Idea for an Adventure

[Muaziz]

I have an idea for an Adventure and wanted to know what the RBCiv thought about it. I am very new to Realms Beyond, so I am not sure what the proper protocol is for something like this. I also looked at previous Epics and Adventures to see if anything like this had been done before, but it didn't appear so.

Horseaholic
Civilization: Byzantine
Unique Unit: Cataphract (Knight), comes with +2 strength but is not immune to first strike.
Unique Building: Hippodrome (Theatre), grants loads of extra happiness, +1 base, +1 more for having access to horses and +1 for every 5% spent on culture (instead of the Theatre's 10%).
Leader: Cyrus (Unrestricted Leaders)
Traits: Charismatic (-25% XP needed for unit promotions), Imperialistic (+100% Great General emergence)
Map: most likely Pangea, but will test this out
Difficulty: Monarch (will test this out to make sure it's not insanely easy or hard)
No Barbarians, No Huts, No Events, Aggressive AI
ALWAYS WAR (yes, I know we just did this in Epic 14, so we may want to wait a while for this game, assuming enough people are even interested).


Rule Variants

• You may only attack other units with Horse-based units (until Advanced Flight) and Artillery units. This rule is not in effect until you have built at least 2 Horse units or 2000 BC (whichever comes first).
  
• Once you research Advanced Flights, you may also attack with Gunships.
  
• Great Generals may only be used to turn units into Warlord units. No Military Academy, and no Super Specialists.
  
• You may only turn Horse-based units (until Advanced Flight) into Warlord units.
  
• Once you research Advanced Flights, you may also turn Gunships into Warlord units.
  
• You may not build West Point or the Pentagon.
  
• You may not upgrade any units except Warlord units.
  
• You may not enter enemy territory with a military unit prior to 1000 BC.
  
• You may not build any "metal horses": Tanks, Modern Armor. (I may remove jungles from the map and edit out water based oil to prevent all Oil-based units).

Scoring would be based on the following:

• Date of victory. Probably something like (400 - Turn Number) * 25. I will play a test game to try to balance this number.
  
• Total XP on all alive Warlord units combined at time of victory.
  
• +200 bonus for person with the highest XP on a single unit.
  
• +100 bonus for person with the second highest XP on a single unit.

The only thing I will guarantee about the map is that Horses will be present at least within the second border pop (3rd ring) of the capital city (assuming the Settler does not move).


Let me know if you all might be interested. If there are certain things about the variants that you don't like and would like to see changed, please let me know as well. Just because I like this idea as a concept doesn't mean everyone will, so any feedback is greatly appreciated.

[sooooo]

Well it's an interesting concept, though possibly too similary to epic 9? I ran a succession game where you could only build horse units. To be honest, the game took away some of the skill of warfare - ie you had no option about what balance of forces to build, what your stacks should consist of etc. I know in this case you can use other units for defence, but still.

I think to sponsor a RB event your first port of call is to email the idea to Sullla.

[Atlas]

Here is the answer- Everything not in quotes comes from Sirian. The only correction to the post below is to send your idea to Sullla instead of Sirian.

I have an idea for a new Adventure or Epic. How does sponsoring a game work?

That's a great question. The answers are fairly simple but not widely known.


You need all of the following to line up correctly:

1. You have a fun idea.
2. You develop it in to a COMPLETE scenario -- map type, civs involved, etc.
3. You write up your scenario rules, variant rules if any, and description.
4. You submit your idea to me in private. (Email is best).
5. If your idea wins approval (and this is not to be taken for granted), you generate the start file.
6. You wait for the appropriate slot in the schedule to arrive (could take months).
7. When the info thread for your event opens, you are responsible for answering questions, deciding on rules clarifications when necessary, etc.


If any of the following occur, you've hit a wall:
* Jumping to Step 4 above, without completing the first three.
* If your idea is to "reuse" a fun map you played in single player.
* If your step three is not up to spec.
* The more involvement you need from me, for anything, the worse off you are. You need to be ready for prime time -before- you step up to this type of venture.

