Next AU course (after AU601)...

[Dominae]

Although AU601 is still running for most teams, I was wondering if anyone is interested in a new SP AU course. It's been a long time since we've had one (before the summer, I believe). Despite there being only two human players per game, AU601 will still take a while longer to finish. Most teams are not even updating their threads anymore (before I forget: congrats to Krill for thrashing me!). I want to avoid having a "dead" AU forum, and I think a brand-new AU course is just what we need.

Assuming the poll results in a resounding YES!, here's my idea for the next AU course:

Fastest 100k Cultural Victory

Now bear with me. Previously, AU courses have not specified which victory type to go for (except the succession game). Nor have they required that the player try to win as quickly as possible. So I think it's high time we practice/learn these skills.

100k Cultural victory, while seemingly a "cheesy" win, is actually one of the hardest, assuming you're playing on a difficulty level appropriate to your skill. It's not just about building lots of cultural improvements, because you have to balance that with early expansion, military conquest, and worrying about the AIs' cultural ratings. It's about more than getting a tech lead and beating up your opponents with massive armies (although that's certainly an option!).

Adding the requirement that players try for the fastest possible cultural win is essential. Without it, 100k Cultural wins degenerate into a waiting game against an AI that has no idea what's going on (which is why players often view 100k wins as "cheesy"). By comparing how each player goes about reaching the 100k mark the fastest, we would get some valuable insight into how this oft-forgotten victory condition is best played.

That's my pitch.

As for civ selection, Babylon is the obvious choice. But perhaps we could be a little more daring and select a civ that's Religious or Scientific but not both. Or, to mix things up a bit, we could select a Religious civ and a Scientific civ, and let the player choose which he/she thinks is fastest to the 100k mark.

Sound interesting? Here's a bouncy smiley to get your energies up:

[Rhothaerill]

It sounds interesting. I haven't played an SP game since the one with the Celts (AU502?).

[Modo44]

Maybe add having all 5 best cities as a bonus goal.

[lockstep]

I'm very busy in general (RL), but I really like the idea of a cultural victory AU course (I won AU 501 by 20k). So: maybe.

[nbarclay]

I like the basic idea, but if we do it, I'd like to do one of two other things: either turn the space race victory condition off, or allow players to win by space race if an AI gets to one tech away from having all the space race techs before the player can get to 100K culture. Part of the fun of Civ for me is building up the most glorious civilization I can, and I have nothing against a special focus on culture as a means of achieving glory. But the possibility of feeling a need to deliberately hold back the tech pace in order to buy extra time for a cultural victory or, alternatively, of having to fight wars to keep AIs from launching a spaceship before I can reach 100K culture, seems too artificial and contrived for my taste.

Nathan

[Modo44]

I think it would be simpler to set the world size to large and oceans to 60%. With more cities, reaching 100K culture should be easy enough. Plus you wouldn't have players deliberately going for the space win.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I like the basic idea, but if we do it, I'd like to do one of two other things: either turn the space race victory condition off, or allow players to win by space race if an AI gets to one tech away from having all the space race techs before the player can get to 100K culture.

You would be taking a lot of the challenge out of the game by doing that. Like I said in my original post, the only way 100k Culture victory is fun is if there are factors working against you: namely, "the clock", in the sense that you want to win as quickly as possible, and in the sense that the AI actually has a chance of foiling your plans with a SS or Diplomatic win. Otherwise you're just playing a waiting game.

It's great that you've figured out a way of dealing with these factors. But other players may not have. Since this is supposed to be a learning experience for all, I see no reason to alter the game setup because your solution does not fit into how you like to play the game.

Trust me, your empire is glorious enough when you have double everyone else's Culture!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


You would be taking a lot of the challenge out of the game by doing that. Like I said in my original post, the only way 100k Culture victory is fun is if there are factors working against you: namely, "the clock", in the sense that you want to win as quickly as possible,

Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible. The way I look at it, the greatest challenge is found in trying to win a 100K cultural victory without resorting to special tricks along those lines. But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly. The true glory in my view stems from when a cultural victory would have been achieved if the game lasted long enough, not in slowing things down to prevent a space race victory from being able to occur before a cultural victory can be won.

and in the sense that the AI actually has a chance of foiling your plans with a SS or Diplomatic win. Otherwise you're just playing a waiting game.

If players enjoy the challenge of slowing down a space race victory to buy extra time for a cultural victory, more power to them. But why define the game parameters so that such behavior is expected even if players don't enjoy it?

If we would leave the space race victory condition on, players could play either of two ways.

1) They could do what you suggest and make it a goal to ensure that they win before any AIs get a chance to win the space race.

2) They could play the way I prefer and focus on achieving as much as they can culturally without worrying about special tricks to slow down an space launch (unless it happens to seem like the thing to do at the time). In that case, if they have to win a space race victory first, proof of cultural success could come either from a projected date of cultural victory based on F8 data from the last two turns of the game or from playing the game out after the official victory until a cultural victory would have occurred. (By these criteria, winning a space race victory would not make a game successful if a player was not on a path to a cultural victory.)

