1st Apolyton CIV3 TOURNAMENT : 15-30/November/2001

[jimb0v2]

Re: ok, here I go...

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I just want to let the casual forum browser know that he or she should not be discouraged at that 1350 BC date. It means nothing.

Col. jtrick, COC, ret.

This is the only real point that I disagree with you on. It DOES mean something, even to the casual gamers. Because, push come to shove, in a real tournament where something really was on the line A person really could complete this victory. All it is is the correct series of moves etc. I personally got that settler and warrior code on my FIRST try doing it. His 1350 bc victory only proves that the luckiest man wins. The person who is lucky with huts, or is lucky with battles.

I will give you one point that it's a tad difficult knowing exactly where to send your troops, BUT, you can infer a ton just by your location on the map. My first game, which I took out aztecs/persians/zulus very quickly. I chose not to continue conquesting because I was unaware it was possible at that time. I only scored 3000 or so in that game and did not turn in that save file.

Anyhow, again my main point is that his 1350 bc victory does MEAN something. It means it's possible to do it legit. Even if his victory wasn't. It also means that a pre bc victory period is easily possible with some luck on your side. I think a "normal" good conquest is prolly around 1000ad on this map. This is only because the luck factor is amplified SOOOOO much in the begging. Ie, taking aztec capital by turn 15 means a lot more important than taking that capital by turn 30.

I hope I have made myself clear. In my opinion cheating and dishonesty are never truly eliminated in any sort of tournament no matter how good the security methods are. It's sort of refreshing to have a game where there are no security methods, so no one bull****s and pretends they did it legit. Just don't forget that his victory could be done legitimately, it's not like he used the 99999999 gold bug, or gained an unfair advantage that was impossible to any of us. He merely moved his men and built the correct things in his little towns in the right sequence.

[Capt Dizle]

How can you say that his victory could be duplicated without the tricks?

Yeah, maybe there is a mathmatical chance. Maybe one in one million chance.

66 turns. No margin for error. You have to decide how many units to send to each target city. Can't do it in sequence, one by one. Not enough time to move that many times. So, you have to do it by sending minimal troop concentrations to multiple target cities. This you can only do it you rely on the reload.

I think the odds are higher than 1 in 1,000,000 actually.

This wasn't a game, it was scripted. Dooverville. Give me a break.

[Etienne]

Well here is my game.

Space victory in 1842 with 2187pts. It was a relatively peaceful game. There was only one world war in the early stage. The Zulus and the Persians declared war on me when I was in the middle of building up my culture. I wasn't up to the fight so I created military alliances with everybody else who eventually annihilated the Zulus, and gave me the chance to concentrate solely on the Persians. I eventually conquered them by razing there cities and replacing them by new ones. From this point on I concentrated on maintaining peace and building up my border defenses.

All in all it was a very interesting game.

[jimb0v2]

I'm not going to sit here and say your wrong that the odds are large. I don't think they are quite as large as you say. since the game only lasted 66 turns they can't be that large. Ie probably we are only talking about 40 battles. Most of the battles will be even 2 power vs 2 defense battles. Anyhow, even if I give you some leeway here. Lets say we are talking about a 0 BC victory instead. IE we give a margin of error. It would be much much eaiser to do this.

