Next AU course (after AU601)...

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by nbarclay

The problem is, when the space race victory condition is left on for the AIs but is denied to the human player, the end result is to add an additional victory condition that is not a natural part of the game. Players are required not only to meet the requirements of a cultural victory, but also to make sure no AI can win the space race first. That requirement is not part of the fundamental definition of cultural victory.

Of course it is. By definition, if I set out at the beginning of the game to win via culture, I have accepted as one of my victory conditions that I must NOT win via SS.

More importantly, the approach you propose will not provide any meaningful lessons to improve people's game. Since MOST players have ALL victory conditions on when playing, meaning they have to defend against any number of ways the AI could win. Because you would not be forced to do so in this game, much of what you'll learn will NOT be usable in the average game.

The goal that I would like to see players set for themselves as their ideal is to win a 100K cultural victory without deliberately choosing in favor of a slower tech pace and without needing to attack AIs to thwart threatened space launches.

This statement bothers me: YOU are now trying to impose YOUR idea of what the "ideal" way of winning via 100K is. Remember, the point of this game is to figure out the FASTEST way to win via 100K. If either slowing the tech pace or attacking the AI can be shown to be the most reliable way of winning quickly via 100K, that is a critically important point. If we allow SS, we will never learn if it's true.

I should point out that the approach I prefer does NOT impose any similar limitation on your game style. You are free to make the tech race go as fast as you like. Granted, that COULD cause you to lose, but a) this is not a competition, so winning and losing mean nothing; and b) it will still teach you about the intrinsic tradeoffs that are at the heart of this game. (Not you specifically, Nathan, since you are certainly more knowledgable about this game than I. I'm talking the generic "you.")

But leaving the space race victory condition available to the AIs while denying it to the human player even if an AI is about to launch undercuts that ideal in three ways.

1) It encourages players to opt for a slower tech pace. If players go that route, they are not even trying to meet the ideal of aiming for a 100K cultural victory without any deliberate effort to slow down the tech pace.

Well, since I fundamentally reject the ideal you've set forth, it's no surprise I vehemently disagree with the idea that it somehow "undercuts" a 100K cultural victory.

More broadly, your claim rests on the idea that manipulation of the tech race is somehow improper or too artificial to "feel" right. Yet EVERY GOOD PLAYER MANIPULATES THE TECH RACE!!! A couple of obvious examples:

1. Good players always time the completion of ToE for the same turn that they finish researching a tech. Are you telling me that you don't alter your research investment in such a case because it doesn't seem right to you?

2. Good players understand that certain techs are only valuable as trade bait. Do you always research the "best" tech available (which is ideally what a civ should do in the "real world"), or do you sometimes research ones that are only useful b/c it gets you more in trades?

3. Good players will often hold off researching, for example, Chivalry so that they can do a larger mass upgrade of horsemen later. Does this "feel right" to you?

My point is not to criticize or attack you, but to point out that controlling the pace and direction of the tech race IS appropriate and an accepted part of the game. This AU game will not be substantially different in this regard.

2) It presents a somewhat perverse standard of success in which a civilization that is clearly more successful by objective measures can lose where a civilization that is clearly less successful by objective measures would have won.

You are equating "higher tech level" with "clearly more successful." This is fundamentally wrong. Assume we're playing the same SP game, and at 1500 AD you have 4 more tech than I do, but I have higher culture, more cash and better relations with the rest of the AIs. Whose civ is more successful? Answer: inconclusive. Tech is only one measure of successful gameplay. Again, it's all about tradeoffs.

3) It encourages less focus on one's own cultural achievements and more focus on damaging one's rivals. There is always a back door available to cultural victory: if you pound every oponent back into the stone age and keep them there, cultural victory sooner or later is essentially guaranteed.

This statement is also fundamentally untrue. If you're trying for a 100K victory, at a certain point further military operations are pointless and, in fact, counterproductive. Keep in mind that, under the approach I prefer, a domination win is also a loss. If I get careless and either conquer or raze too many enemy cities, my high culture may expand my territory to the point that I win via conquest (and thus lose). Furthermore, the longer military ops go on, the less culture you can build. Getting to 100K as quickly as possible will force you to balance military action and cultural builds.

