Apolyton Hall of Fame

[debeest]

OK, guys. I think it's time to start acknowledging the most brilliant and useful insights produced by our hard-working Apolytoners. Nobel Prizes. MacArthur "genius" grants. Or at least, recognition in some place that will always be readily found, similar to the "stuck" GL thread.

Oedo revolution years?

Oedo's (or someone else's?) available-tech-path discovery?

Samson's definitive cost of science? (as always, riding on the shoulders of giants)

Paul's OCC strategy?

DaveV's ICS strategy?

Xin Yu's size-5 strategy?

complete combat calculations? (and who would get that award?)

the recent path to early AC landing?

barbarian studies?


Let's hear from all of you with further ideas. I propose a balloting system wherein each registered member can list the five or ten accomplishments that they think have been most insightful and fundamentally useful.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by debeest

complete combat calculations? (and who would get that award?)

barbarian studies?

William Keenan wrote the definitive Barbarian Paper over at the Scenario League. There have been a few edits, but I've yet to see anybody come up with even a meek challenge to what he put together.

Altho many threads list the combat formula from my thread as mine, the true credit goes to Bueno and Euclid. Euclid came up with the math, Bueno tweaked it so that it worked perfectly. Are they even active on Apolyton anymore?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

O yeah, you wanted suggestions for the most important ideas. What about the Great Library? SG2, SlowThinker, La Fayette, me , and others put it together. It was SG2's brainchild, so maybe he should be the nominee.

The SSC idea should be on the list.

[rah]

Hands down,

Oedo revolution years.

WHY,
Everything else listed, I aready had figured a high percentage of all of them out, and not having 100% doesn't cause any major problems.

Oedo years where soooo simple, yet it hung out there for so long without it being exposed. Hell, I even did a little research on it and never saw it.

But most important.............
It comes into play in EVERY game, no matter what strat you use.

Of the others.........

tech path discovery, (most of us had the general gist, but not the specifics, enough to manipulate)

Cost of science, same as above. Yes we were sometimes mystified when it would change but not enough to make that big a difference.

OCC strat. A great piece of work, but just for OCC games. Yes it teaches some nice tricks to be applied in everyday games.


Size 5 strat, Not always the optimal strat in certain circumstances.

Combat Calcs, Sorry, the difference between thinking my attack odds are 3 to 1 vs. 2.90 to 1 doesn't affect my decision to attack. And my initial calcs were not that far off.

Early ac landing tech path. Doesn't come into play in the MP games that we play. Bombs away. or never get that far.

Barb studies. A great document, but experience had already helped me learn a large percentage of it and the rest that i wasn't 100% sure about, has not influenced my stratagy at all.
But a very extensive document which I enjoyed reading, despite the dryness of the topic.

This is not a slam on the others. I applaud all their efforts, which were considerably more than Oedo years. But I have to judge it on game to game impact. Heck, I have bookmarked that thread so when I get drunk late in MP games, I don't screw up.

RAH
If I was asked to add something to the above list, it would be the compilation of all the loopholes in the rules that have been discovered. Xin discovered many of them but a lot of people (including myself) have discovered others. This list (which Ming moderated/managed), and the discussions about which are considered cheats (by the majority) and which are not, have made for better MP play. We no longer argue for 30 minutes on what's legit and what is not.

[samson]

Hands down,
Oedo revolution years.
It comes into play in EVERY game, no matter what strat you use ...
This is not a slam on the others ... But I have to judge it on game to game impact.

Frankly, knowing "oedo" revolution years has very little impact on the game, SP or MP.

Yes, the information is used in every game, but its strategic value is nil.
It is simple knowledge of the mechanics of an event that comes into play 2 or 3 times in a game.
It effects neither the outcome nor the strategy of the game to any extent.
No one's enjoyment of Civ2 has been significantly enhanced by it.
It doesn't bring retired Civers out of the woodwork to wonder at it and try it for themselves.

The most significant accomplishment of Apolytoners, IMO, is the development of OCC.
OCC was not simply an observation of an arcane aspect of the game,
nor an explication of a vital principle in detail. It was the creation of both a new way of playing Civ2
and the refinement of a strategy for its success. Nor was it a single person's accomplisment.
It was a group effort over a couple of years that exemplifies some of the best characteristics
of this board and forum. True, not everybody plays OCC, but there are some
who have returned to Civ2 only because of it. In that sense it is much like MP,
except that OCC was developed here at Apolyton not in a software lab.

