Qwack's Adventure 13 (this was extreme?)

[darrelljs]

Well, when is the fastest path to victory ever NOT the best?

When it's not the most fun?

Darrell

[Kylearan]

Hi,

[...] the events have been designed for general play, and not for those who MUST HAVE the silliness of higher difficulties to counteract the silliness of maximizing things like the CS Slingshot or systematic use of the 2-pop axe whip.

[...] I cannot be the only person on whom complaints about games being too easy, or the AI being too incapable, or the best strategy being too obvious, is starting to wear thin.

A lot has changed for me in the last few weeks regarding how I think about this issue. The CSS debate and this Adventure have been key events for me, and I view some things differently now.

I have played this Adventure, and had started to play it in my "old" mindset of seeing it to be a challenge to overcome in a most optimal way. I'm no min/max-person when it comes to micro things, like Blake, T-hawk, Qwack and others are who know the exact mechanics of whipping and other elements of the game engine inside out. I admire them for their knowledge and patience, but because it's only a game I don't bother to examine things that thoroughly - I have to do enough of this in real life already. That's also one reason I won't win many events here I guess.

I am a min/max-person in a macro sense though. I like to exploit the game on a higher level, like in my no military game, but in normal games I end up walking down the CSS path way too often for that reason. Or in the case of Adventure 13, the Great Lighthouse/Colossus path.

Yes, I managed to build both wonders in this game, having geared my opening game towards that single goal. I then eliminated all AIs as easily as many other players did with maces and grenadiers, but halfway through noticed I wasn't having fun anymore. I stopped playing efficiently after eliminating Cathy, Izzy and half of Gandhi, and just rushed through the game winning a conquest victory in 1860AD. I could have won much earlier if I had played more carefully, but why?

I decided not to report about the game (although it had its interesting moments, like Mansa declaring war on me in BC times when all I had was warriors for defense) because I realized how again I had walked down that well-trodden, obvious path of building the two sea wonders in an archipelago game, then crushing the AIs with superior forces. The reason the game hadn't been fun for me in the end wasn't bad scenario design, bad luck or any other outside factor. It had been my doing alone, and I've learned my lesson.

I'm looking very much forward to more events like Epic 2 or 3, which had highly original scoring mechanisms where the old ways of min/maxing won't work anymore, and we have to be more creative to win. For that reason I liked Adventure 11 as well, as it was highly different from "normal" games as well.

For the more "normal" events (and this Adventure was "normal" in the sense that the "normal" way of playing such a map was the best one here as well despite the variant rules) , I think I will remember what I have done in the Civ 3 Epics way back when: To try out things I hadn't done before, even if these new ways won't win me the event.

-Kylearan

P.S.: I'm not sure I will report about my Epic 8 game either, we'll see.

[theGrimm]

Fundamentally, people want different things from this game. That is a fact we can never get away from.

Forgive me for being overly philisophical here, but I've come to believe (in life, but it applies here too) that the letter of the law, without the spirit of the law, is simply not sufficient to govern a community.

We could split the community along the lines of those who manipulate the rules for optimal play and those who play a more casual game, but that runs the risk of simply creating a more detailed level of division. We could offer a wider selection of games, at difficulty levels that challenge each to his own, but that also creates more division.

But, to quote from the RB home page:

"We're a community, not a clan, that are spreading across the traditional lines of game title and who are like-minded on several key points...
... to seek challenge and fun, not simply 'high score' or 'the most elite stuff!'
... to excel is virtue
... to look to become friends with those you play with
... to treat others with respect, whether you agree with them or not
... to steadfastly avoid cheating"

Or, we could simply stress less about trying to play the game someone else would, and play and report as we wish.

It is the nature of some people to pick apart the game mechanics. The less detail-minded people might think they're anal, over critical, and ruining their fun. It is the nature of some people to play more casually, and the more detailed minded might think they're lazy, inferior and ruining their fun.

The key principle here is that no way of playing (except cheating) is superior...merely different. In other words, lighten up...it's a game. (Yes, that applies to me, too.)

[jonottawa]

It took me a long time (dozens of games) to first use the whip in Civ IV because the unhappiness penalty for whipping in Civ III was so severe (it either lasted forever or almost forever from what I recall.)

Once I started whipping in Civ IV (not until coming here and realizing that you have to whip to be remotely competitive) I was appalled at how overpowered it is. There has to be either a diminishing returns principle or an increasing penalty principle. It doesn't have to be super-sophisticated and it would still be a vast improvement over what we have now.

For those who are 'sick of the whining,' move on to another discussion, thanks. If you take justified criticisms of the game mechanics personally, you probably don't have the right temperament to participate in this discussion.

[T-hawk]

I'm looking very much forward to more events like Epic 2 or 3, which had highly original scoring mechanisms where the old ways of min/maxing won't work anymore, and we have to be more creative to win.

If there's any consensus emerging here, I think this is it. Games with oddball goals satisfy both those who want to try new things and those who want a competitive goal to pursue.

We've had an overload of fastest-finish games lately. Discounting unscored Gentle Adventures, the last three were all scored as such. And the three before that, Epics 5 and 6 and Adventure 9, were officially unscored but the scenario setups made it natural to compare the finish dates anyway. So it's time for a different direction.

Here's a point to ponder, though. In the Civ 3 Epics, we never seemed to tire of the fastest-finish scoring. Why is that? I think the answer lies in the multiplicative math of Civ 4 and the Tech Uber Alles race.

