1st Apolyton CIV3 TOURNAMENT : 15-30/November/2001

[jimb0v2]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I just want to let the casual forum browser know that he or she should not be discouraged at that 1350 BC date. It means nothing.

Col. jtrick, COC, ret.

This is the only real point that I disagree with you on. It DOES mean something, even to the casual gamers. Because, push come to shove, in a real tournament where something really was on the line A person really could complete this victory. All it is is the correct series of moves etc. I personally got that settler and warrior code on my FIRST try doing it. His 1350 bc victory only proves that the luckiest man wins. The person who is lucky with huts, or is lucky with battles.

I will give you one point that it's a tad difficult knowing exactly where to send your troops, BUT, you can infer a ton just by your location on the map. My first game, which I took out aztecs/persians/zulus very quickly. I chose not to continue conquesting because I was unaware it was possible at that time. I only scored 3000 or so in that game and did not turn in that save file.

Anyhow, again my main point is that his 1350 bc victory does MEAN something. It means it's possible to do it legit. Even if his victory wasn't. It also means that a pre bc victory period is easily possible with some luck on your side. I think a "normal" good conquest is prolly around 1000ad on this map. This is only because the luck factor is amplified SOOOOO much in the begging. Ie, taking aztec capital by turn 15 means a lot more important than taking that capital by turn 30.

I hope I have made myself clear. In my opinion cheating and dishonesty are never truly eliminated in any sort of tournament no matter how good the security methods are. It's sort of refreshing to have a game where there are no security methods, so no one bullshits and pretends they did it legit. Just don't forget that his victory could be done legitimately, it's not like he used the 99999999 gold bug, or gained an unfair advantage that was impossible to any of us. He merely moved his men and built the correct things in his little towns in the right sequence.

[Capt Dizle]

How can you say that his victory could be duplicated without the tricks?

Yeah, maybe there is a mathmatical chance. Maybe one in one million chance.

66 turns. No margin for error. You have to decide how many units to send to each target city. Can't do it in sequence, one by one. Not enough time to move that many times. So, you have to do it by sending minimal troop concentrations to multiple target cities. This you can only do it you rely on the reload.

I think the odds are higher than 1 in 1,000,000 actually.

This wasn't a game, it was scripted. Dooverville. Give me a break.

[Etienne]

Well here is my game.

Space victory in 1842 with 2187pts. It was a relatively peaceful game. There was only one world war in the early stage. The Zulus and the Persians declared war on me when I was in the middle of building up my culture. I wasn't up to the fight so I created military alliances with everybody else who eventually annihilated the Zulus, and gave me the chance to concentrate solely on the Persians. I eventually conquered them by razing there cities and replacing them by new ones. From this point on I concentrated on maintaining peace and building up my border defenses.

All in all it was a very interesting game.

[jimb0v2]

I'm not going to sit here and say your wrong that the odds are large. I don't think they are quite as large as you say. since the game only lasted 66 turns they can't be that large. Ie probably we are only talking about 40 battles. Most of the battles will be even 2 power vs 2 defense battles. Anyhow, even if I give you some leeway here. Lets say we are talking about a 0 BC victory instead. IE we give a margin of error. It would be much much eaiser to do this.

Also I would like to point out this could be considered a bit different from other cheating instances. I personally am an avid first person shooter player. I was very involved in the professional community for quite a while. Cheating in those games has a lot of the same problems as cheating here does. I do have to say I was thinking more in that mindframe then in a Turn based strategy sense, and the more I think about it the more it saddens me. When it comes down to it, the best player in civ 3 is really the luckiest player, very few of your decisions actually matter as long as you are lucky. In first person shooters every decision you make, either macro or micro matter a ton. Whether to "protect the Red Armor" down to how you turn your mouse matter. The thing that IS the same though, is it's impossible to tell a cheater from a non-cheater. Even if the odds are astronomical, it's still possible. So if someone posts a 1000 bc victory up here and says "I didn't reload once, or cheat in any way" people like you will say "pssha right, you're lying." But in actuality you have absolutely NO proof. Just as in first person shooters where a person makes an amazing prediction shot when there was no possible way to legiimately know the enemy was coming through the door at that time. The player could have been using a cheat to see him coming, or he may just be a very good player. Absolutely. Positilvey NO way to distinguish them. What saddens me is that in civ3 the it's not that you can't distinguish a cheater from a person whose strategy is amazing, it's that you can't distinguish a cheater from a person whose LUCK is amazing. and that just sucks, but thats the way it is. Even if the odds are one in a million. Someone still has to win the lottery. And if someone accuses that guy of cheating it just snowballs, where do you draw the line... at what point does it sway the other way and become an "honest" win?

[jimb0v2]

I'd also like to point out that I think even the 66 turn victory may be able to be approved on by further micromanagement, it may not even be the absolute best possible score.

[Capt Dizle]

In our SMAC comparative games we simply shared our games and game stories. And learned to be better than we were by learning from others.

Thats all its about really. Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun. Getting to know the people in the community.

I remember thinking that there was no way to win within the times posted in the SMAC and Civ2 forums. Then people told how and it was fun to go and duplicate it.

Now, I have no problem with folks posting about their game constructed by using the save/reload trick as long as they plainly state it was so.

We can have dual categories, one for real and one for manufactured games.

You know I can run a billiard table every time, as long as I get to do over any shot I miss.

[jimb0v2]

Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun.

