Tweet
Elephant,
Even though an open tech tree would be the result of wiping huts, this might be the best way to go, since there is still skill involved in deciding what is best to research next.
I have always agreed that games using numerous starting techs or those replayed from a known start should not "count" as records. They only show what is possible when starting with such advantages. I hope no one has been misled into believing otherwise.
A lower barb setting may be best. 150 gold for leaders is inordinately huge in the early stages of the game, and is one reason why I researched how to increase my chances for nabbing leaders in previous games.
Your points about AI differences are well taken, as this would become more of a factor in hutless games.
SG(1),
50g from every hut is a not a bad idea and would be one way to help equalize results. You could take this a step further, by letting all players reload until they get the result they desire the most. No two players would agree what is best! This would require judgment, rather than luck, and would eliminate any doubt about how huts were used.
I very much agree that detailed logs are the way to go in formal comparison games, such as the OCC fortnightly contests organized by Paul.
Perhaps we might get something like this going again, if enough players are interested in participating on a regular basis. If so, we can start off by drafting a set of rules the majority of us agree upon. Afterwards, I would be willing to write up an Early Landing Guide we could use for comparison games, similar to what Paul did with OCC.
Ottok,
Exactly! We see eye to eye on everything!
Even though an open tech tree would be the result of wiping huts, this might be the best way to go, since there is still skill involved in deciding what is best to research next.
I have always agreed that games using numerous starting techs or those replayed from a known start should not "count" as records. They only show what is possible when starting with such advantages. I hope no one has been misled into believing otherwise.
A lower barb setting may be best. 150 gold for leaders is inordinately huge in the early stages of the game, and is one reason why I researched how to increase my chances for nabbing leaders in previous games.
Your points about AI differences are well taken, as this would become more of a factor in hutless games.
SG(1),
50g from every hut is a not a bad idea and would be one way to help equalize results. You could take this a step further, by letting all players reload until they get the result they desire the most. No two players would agree what is best! This would require judgment, rather than luck, and would eliminate any doubt about how huts were used.
I very much agree that detailed logs are the way to go in formal comparison games, such as the OCC fortnightly contests organized by Paul.
Perhaps we might get something like this going again, if enough players are interested in participating on a regular basis. If so, we can start off by drafting a set of rules the majority of us agree upon. Afterwards, I would be willing to write up an Early Landing Guide we could use for comparison games, similar to what Paul did with OCC.
Ottok,
Exactly! We see eye to eye on everything!
Instead of the Paulicy perhaps Solo Success (so low - as in date) ... OK that's awful 
) However, I agree it would eliminate any suggestion of convenient luck.
(Not SG(1) ... sorry this really confuses posters)
Comment