Publicizing the Next AU Course

Tassadar500 · November 19, 2003, 22:41

This is the first AU Conquests AU course, correct? I want this to be a huge AU course. I don't mean a "huge" map but rather a huge number of participants. Dominae is creating the course and I know that it will be a great one. This is what I want you all to do: Post and advertise this AU course everywhere! I mean everywhere. All the Civ 3 'Poly boards. CFC, MZO what ever sites you may visit. If your friends play Civ 3 tell them to create an account and play the course. I will also do my part and post in my teams (Sunshine and Legoland) and I will also post a news article. Have fun advertising

Mountain Sage · November 20, 2003, 07:50

I don't want to sound

, but as to the timing, don't forget that it appears that amazon.uk has trouble shipping C3C (no shipping date announced). Then, there will be Xmas and holidays (meaning no, or less, civ) for some of us...

Tassadar500 · November 20, 2003, 11:30

MS the course should be up this Friday or next so Xmas should not be a problem.

Dominae · November 20, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
I don't want to sound

, but as to the timing, don't forget that it appears that amazon.uk has trouble shipping C3C (no shipping date announced). Then, there will be Xmas and holidays (meaning no, or less, civ) for some of us...

The world does not stop because of shipping delays or personal holiday schedules. There's a good three weeks before Christmas, and many many players have C3C already. Much better to get a quick course in now than wait for January to roll around.

And, like Nuclear Master said, the savegame will still be available when you finally do get your copy and have time to play.

Dominae

Catt · November 20, 2003, 13:18

Does anyone really want to play an early AU game with the corruption and gpt bugs unpatched?

I am playing and enjoying C3C, but the bugs so severely impact the game that an AU game before a bug fix will be simply incomparable to any other AU game.

Catt

alexman · November 20, 2003, 14:23

I agree. Unless we remove the FP (and Communism) from the game, and agree to accept deals at half the gpt that the AI is willing to offer.

lockstep · November 20, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
I agree. Unless we remove the FP (and Communism) from the game, and agree to accept deals at half the gpt that the AI is willing to offer.

Don't laugh at me, but as C3C is now, I'm actually offering the AI's a 50% gpt discount at the end of every stubborn bargaining. They must think I'm crazy.

On second thought, a 50% discount means that I get exactly the gpt amount I rightfully deserve, but they lose only half their amount. I actually should confine myself to a 33% allowance ...

In other words, there's no point for me in playing a comparison game (even more, my first one) as long as the gpt bug isn't ironed out.

Dominae · November 20, 2003, 15:09

1. Corruption problems

I think an semi-official shared game (with DARs) will make this problem a lot more apparent that it currently is. Right now all we have is alexman's tests, which are certainly telling, but not as "in your face" (your = Firaxis/Breakaway) as multiple players complaining about it at once.

2. Gold per turn bug

I see no problem in creating a temporary "house rule" for AU courses that addresses the gpt bug. Any gpt amount an AI is willing to part with in a deal must be halved before the deal is accepted. This does not solve the problem of the AIs getting rich off the bug, but if it's a big worry you can always play at a lower difficulty. In my experience it only gets really silly toward the end of the Medieval era, which IMO is a great time for the AI to have some extra cash. Players who do not like it can complain loudly, again in hopes of getting Firaxawayin attention (cool new world, eh?).

Dominae

Dominae · November 20, 2003, 15:13

My point in the above post (in case it was not clear) is that everyone is equal footing regarding the bugs in C3C, so I'm not really sure why there is reticence to play in a comparison game. Are we all supposed to just stop playing until a patch is released? An AU game is the perfect forum for bringing the severity of these bugs to the fore.

Domiane

alexman · November 20, 2003, 15:32

Firaxis already knows about the corruption problems, and they even claim that they have fixed some corruption issues already. So more complaining probably won't make much difference.

Dominae I'd much rather save the no-doubt brilliant scenario you've been making to play when the game works properly. But that's just me. Others may want to dive right in, and if they do, I might be tempted to join in.

Dominae · November 20, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
So more complaining probably won't make much difference.

But then what else are we to do in the Conquests forum!?!?

Dominae

Catt · November 20, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Dominae I'd much rather save the no-doubt brilliant scenario you've been making to play when the game works properly. But that's just me. Others may want to dive right in, and if they do, I might be tempted to join in.