So we still get our focus on trying to win a cultural victory as quickly as possible, but we give players a little more choice regarding how they would rather play.

By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on.

[Modo44]

Personally, I would rather have preferable conditions that allow for a comfortable cultural win anyway. And then I would like to see and try ways to win it really, really fast. I say again - increase the world size.

[nbarclay]

Regarding the question of what civ or civs to use, I like the idea of offering a choice between Religious and Scientific, the problem being finding civs that are matched well in other ways. If we would look for the same second trait, the possibilities (unless I missed one) would be:

Egypt/Persia (Industrious)
Egypt/Ottomans (Industrious)
Arabia/Russia (Expansionist)
Spanish/Byzantines (Seafaring)
Celts/Sumerians (Agricultural)
Japan/Germany (Militaristic)
India/Greece (Commercial)
India/Korea (Commercial)

Of these, Egypt/Persia and Celts/Sumerians are most closely matched in when their UUs would be likely to trigger a GA (unless a Sumerian player would opt for an earlier GA from pillaging), but I'm not sure how matched they are in other ways. Prior to C3C, I would have considered Egypt and Persia pretty well matched in the power of their UUs, but with bombardment units' greater power in C3C, I have to view the Immortal as pretty clearly the better UU now. The Celts and Sumerians are geared for very different playing styles, with the Celts more oriiented toward offense and the Sumerians more toward pillaging, so I don't really know how they'd match up. India/Greece might also be pretty good; Greece could launch its GA earlier if it wants to (and might have some interesting pillaging potential), but India can still trigger its GA with its UU fairly early in the medieval era if it wants to. In the other match-ups, one civ would be able to get a late ancient or early medieval GA with its UU if it wants to while the other would have to wait significantly longer for its GA.

Looking at civs with a different second trait, I'm not noticing any UU match-ups that look enough better to offset the difference in second traits. So Egypt/Persia, Celts/Sumerians, and India/Greece would be my three finalists for what pair of civs to suggest. Of those, I like Egypt/Persia best.

Any other thoughts on what civs to use?

[Tall Stranger]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how leaving the Space Race victory on makes any sense if we're trying to win via 100K culture. It's going to make the game absurdly easy and eliminate virtually any risk of losing.

Originally posted by nbarclay


Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible.

Actually, I completely disagree with this statement. Those tactics (particularly slowing the tech pace) are legitimate ways of reaching this goal. In fact, I would argue that NOT slowing down the tech pace when playing for a 100K cultural victory is a strategic blunder. The SS related techs offer nothing of value for cultural builders. I think a key part of this victory condition is recognizing that a 4-turn research cycle is counterproductive in this case. It robs you of gold that would be valuable in rushing cultural builds AND it makes it easier for the AI to beat you in an SS race.

But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I disagree. The point here is that you need to develop a strategy for winning via 100K, not just coast on autopilot at the tail end of the game. In your two examples, the "would have won in 1650" game is actually LESS impressive than the "actual victory in 1700" game. The first represents poor strategy, the second good strategy.

By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on.

Why? Using your own logic, isn't a game where I would have won in 1650 were it not for a Diplomatic defeat more impressive than an actual victory in 1700? By extension, shouldn't we include domination and conquest victory as well? That way, I could say, "I would have won in 1500 via 100K, were it not for my victory in 1000 via domination." These arguments are no less valid than your SS argument.

Just for the record, I think all victory conditions should be on, but only 100K cultural victories should be considered "real wins" for the purposes of this course.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44
Personally, I would rather have preferable conditions that allow for a comfortable cultural win anyway. And then I would like to see and try ways to win it really, really fast. I say again - increase the world size.

Is it really that much easier to win cultural victories on bigger maps than on smaller ones in C3C? In earlier versions, with the same number of culture points needed regardless of the map size, larger maps made cultual victories a whole lot easier. But with C3C requiring more culture points on larger maps, I'm not sure to what extent that is still the case.

[Dominae]

Wow, the poll shows 10 "Definitely YES!" and 0 for the other options!!

Originally posted by nbarclay
Egypt/Persia (Industrious)
Egypt/Ottomans (Industrious)
Arabia/Russia (Expansionist)
Spanish/Byzantines (Seafaring)
Celts/Sumerians (Agricultural)
Japan/Germany (Militaristic)
India/Greece (Commercial)
India/Korea (Commercial)

Thanks for posting this and your analysis. The combination I'm leaning towards is Arabia/Russia, for the following reasons:

1. Neither starts with Alphabet so the Scientific civ does not have an advantage.

2. Neither have been played much in AU courses before. Arabia was used for the succession game, and Russia in No Gold For You, but these were not very popular courses. Ideally we would pick India/Korea because both of those are IIRC new to AU, but the Commercial trait conflicts with the above point.