Also I would like to point out this could be considered a bit different from other cheating instances. I personally am an avid first person shooter player. I was very involved in the professional community for quite a while. Cheating in those games has a lot of the same problems as cheating here does. I do have to say I was thinking more in that mindframe then in a Turn based strategy sense, and the more I think about it the more it saddens me. When it comes down to it, the best player in civ 3 is really the luckiest player, very few of your decisions actually matter as long as you are lucky. In first person shooters every decision you make, either macro or micro matter a ton. Whether to "protect the Red Armor" down to how you turn your mouse matter. The thing that IS the same though, is it's impossible to tell a cheater from a non-cheater. Even if the odds are astronomical, it's still possible. So if someone posts a 1000 bc victory up here and says "I didn't reload once, or cheat in any way" people like you will say "pssha right, you're lying." But in actuality you have absolutely NO proof. Just as in first person shooters where a person makes an amazing prediction shot when there was no possible way to legiimately know the enemy was coming through the door at that time. The player could have been using a cheat to see him coming, or he may just be a very good player. Absolutely. Positilvey NO way to distinguish them. What saddens me is that in civ3 the it's not that you can't distinguish a cheater from a person whose strategy is amazing, it's that you can't distinguish a cheater from a person whose LUCK is amazing. and that just sucks, but thats the way it is. Even if the odds are one in a million. Someone still has to win the lottery. And if someone accuses that guy of cheating it just snowballs, where do you draw the line... at what point does it sway the other way and become an "honest" win?

[jimb0v2]

I'd also like to point out that I think even the 66 turn victory may be able to be approved on by further micromanagement, it may not even be the absolute best possible score.

[Capt Dizle]

In our SMAC comparative games we simply shared our games and game stories. And learned to be better than we were by learning from others.

Thats all its about really. Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun. Getting to know the people in the community.

I remember thinking that there was no way to win within the times posted in the SMAC and Civ2 forums. Then people told how and it was fun to go and duplicate it.

Now, I have no problem with folks posting about their game constructed by using the save/reload trick as long as they plainly state it was so.

We can have dual categories, one for real and one for manufactured games.

You know I can run a billiard table every time, as long as I get to do over any shot I miss.

[jimb0v2]

Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun.

The arcane fine points of the game are just matematical formulas though. Maybe that sounds fun to some, but to me it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure most of ust started off using the AI trading system and had fun with it. It's a lot of fun to be peaceful and roleplay with it etc. But what the reports are showing me that pure militaristic strategy is far superior.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I don´t believe a BC Victory can be achieved at all without using the save-reload. Perhaps on a Tiny Pangaea Map, but otherwise I think it´s impossible.

On the map settings this tournament used, yes, a BC victory is possible without using save/reload or prior knowledge of the map. Granted there would have to be some luck, the early settler. After that it would be possible with just even luck and a good consistant strategy. I was able to achieve conquest victory in 600AD without save/reload/replay or the settler from any huts (got barbs from the first even). It was a very poorly played game in many respects, probably wasting 60+ armies in futile attacks or wasted production turns due to civil disorder, and having another 80 or so that never saw action.

In civfanatics GOTM and on several games that I've played privately, I've noticed roughly a 500 to 1000 year advantage by getting an early settler (given small maps, and working for conquest victories). The GOTM specifically, my first time though I netted a settler on turn 5 I think, and ended up with a 30AD conquest. Then playing through without popping the settler, I wasn't able to finish the game till 640AD. Neither time did I use save/reload, though the 640AD date was with prior knowlege of the map and no wasted turns sending armies the wrong way. The other games I've played privately have all been consistant with these results when I've replayed to see how having, or not having, the early settler effects performance. So, all else equal, the early settler would have had me very late BC's or very early AD's most likely. And improving my management of forces and production would have taken at least another couple hundred years off of the date.

[Capt Dizle]

I am not prepared to say that a BC victory is not possible on the map we are playing. Yet.

I am playing a pure Bum Rush and if my execution is good I will have a real good feel for what is and is not possible.

Clearly, the AI is not equiped to stop a momentum strategy. Its just a matter of how fast.

66 turns no...1350 is not feasible. But by 1750 you are down to 25 years per turn..and it may drop lower before AD. From 1350 to 0 AD is at least 54 turns and a lot can be done in 54 turns.

Has anyone counted the number of turns in the BC era?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by jimb0v2


The arcane fine points of the game are just matematical formulas though. Maybe that sounds fun to some, but to me it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure most of ust started off using the AI trading system and had fun with it. It's a lot of fun to be peaceful and roleplay with it etc. But what the reports are showing me that pure militaristic strategy is far superior.

