ideas for the 2nd Tournament?

[MarkG]

if you posted something about this in the 1st tournament thread, please repost here

[Out4Blood]

Should be on Monarch difficulty level.
Standard-sized map (all defaults basically)
Winner should be the earliest victory for each type.

[jimb0v2]

I agree with playing monarch, and the rest standard, but I think it should not be on a pangea. Pangea unbalances the game toward Domination/Conquest.

[Achnor]

I think the current tournament is too simple. I'd like a emperor-tournament.

But primary, what we need to focus on is the winning-criteria. Is it score alone or time of conquest/spaceship/Un-vote or what...?

I'm really enjoying the tournament. I like the idea of not going head to head but head *along* head with other players to see who's best and which tactics are used

Thats what *I* think...

Achnor

[Skanky Burns]

I agree with moving the difficulty level to Emperor.

Standard size map.
Archipelago, least amount of land.
All other settings default.

Thats what *I* think...

[jimb0v2]

Hmm, I would be a bit weary to restrict the way to win. Ideally it would be much better to raise the difficulty level and hope that the Domination/Conquest victory is not as viable there. Emperor or Monarch are probably where this is going to occur. In Regent the AI does'nt have enough production power to outsmart a human, and at diety conquest/domination becomes very unrealistic since the AI can have three or four cities going before you have two.

If it becomes clear that raising the difficulty level does not allow different victory conditions to become viable then I tihnk restricting the types of victory and size of map would be a good idea.

[jack_frost]

I'd rather see emperor difficulty since its too easy to dominate the AI at regant. With the weaker the AI, all your doing is seeing who can optimize a lead better. With a stronger AI your seeing how really good players can handle really difficult opposition best.

The counter arguement to this is - "but fewer people can participate at higher difficulties". True, but everyone will gain more knowlege from winning techniques against better opposition.


Choice of multiple civs on same map. Various map downloads - 1 for each civ. Interesting because we get to see how the choice of differant civs affects game play. And maybe to peoples suprise, a zulu player could find a great strat


Multiple victory conditions:

An earliest spaceship.

A highest score conquest (probably earliest as well).

Highest score cultural victory (with unnatural limits to combat).


I'd really like to see a 'non-military' victory type. I realize though that its hard to deal with circumstances like - an AI declaring war on you. It'd also be difficult to stop people from just cheating and going to war.

But otherwise everything just becomes an early rush blood bath. Even cultural victory can be achieved by just razing every other enemy civ.

Maybe a diplomatic victory is harder to do with rampant warfare? But that seems like 20 turns of bribery.

Anyone have any ideas?

[jack_frost]

Or we could just see who has the best score on a huge lowest land island map with 16 AI at diety.

Interesting since nobody could actually win this

[mgblst]

I like big maps, and i think most people want it a little harder. Perhaps we could have just one victory situation, so we would all be competing for a similar goal.

[jack_frost]

Same victory conditions bias game play I think. IE: fastest win = conquest. So does highest score, as we've seen in the last game. I just don't want to compete if all we're seeing is: who can execute an early rush best using the despotic population to unit strategy (proving to be the most efficent).

[Achnor]

Why not cycle through the different victory-possibilities?
Say, With this map the goal is the earliest military-victory ONLY.
On this map lets see who can win a diplomatic victory ONLY (and earlier).
etc. etc.

Achnor

[Out4Blood]

Just have the winners decided by earliest victory FOR EACH VICTORY TYPE. If this wasn't clear the first time. Winner for earliest culture victory, earliest spaceship, etc. Score creates too many obvious artificial "point bloating" opportunities. This way the culture freaks can compete together.

Emperor may be too hard fer some folks - although I'd prefer deity level :-)

[Kriton]

Or we could just see who has the best score on a huge lowest land island map with 16 AI at diety.

I completely agree! I think the lower levels allow for too much luck. Even if nobody wins, this would clearly separate the good from the great. And although it is a casual tournament, having it on diety would greatly increase its prestiege.

[Eli]

Well, Regent was challenging enough but there is nothing wrong with Monarch.

In the current game we didnt manage to experience the modern age at all because of the early space launch. I think that this victory type should be disabled.

Maybe some more interesting maps, and not simply random ones...

[jimb0v2]

huge 16 civs??!

Eli: How can you say it was not too easy? People basically just walked all over the AI.

Has anyone actually played a game on a HUGE 16 player Civ Map? It is currently not worth playing, after playing for maybe two or three hours it takes almost 8 minutes after I end my turn to where I begin my next turn. This is with all animations turned off, all view enemy civs moves off etc. All battle animations off. And yes I did have the video bug, but i got new drivers and that fixed it, but even AFTER that it still takes around 8 minutes per turn. No one can possibly take the time to micromanage a huge 16 player game, also the strategy of buying a tech and selling to 15 civs outweighs any other strategy in that game.

Personally I would prefer Tiny and Small maps where every turn you take is very significant.

But seriously, am I missing something with the huge 16 civ games?

I'm running a 1.4 ghz athlon with geforce 3 and 700+ megs of ram.