No dragon - that does not work for larger cities- what happens is I take the enemy city - I have my troops in their, then there is a small delay then bang I have a settler and no city- I HAVE the Settler- EVEN if the city was size 5!!! Saves are being worked on now.. I will let you know!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ctp Competition Rule Discussion..
Collapse
X
-
im back
just got my comp back from reperations
I say 3 settler and 100 gold but nothing more
but if you do 1 settler you add 10 more minutes of playing to the game maybe 15 min, but youll add another dimension as the game will stay longer in ancient and you wont move so fast onto ren.....veni, vidi, vici
icq #51862133
pint@c2i.net
http://gameleague.apolyton.net
Comment
-
JBTW Map with 3 Settlers, 100 Gold, Extra River
Here is a final version of JBTW's Scenario. I added 2 more settlers to make it 3 each (it seems 3 settlers, 100 gold, is the general concensus), and only changed the terrain slightly by adding a river through both settlers' starting position. (I hope you don't mind J Bytheway, I kept it symmetric ). Anyway, I played a practice round in hot-seat mode for 20 turns and here were my results at year 3000 B.C. You all may do much better than I did in your practices.
Romans: 6 Cities, 105 Gold per Turn, 214 Prod per turn, 3 new Technologies.
Americans: 5 Cities, 108 Gold per Turn, 226 Prod per turn, 3 new Technologies.
Attached is the zip file for the savegame.csg and the scenario.txt file. (Comp3).Attached Files
Comment
-
3 settlers and 100 gold?
Others may have all the time in the world to play these games, but mine is quite limited. Nine settlers are required to bring these games to a timely resolution. Gold doesn't matter as much as getting more cities running from the start."The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo
Comment
-
starting settlers and gold
Pin is right in requesting 1 settler and 100 gold. Why? If the map is gigantic, both sides will most likely get to 40+ cities. If you start with 10% of those cities (9 settlers), that means a players ability to expand is somewhat diminished. In other words, starting with 1 settler and 100 gold is tougher and the better players will be rewarded. 9 settlers and lots of gold helps to "even" out the game for weaker players. As for time, the extra amount required is minimual as the early turns go very fast.
The only question is what type of competition do the organizers want to have? If they want a true test of skill, then eliminate as much luck as possible; make things as even as possible; make things relatively tough (but not impossible for either a science or military conquest to happen) so that all ctp skills should be required. That means eliminating wonders and other game unbalancing problems (such as the piracy bug) and making sure a map requires all skills to be used.
yoda
Comment
-
I have missed a good time of these posts .
My current suggestions:
J Bytheway's new map
3 Settlers
2000 gold
0 PW
NO wonders, exception: Wormhole Sensor
NO piracy
Pillaging ON
I hope there is someone who is OK with this.Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man
Comment
-
I was thinking, Yoda, you say that we should eliminate all the luck from the game. And many agree that the maps should be nice and symetrical, and I like that. But, many strategies involve manipulating the luck factor and using that to extra advantage in their game. And, if a map is symetrical, it is quite predictable and takes out much need to explore, especially if there are no ruins. Once the enemy's position has been found(which we will all already know) there is not much need to send out explorers. We already know in advance where we want to put our settlers, where we can send our units to find the choke points and strategically important locations without having to do anything. I like the symetrical map, and the luck factor being taken out but, it does limit quite a few strategies in the process. I realize it would be difficult to create another map to handle this, but it is a factor to be considered. Call to Power is not simply a game where set strategies are played out and a war is won. There are many factors that can not be planned for ahead of time and must be taken care of in game. With a pre-made, symetrical map, you know which fork to take in the river, that will lead you to block off the enemy progress and you do not have to send scouts off in every direction for many turns on end. With such a map, all the units that may have been used for exploration can be consolidated on site, and they can all be directed at the enemy far too soon. I like the map, and whatever is decided for us to play on is fine with me. I just hope everyone realizes what a symetrical map means to the playing of the game. Reacting to the randomness of the terrain and deciding on whether to go to the right or the left in the fork in the river, without knowing where either will lead you, is very much a foundation of the game, especially early on. If everyone is worried about the speed of the game, it will certainly be quite fast if you already know where you are going, without any other distractions such as directional decisions and ruins.
Well, there is my 2 cents. Whatever we do is fine with me.Peace is but a place to live.
The house of peace is built on the foundation of war.
You must conquer the land before you can build your house and live in peace.
Comment
-
A look at the map reiforces my belief that these games will be very long. I remember playing a two player giagantic earth world land battle with Blackice a year or so ago. The game had similar start distances. The game went well into modern and was won with nukes and interceptors.That game was two all night sessions, well over 15 hours of play.
I see this map taking three times as long to finish. It may well be the one who makes it to space fighters and space planes first will be victorious. Using the unit pathing, it took 65 turns to get from the start space to the swamp area that is off the other players continent. We are talking long-slow games here. If you want this competition to end withina resonable time, something has to be done to speed up the games.
As for more settlers helping the weaker player, the only reason more setlers help in a typical online game is that there are more chances to find ruins earlier. We have no ruins in this game. The only thing more settlers should do is have the stronger player win faster. These games are going to be won in the late modern early genetic ages. So anything that can speed the game along to get to that point should be welcomed by all."The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves."--Victor Hugo
Comment
-
Anyone for chess??
I think we all have to accept this is never going to be perfect - But game speed is certainly going to be an issue...... Maybe we attempting to over regulate the whole thing? Since everyone has their own preferences - why not just let everyone thrash it out in every game!!He's back after a fashion...
Comment
-
Why not test it? Gavrushka and I can play out a "test" match using the JBTW map with 3 Settlers to see if it truly will take 45 hours per game as Swissy fears. What do you think Gav and Solver?
If neither side attacks, I can see that it might take 45 hours. The later turns with 100 cities and hundreds of units can take a long time just to play one turn. But I have a feeling that one side or the other will attack within 100 turns in our competition matches.
Gavrushka is right about Chess, (even though I know he was joking). If speed, fairness, and quick conclusions is what you seek, play Chess on-line! In the Internet Chess Club you can finish 5 games in one hour! The games are rated and recorded and moderated for possible cheating.
Comment
-
Well all read Yodas post on top of this page.
1 settler and 100 gold start will ONLY delay the game with 10-20 min. Thats the time it will take to get to the 9 settler start some is suggesting. Well im up for sacrificing 10-20 min to find the best player from the toughest settings. I do NOT belive its possible to deny that the 1 settler start is the toughest and the original settings. Also that will add 10-20 min of game play and well im up for 10-20 min longer games.
Over to the long times these games will take. I strongly belive it will have to take long time to play as all these players here are pretty even and good players and there wont be these big gaps you see if you play an player little below the top.
Becouse you wont get the gaps it will be hard and tough to win the games, but heck thats what we are looking for aint it????
And Solver i think 2000 gold start is an bad option as the gold will only help to even out the range from the best to the 2nd best players....veni, vidi, vici
icq #51862133
pint@c2i.net
http://gameleague.apolyton.net
Comment
Comment