Next AU course (after AU601)...

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Krill
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...

Not only is the Ansar a better UU, but I imagine most players would consider its GA timing better - especially in a cultural game where an earlier GA can mean getting more cultural buildings up sooner. And the AU Mod's sabotage to cossacks as part of its sabotage to cavalry-level units further undermines how interesting cossacks are. So I don't think Arabia vs. Russia would provide anything even close to a fair comparison of the Religious and Scientific traits in this context.

[Dominae]

*** Potential Spoiler ***

Nathan: Players can beeline for Military Tradition and get a very nicely-timed GA. The Blitz Cossack is really quite good, have you played with it? In any case, the spoiler that I did not want anyone to read by mistake is simply that Scientific is better for 100k Culture victories. I believe this balances the two civs appropriately.

*** End Spoiler ***

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by nbarclay


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.

First off, no one is going to be relying on modern era buildings for the bulk of their 100K. The reality is that if you haven't built a firm cultural foundation in the earlier eras, you've made a major mistake. I think we can do this without the massive bonus provided by SDI !

Second, if you DO decide to "make deals that would be advantageous for one's own civ," you should be forced to balance this decision with the danger it poses to your effort to win. Allowing the player to win via SS reduces the importance of this trade-off.

Third, I find it hard to believe that any player is going to spend large portions of his time in communism (tho I agree it could have uses). If they plan to, they should probably pick the religious civ.

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.

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to stop you from making your civ as grand as possible. I'm only saying that, if you choose to do so, you should be forced to accept the danger this decision poses, namely that you might lose the game b/c the AI builds the SS and you can't.

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?

Because the goal of the game is to win as quickly as possible via 100K. It seems fundamentally unfair to allow players to "win" via SS. Having the option of using SS as a "safety net" will cause you to play in a fundamentally different way. This approach, IMHO, will teach us less about the inherent challenges in winning via 100K than would prohibiting players from winning via SS. I guess it comes down to how challenging we want to make this game.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by nbarclay
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. )

Actually no. The late wonders produce ridiculous amounts of culture and so do single research labs. They don't get anywhere near the culture that sums up from a single early temple, not to mention a full-blown culture city (rushed up to Cathedral and University). Only the Internet could really do you any good, but you probably won't get to it, if you build culture fast enough.

Originally posted by nbarclay
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.

Why would Communism be useful for this kind of game? You said yourself that it would hamper the cultural development of the empire. Remember that for culture, you don't need 5 temples later - you are better off with one temple now. And the only way to do that is to ensure easy rushing. No Communism here, sorry.

P.s. You might be right about the world size. I'm used to playing PTW and didn't consider the difference. Increasing the land percentage might still be a good idea, though.

[EDIT]
I'd really love to choose between Japan and Germany. Just to prove to some here, that religious is better for this game.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Nathan: Players can beeline for Military Tradition and get a very nicely-timed GA. The Blitz Cossack is really quite good, have you played with it?

No I haven't played with the Cossack with Blitz. Was the experience you're basing your opinion on from the regular version or the AU Mod version with a lower attack value?

Regarding the possibility of a beeline to Military Tradition, as long as an AI researches Education in a timely manner, that could work well. If not, a delay in starting universities could counter a lot of the benefit of getting the GA going sooner, especially for a Scientific civ. And no matter what, Russia's GA is four techs deeper into the tech tree than Arabia's.

Your spoiler giving your opinion of how the Religious and Scientific traits compare for this kind of game raises an interesting question: do we want to choose civs that are relatively equal other than their traits so we can see how the traits compare (at least if reasonable numbers of people choose each civ), or do we want to factor current wisdom regarding how the traits compare into the choice of civs?

[Dominae]

Yes, I was referring to the stock version of the Cossack. To tell you the truth I've never liked the Ansar Warrior because it gets comparatively more benefits that any other UU. I think the AU mod should address that.

Nonetheless, I still hold that the civs are equally-matched for this scenario. At the very least it's debatable, which is all we need.

[nbarclay]

The advantage of Communism is its communal corruption model, which allows distant cities to generate plenty of shields to build things without a need for rush building. If part of a civ's strategy for a cultural victory is to conquer a lot of territory to build additional cultural improvements in, that can be a useful thing.