I agree that OCC in pure form is somewhat esoteric, in that it demands pretty specific
starting conditions. But the principles of OCC play (not just "nice tricks")
can form the basis of highly effective strategies for both AC landing or conquest games.
The fortnight OCC games posted here have often pushed out in new directions.

An event I would nominate for consideration of award,
is the cooperative multi-player AC landing in 6 AD.
Again, I think this demonstrates the great ideas and group efforts that happen in this place.

samson

[rah]

"Frankly, knowing "oedo" revolution years has very little impact on the game, SP or MP.

Yes, the information is used in every game, but its strategic value is nil.
It is simple knowledge of the mechanics of an event that comes into play 2 or 3 times in a game. "


I can only assume that you don't play MP or aren't very competitive when you do.

Planning 3 or more turns in advance to squeeze out that last beaker to get monarchy during an oedo year means 4 extra turns in monarchy. That advantage in MP is huge, especially when most wonder races come down to 1 or 2 turns. And the increase in your ability to spit out settlers due to increased production during those 4 turns can boost your civ 25% or more over your opponents. (4 cities can crank 4 settlers in four turns vs 8 turns in a 2x production game(just an example)) There is also the boosted science for 4 turns which could be an extra tech or two. It's the little things that seperate the good from the bad in MP.


I don't really concern myself with SP, and haven't since the first few months of OCC or a couple of the other challanges. OCC is 95% following the script. MP is were the action is. You may not agree with that, But if it wasn't for MP, I would have stopped playing this game years ago. So please don't take offense.

And I played in that first land in 6 A.D co-op MP game.
It was fun, but it wasn't that special. It didn't take us very long into the game to realize how easy it could be. And the only time I think about it now is when someone brings it up. So lasting achievement, I don't thinks so.

RAH

[Ming]

I have to agree with rah on this one... (duh, no surprise here)

While OCC games got my interest back, and even held a few records before Paul showed us all how to do it right... the Odeo year info is still tops!
As rah mentioned, I helped compile all the known cheats/bugs with the help of many different people here... and Odeo years is better than anything else I have seen.

Yes, the ability to know when you can shift governments is just key in the early part of a mp game. I remember how before we knew about it... the number of turns you had to wait to get into monarchy was considered one of those Key Luck factors that could make or break a game. If you switched right in with no years of anarchy, it was like finding a wandering nomad in the first couple of turns.
We tried everything to find out what determinded it... and pretty much came to the conclusion that it was random... and it was just too simple... it went over all of our heads...

So I vote for the Odeo Years... A brilliant piece of work!

[samson]

Planning 3 or more turns in advance to squeeze out that last beaker to get monarchy during an oedo year means 4 extra turns in monarchy. That advantage in MP is huge ...

So what are you saying? That without the knowledge of oedo years you would lose a lot more games?
Look, it's simply no different than knowing how to rush-build caravans.
It's a fact of the game that everyone is aware of, now.
Therefore, it conveys no strategic advantage on any one player in an MP game,
unless the other players have lost their "oedo" cribsheets or have drunk more beer than you.

As a newcomer here, it's a little strange seeing how much attention
the 4 year revolution cycle receives. I'd have thought most people
would have noticed it after playing a few games.

[Ming]

Yeah... but things like rush building caravans have been know since we played CivI... most of the standard "facts" like that have been known for ages. THIS WAS NEW! and important.
Any yeah, you would have thought somebody would have figured it out... but we didn't. And many people have REALLY disected this game

Simply by knowing the Odeo years, another "luck" factor has been removed... And you gain a strategic advantage by using them to the max.

[samson]

It would only be a "strategic advantage", in MP, if the discoverer had kept the knowledge
to himself and used it to defeat opponents. But as common knowledge, it gives no edge to anyone.

My opinion of this, like yours re: rush-building caravans, is lessened by it not being news.
As an outsider coming into this forum other achievements, such as OCC,
stand out as far more significant but, to each his own.

[War4ever]

I agree with Ming and Rah here.......

not to slight anyones accomplishments in SP..... they are all truly great reads and i have won at all of them too...... albeit not in the record times

However, they are like civ fads. They come and go with some players....... while more people probably SP than MP, i am of the opinion based on what i read on the boards and through the people i know that more people MP than OCC. OCC is fun and what was learned there can easily be integrated into MP or other types of games...... but it wasnt' revolutionary info. It was taking the game to the limits.
I remember when highest population games were the "in" thing..... beating the high scores went back and forth. Nomads challenges, despotism challenges......most cash.... etc.......
OCC was the rage for awhile........ but winning scenarios as minor powers is the rage for some now.......

