Publicizing the Next AU Course

[Tassadar500]

I will officially make this an AU house rule as Dominae previously stated. To accept any GPT deals with the AI you must half the amount for the trade to be allowed.

[Theseus]

Good solution... but what about the FP bug?

Another proposed house rule: No suicide curraughs.

To ducki's point, I think that conceptually replaying some of the original course is an excellent idea. For instance:
*isolation, has, of course, become a much more difficult issue.
*with the introduction of SGLs, a peacenik game should be very interesting.

[Tassadar500]

I'm not sure how to deal with the FP bug. Does anyone have a suggestion? And I do agree no suicide Curraughs. The AI does not use them at all so a human player shouldn't.

[Rhothaerill]

I have no idea how to get around the FP bug. I don't know that it's possible right now, but I don't think that should dissuade us from the game. PTW had bugs when it came out too and people still played.

[Tassadar500]

I just want to know if any one has been advertising yet? I will be away for 1 day so when I get back you all need to have been advertising Anyway Dominae I want you to release the AU course at around 11-12 G.M.T. Is that ok for you?

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
I just want to know if any one has been advertising yet? I will be away for 1 day so when I get back you all need to have been advertising Anyway Dominae I want you to release the AU course at around 11-12 G.M.T. Is that ok for you?

Looooook into my eyes...err, actually at my signature. New course soon sounds good to me.

[Dominae]

I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI). I would prefer not restrict strategic options with our house rules, because that would make AU less accessible. "What, you're not allowed size 10+ artillery stacks in AU games...boo!".

There's a long list of "exploits" that we could address in house rules, but the problem is where to stop. Trapping AI units? ROP rape? F1 production swap? This is a non-competitive game, so any player is free to use or not use anything that the game is designed to allow. For example, had we "banned" RCP in AU, many players would never have learned about it, or through it about how Corruption works in general.

The AU mod is where we can set up our house rules (since it's, of course, optional). But since the C3C version of the mod is nowhere near ready, I think we should all suck it up and play stock rules for now.


Dominae

[MrWhereItsAt]

I guess I'm game, being on a sort of more level playing field this time around - I just couldn't get into those AU courses for PtW - they were too advanced and specialised by the time I was trying to get into them., and that really put me off.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI). I would prefer not restrict strategic options with our house rules, because that would make AU less accessible. "What, you're not allowed size 10+ artillery stacks in AU games...boo!".

My sentiments exactly.

And I'll repeat my view that we're rushing into an early AU course despite knowing that the game is broken in its current state, and I haven't heard a good reason why. The current major bugs -- in which I would include (i) the gpt bug; (ii) the FP city-ranking bug; and (iii) the SPHQ bug (for the AI), and in which I would very much want to include the RCP "fix" bug since I think it is such a messed-up solution but I'm not sure I'd call it a bug so much as a silly "solution" to an existing problem -- dramatically alter gameplay, IMHO.

And one of the bigger challenges posed by the game's current state is that we're unsure of exactly how it helps or hurts the AI. Is a slower tech rate / easier tech superiority the result of the corruption bugs? the delayed contacts? the changes to republic? the gpt bug? the presence of new traits? some combination of the above and many other factors? We have no way of knowing.

Unlike self-imposed restrictions we've played with in past AU games in order to focus significant attention on one or another aspect of gameplay, the present bug situation and resulting gameplay does not strike me as offering any significant lessons to be learned other than general gameplay issues unaffected by the bugs, and could potentially do harm to AU learning. One of the points of AU is to learn from others -- the game in its present state presents the distinct possibility that we "teach" and "learn" lessons that are contrary to good gameplay in a properly functioning game. Since a comparative game under these circumstances has, IMHO, limited applicability to future games (or past games), and would seem to be so entirely "stand-alone" in ceratin aspects of gameplay, why would we push the first AU Conquests so aggressively when we can assume that a patch must be coming sometime in the near future? Let's allow our non-US colleagues to experiment with a buggy Conquests a bit while we wait for a patch -- even in the absence of "official" AU games, there have already been three posted comparative game offers in the past week (DrSpike, jshelr, korn) -- settle on a comparative game if there's a burning desire for such a game, but why rush to launch the first Conquests AU game and immortalize this buggy environment in DARs and in the AU History thread in ways which are not repeatable by the folks who visit the AU threads 2 months from now?

Catt

[Theseus]

It is a rare occasion, that I disagree with Catt.

I am happy to observe that people WANT a new AU game, C3C-style.

SO... can't we design a first game that avoids the current problems with C3C? Small map, perhaps? Pangaea?

There is more than enough to explore... let us start easily. For instance, perhaps a small test of what it means to be Agricultural?

And I take MWIA's point to heart: Were we getting too esoteric?

KISS.

[Dominae]

Well, instead of starting with "The Power of Agricultural", we started with "The Power of Seafaring". Both should run into the same bugs/problems that we've been discussing here.


Dominae

[Kuciwalker]

Does the gpt bug occur in C3C mp? If so, you could make a LOT of money if you coordinated it with another player...

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
SO... can't we design a first game that avoids the current problems with C3C?

If you can, please let me know how, and I'll play that style game until the first patch .

Seriously though, the question really comes down to launching an AU game within a framework that Firaxis has acknowledged is buggy in a serious way, or instead limiting ourselves to shared experiences or even shared games. It's not a terribly big deal, but I just keep imagining the AU history thread with this sore thumb of a game consisting of unrepeatable, by any stretch of the imagination, circumstances.

And with players in Europe just now getting their hands on the game, why are we racing to have an initial AU game posted immediately? What has generated a sense of urgency?

Catt

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Theseus
For instance, perhaps a small test of what it means to be Agricultural?

Exactly the sort of thing that the first few AU games for C3C should be - testing the new attribs and changes to existing ideas, such as a map designed where getting your own contact is both extremely important and very difficult, for instance (at least until printing Press! )

[QUOTE
And I take MWIA's point to heart: Were we getting too esoteric?
[/QUOTE]

Well doubtless not for those significant number who had gone through many AU courses and were looking for something new. For me, and possibly for others new to AU, however, there was no easy intro, and the idea of playing in a situation or scenario as specific as some of the last few were was a bit too much for this AU n00b.

I do look at this as a great chance to start from scratch, as posted. There are many new things in C3C that ALL of us should try out, and thus if ever there was a time to get on the AU bandwagon it is now.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dominae
I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI).

Exactly. House rules in a comparative game should be rare exceptions.