Modo44, in a game where a player is at least even with the AIs in tech and an AI is threatening a space race victory by the time the player gets to 100K culture, and especially with a well-timed prebuild, the Internet can be completed in time for it and research labs to make some difference. Not a huge difference, but then a few extra rush-built industrial-era cathedals and colosseums wouldn't make all that much difference either. So in games where slowing down the tech pace to keep AIs from getting a space race victory would be helpful, pushing ahead with one's own research offers some advantages in terms of the absolute pace of cultural growth.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
Because the goal of the game is to win as quickly as possible via 100K. It seems fundamentally unfair to allow players to "win" via SS. Having the option of using SS as a "safety net" will cause you to play in a fundamentally different way. This approach, IMHO, will teach us less about the inherent challenges in winning via 100K than would prohibiting players from winning via SS. I guess it comes down to how challenging we want to make this game.

If Apolyton University were about competition, I would agree that allowing people to play differently would be a unfair. But AU is intended to be mostly about learning and having fun, with players free to do things that won't necessarily be optimal purely from a perspective of winning quickly or winning by a large margin (or perhaps even winning at all - Aeson's games on ultra-high difficulty levels, for example) if they think it would be more fun or interesting to play in a different way.

What really bothers me is the idea of telling people, "If you can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race, you lose." I have no objection to the idea, "If you don't win a cultural victory, you haven't met the preferred victory condition," because that leaves it up to each player to decide how much he cares about satisfying the preferred victory condition if an AI threatens to win the space race first. (And for those interested in competition, a game not won by 100K culture would have to be regarded as having an asterisk by it.) But putting it in terms of losing if you can't get a cultural victory in time seems too strong, and too likely to turn people off or cause them to play on a lower difficulty level than what would present the best challenge for them. (If I'm the only one who cares, it's not worth worrying about, but since I don't know whether I am, the issue concerns me.)

In regard to how gameplay would be affected, if I would commit myself to making sure no space race victory occurs, my game plan would almost certainly be based on snatching resources and, if necessary, smashing capitals late in the game rather than on going significantly out of my way to slow down the tech pace in the medieval and industrial eras. So while some people might play in a fundamentally different way, not all of us would.

[Modo44]

nbarclay,

You will need some early conquests to have a base for your culture. Also, you will probably be slowing down research at some point anyway. This means that you will get lots of spare change for a period of time, with a large empire to spend it on. But when? Explore two extremes:

1. Slow down research after you get the Internet. Cash probably stays low before that (lower than in option 2, that's for sure). You have to build many improvements the hard way, denying you the effect of stacking early culture. Most important handicap: late Cathedrals and/or Universities. The Internet helps a bit, yes it does. Unfortunately it all takes time. Time you don't have.

2. Slow down research considerably right after you get Education - do just enough to keep a small tech lead, preferably by trading. You might want some more medieval technologies fast, but nevermind that. Now since you are probably in Republic or Monarchy, you can buy cultural improvements with the surpulus cash. Many, many turns before the Internet and many turns before you would have built them. Benefit: your culture really rocks, and it does so quite early. The other benefit: great infrastructure to support even greater conquest later on. The difficulty here is, your military might get somewhat weak, while you are building.

Of course, I'm talking Emperor level here, not Sid. I don't know if it is possible at all to keep a weak military on Sid.


A side note: smashing capitals might be required for a cultural win also. A big cultural blow, especially when some Great Wonders sit there.

[Tall Stranger]

I think you're missing an important distinction here. The purpose of this game (as currently proposed) is NOT "Generate 100K culture points (and at least twice as many as your nearest competitor) as quickly as you can." The purpose is "Win via the 100K culture condition as quickly as possible."

There is a crucial difference here. The first is, quite honestly, a relatively unchallenging exercise. Since the AI has no understanding of this victory condition, it's ability to prevent such an occurence is severely limited. Build more cultural buildings than the AI, make sure your culture/ turn is more than twice your competition, and wait. On the other hand, the second, actual purpose (as I understand it) is designed to pose a significantly more interesting challenge. Not only must you succeed as a builder, you may also need to wage war effectively, manage the tech race and conduct effective diplomacy (tho this last one is less important). In short, you need to learn to win, not just build.

Originally posted by nbarclay


If Apolyton University were about competition, I would agree that allowing people to play differently would be a unfair. But AU is intended to be mostly about learning and having fun, with players free to do things that won't necessarily be optimal purely from a perspective of winning quickly or winning by a large margin (or perhaps even winning at all - Aeson's games on ultra-high difficulty levels, for example) if they think it would be more fun or interesting to play in a different way.

