Should the next AU course come before or after a patch?

[Dominae]

Well, Civ3 - Conquests is finally out, and now that most of us have tinkered with it a bit, it's about time for the first C3C AU course. In a thread found here, it was decided that the topic of the next course would be "The Power of Seafaring", and that we would be playing the awesome Byzantines. The scenario is now ready, but there's a slight problem.

Many players have noticed some pretty major problems with C3C (see these threads: C3C Corruption: Whoa!!!, Conquests Bug Thread, A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch). In particular, Corruption and the FP are acting really weirdly, and there's a bug that grants double Gold from gpt deals. These things affect gameplay significantly, and will surely be addressed in the next patch.

As evidenced by this thread, there is some reticence in starting an AU course while the game is in such a "broken" state. On one hand, the game is still playable and fun, so an AU course should still be worth the effort despite the bugs. On the other, the learning aspect of AU will be severely undermined by the whacky gameplay. Another thing to consider is that we do not know how long it will be before the first patch is released.

Thanks for voting for either option 1 or 2.


Dominae

[Theseus]

Banana?

I voted yes... we can do a limited concept game to explore some of the new facets of C3C without running into the major flaws.

I reiterate: We need a discussion of the course schedule considering current conditions and likely future patches.

[Dominae]

The Great Banana is currently in hiding (at least, in this poll).

Theseus, are you suggesting we not do The Power of Seafaring AU, in liew of a "limited concept" course? What do you have in mind for one of those?

If only Firaxis/Breakaway gave us a list of patch release dates in advance!


Dominae

[Catt]

Well I voted "after" (surpirse!). But I don't think the game is in a sorry state -- I just think it is in a very different and very short-lived state. I am playing C3C now and enjoying myself -- but it strikes me as a game quite different from PTW in important ways, and ways that prevent me from forming conclusions about the how the corrected C3C could be played, and how it compares to PTW.

Catt

[nbarclay]

My preference would be to have an "unofficial" AU game, maybe called "Experiments in Conquests," so we can play around and compare notes on the game as it is now. The Netherlands might be a perfect civ for that since they have both new civ traits (Agricultural and Seafaring). One possible added twist would be a rule that the human player is not allowed to make GPT deals, since a combination of a tech lead and the GPT bug can give the human player a preposterous advantage.

I don't want to have a "mainline" AU game under the current rules because something like "The Power of Seafaring" would just have to be repeated once the rules get fixed if we want a feel for how strategies work in the "real" game. In terms of how bugs affect gameplay (as opposed to stability or the existence of exploits), Conquests seems a lot buggier than the original Civ 3 was when it first shipped.

I'm not voting for the moment since my vote isn't precisely either yes or no.

Nathan

[MrWhereItsAt]

Following on from nbarclay, what about a Preparatory, or between terms AU course? For me it would be ideal to call it Apolyton University Summer School - a basic introductory course to induct new people before the proper start of University and, here, it IS summer.

If it's ready, let's start it. We will still get a lot out of it, and it's not as if a single pre-patch game is going to cause any harm, is it?

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
If it's ready, let's start it. We will still get a lot out of it, and it's not as if a single pre-patch game is going to cause any harm, is it?

Exactly. Game on!

[vmxa1]

Well if you choose to wait, how long woudl it be, weeks, months?
Anyway why wait, have fun now, deal with patches if and when they come.

[DrSpike]

After. Expending effort now is pointless. Plus, people will have chance to get used to the game more.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
My preference would be to have an "unofficial" AU game, maybe called "Experiments in Conquests," so we can play around and compare notes on the game as it is now. The Netherlands might be a perfect civ for that since they have both new civ traits (Agricultural and Seafaring).

The reason we chose not to play the Dutch is that that civ has both new traits, and therefore it's more difficult to focus on one of them for the uninitiated. If you guys are worried about the potential scholastic value of playing with a confused game, playing with both new traits will surely confuse the experiment even more.

I thought the whole point of AU was as an experiement anyway (like experiments in physics or chemistry courses). Why is everyone afraid of an "official" course? This is not a competition!

If the worry is about posterity, we can always go back, update the scenario rules for C3C v1.01 after the patch is released, and put that as the "official" course in the AU History thread.

Other than the annoyance of playing with a slightly buggy game, we lose very little by starting this before the patch, IMO (I lose nothing, because I'll not even be playing!).


Dominae

[DrSpike]

But many people, myself included, wont play through any game you set up now. If you wait you'll get more response to your efforts I think. But of course, comparison games are always good...........if you think you have demand go for it.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Conquests seems a lot buggier than the original Civ 3 was when it first shipped.

Ah, the original v1.07 ... you could get tons of gold in diplomacy, the Great Lighthouse permitted save ocean travel, and air superiority was working for the AI, but not for the human player.

On topic: after.

[ducki]

I voted "Before", but I would also prefer it not be an official course - more of a prep/elective type thing. I'm fond of revisiting an old course similar to when PtW came out, but I'm probably the only one.

[TheArsenal]

After.

If these were bugs of a different, lesser sort I may have said “go ahead”. But I can’t see putting in the time commitment until its fixed.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae

I thought the whole point of AU was as an experiement anyway (like experiments in physics or chemistry courses). Why is everyone afraid of an "official" course? This is not a competition!

It's not a competition, but its an opportunity to learn and teach and have fun. Experiments in physics or chemistry entail exploring against an immutable series of laws / rules -- whatever learnings arise, so long as properly understood, are applicable to additional experiements and inform against past learnings that might then be seen in a new light. The rules of Civ 3 change in ways from version to version by design of the developer, but this particular version was not by design. AU has provided a lot of fun in experimenting against both "basic game functions" and against certain of these changes from version to version that come about by design of the developers. But we're talking about experimenting against a backdrop of design changes unintended and soon to disappear forever (hopefully!).

It's not being "afraid" of an official course, it's a question of benefit / harm by promoting a game under the AU umbrella. Presumably there is something different between an AU game and an ordinary comparison game posted for others to play and compare. If so what is it? Would playing under the AU umbrella have the potential to do harm and the potential to do good? I won't rehash why I think the risk of harm is present (nor will I repeat the solid, IMHO, arguments others have made), even if I might be persuaded that the risk of harm, or the level of harm likely, is somewhat low.

Other than the annoyance of playing with a slightly buggy game, we lose very little by starting this before the patch, IMO (I lose nothing, because I'll not even be playing!).

But what do we gain? Is there something tangible to be gained by playing under the AU umbrella versus posting a start with a seafaring civ and inviting others to play and compare? If so, how does it offset any potential loss by playing under the AU?

Despite my repeated postings on this subject, I really don't feel worked up about this -- AU is voluntary and those who don't want to play simply won't -- I am just still struggling to understand, because I haven't a reason why yet, we should be launching an AU game now, in these circumstances -- all I've heard, in one form or another, is that it would be fun to compare games.

Catt