3. Ansar Warriors and Cossacks are comparable in power; they're both really good. As an added bonus, they're both Medieval era units, which is when you would want to be building most of your cultural infrastructure. This will give players something to think about during that critical era.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger

Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible.

Actually, I completely disagree with this statement. Those tactics (particularly slowing the tech pace) are legitimate ways of reaching this goal. In fact, I would argue that NOT slowing down the tech pace when playing for a 100K cultural victory is a strategic blunder. The SS related techs offer nothing of value for cultural builders. I think a key part of this victory condition is recognizing that a 4-turn research cycle is counterproductive in this case. It robs you of gold that would be valuable in rushing cultural builds AND it makes it easier for the AI to beat you in an SS race.

Getting into the modern era far enough to build research labs and the modern wonders as quickly as possible very clearly has value for cultural builders. (And if I wanted to get really picky, I could point out that the Strategic Missile Defense small wonder at the far end of the tech tree provides one culture point per turn. ) Further, while slowing down one's own research in order to do more rush building can have value for cultural builders, refusing to make deals that would be advantageous for one's own civ in order to keep AI research slower does not. Also note that under Communism, which can be a very useful government for building cultural improvements in distant locations, using gold for rush building is impossible.

But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I disagree. The point here is that you need to develop a strategy for winning via 100K, not just coast on autopilot at the tail end of the game. In your two examples, the "would have won in 1650" game is actually LESS impressive than the "actual victory in 1700" game. The first represents poor strategy, the second good strategy.

A lot of this has to do with how a person approaches Civ. If you look at it purely as a strategy game where you do whatever it takes to succeed under a particular set of special rules, your perspective makes perfect sense. But for a person who looks at the game in terms of building a civilization, the idea of going out of one's way to make a civilization less great than it could be seems perverse. I'll go into this a little more farther down.

By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on.

Why? Using your own logic, isn't a game where I would have won in 1650 were it not for a Diplomatic defeat more impressive than an actual victory in 1700? By extension, shouldn't we include domination and conquest victory as well? That way, I could say, "I would have won in 1500 via 100K, were it not for my victory in 1000 via domination." These arguments are no less valid than your SS argument.

The big difference is that I can avoid domination and diplomatic victories through essentially passive means. If I don't conquer 2/3 of the world, the only way a domination victory can take place is in the essentially unheard-of event that an AI might, which is something I'd want to stop anyhow. If I build the U.N. and don't hold a vote, there is no possibility of anyone's winning a diplomatic victory. So I don't have to do anything that "feels wrong" to take those victory conditions out of play.

Now consider the ways I've thought of so far to take the space race victory condition out of play for the AIs.

1) Slow down the tech pace. For me, doing things that are against my civilization's best interest just to slow down the tech pace fails miserably in the "feels wrong" test. There are some ways of slowing down AI research, such as getting AIs fighting each other, that have a good chance of making a lot more sense, but how effective they would be and how much sense they would make in terms of my own civilization's best interest would depend on the situation.

2) Capture enough strategic resources that no AI can build a spaceship. Chances are pretty good of being able to do that without doing anything that feels particularly wrong to me, but I'd rather not count on it.

3) Attack any AI that is threatening to win the space race in order to derail its space launch. Again, that is something that might or might not seem reasonable depending on the situation in the game at the time.

I'm all in favor of setting an outright cultural victory as the ideal for this game, and of encouraging players to try to find ways to buy whatever time they need for an outright cultural victory if they can do so without underming the fun they have from the game. That's how I plan to approach the game myself.

But why do we need to define players' games as unsuccessful if players choose not to go through whatever gyrations it takes to delay the space race until they can win by culture? In "Total Eternal Forever War," it would have been two entirely different games if some players were allowed to make peace and others weren't. But I see no similar problem with giving players a choice of how far they are inclined to go to delay the space race. Indeed, giving players a choice could even improve the learning experience in some ways by showing how different priorities affect the way people play.

Edit: The option of not automatically being considered unsuccessful if one can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race might also make the game less daunting to less experienced players, and it might encourage players to try a harder difficulty level than they would otherwise.

[Krill]

make that 11...


The only problem with the Arabia/Russia choice, as far as I can see, is the UUs. IMHO the Ansar is one of the best UUs in the game. The extra movement point is alot more powerful than Blitz (all this is relative to the normal unit that the reseptive UU replaces). (Another aspect of this problem is that the Ansar is cheaper, costing 60 shields, which is 30g less per upgrade than the normal Horseman-> Knight upgrade).While you are right, since both are good UUs, I think the Ansar makes it an unfair experiment. All this is IMVHO, though...


Egypt/Persia could be a fair experiment, although the map/resources would have to be altered slightly (although not to the extent of AU501...)


PS. Oh, yeah, when are you going to finish your DAR Dom? I want to look at what I did to your empire...