I'd also rather wait and play with a proper game engine. In my limited exposure thus far, the game is quite different from PTW, beginning in the early middle ages. I've played my recent 2 (of a total of 3) games without accepting gpt deals other than in de minimis amounts, and it still results in some very weird game circumstances (I suspect the corruption bugs are hampering the AIs significantly).

I tend to play AU games with more attention to detail and make a real effort to document what I'm doing and why -- it's hard to muster the necessary enthusiasm with what is unquestionably a "broken" game (though still enertaining in its own way), especially one that I expect will be fixed quite soon.

Catt

ducki · November 20, 2003, 16:54

I'm still waiting to get C3C, but I can understand the desire to start on an AU game - what about doing like we did when PtW came out and "replay" an original AU concept?

I dunno, just a thought. It wouldn't be quite as intense as a "real" AU game, but it would get the momentum going for when they release a patch and everyone can hit the ground running instead of bowing out of the first "real" AU game in order to become familiar with Conquests.

Wow, that was a long sentence.
Anyway, looking forward to playing another AU game, but I gotta get Conquests first. Heh.

Rhothaerill · November 20, 2003, 17:36

Personally I'd be happy to play a Conquests AU game, even with the known bugs. We're all going to be playing Conquests anyway, why not play it the AU way? To try to satisfy those who are leery of playing with the bugs, maybe call it an AU Lite course.

I've enjoyed my so far fairly limited play with Conquests (just one game as the Iroquois...first to research wheel..get SGL..ultra-early Pyramids..BAM, I'm top civ with an all-phases lead that I haven't given up, so my gameplay has gotten lax in that game), but there is just something about Apolyton University (especially when Dom sets up a difficult course) that makes me want to play my best game.

vmxa1 · November 20, 2003, 18:19

Just don't make any gpt deals, then it is not a problem. Well, it is still a problem, you just aren't contributing to it.

Tassadar500 · November 20, 2003, 20:53

I will officially make this an AU house rule as Dominae previously stated. To accept any GPT deals with the AI you must half the amount for the trade to be allowed.

Theseus · November 20, 2003, 22:30

Good solution... but what about the FP bug?

Another proposed house rule: No suicide curraughs.

To ducki's point, I think that conceptually replaying some of the original course is an excellent idea. For instance:
*isolation, has, of course, become a much more difficult issue.
*with the introduction of SGLs, a peacenik game should be very interesting.

Tassadar500 · November 20, 2003, 22:41

I'm not sure how to deal with the FP bug. Does anyone have a suggestion? And I do agree no suicide Curraughs. The AI does not use them at all so a human player shouldn't.

Rhothaerill · November 20, 2003, 22:45

I have no idea how to get around the FP bug. I don't know that it's possible right now, but I don't think that should dissuade us from the game. PTW had bugs when it came out too and people still played.

Tassadar500 · November 20, 2003, 22:49

I just want to know if any one has been advertising yet? I will be away for 1 day so when I get back you all need to have been advertising

Anyway Dominae I want you to release the AU course at around 11-12 G.M.T. Is that ok for you?

Rhothaerill · November 20, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
I just want to know if any one has been advertising yet? I will be away for 1 day so when I get back you all need to have been advertising

Anyway Dominae I want you to release the AU course at around 11-12 G.M.T. Is that ok for you?

Looooook into my eyes...err, actually at my signature.

New course soon sounds good to me.

Dominae · November 20, 2003, 23:22

I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI). I would prefer not restrict strategic options with our house rules, because that would make AU less accessible. "What, you're not allowed size 10+ artillery stacks in AU games...boo!".

There's a long list of "exploits" that we could address in house rules, but the problem is where to stop. Trapping AI units? ROP rape? F1 production swap? This is a non-competitive game, so any player is free to use or not use anything that the game is designed to allow. For example, had we "banned" RCP in AU, many players would never have learned about it, or through it about how Corruption works in general.

The AU mod is where we can set up our house rules (since it's, of course, optional). But since the C3C version of the mod is nowhere near ready, I think we should all suck it up and play stock rules for now.

Dominae

MrWhereItsAt · November 20, 2003, 23:54

I guess I'm game, being on a sort of more level playing field this time around - I just couldn't get into those AU courses for PtW - they were too advanced and specialised by the time I was trying to get into them., and that really put me off.

Catt · November 21, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI). I would prefer not restrict strategic options with our house rules, because that would make AU less accessible. "What, you're not allowed size 10+ artillery stacks in AU games...boo!".

My sentiments exactly.