But the really impressive route to cultural victory is to achieve it entirely by building up one's own culture and not by going out of one's way to damage the culture of rivals.

There you go again. YOU may believe that building your own stuff is the "really impressive route to cultural victory" but others may disagree. This statement reflects an (IMHO) all too common bias among "builder" style players that any but the most minimal use of the military tool is somehow illegitimate or unimpressive. In my view, the military can and should make a contribution to cultural victories, just as cultural builds contribute to military victories.

If players are encouraged to weaken any AIs that might be in a position for a space launch before the player can get 100K culture, that actually shifts focus away from a pure cultural race and toward improving one's relative cultural standing by weakening opponents.

This may be the crux of the whole argument: what type of game should this be? You seem to think that anything which "shifts focus away from a pure cultural race" is a bad thing. I believe that narrowly focusing on any single aspect is a bad thing.

All I can say to try to resolve this is that Dom's stated goal was the fastest possible cultural victory and NOT "play an almost purely builder style game."

As for the qualification "within reason," it is one thing to define a course in terms of trying to do something quickly, but something else to define it in terms of focusing on that one goal so exclusively that nothing else matters.

But that's exactly what you're doing here. By setting the conditions the way you have, you're trying to force people to develop only their culture building skills. The way I favor forces players to play a more complete game.

Dominae and Tall Stranger make it sound as if what I am proposing would lead to total anarchy in which players would do whatever they want to.

Let me clarify my view: this game, if played the way you propose, will have the following deficiencies:

1. it will encourage players to focus solely on culture, rather than develop a more complete game;

2. it will not highlight the tradeoffs inherent in all forms of victories;

3. it will not achieve the stated purpose of this course, which is to win AS FAST AS POSSIBLE; and

4. it will be little more than a straight-forward builder-style game. There's nothing wrong with such games, but they certainly don't warrant their own course.

EDIT: Stupid typo on my part.

[Theseus]

/me thinks we should just play already.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by alexman
I have never been a big fan of having multiple playable civs in an AU game, by the way, and this time is not different. I don't think the difference of Religious and Scientific traits for a cultural victory is interesting enough to make it worth the sacrifice of a common basis for comparison.

I'm inclined to agree. AU is about courses for direct comparison. However, I think it would be interesting to have another game (perhaps in Strategy) that people could play with such an option, as it would be strategically useful to know which is generally better for culture games. Also, I'm not convinced that the Babs would inherently be the 'best civ' for 100k. Given the immense powers of Agr., I think it in combination with rel./sci. might be much better. I've been toying around with fastest 100k victories for the HoF at CFC lately, and find both the Sumerians and Celts far more adept at accomplishing this goal than the Babs. That being said, I'm not proposing that we don't play the Babs, as I think we could do without another Agr. AU course.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
* Theseus thinks we should just play already.

We're working on it.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
on another point:
i am/was really enjoying reading the au601 DAR threads when separated by person. now that these threads hardly are updated anymore (be it because it was completed, abandoned or just no time to write), i think we could now use another chunk of DAR threads by author, not by timeline.

what do you guys think about this?

No, I definitely disagree, Sabre. I think the old SP format of one thread for all to post in for each stage of the game works really well, since it allows you to browse through how other players are playing the game without having to go searching for threads that get lost, as they do in the PBEM forum. AU601 was a special case IMHO.

[Aqualung71]

Go Korea, go Korea!!!

Or at least, India

[Modo44]

Err, Japan? Please?

[nbarclay]

Tall Stranger, I think you're misreading my intent. I am not suggesting that players should focus on an almost pure builder style of play. In fact, what I have in mind for my own play is anything but a pure builder style.