Scheduling issues include:
* Epics are revisiting the original Civ3 Epics concepts, so the only slots open at this point are for Adventures.
* Adventures are easier to get approved than Epics would be anyway, because the Epics follow a 25/50/25 formula for easy/normal/hard games, mixing up civ choices, map types, and gameplay flavors. It can be hard to time your event to fit smoothly in to that flow, so wait times may sometimes be extensive in some cases.
* There are always more ideas for events than there are event slots. A really good idea sometimes jumps to the head of the line, but usually not.
* The more obscure and outlandish the variant, the harder it will be to get a slot in the short term, since we are still playing out the most basic concepts, or in a couple of cases experimenting with sticky gameplay issues (like in Adventure Thirteen).


Only one Civ4 event has so far been sponsored by someone other than me, and that was by Arathorn, who had extensive experience with sponsoring Civ3 Epics and knew how to sail through the process without needing it to be explained to him.

I would like to get some more sponsors going, but this is the first time anybody has asked the right question. Perhaps that is a positive sign for you, SP Duck, although this tidbit...

Also, I think I'd want to team up with someone on sponsoring a potential event revolving around my brilliant idea, because I think I'm not experienced enough to make sure it'll be balanced enough.

...would stop you cold in your tracks if you moved before you are ready. Almost everybody who ever managed to sponsor a Civ3 Epic had experience crafting ideas for succession game play and could put one together (which was ready for prime time) all on their own.


- Sirian

[Sullla]

Hey Muaziz. Thanks for posting your thoughts; it's been a while since someone suggested the same thing, and it's nice to revisit this discussion for new community members. As Sirian originally stated (reposted by Atlas), we handle the development of new RBCiv scenarios in private through email or PMs. Our community has come up with some great ideas - usually the problem is having more ideas than we can possibly run at once!

If you want to work on developing your own scenario (which is encouraged), I would urge you (and everyone else reading this) to pay close attention to Sirian's points #2 and #3. Most of the ideas I've turned down have been scenarios that were incomplete or still in the process of formation. The more detailed your proposal, the better. At the same time, a well-designed proposal does not necessarily imply more complexity. Many of the ideas I get are simply way too complicated to make good events; I had the same problem with some of my early designs (look at Adv. 17, PETA Crusaders for a good example).

Try looking at some of the games darrelljs has developed for inspiration, those of you who want to craft your own events. Adventures 19 and 22 are both models of scenario design, simple but extremely well-thought out and prepared. The whole fall schedule is currently booked up, but there will be more opportunities for new community-sponsored games in 2008.

[Muaziz]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll be sure to do some more research before I submit anything for actual consideration. I am currently playing a test game based on this concept and I am quickly discovering that I need to alter some of the rules a little.

Well it's an interesting concept, though possibly too similary to epic 9? I ran a succession game where you could only build horse units. To be honest, the game took away some of the skill of warfare - ie you had no option about what balance of forces to build, what your stacks should consist of etc. I know in this case you can use other units for defence, but still.

You raise an excellent point. In the test game I am playing, I am noticing that not allowing attacks (at least within your own territory) with assorted unit types is pretty insane. That's definitely something I would be wanting to change.

I had only read one report on Epic 9, but had forgotten about it. I agree that the original idea is probably too interesting, while suffering from other problems that you mentioned.

Has there been an Adventure and Epic that focuses on the development of Warlord units (trying to leverage the Charismatic and Imperialistic traits)? At the core, that's really what I had wanted to focus on, and then tried to make it too restrictive.

You need all of the following to line up correctly:

Thanks for the detailed information. I will keep that in mind for the future.

1. You have a fun idea.

This is probably the hardest to judge. I guess that the original purpose of my post is to ask the RBCiv whether they thought it was a fun idea. One person's fun may be another person's misery.

The more detailed your proposal, the better.

This post was not intended as a fully fleshed out proposal. I was just curious about two things: 1) What do people think about the idea/fun? 2) What is the process. Question 2 has been well explained. Question 1 remains a little up in the air.

Adventures 19 and 22 are both models of scenario design, simple but extremely well-thought out and prepared. The whole fall schedule is currently booked up, but there will be more opportunities for new community-sponsored games in 2008.

I am really looking forward to Adv 19. I haven't read any reports, and the idea is simple, yet very intriguing. Adv 22 was actually the first Adventure I ever played and was also a lot of fun.


So I guess my final question is whether people would be interested in pursuing an Always War scenario where the underlying object is building up Warlord units with a Charismatic/Imperialistic Leader. As my test game goes on, I will tweak the other game variants while keeping the basic idea of Warlord-mongering intact.

