player would be free to choose his number).

4) Please no 'spotless rep' game, because I love to be 'atrocious'

[solo]

My preferences for the next game:

No wonders, no black-clicking, no bribing, no huts.

For handicapping, you could have the players who did better in the previous game make their starting settlers snooze for a specified number of turns before they are moved or used to found cities.

[SlowThinker]

'no helper programs'
I prefer to allow them. They don't give any advantage to players, they only speed up some laborious things or make them easier.
For example Hut finder: you don't need it if
1) You use pencil and paper and do the work yourself
2) You spend several days on studying the mechanics of the seed system
But both ways are laborious

3) J. Balsinde's Spanish scenarios are good. In one, (called "Silver Country" I think) it is quite a challenge just to survive as one of the minor tribes, but eventually you can attack. Victory could be based (for example) on the total number of Carthaginian cities (they are the largest nearby enemy) remaining after 100 turns or so.

It is a good idea to make the game hard. We are accustomed to games where AI is not a real competitor, we know we cannot lose. I would like a game where I know I have only a little chance to win.
To play a hard scenario is a good idea, another possibility are deity+5 or some restrictions in rules (like no wonders, no caravans, or at least only undemanded commodities)... and probably a mix of these methods.
A compromise between a vanilla game and the scenario would be a half-scenario: normal rules.txt, but Markos(?) would prepare a premade starting position with very strong AIs and events that would strengthen AIs also during the game.

Originally posted by solo
For handicapping, you could have the players who did better in the previous game make their starting settlers snooze for a specified number of turns before they are moved or used to found cities.

a very simple and very effective way...

No wonders, no black-clicking, no bribing, no huts.

I agree.

[MarkG]

i'm open to the though of other people than me creating a tournament game and sending it to me
(actually, our HOF/Tournaments system allows for anyone to start a tournament himself)

[Ljube]

I can only play next tourney if it's MGE.

[MarkG]

why? it's backwards compatible

[duke o' york]

Yes.

If Markos posts a .sav from vanilla Civ 2 or 2.42 then you can use them with MGE. This has the added benefit of allowing those who do not have MGE to play, and to compare themselves with those who have. To be honest, there aren't too many posters here who don't have MGE, but we need as many people playing as possible so it makes no sense to restrict the potential appeal. For those who have MGE then we have been playing with it for such a long time that we're used to the "harder" diplomacy level, and it won't make any difference that those playing on other versions will have a slightly "nicer" AI. Although I've got 2.42 installed, I only ever play MGE so it might even be a handicap to have the easier diplomacy.

[Old n Slow]

Handicap method -- save at 4000 BC; click 10 times (no move), save at 3550BC, click ten more times, save at 3050BC (etc. if desired.)

Or maybe we'll need a click 20, click 50 strata.

Or we could use my method...start the game only a few days before it is due.

[Elephant]

Perhaps with No Wonders you could still leave them for the AI to build (HG, GL, GW, MC can be a big help to them) but not permit human building or capturing. A city with a wonder would have to be razed rather than captured.

Doing away with huts changes the game into a Scenario, which has direct techs, which removed a bit of the tech path challenge with hidden techs. Of course, if all you are going to do is beeline to PT this doesn't matter as much.

The flip side of this discussion is that we are shooting toward making this game near-impossible for the weak players. Decide whether you want to include them or not before you consider such things as D+5 or one of Balsinde's killer scenarios.

[La Fayette]

[SIZE=1] The flip side of this discussion is that we are shooting toward making this game near-impossible for the weak players.

So true
but there is a method of handicapping that would solve that problem: allow playing at any difficulty level
(I suppose that 'no wonder' played at chieftain level should be manageable by many).

[rjmatsleepers]

It seems to me that some of the ideas being put forward would have a different impact on conquest, early landing and OCC. I think it would be good if we can keep all these options open and let the player decide.

I like the idea of handicapping by simply waiting around with the settlers at the begining. This will make the game harder the longer the wait, but will it have much impact on the final score? (Perhaps that is the benefit )

RJM at Sleeper's

[Peaster]

I guess I'm still one of the weaker players, but will probably play under whatever rules are chosen. I like the snoozing-settler handicap system. It allows all the players to use the same map, which makes the threads more interesting. Not sure the other proposals allow that.

A scenario would be an equalizing factor, since the units, tech tree, etc, are new to everybody. No? Maybe I'll try to start a scenario tournament in a few months, but for now I wouldn't want it to compete with this one.

[Ljube]

A suggestion for the next tournament:

Do not rank conquest victories by score. Rank them by year. It's much more logical.