Rather, I am suggesting that the game's official focus be aimed solely at culture. If players view actions that would slow down the tech pace as beneficial from a cultural perspective, wonderful. If they view military conquest as useful in giving them more territory to build cultural improvements in, fantastic. Such decisions are entirely in keeping with a game focused on winning a cultural victory as quickly as possible (or, in my preferred definition, as quickly as possible "within reason" however individual players define that concept).

The thing I object to is pushing players to make decisions that don't make sense from a perspective of building up their culture just because they consider it necessary to do so in order to protect against a possible AI space race victory. If players want to decide in advance to play that way, or if thwarting AI space race efforts seems to make sense when the time comes in the game, that's fine. But I don't like the idea of making it a part of the course description.

You seem to think that as long as a game is not a competition, people won't mind losing. But there are some people, myself included, who dislike losing under any circumstances. For us, the idea of being pushed into doing things we'd rather not do in order to reduce the risk of losing detracts from the game's fun.

Let me clarify my view: this game, if played the way you propose, will have the following deficiencies:

1. it will encourage players to focus solely on culture, rather than develop a more complete game;

My view is the exact opposite. In my view, it is allowing AIs to win by space race while denying human players the option to do so even in self defense that discourages players from pursuing a more complete game. Players end up facing pressure to make decisions based not on their own civilization's best interest but instead based on slowing down AI space efforts. The only aspect of a "more complete" game that my approach misses out on is itself something entirely artificial, based on allowing AIs to win with a victory condition that human players are denied.

2. it will not highlight the tradeoffs inherent in all forms of victories;

The only tradeoff it will not highlight is a purely artificial one. In all the time I've played Civ 3, which is pretty much ever since the original version came out, I don't think I ever once played a game where I decided in advance that only one victory condition would be acceptable as constituting a victory for me. I've had games where I oriented my play toward a particular pre-planned victory condition from the very beginning, but that's not quite the same thing.

With my concept of the game, players would clearly be pursuing a 100K cultural victory, and if they end up pushed into a space race victory instead, we would get to see that their cultural focus was not strong enough to win a cultural victory in time. Further, if players want to deliberately sabotage AI space race efforts in order to buy extra time, they would be welcome to do so. I just don't like the idea of making such sabotage a course requirement in a game focused on culture.

3. it will not achieve the stated purpose of this course, which is to win AS FAST AS POSSIBLE;

The concept of pursuing the fastest cultural victory possible at all costs and the concept of a reasonably complete, balanced game are inherently at odds. I think it's better for players to have some latitude in deciding how to balance those considerations, especially where tricks they would never use in a normal game are concerned. The most important lessons to learn are lessons that can be applied more generally, not lessons that are useful only when playing an extreme style a player has no general interest in.

4. it will be little more than a straight-forward builder-style game. There's nothing wrong with such games, but they certainly don't warrant their own course.

That concern is a result of a misinterpretation of what I am aiming for. Since the goal would be to win a cultural victory as quickly as possible (at least "within reason"), it is virtually impossible that an almost pure builder style game could be particularly successful. The trick would be to balance building, military, economic, and scientific activities in a way that results in reaching 100K culture as quickly as is practical. (And if players have to damage or destroy one or more AIs in order to double the culture of their closest rival, that would be fine, although getting enough culture quickly enough that such a step is not necessary would be even better.)

I think a big part of what you and Dominae miss is that allowing AI space race victories while denying that option for human players is neither necessary nor sufficient for the goal of trying to win a cultural victory quicikly. Ultimately, comparing games with each other provides a much better test of how well we are doing trying to win a cultural victory quickly than whether we can win a cultural victory before an AI can launch for Alpha Centauri would. And because players can use military means to thwart AI space efforts, the space race issue has only limited value in creating a need for a faster cultural victory. So I view that added condition as an unnecessary distraction.

That's not to say that I object to having the space race victory condition tuned on. I just think players should be allowed to play almost as if it were truned off, winning the space race but then going on to achieve what would have been a cultural victory, if time in the space race is running out and they would rather focus on a purely cultural contest than divert attention away from that contest solely for the purpose of disrupting AI space efforts.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by nbarclay

You seem to think that as long as a game is not a competition, people won't mind losing. But there are some people, myself included, who dislike losing under any circumstances. For us, the idea of being pushed into doing things we'd rather not do in order to reduce the risk of losing detracts from the game's fun.

