Next AU course (after AU601)...

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by 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).

Sorry. Perhaps I should have said, "The ocean size thing would work." That's generally what I meant, anyway.

[nbarclay]

It looks like we have enough support for the basic idea here to move ahead with it. Dominae, were you planning to set up the scenario, or do we need to find someone else to volunteer?

In regard to what civilization or civilizations to play, unless I've missed one, the nominations so far are:

Choice of Egypt/Persia
Choice of Arabia/Russia
Choice of Japan/Germany (if that was a serious proposal)

It would probably be good to have a poll for what civs to use, but I would suggest that we allow a day or so for any additional nominations first.

Also, would a maximum-land standard map be okay with everyone? I know a person or two has suggested a large map, but last I heard, there were people whose computers didn't handle large maps all that well. And are we thinking in terms of continents or some other setting?

[Dominae]

It makes no difference to me who sets up the scenario.

Egypt/Persia:

As for maximum land area...well, it certainly makes things a lot easier. How about all settings standard? I really want to challenge players to think of 100k Culture victories under "normal" circumstances: no Babylon, no Pangea, no 60% water. Take your typical, run-of-the-mill game, and rush to 100k as quickly as possible. That's the idea.

[Theseus]

I am looking forward to this game. I have followed the discussion over Nathan's points closely, and believe that I have a suggestion well within the spirit of AU:

How about allowing both approaches to the game?

For those that want to adhere to the culture win goal, all well and good. However, let us also provide an opportunity to those that want the flexibility of any kind of win; the requirements that I would suggest, however, be that they 1) ELECT such flexibility at some point, logically at the end of a given DAR, and 2) still exhibit how cultural development substantively supported their overall game strategy and hopeful win.

Learn, develop, share, have fun...

[Theseus]

Arabia / Russia would be my vote... EXCELLENT compare and contrast subjects.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus

How about allowing both approaches to the game?

For those that want to adhere to the culture win goal, all well and good. However, let us also provide an opportunity to those that want the flexibility of any kind of win; the requirements that I would suggest, however, be that they 1) ELECT such flexibility at some point, logically at the end of a given DAR, and 2) still exhibit how cultural development substantively supported their overall game strategy and hopeful win.

This actually goes farther than what I'm suggesting since it allows all victory conditions. But considering that we now have two votes that dislike the idea of a culture game immensely (or so they say), it might still make sense.

If we want maximum flexibility, we could offer three different ways to play.

1) Dominae's idea of going all-out for the fastest cultural victory possible, 100K culture or bust.

2) My preferred approach of orienting heavily toward trying to get a rapid cultural victory but not going so all-out toward it as to seriously undercut the fun of other aspects of the game. The ideal is still to win a 100K cultural victory and to do so as quickly as seems practical, but the player approaches the game a little more like a regular game and a little less like he would a CivFanatics GOTM style competition seeking the fastest cultural victory theoretically possible. In this approach, being stuck winning by space race because time ran out for a cultural victory would definitely not be a good thing (especially all else being equal), but it would not automatically be viewed as a loss either.

[Technically, there be several shades of nuance within and between these two options. But note that in both/all varients, a 100K cultural victory is still definitely the goal.]

3) The "I don't really care about a cultural victory, but I want to play anyhow" approach. Obviously, people who play that way would be unlikely to be particularly successful in cultural terms compared with those who deliberately seek cultural victory. But if they have fun, and we can see the difference in the cultural development of their civs compared with civs that deliberatley pursue a cultural victory, the situation is better all around than if they did not play at all.

Players would be strongly encouraged to include mention of how they are approaching the game in their DARs (and would probably be asked about it if they don't). We could then look at how the differences in how players approach the game affect their strategies and choices and, in turn, how those strategies and choices affect the outcomes.

[Mountain Sage]

YES,

Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?

[Theseus]

Where's Aeson?

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
YES,

Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?

That would be a feat. You'd have to time all five cities to cross the 20k mark at the exact same time

[Modo44]

And stop the AI from winning by other means - that's the hard part.

I think having the 5 best cities would be challenge enough.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If we want maximum flexibility, we could offer three different ways to play.

1) Dominae's idea of going all-out for the fastest cultural victory possible, 100K culture or bust.

2) My preferred approach of orienting heavily toward trying to get a rapid cultural victory but not going so all-out toward it as to seriously undercut the fun of other aspects of the game. The ideal is still to win a 100K cultural victory and to do so as quickly as seems practical, but the player approaches the game a little more like a regular game and a little less like he would a CivFanatics GOTM style competition seeking the fastest cultural victory theoretically possible. In this approach, being stuck winning by space race because time ran out for a cultural victory would definitely not be a good thing (especially all else being equal), but it would not automatically be viewed as a loss either.

[Technically, there be several shades of nuance within and between these two options. But note that in both/all varients, a 100K cultural victory is still definitely the goal.]

3) The "I don't really care about a cultural victory, but I want to play anyhow" approach. Obviously, people who play that way would be unlikely to be particularly successful in cultural terms compared with those who deliberately seek cultural victory. But if they have fun, and we can see the difference in the cultural development of their civs compared with civs that deliberatley pursue a cultural victory, the situation is better all around than if they did not play at all.

