ACDG5: Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?

[vyeh]

Mart,

I'm trying to plan ahead and take votes well in advance of when they're needed.

After the experience of the first couple of turns, I do not want to see the game get bogged down again in voting on every move by every unit!

I think votes on "major" decisions is desirable; votes on implementation of strategy is not.

This is not really a response to making a timetable.

[Mart]

Yes, what I mean here is that scheduling when (more or less) turns are played gives time to analyze the game saves, think about strategy and share thoughts, not necessarily voting every time. Decisions may be taken by one person, still taking advices and thinking about them helps.

On the other hand we would avoid game lags.

[vyeh]

Mart,

I saw your post at Civfanatics. That was clever, giving a progress report.

[vyeh]

Nahkrinoth,

You've been making a valuable contribution as advisor at large. Would you like a greater role?

I'm thinking you could focus more on tech strategy, sea former strategy, sea colony placement or diplomatic strategy.

This wouldn't preclude you from advising on other matters.

[Nahkrinoth]

I want to learn how to be a better builder. I'll try sea former strategy and maybe sea colony pod placement. I would very much like criticism when I coordinate sea forming.

[vyeh]

We currently have one sea former, which is building kelp near Seaview and three in production (at BRCM, South and Ushuaia).

In the Wardroom thread, how about recommendation for the next terraforming action for the four sea formers?

Also, how about a suggestion about the next sea colony pod placement?

[Mart]

For some reason the thumbnails to imageshack do not work for me in turn posting thread. Is it Apolyton problem or my browser? My thumbnails when I post seem to work bad too.

[vyeh]

I don't have a problem with thumbnails, but I'm using Safari (Mac).

There is a problem with the 2168 turn. During the 2167 turn, Bay Area had Recycling Tanks, Recreation Commons and the Naval Yard that came with the Maritime Control Center.

In the 2168 turn, Bay Area has those facilities and perimeter defense, network node and command center.

Although I trust Bodissey, I did check the Alpha Centauri score and it does not indicate the scenario editor was used.

I can only conclude the AI has noticed that we have been selling off command centers to keep our expenses down and has decided to saddle us with 3 facilities.

It is rather inept of the AI since the perimeter defense cost nothing and while the network node is costing us 1 credit, it is generating 6 labs!

While the command center does cost us 2 credits per turn, Bay Area can easily become the manufacturing center for land combat units.

For all I know, one or more of the other factions has gotten a similar bonus (I don't check their maintenance cost the way I check ours).

[Nahkrinoth]

Sorry I was afk. A fire took out my connection.

[vyeh]

(This thread is for discussions about the game; the Wardroom thread is for discussions within the game; scoring seems to be about the game).

Had sunspot activity continued (and we were still pacted with Morgan and Deidre when both the University and the Hive fell), the victory bonus would have been 1000 points minus 2 for every turn elapsed split between all winning factions based on relative population.

At the time the University fell, we had 512 population. Deidre had 65 population (she gets a +50% bonus on votes because of the Empath Guild) and Morgan had 93 population.

So our victory bonus would have been (1000 - 2 * 93) * 512 / (512 + 65 + 93) = 814 * 512 / 670 = 622

For a diplomatic or economic victory, the victory bonus is 1200 points minus 2 for every turn elapsed or, assuming we achieve a diplomatic victory in 2194, 1200 - 2 * 94 = 1012.

For a victory by transcendence, the victory bonus is 1600 points minus 2 for every turn elapsed.

Note:

(1) So our bonus for winning by diplomacy in 2194 is 390 points higher than had we won a cooperative conquest victory in 2193.

(2) If we could win a victory by transcendence less than 200 years after 2194, we would have a higher victory bonus.

We have 18 techs to go before we can build the Ascent to Transcendence secret project; however 2 of them (secrets of alpha centauri, secrets of creation) give a free tech to the first faction to discover them and the Universal Translator secret project gives two free techs.

So we'd only have to research 14 techs. Our current research rate is 3 years; this is likely to increase as we build more network nodes. So I am pretty sure we could finish our research and build the ascent to transcendence secret project within 50 years (more likely 25 years).

(3) So if we chose to go for a transcendence victory, we could increase our victory bonus by 300 points. This doesn't even take into account the increase to our score from the increase in population, the increase in commerce, the increase in technology and the increases in secret projects.

I am not suggesting that we delay victory to maximize our score. My objective has always been to achieve our objective in the shortest time (which is why our aircraft didn't get much rest).

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Bodissey in The Wardroom
I really enjoyed playing this game with you, Vyeh. I really learned a lot and I sure appreciated your patience.