I dislike loosing too. But you are still missing the one important thing. The point of this course is for the players to do things they would not do in a standard game. Exactly because the goal is a specific one, not just winning by any means.

If you are really so afraid of loosing under the conditions imposed, go down do Emperor level just for this game. With your skills, you shouldn't have a problem winning it by culture, no matter the AIs.

[JimiD]

Ive just got to say the level of debate on this is very high. Every time I read a post on one side of the argument I supprot that side, then I read the other and change my mind.

And probably why I am still at AU.

Heres hoping my RL gets dull, so I can take part properly in this...

[sabrewolf]

Tall Stranger and Nathan both have very valid arguments and I'm sure most of us would play either variant...

But why not poll about this?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
No, I definitely disagree, Sabre. I think the old SP format of one thread for all to post in for each stage of the game works really well, since it allows you to browse through how other players are playing the game without having to go searching for threads that get lost, as they do in the PBEM forum. AU601 was a special case IMHO.

for the first era, the comparison is great. but towards the end, everybody is playing very different games and you can't really compare the playing style anymore. just the current minimaps and score.

i was once trying to read someone's DARs and had about 10 tabs open, because that player posted on every page of every DAR thread. it was a wonderful read, but very tedious to see "the story".

NM asked some people from the civ3-stories forum to write stories based on some DARs. some are stories already, just not in a good order

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44

I dislike loosing too. But you are still missing the one important thing. The point of this course is for the players to do things they would not do in a standard game. Exactly because the goal is a specific one, not just winning by any means.

To me, this issue is starting to take on an importance far beyond just this one game. It has to do with the nature of Apolyton University itself, and with the direction AU will take in the future.

Apolyton University is supposed to be about learning and having fun, not about competition. Players are supposed to have latitude to play in different ways based on what is the most fun for them, and based on what aspects of learning are most interesting for them within the basic parameters of a game.

As long as Dominae's proposal is interpreted loosely, it fits within those goals. The idea of aiming specfically for a cultural victory is a bit intrusive into how people play, but not unduly so. And learning how to achieve a cultural victory relatively quickly is definitely a legitimate learning objective.

The problem comes when a narrower definition of the goals is adopted. "Win such-and-such type of victory as quickly as possible without regard to any other considerations" is, by its very nature, a competitive objective. If people follow that goal literally, there is no room at all for them to deviate from the quickest, most efficient path to victory in order to play in a way that is more fun for them, or in order to learn things that they would be more likely to use in other games. In my view, that is directly contrary to the spirit of Apolyton University.

Worse, I see no need for such a narrow focus. A comparison between a OCC game and a 5CC game would be useless because the games are almost entirely different. But I see no similar obstacle to drawing useful comparisons and learning experiences from games in which some players focus on winning the fastest possible cultural victory more single-mindedly than others do.

Similarly, I see no need to tell players, "You have to prevent AIs from launching their spaceships until you win a cultural victory or you lose." That type of objective is highly specialized and artificial, and what would be learned from it is therefore not generally applicable to games in which all victory conditions are available for all players. In contrast, the idea of aiming for a cultural victory but being allowed to settle for a space race victory if necessary fits perfectly with how players might orient a game in which all victory conditions are available for everyone. In that context, a space race victory isn't what the player really wanted, but it is certainly not a loss either.

So why make it a course requirement for players to define victory and defeat in a way that is specialized and artifidical if they would rather follow a more normal and natural concept of victory? What value does imposing such a requirement serve that could possibly justify the intrusion into players' ability to decide for themselves how they would rather play? (I do not accept the idea that requiring players to win under rules that are theoretically impossible to define in the game set-up options should be considered a good thing purely for its own sake in an AU game.)