I'm one of those who enjoys the statistical analysis and trying to figure out theoretical limits. Before Dog posted the 1350BC game, I hadn't thought that it would be possible to conquer this map before 1000BC for sure, and more likely a 500BC. Just because someone is willing to play a game through like that doesn't change the fact that the game is fun to play in other ways. I myself usually like to play peaceful builder games, with a smattering of warfare depending on the situation. But in tournements I realize that there is going to be a "best" way to play given the rules and map settings, and enjoy giving it my best shot. After seeing Dog's score I tried to see if I could duplicate it, formed a plan looking at city placements, and had some more fun from the same map. At 1575 BC I got my first two archers to Athens, with 3 others and a couple swordsmen a few turns behind. I took one greek city, but for the next several turns I couldn't figure out any combination of attacks that resulted in my taking of any of their cities. All the other civs were well in hand or defeated, but the greeks took everything I could throw at them before the 1350BC date rolled around.

Anyways, the whole point is I enjoyed all aspects of this tournement, especially the conversation and comparison on these boards. If we all played the same way and had the same score there wouldn't be much to talk about!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
66 turns no...1350 is not feasible. But by 1750 you are down to 25 years per turn..and it may drop lower before AD. From 1350 to 0 AD is at least 54 turns and a lot can be done in 54 turns.

Has anyone counted the number of turns in the BC era?

10BC is the 126th turn, 10AD is 127. There are 540 turns overall from 4000BC to 2050AD.

Here is a table of turn/years from an earlier post. The per turn pts are approximately how many pts you lose each turn from a regent conquest victory bonus. Conquest Bonus = (2050 - Date) * Difficulty. Difficulty is 1-6, Cheiftain-Diety. BC Dates are considered negative.

4000BC - 2750BC 25 turns, 50 years each 150pts per turn
2710BC - 1750BC 25 turns, 40 years each 120pts per turn
1725BC - 750BC 40 turns, 25 years each 75pts per turn
730BC - 250AD 100 turns, 20 years each 60pts per turn
260BC - 1250AD 100 turns, 10 years each 30pts per turn
1255AD - 1750AD 100 turns, 5 years each 15pts per turn
1752AD - 1950AD 100 turns, 2 years each 6pts per turn
1951AD - 2050AD 100 turns, 1 year each 3pts per turn

Edit: 730BC - 250AD 50 turns, 20 years each 60 pts.

[Capt Dizle]

Thank you very much. Very good.

[Ivanhoe]

Space race victory, 1690AD. score = 2849.

Quiet game, just Greeks declared war on me a turn before this savegame Anyway, they would have little chance.

[Ahlyis]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
In our SMAC comparative games we simply shared our games and game stories. And learned to be better than we were by learning from others.

And we aren't doing that here?

Thats all its about really. Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun. Getting to know the people in the community.

I was having a lot of fun until you came in, called us all cheaters, then insulted me directly.

I remember thinking that there was no way to win within the times posted in the SMAC and Civ2 forums. Then people told how and it was fun to go and duplicate it.

So, according to your previous posts here, you are admitting that you 'cheated' in SMAC and CIV2?

Now, I have no problem with folks posting about their game constructed by using the save/reload trick as long as they plainly state it was so.

But on page 6 you posted "Yeah, it you are going to play a comparative game in a tourney and you resort to reloading or trying multiple games you are morally bankrupt."

Well, which is it?

Also, you never answered my question as to how it is that the 'cheating' that we all admitted to could be carried over to multiplayer? You won't be able to save/reload in multiplayer. Also, unless people are using constructed maps instead of randomly generated ones, it won't be possible to have prior knowledge of where things are either. So how does any of this translate to multiplayer???

I agree with AnnC, I think you owe me an apology!

[Genies]

culture win

culture reach 10000 in 1872 AD and the score is 3357.