I really appreciate that you remained. I think everything I showed you is legitimate in a multiplayer game (e.g using two transports to move passengers further than they could have moved using one transport). I'd be willing to have a post-victory discussion (with discussion within the game in The Wardroom thread, e.g. should we have researched Doctrine: Mobility and Doctrine: Flexibility first, and discussion about the game, did the AI's perimeter defenses function, in this thread).

Originally posted by Bodissey in The Wardroom
Many thanks to all the participants: Nahkrinoth, timsup2nothin, JoeStalin, Plan9, Nins, Mart, Dacole… Sorry if I forgot anyone.

I extend my thanks.

Originally posted by Bodissey in The Wardroom
Should another DemGame start, it would be nice to have some more players though. Anyway, count me in.

I agree it would be nice to have some more players. We started with a bunch, but we lost a lot. Is there something that you would like to get from a demogame that you can't get from the multiplayer games you're in?

[vyeh]

I'd like to express a special thanks to Mart for designing the game.

[vyeh]

This post is for the next person who has an interest in organizing an AC demogame.

I started this thread because someone had PM'd me about a demogame. Sadly, my reply to that person occured after he stopped visiting Apolyton.

My biggest personal regret was letting one person's preference make this a SMAC game instead of a SMAX game.

Although he was a big Apolyton OT participant, he never participated in The Wardroom.

Of the eight listed on the first post of this thread, three briefly participated (two post for one, one post for the other two). Two of the three haven't posted on Apolyton since then.

Of the remaining 5, 2 who had been very active quit (one after two weeks with no explanation and only made one more post on Apolyton at the time of this post; the other after five weeks because of a job change -- he did drop by subsequently and is still active on Apolyton).

That leaves 3 players and Mart at the end of the game.

Nahkrinoth made his first post to Apolyton by asking to join the game on August 20th. At that time we were in MY 2115 (15 turns); however, the turn player (Bodissey) and I were sometimes playing two turns a day. I never asked Bodissey why he speeded up the pace; I didn't want the game to end before victory.

I tried to keep Nahkrinoth involved (e.g. I made a conscious effort to plant sea bases where he recommended as soon as possible), but there were aspects of the game that went in a different direction from his suggestions (e.g. he was very interested in improving infrastructure and we were expanding horizontally by building sea colony pods instead of developing vertically through infrastructure). I also called for more votes.

I can't thank Bodissey enough. Besides being the turn player, he also made important strategic contributions. For instance, he realized that we were eligible to stand for election as Planetary Governor. We probably had widely different philosophies about building a military force. I'm sure he would have been more comfortable with a bigger force.

And I am sure that he wasn't pleased with the way I used aircraft that were highly damaged (I ordered an aircraft with only 1 hit point remaining on interdicting missions for several turns rather than let it rest and heal). We only lost three aircraft (two to Falcons -- one was a necessary loss to seize Stellar Door and the one time we lost an attacking aircraft it was completely healthy and the odds were 8-5).

Meanwhile, I was establishing lots and lots of sea bases and using our funds to rush colony pods and sea formers. The land bases on our continent were building tree farms instead of cranking out military units even though one of our opponents had a tech lead.

As for me, I'm pleased we only lost three ground combat units (a scout, a trance plasma garrison and a trance scout - I think all of them were lost to mindworms). We lost four naval units (three gun foils, one to IoD and two to the Believers and a plasma coastal to the Spartans). And we lost three air units. Plus several speeder probes and two cruiser probes.

Mart shouldn't be disappointed that the game ended in less than 100 turns. We caught some lucky breaks (recovering resupply pods that built a trance rover crawler and a trance sea crawler that allowed us to snatch the Planetary Transit System from the University) and the Gaians destroying the defenders of E pur si mueve with a chopper (which we were prohibited from doing) allowing us to seize it and eventually Peacenik which contained the Hunter Seeker Algorithm.

My recommendations for a future ACDG:

(1) Start with a core of players who have already proven their commitment (e.g. Bodissey, Nahkrinoth and previous multiplayer and demo games).

(2) Let them determine the game they want to play (let newbies join the game but don't let one newbie dictate a choice and never participate).

(3) Consider taking out diplomatic victory and perhaps limiting the number of bases to reduce micromanagement. (Mart suggested a smaller map to reduce micromanagement.)

I'd be interested in Bodissey's and Nahkrinoth's recommendations.

[Verrucosus]

Congratulations, everyone!

I did not have time to participate or even comment during the last few months, but it was always a pleasure to drop by and watch the game's progress.

Verrucosus

P.S.: Sorry for having brought up the SMAC/SMAX issue in the first place.

[Nahkrinoth]

That was a lot of fun, vyeh and Bodissey! In many of the later turns I was less involved not because of inactivity, but because I could find little fault in your military strategy. I could've been more hands on with sea bases beyond placement.

Come up with some ideas for what you'd like to play and we'll knock them around.