Thanks again for all the feedback.

[Muaziz]

Well, I have finally finished a test game and there are some pretty important changes that need to be made for the game to be more viable and interesting. I mostly made these changes on the fly as I was playing, for sanity's sake. Once again, I appreciate the feedback from everyone.

Warlordaholic
Civilization: Byzantine
Unique Unit: Cataphract (Knight), comes with +2 strength but is not immune to first strike. I still really like the choice of this Civ for many reasons: 1) They are new and cool. 2) Hippodrome is good and reminds me of where I spent my high school years (Maisons Laffitte) 3) The Unique Unit is especially good for this type of game (the lack of First Strike immunity is offset by the fact that the Flanking promotion is especially good in this game)
Unique Building: Hippodrome (Theatre), grants loads of extra happiness, +1 base, +1 more for having access to horses and +1 for every 5% spent on culture (instead of the Theatre's 10%).
Leader: Cyrus (Unrestricted Leaders)
Traits: Charismatic (-25% XP needed for unit promotions), Imperialistic (+100% Great General emergence)
Map: most likely Pangea, but will test this out (I modified the map a little to make things more fair. Also eliminated the very far islands since those would take forever to capture)
Difficulty: Monarch (will test this out to make sure it's not insanely easy or hard)
No Barbarians, No Huts, No Events, Aggressive AI
ALWAYS WAR (yes, I know we just did this in Epic 14, so we may want to wait a while for this game, assuming enough people are even interested).


Rule Variants
Most of these rules have changed.

• Great Generals may only be used to turn units into Warlord units. No Military Academy, and no Super Specialists.
  
• You may not upgrade any units except Warlord units.
  
• You may not enter enemy territory with a military unit prior to 1000 BC.
  

Scoring would be based on the following:

• Date of victory. Probably something like (400 - Turn Number) * 50. I will play a test game to try to balance this number. [/color](Increased this to 50 for now)[/color]
  
• Total XP on all alive Warlord units combined at time of victory.
  
• +200 bonus for person with the highest XP on a single unit.
  
• +150 bonus for person with the second highest XP on a single unit.
  
• +100 bonus for person with the third highest XP on a single unit.

The only thing I will guarantee about the map is that Horses will be present at least within the second border pop (3rd ring) of the capital city (assuming the Settler does not move).

So basically, this game is about proving your skill in an Always War game while trying to maximize the potential of your Warlord units (while keeping them alive).

[Dantski]

Monarch is simply too difficult for always war. Look at the comments on the current Prince always war game. Unless you significantly boost the players start or hurt the AI's, I seriously doubt even soooo could dig his way out of it

[darrelljs]

Monarch is simply too difficult for always war. Look at the comments on the current Prince always war game. Unless you significantly boost the players start or hurt the AI's, I seriously doubt even soooo could dig his way out of it

Well, as Blake pointed out the game setup bumped the difficulty up a notch. I don't play AW that often, but I have one at Emperor on a Fractal map, where I only had two other civs on my continent. IIRC there was an SG game where someone one a OCC at Emperor, but it was with a pretty contrived game setup.

Darrell

[Muaziz]

Monarch is simply too difficult for always war. Look at the comments on the current Prince always war game. Unless you significantly boost the players start or hurt the AI's, I seriously doubt even soooo could dig his way out of it

For some reason I thought Epic 14 was Monarch. I actually played out a test game with this idea and did manage to win. I did edit the map along the way to give myself a chance though. You also start in the corner of a Pangea map so you don't have to defend 2 fronts that are far away. You aren't always attacked from the same exact place, but it's a lot easier than defending 2 fronts.

But Monarch may be pushing it. Would probably need to make it a Prince game.

I don't think that many people were complaining about Epic 14 (if that is the Always War game that you were referring to). It looks like a number of people finished it with victories. But I guess we will find out on close day.

[LKendter]

Difficulty: Monarch (will test this out to make sure it's not insanely easy or hard)
No Barbarians, No Huts, No Events, Aggressive AI

You don't state map size at all. That makes a big difference to the difficulty level.

Based on my Epic14 experience I would auto pass on this at Monarch. This is already harder then Epic14 with the restrictions before adding Monarch.