Let me make clear that I am fully aware of the purpose of AU and am in no way, shape or form interested in making this a competition. (If I were, I'd go over to Civfanatics.) My point is that the purpose of learning is to make us better players, i.e. players more capable of winning. By allowing players to win via SS, you're NOT making them more capable of winning via 100K. Again, let me say that players will learn more about winning via culture this way than by allowing a player to win via SS.

I honestly don't see what the problem is here. Suppose someone DOES lose via an AI SS launch 8 turns before he would have won via 100K. So what? As you've already pointed out, this is not a competition and there's absolutely no shame in losing. It not as though people will be made fun of in the forum if they post an AAR on a losing game. I got my head handed to me in the Total Eternal War Scenario, and I still loved it. (In fact, I've been thinking about playing by the same rules in a randomly generated game, just to see if I could win.)

What really bothers me is the idea of telling people, "If you can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race, you lose."

We place conditions on how to play a given AU course all the time. No GA, no peace, OCC, etc. This really is not substantially different.

It may be that we're arguing over a point that really doesn't make much difference. As you pointed out, if you're the only one bothered by this, it may not be a big deal. Does anyone else out there vehemently object to prohibiting players from winning in any way other than 100K culture?

[nbarclay]

Modo44, how much of your analysis here is based on having used that strategy and how much is theoretical? Just from the hypothesizing I've done so far, it looks like the "slow down right after Education" trick would probably be optimal for trying to get the fastest cultural victory possible if, at that point, you already have essentially all the territory you need and you won't need to do all that much more fighting (for example, to prune down cultural rivals). But if another major war or two will be necessary, I'm not sure what the implications of the tech slow-down would be. When I fight, I much prefer to have a tech lead if I can get one.

In any case, I can't really see myself playing that monolithic a "culture at all costs" strategy.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by 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.

Increased world size increases the culture required to win. The ocean size thing could work.

[nbarclay]

Tall Stranger, the way I look at it, there are two different ways that players can approach a game where their goal is a cultural victory. One is with the attitude, "The only thing I care about is winning a cultural victory as quickly as possible." The other is, "I'm going to orient my strategy in this game toward trying to win a cultural victory as quickly as I can, but I'm not going to give up everything else I want to do with my civ in order to do it." Dominae's original proposal was focused exclusively on the former, while I'd rather accommodate both approaches.

You argue that the AI does not understand the special victory conditions I'm proposing. But my proposal would give the AI full, unrestricted access to every means it can normally use to defeat a player, and would do so under conditions that would limit players' choices at least a little bit. So what I'm proposing is not to handicap the AI, but merely to give the individual human players a choice of how much we want to handicap ourselves. Do we want to view it as defeat if we fail to win a cultural victory before the space race concludes and we therefore have to settle for a space race victory, or merely as a less complete victory than we would have preferred?

Does anyone else out there vehemently object to prohibiting players from winning in any way other than 100K culture?

I think that's the wrong question. If there are people who think it would be less fun to push for the fastest possible cultural victory at all costs, and who would rather focus on learning how to play a somewhat normal game with a heavy cultuural orientation than learn how to play a kind of "fast cultural victory at all costs" game that they will never play again, why not accommodate them? If the restriction were directly on playing style, so that games with different operating rules would be impossible to compare in a particularly useful way, I would see a need to have everyone play by the same rules. But it seems to me that if different players pursue cultural victories with different degrees of single-mindedness, that would have advantages as well as disadvantages from an overall learning perspective.

[nbarclay]

For any given world size, cultural victory would definitely be easier on a map with more land and less water (at least all else being equal).

[Modo44]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Modo44, how much of your analysis here is based on having used that strategy and how much is theoretical? Just from the hypothesizing I've done so far, it looks like the "slow down right after Education" trick would probably be optimal for trying to get the fastest cultural victory possible if, at that point, you already have essentially all the territory you need and you won't need to do all that much more fighting (for example, to prune down cultural rivals).

I usually play this way and win by 100K culture. But I play at Emperor difficulty or below. Yes, it requires early conquest, preferably clearing the home continent or a large chunk of it (i love pangeas ).

The thing is, after you have the culture set up, many core cities have nothing to build. Now you can choose Wealth to speed up research and rushing - if you want to pick up the tech pace again. Or they can (re)start on military. And you know better what a human can do, if he's got half his empire constantly building units - no KAI can stop that. The only difficulty is surviving the buildup phase with weak military, because it usually makes some AI's go psycho. Most of the time, this is where I give techs for alliances, so I don't really have to go to war.