And I'll repeat my view that we're rushing into an early AU course despite knowing that the game is broken in its current state, and I haven't heard a good reason why. The current major bugs -- in which I would include (i) the gpt bug; (ii) the FP city-ranking bug; and (iii) the SPHQ bug (for the AI), and in which I would very much want to include the RCP "fix" bug since I think it is such a messed-up solution but I'm not sure I'd call it a bug so much as a silly "solution" to an existing problem -- dramatically alter gameplay, IMHO.

And one of the bigger challenges posed by the game's current state is that we're unsure of exactly how it helps or hurts the AI. Is a slower tech rate / easier tech superiority the result of the corruption bugs? the delayed contacts? the changes to republic? the gpt bug? the presence of new traits? some combination of the above and many other factors? We have no way of knowing.

Unlike self-imposed restrictions we've played with in past AU games in order to focus significant attention on one or another aspect of gameplay, the present bug situation and resulting gameplay does not strike me as offering any significant lessons to be learned other than general gameplay issues unaffected by the bugs, and could potentially do harm to AU learning. One of the points of AU is to learn from others -- the game in its present state presents the distinct possibility that we "teach" and "learn" lessons that are contrary to good gameplay in a properly functioning game. Since a comparative game under these circumstances has, IMHO, limited applicability to future games (or past games), and would seem to be so entirely "stand-alone" in ceratin aspects of gameplay, why would we push the first AU Conquests so aggressively when we can assume that a patch must be coming sometime in the near future? Let's allow our non-US colleagues to experiment with a buggy Conquests a bit while we wait for a patch -- even in the absence of "official" AU games, there have already been three posted comparative game offers in the past week (DrSpike, jshelr, korn) -- settle on a comparative game if there's a burning desire for such a game, but why rush to launch the first Conquests AU game and immortalize this buggy environment in DARs and in the AU History thread in ways which are not repeatable by the folks who visit the AU threads 2 months from now?

Catt

Theseus · November 21, 2003, 00:39

It is a rare occasion, that I disagree with Catt.

I am happy to observe that people WANT a new AU game, C3C-style.

SO... can't we design a first game that avoids the current problems with C3C? Small map, perhaps? Pangaea?

There is more than enough to explore... let us start easily. For instance, perhaps a small test of what it means to be Agricultural?

And I take MWIA's point to heart: Were we getting too esoteric?

KISS.

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 00:53

Well, instead of starting with "The Power of Agricultural", we started with "The Power of Seafaring". Both should run into the same bugs/problems that we've been discussing here.

Dominae

Kuciwalker · November 21, 2003, 01:01

Does the gpt bug occur in C3C mp? If so, you could make a LOT of money if you coordinated it with another player...

Catt · November 21, 2003, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
SO... can't we design a first game that avoids the current problems with C3C?

If you can, please let me know how, and I'll play that style game until the first patch

.

Seriously though, the question really comes down to launching an AU game within a framework that Firaxis has acknowledged is buggy in a serious way, or instead limiting ourselves to shared experiences or even shared games. It's not a terribly big deal, but I just keep imagining the AU history thread with this sore thumb of a game consisting of unrepeatable, by any stretch of the imagination, circumstances.

And with players in Europe just now getting their hands on the game, why are we racing to have an initial AU game posted immediately? What has generated a sense of urgency?

Catt

MrWhereItsAt · November 21, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
For instance, perhaps a small test of what it means to be Agricultural?

Exactly the sort of thing that the first few AU games for C3C should be - testing the new attribs and changes to existing ideas, such as a map designed where getting your own contact is both extremely important and very difficult, for instance (at least until printing Press!

)

[QUOTE
And I take MWIA's point to heart: Were we getting too esoteric?
[/QUOTE]

Well doubtless not for those significant number who had gone through many AU courses and were looking for something new. For me, and possibly for others new to AU, however, there was no easy intro, and the idea of playing in a situation or scenario as specific as some of the last few were was a bit too much for this AU n00b.

I do look at this as a great chance to start from scratch, as posted. There are many new things in C3C that ALL of us should try out, and thus if ever there was a time to get on the AU bandwagon it is now.

lockstep · November 21, 2003, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
I think house rules should be exceptions, not become the norm. The gpt bug is game-defining and a bug (aptly named, no?); in contrast, the suicide Curragh strategy is game-defining but not a bug (it's more like bombardment versus the AI).

Exactly. House rules in a comparative game should be rare exceptions.