I'm sorry to be so obtuse about this, but I fail to see any reason to make this an official part of the course. The topic of the course is this: "Fastest 100k Culture victory, everything else standard". Whether or not you like what this entails is entirely up to you.

In the real world, you do not bid to change the content of a course because you do not like what it's meant to teach you (well, maybe at the graduate level, but rarely). There's no pass/fail in AU, so you're free to get as much (or as little) out of a course as you want. If you want to try a variant of a course for your own personal pleasure, you're free to do so.

The reason I'm putting my foot down about this (as much as I can, as I have no authority here whatsoever!) is that AU needs to maintain some level of structure. Else we have a free-for-all of DARs, random posted games, and commentary that looks more like the Strategy forum. In the interest of everyone learning something about a particular topic, I feel we should keep it simple and stick to the original plan.

In the OCC course, we did not "allow" players to turn it into a 5CC if they so wished. In the Peacekeeping course, we did not "allow" players to declare war when they felt like it. Thus there was a minimum basis for comparison between games. Again, the purpose of this course is to learn what strategies are best for a fastest 100k Culture win. Changing the victory conditions, etc. will result in different strategies, and thus little basis for comparison in DARs.

We of course aim to please at AU, so if most people want a system as proposed by Nathan we'll certainly go through with it. But I fail to see the scholastic value in a course where "everyone does what they want".

Players would be strongly encouraged to include mention of how they are approaching the game in their DARs (and would probably be asked about it if they don't). We could then look at how the differences in how players approach the game affect their strategies and choices and, in turn, how those strategies and choices affect the outcomes.

Again, we're looking for strategies related to a specific goal, not strategies related to any old goal. At least that's my understanding of what AU courses are all about.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?

It's certainly possible. Someone at CFC did it a while back. I heard it requires a lot of arithmetic...

[pedrojedi]

It's certainly possible. Someone at CFC did it a while back. I heard it requires a lot of arithmetic...

And free time.

In the OCC course, we did not "allow" players to turn it into a 5CC if they so wished. In the Peacekeeping course, we did not "allow" players to declare war when they felt like it. Thus there was a minimum basis for comparison between games. Again, the purpose of this course is to learn what strategies are best for a fastest 100k Culture win. Changing the victory conditions, etc. will result in different strategies, and thus little basis for comparison in DARs.

Agreed.

I think that if people don't like waiting for the culture bell to ring, maybe the threshold could be pulled down a little, as an option - a 90k, or 80k cultural victory for instance. It does not feel like that magical number, 100k, but at least there'll be more people practicing (theoretically, counting on those people that don't like waiting) that can contribute with their DAR's, and then it is just a matter of analysing the progression.

[Aeson]

UU's aren't going to be terribly important in a game of this type. Most players will probably end up triggering their GA in the Ancient Era with Wonders with most civs. Regular Swords, Knights, and Cavalry are good enough for the conquest that needs doing because the speed of the conquest will be limited not by military strength, but by the speed in which improvements can be built up in the territory claimed territory.

Religious and Scientific are pretty well balanced.

Religious is better on higher difficulties because cutting out X turns of Anarchy is X turns sooner you can finish. Religious buildings are quicker to build, quicker to get to in tech tree, and help you keep higher populations earlier.

Scientific is better on lower difficulties. Happiness is easier to deal with, Anarchy times are down, and the tech rate is faster so the Scientific improvements are buildable earlier. That leaves the main factors being Scientific buildings are slightly more efficient culture:shield (3:40 vs 2:30) so are better to build first, and that Scientific gives more shields off than Religious so you spend overall less shields as Scientific. For Temple+Library for example, Scientific spends 100 shields, and Religious spends 110.

Ag is probably more powerful than either of them still. Faster pop growth means everything builds faster. Wonders, terrain improvements, required non-cultural improvements like Markets and Aquaducts in core cities, and of course cultural improvements.

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Now, let's put some spice in the game. Any chances of winning it with a 100 K AND a 5CC?

I've tried this before while fooling around with a GOTM start that I wasn't going to be able to play anyways.

It was GOTM 20 with Spain, Deity. I got most of the wonders without delaying Temple or Library builds, and not much interferance on the other cultural improvements other than Colloseums. I ended up with 4 cities that would hit 20k all at the same time (a few turns before 2050AD IIRC), but a 5th was going to be short even if I kept the others from hitting 20k till 2050AD. It was a pretty good start, but not terribly great. There was a lot of food, but not a lot of Hills for production. The difficulty was way too high to get all the wonders and Spain isn't the best civ for a game like this.

C3C for more wonders. Get an SGL or 3. Settler(s) from huts. Use the Babs. Lower difficulty so you can build all the wonders and have a faster tech rate while fighting easy leader farming wars. Throw in a really great start and it should be possible.

[alexman]

I really like the fastest 100K culture idea for the next AU game.

As for allowing other victory types, I tend to agree with Dominae. Since the AU is not a competition, you can do pretty much whatever you like anyway, and people will read and comment on your DARs. So for comparison purposes, it's better to have a more strict set of goals to guide players, especially now that interest in C3C is on the decline and we will likely get fewer DARs.

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.