These things are all fads which come and go and then come back again..... I will grant this about OCC. It is the one challenge that has stayed around the longest...... part of the reason is how quick the game is and how easy it is to mircromanage the city. Large empires are far more time consuming.

Oedo years is incorporated in ALL genres of games and although in SP you can affoard that three turn revolution....... if you have one against myself or some of the other predators out there........ your demise will be quick.

For instance..... if you forget to revolt in the Oedo year..... you wait four more turns till you can rev.....this is killer if your in Despotism.......

The early part of MP is vital for success and an improper revolution or a missed one can sign your death certificate...Oedo years prevents this from happening if your paying attention

[rah]

"Therefore, it conveys no strategic advantage on any one player in an MP game, "


Obviously you don't understand. While almost everyone knows about oedo years, only about half the players really take advantage of it. Most of the less experienced players will only start paying attention to it while they are actually researching Monarchy if even then, the better players started calculating much earlier, and move just enough shields to trade to make the difference 6 to 10 turns out. To hit it within 3 beakers is a skill. And if you don't see that as stratagy, I suggest you check out the dictionary.

RAH
Of course, you go through all that, have a beer and forget to revolt

And even in my last occ game using the gold edition, being short on money, I remember using the oedo year to drop out of demo to demand over 10 grand in tribute with minimal loss.
(i was still never that good at occ)

[Jaguar]

I thought about starting a hall of fame only a week ago, but I decided against it because it would be mostly a repeat of the Great Library. We would have the same things, just in two different threads with different names.

[Blaupanzer]

Highest score, ICS, OCC, earliest landing -- these are all fads that keep the game fresh for those of us playing SP. The person who acheives mastery can be honored, but usually ends up with a thread or a paper in the Great Library, which serves the same effect. Similarly, I agree with the other old hands that the Oedo accomplishment absolutely bowled us over, because everyone had been looking for that formula for years. But looking back (hindsight always being perfect), it should have been obvious. I know, I know, it wasn't. I didn't get it, nor did Ming, Rah, DaveV, the SGs, or any of the other Masters who play this game. But now that it is known, we should have. The child who points out the emporer has no clothes doesn't get the Nobel Prize for it, just the gratefulness of the nation for his acuity.

My candidate for great breakthrough is discovering that beaker costs are related to power standing and that gifting (or being) one particular color can significantly lower your costs. There is nothing obvious in that linkage, even in hindsight. For pure research effort, the relationship between starting techs and civ color engendered more work than any project I have seen in the last few years. (I have lurked since Mark G. started his Greek site.) For sheer effort, Mark G. himself and, for Civ II, Ming (love the new avatar) deserve awards.

[solo]

My thumbs up to any contribution that increases our knowledge about the game. I pick up some very useful things from obscure posts, so believe that anyone who has posted information that has helped my game should be included. That list would include every player here.

[La Fayette]

MY thumb up to those who try to organize our common knowledge (and make it easier to read).
This includes Mark G., Ming, the SGs, SlowThinker and Marquis de Sodaq (please forgive me if I forget someone else who deserves being mentioned in that field).

[popcornvendor]

oh yeah?? well i think you should give me a prize for......... um.... give me a prize for.......... um........ for........ *breaks down crying* i dunno!!!!!!! *runs away*

[TCO]

In terms of game research,
oedo years are stunningly elegant...although propably not that crucial. unless you are a total micro-manager.

I vote for Ming's first OCC as the best.

[KrazyHorse]

All I can say is: beaker costs and tech availability are, to me, the largest contributions mentioned. Oedo years are elegant, but I've got to say that I had them figured out myself, since their pattern is so obvious. I only joined Apolyton a few days ago in anticipation of CivIII, but when I came across this thread I was amazed. The beaker cost analysis is probably more important in terms of gameplay, since it can make up to a 50% difference in research times, but the tech availability scheme is quite simply more impressive for the depth required even to see the xxo pattern. I'd never even thought of counting my tech-number as it corresponded to that annoying lack of choices. Quite frankly, I'd given up and decided it was random. By the way, you guys are my heros for unravelling all those little things I'd always wondered about.

[Hasdrubal]

And the Oscars go to:

Oedo - so infuriatingly simple that I could kick myself for never having discovered it.

Xin Yu - for sheer depth and analytical insight.