If you are really so afraid of loosing under the conditions imposed, go down do Emperor level just for this game. With your skills, you shouldn't have a problem winning it by culture, no matter the AIs.

I've passed the point where I stopped caring about this issue for my own sake. I've pretty much decided on a strategy that is a bit on the wild side but that I'm almost certain can get me a cultural victory before I have to worry about the space race. (Think Feudalism and lots of densely packed, tiny towns in outlying conquered territories with pop-rushed cultural improvements.)

But the issues I raise may be relevant to the choices of others, and could also be relevant to the future of Apolyton University to the extent that what we decide here could set a precedent. So I'm reluctant to let the matter drop.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by nbarclay

Worse, I see no need for such a narrow focus. A comparison between a OCC game and a 5CC game would be useless because the games are almost entirely different. But I see no similar obstacle to drawing useful comparisons and learning experiences from games in which some players focus on winning the fastest possible cultural victory more single-mindedly than others do.

Ok, now I get it. I see that such a comparison could be valuable. But this does not require changing the goal of the course. Different game styles will definately make for different games. I think even without allowing other victory conditions.

Originally posted by nbarclay

Similarly, I see no need to tell players, "You have to prevent AIs from launching their spaceships until you win a cultural victory or you lose." That type of objective is highly specialized and artificial, and what would be learned from it is therefore not generally applicable to games in which all victory conditions are available for all players.

Perhaps it is a bit artificial, especially on higher difficulty levels. That's why I was talking about playing it at a difficulty level below what you normally play. This way you wouldn't have to face the looming spaceship, and still have a challenge before you. This is the generic "you", I'm talking.

Originally posted by nbarclay

In contrast, the idea of aiming for a cultural victory but being allowed to settle for a space race victory if necessary fits perfectly with how players might orient a game in which all victory conditions are available for everyone. In that context, a space race victory isn't what the player really wanted, but it is certainly not a loss either.

The thing I am afraid of is players not going for culture with all their hearts and minds, but winning the game by other means. I don't see what a game of "I built a good culture, while going for the spaceship" would teach me. This is why I find the strict requirement for cultural victory so important. Here's my paranoia for you.


To return to my previous point. I think there will be very different games even with one straight goal for all. Adding another option could result in some games going yet another way. Now ask yourself this: do you really want the games to become virtually incomparable? I don't.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44

The thing I am afraid of is players not going for culture with all their hearts and minds, but winning the game by other means. I don't see what a game of "I built a good culture, while going for the spaceship" would teach me. This is why I find the strict requirement for cultural victory so important. Here's my paranoia for you.

To return to my previous point. I think there will be very different games even with one straight goal for all. Adding another option could result in some games going yet another way. Now ask yourself this: do you really want the games to become virtually incomparable? I don't.

If players take the game's concept seriously, they will not think in terms of, "I built a good culture, while going for the spaceship." They will make a genuine, honest effort to win culturally.

The catch is, a genuine, honest effort is not necessarily the same thing as a successful one. If players see that they won't be able to win culturally before an AI launches a spaceship, and if they aren't allowed to win the space race themselves, their only option is to go around using military force to cripple the efforts of any AI that threatens to win the space race. But even without being allowed to win the space race, players whose military skills are up to the challenge would have a way of buying the time they need for cultural victory.

My idea is that a player's winning the space race if an AI is dangerously close to launching would serve the same role as crippling AI space programs with military force would: it would buy time. Space race victory would never, in and of itself, justify a claim of victory in the course. For that, a player would have to either play on past the space race victory until he reaches the conditions for cultural victory or show that the rates of cultural growth indicate that he would win a cultural victory if he played on.

In fact, the option of winning the space race would actually be most interesting to a civ that is doing well culturally. If a civ is not on a path to reach 100K culture before its rivals reach 50K, military intervention would be needed from a cultural perspective anyhow whether it is needed from a space race perspective or not. Only a civ that expects to get 100K culture before any rival gets 50K could eliminate its need for further military action entirely by winning the space race as a delaying tactic.