In Civ 3, despite the narrower game scope, there were actually more ways to play for a fast finish than in Civ 4. You could start self-researching early or late. You could land-grab early or conquer more land later. You could monopolize contacts, or spread them around to allow the AIs to share tech sooner. You could build the Pyramids which gave great midgame development at a serious opportunity cost in the early game. Maintaining a late-game competitive economy (at the research speed limit of 4 turns per tech) did always require a double core acquired by conquest, but the execution of that provided some spice and variety as compared to the always-turtle approach of Civ 4.

In Civ 4, despite the wider tech tree, the game approach for fastest finish is narrower. You have to be self-researching at all times. Conquest almost never significantly improves one's economy. The early wonders don't come with a large enough opportunity cost, especially with the right resource or the Industrious trait. The early religion game falls by the wayside since the fastest path to Bureaucracy involves grabbing Confucianism. And the multiplicative math means that a fastest-finish game always beelines the tech tree in nearly the same order (especially with No Tech Trading.) Slavery, Bureaucracy, Organized Religion, the Great Library, Universities (and Oxford), Liberalism, and Free Market are all near-automatic economic choices to grab ASAP. It does get repetitive. Although the path through the tech tree isn't actually narrower than in Civ 3, it feels that way. You look at all the options each time, but just discard them in favor of the known best path. Same with the civics; Civ 4's government model is much wider than Civ 3's always-right-answer of Republic, but yet it feels more constrained because the same choices are right nearly every time and the rest just get discarded (Environmentalism anyone?) It creates unfulfilled expectations, where there's so much more of the game system to explore, but the fastest-finish focus just never goes there.

[sooooo]

Once I started whipping in Civ IV (not until coming here and realizing that you have to whip to be remotely competitive) I was appalled at how overpowered it is.

Well it's really good on archipelago maps like this one. But on others like Highlands I often find myself in serfdom instead. It all depends on your surroundings, and there are obviously going to be some civics better than others for certain maps. You certainly won't have to "whip to be remotely competitive" if you have a go at adventure 2 or adventure 10.

[uberfish]

Well, I'm tired of the complaining - particularly the "one right path" complaints - too. Since I am apparently part of the problem, I will simply play only the Extreme or weird-setup events here, and go to CFC if I want a speed competition instead.

[Zeviz]

...
In Civ 4, despite the wider tech tree, the game approach for fastest finish is narrower. You have to be self-researching at all times. Conquest almost never significantly improves one's economy. The early wonders don't come with a large enough opportunity cost, especially with the right resource or the Industrious trait. The early religion game falls by the wayside since the fastest path to Bureaucracy involves grabbing Confucianism. And the multiplicative math means that a fastest-finish game always beelines the tech tree in nearly the same order (especially with No Tech Trading.) Slavery, Bureaucracy, Organized Religion, the Great Library, Universities (and Oxford), Liberalism, and Free Market are all near-automatic economic choices to grab ASAP. It does get repetitive.
...

Considering that none of the fastest space races followed the path you've described, I'd hardly call it "One Right Way".

Let's take a look at Adventure 11:
1. The first 3 people to research Liberalism built no ancient wonders and, while I can't talk about the other two, I seemed to have at least as strong an economy around 1000AD as anybody who went wonder-chasing.
2. The fastest space race involved no CS slingshot (I went to Beurocracy through Currency->CoL), no Organized Religion (never researched Monotheism until getting it from PA), no Great Library, and Free Market wasn't adopted right after discovery of Liberalism either. So the best science path in adventure 11 involved only 3 out of the 8 items you've listed as part of your "One Right Way". (I can't talk about best culture path, but considering the number of people complaining about Great Library producing too many scientists, at least one of the the items you listed doesn't seem to apply there either.)

I think that aside from obvious things like "early conquest is stronger than peaceful game" and "free tech from Liberalism is good if you can get it", there are few things that are ideal for any CIV scenario. While some people might chose to always follow a rigid formula, I doubt it will give as much success as they expect even for the fastest finish scenarios.

[jonottawa]

Here are some valid arguments against (or responses to comments about) tinkering with whipping (or most anything else where unanimity doesn't prevail):

1. It's broken, but I don't care. For those who do care, please discuss it to your heart's content but please don't expect me to talk about it or do anything about it.

2. It's broken, but finding/proposing/implementing the solution isn't the type of challenge I enjoy tackling. Sorry. Please discuss it to your heart's content ...

3. It's broken, but to me, X is more broken, and here's why ... I welcome opposing viewpoints.

4. Silence. (This is my recommended choice in most cases where your normal reaction falls in the 2nd category.)

Here are some invalid arguments:

1. So and so works real hard. Fixing stuff is hard work. (The President Bush argument.)

2. If you don't like it, get lost. (The despotic argument.)

3. If you don't shut up I'm going to leave and never return. (The 'take my ball and go home' argument.)

4. So-and-so is my hero, how dare you dispute anything he says? (The brownnose argument.)

5. If you don't stop griping I will cry/shout/smack you around/take drastic action. (The sandy vagina argument.)

6. I can't believe you picked the best strategy when the best strategy is so powerful. What were you thinking? (The deliberate mediocrity argument.)

I'm seeing way too many comments that fall in the 2nd category. And this isn't directed at anyone in particular, so if you think it's directed at you, that's only because it probably applies to you.

[Compromise]

Good game, Qwack. Reminded me quite a bit of my own. (I guess most of the conquest romps did.) And as a fellow 5-city builder, I liked the fact that we both didn't need that Sixth Column! We should have something like, oh I don't know, 100 years taken off our finish date !

Since this has become the thread to discuss the event and its design (should there be a sponsor-initiated thread for these discussions?), I'd like to add my voice to those who yearn for variant scoring goals, e.g. Epic 2. (Though I do understand that the many unscored and fastest finish events help clarify the standard optimal approaches that will be taken in the absence of variant scoring.)

Also, nice style on the writeup page: it just looks so much more dignified.