SG, others - for the Great Library.


to everybody else who have helped to unravel the mysteries of this game.

[debeest]

So far, Oedo years seem to be the favorite. The cost-of-science and key-civ joint discovery ranks high. The general idea of the Great Library is very popular, and OCC (including the basic SSC idea) too.

Personally, I think the most spectacular combination of usefulness and creative insight is Samson's verification and identification of the key civ idea, combined with detailed description of its implications for science cost and the enumeration of its exact results. The underlying programming is so thoroughly absurd. Putting together your position on the power chart with the order of play -- whose idea was that?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything having to do with trade, since so many people are so madly devoted to it. Maybe because WE STILL HAVEN'T DEVELOPED A FORMULA THAT IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE PAYOFF!!! (hint to researchers)

I think Oedo's discovery about how the techs available for researching are determined is truly insightful, probably the second most insightful discovery of all, although personally I haven't tried to use it because it seems like even more work than I'm willing to do. Have people been taking advantage of it? Is it very helpful?

I originally mentioned the combat calculations because the manual describes how it works, but the manual is wrong, and yet someone managed to determine (1) that it's not one-random-draw-from-a-pool but two-random-numbers-head-to-head, with ties going to the defense, explaining how even a diplomat can sometimes win; and (2) that the head-to-head combat calculations produce a result strikingly different from appearances. A relative strength of 3 versus 2 produces a per-round odds of 4-2, and over a number of rounds that produces great dominance for the stronger unit. More important than people seem to think.

I originally mentioned the barbarian research because of all the different stuff that's included: no barbarians from huts before founding first city; unit in only city invulnerable to barbarians; barbarians from specific terrains; techs which allow specific barbarian units; melting polar barbarians, etc.

I'd love to see more suggestions that we haven't already mentioned here.

[TCO]

Y'all are totally missing the point. Ming's OCC was like Roger Bannister running a THREE minute mile. (Not just breaking a barrier, but doing something that no-one would have ever thought possible AT ALL.)

When I tell people not on this site about OCC, it blows their mind. Oedo years are way smaller deal to them.

[solo]

I have to agree with GP. I was not around at the time, but Ming's first OCC win has to take top prize. Reading posts about the early tries and of the first success conveyed the excitement and elan about doing what was considered outlandish at the time. Being first is something no one can ever take away, so my hat's off to Ming.

[debeest]

Yes, I have to admit, when someone first told me that it was possible to win the game with just one city, I was flabbergasted. If any one person was responsible for putting together a large part of the strategy for doing so, I would certainly have to consider that a pretty astounding accomplishment. I've been giving the credit for that (in my mind) to Paul because his Paulicy is the posted detailed elucidation. If Ming developed much of the strategy, then my hat's off to ming.

[War4ever]

Ming was the first, but Paul took OCC to new levels, again, along game Ribbanah....so where does this OCC madness end.....

[Ming]

I just used all the knowledge that this site and my friends provided. Yeah, I was the first... but Paul took it to the next and ultimate level. Me and Rah traded records for a while, but then Paul did it right. His records are truely impressive

[rah]

Yeah it was really funny, Ming would have the record one day, the next day I would, the following day Ming would, Then Paul game along and eliminated about a third of the crap that Ming and I were wasting time researching/building and beat our puny records by so much, that we were very discouraged. By the time we got back to Paul's original starting point, he had progressed much much farther. It's about that time the Ming and I lost interest It was very obvious that we were out of our league.

RAH

[samson]

OCC is definitely the premiere accomplishment of this forum. The archived thread of Ming's first game and the Ming/Rah battle for the record still pulses with energy after all this time. And it's not just those first few games. Paul's development of a canonical OCC strategy and Ribannah's innovations also make for exciting and enlightening reading. The fact that so many contributed to OCC makes it truly a Forum achievement. Nowhere else that I know of are so many fine games logged in such detail -- like great chess matches they convey the thrill of the game as it played out. Also, OCC has produced several unique insights into the workings of the game and inspired the development of tactics and strategies that might never have come to light.

But perhaps its most lasting impact has been as witness to the fact that the "impossible" is often merely the untried.

[solo]

My hat's also off to the unique and masterful accomplishments of everyone who has "climbed Mt. Everest", but the first successful ascent belonged to Hillary and Norgay. Can everyone remember who was second, or third, or who did it faster or more times?

[TCO]

Here's a link to the original "Bannister/Hillery" thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=1