The arcane fine points of the game are just matematical formulas though. Maybe that sounds fun to some, but to me it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure most of ust started off using the AI trading system and had fun with it. It's a lot of fun to be peaceful and roleplay with it etc. But what the reports are showing me that pure militaristic strategy is far superior.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I don´t believe a BC Victory can be achieved at all without using the save-reload. Perhaps on a Tiny Pangaea Map, but otherwise I think it´s impossible.

On the map settings this tournament used, yes, a BC victory is possible without using save/reload or prior knowledge of the map. Granted there would have to be some luck, the early settler. After that it would be possible with just even luck and a good consistant strategy. I was able to achieve conquest victory in 600AD without save/reload/replay or the settler from any huts (got barbs from the first even). It was a very poorly played game in many respects, probably wasting 60+ armies in futile attacks or wasted production turns due to civil disorder, and having another 80 or so that never saw action.

In civfanatics GOTM and on several games that I've played privately, I've noticed roughly a 500 to 1000 year advantage by getting an early settler (given small maps, and working for conquest victories). The GOTM specifically, my first time though I netted a settler on turn 5 I think, and ended up with a 30AD conquest. Then playing through without popping the settler, I wasn't able to finish the game till 640AD. Neither time did I use save/reload, though the 640AD date was with prior knowlege of the map and no wasted turns sending armies the wrong way. The other games I've played privately have all been consistant with these results when I've replayed to see how having, or not having, the early settler effects performance. So, all else equal, the early settler would have had me very late BC's or very early AD's most likely. And improving my management of forces and production would have taken at least another couple hundred years off of the date.

[Capt Dizle]

I am not prepared to say that a BC victory is not possible on the map we are playing. Yet.

I am playing a pure Bum Rush and if my execution is good I will have a real good feel for what is and is not possible.

Clearly, the AI is not equiped to stop a momentum strategy. Its just a matter of how fast.

66 turns no...1350 is not feasible. But by 1750 you are down to 25 years per turn..and it may drop lower before AD. From 1350 to 0 AD is at least 54 turns and a lot can be done in 54 turns.

Has anyone counted the number of turns in the BC era?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by jimb0v2


The arcane fine points of the game are just matematical formulas though. Maybe that sounds fun to some, but to me it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure most of ust started off using the AI trading system and had fun with it. It's a lot of fun to be peaceful and roleplay with it etc. But what the reports are showing me that pure militaristic strategy is far superior.

I'm one of those who enjoys the statistical analysis and trying to figure out theoretical limits. Before Dog posted the 1350BC game, I hadn't thought that it would be possible to conquer this map before 1000BC for sure, and more likely a 500BC. Just because someone is willing to play a game through like that doesn't change the fact that the game is fun to play in other ways. I myself usually like to play peaceful builder games, with a smattering of warfare depending on the situation. But in tournements I realize that there is going to be a "best" way to play given the rules and map settings, and enjoy giving it my best shot. After seeing Dog's score I tried to see if I could duplicate it, formed a plan looking at city placements, and had some more fun from the same map. At 1575 BC I got my first two archers to Athens, with 3 others and a couple swordsmen a few turns behind. I took one greek city, but for the next several turns I couldn't figure out any combination of attacks that resulted in my taking of any of their cities. All the other civs were well in hand or defeated, but the greeks took everything I could throw at them before the 1350BC date rolled around.

Anyways, the whole point is I enjoyed all aspects of this tournement, especially the conversation and comparison on these boards. If we all played the same way and had the same score there wouldn't be much to talk about!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
66 turns no...1350 is not feasible. But by 1750 you are down to 25 years per turn..and it may drop lower before AD. From 1350 to 0 AD is at least 54 turns and a lot can be done in 54 turns.

Has anyone counted the number of turns in the BC era?

10BC is the 126th turn, 10AD is 127. There are 540 turns overall from 4000BC to 2050AD.

Here is a table of turn/years from an earlier post. The per turn pts are approximately how many pts you lose each turn from a regent conquest victory bonus. Conquest Bonus = (2050 - Date) * Difficulty. Difficulty is 1-6, Cheiftain-Diety. BC Dates are considered negative.

4000BC - 2750BC 25 turns, 50 years each 150pts per turn
2710BC - 1750BC 25 turns, 40 years each 120pts per turn
1725BC - 750BC 40 turns, 25 years each 75pts per turn
730BC - 250AD 100 turns, 20 years each 60pts per turn
260BC - 1250AD 100 turns, 10 years each 30pts per turn
1255AD - 1750AD 100 turns, 5 years each 15pts per turn
1752AD - 1950AD 100 turns, 2 years each 6pts per turn
1951AD - 2050AD 100 turns, 1 year each 3pts per turn

Edit: 730BC - 250AD 50 turns, 20 years each 60 pts.

[Capt Dizle]

Thank you very much. Very good.

[Ivanhoe]

Space race victory, 1690AD. score = 2849.

Quiet game, just Greeks declared war on me a turn before this savegame Anyway, they would have little chance.

[Ahlyis]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
In our SMAC comparative games we simply shared our games and game stories. And learned to be better than we were by learning from others.

And we aren't doing that here?

Thats all its about really. Trying to sharpen your game, learning the arcane fine points of the game system, having fun. Getting to know the people in the community.

I was having a lot of fun until you came in, called us all cheaters, then insulted me directly.

I remember thinking that there was no way to win within the times posted in the SMAC and Civ2 forums. Then people told how and it was fun to go and duplicate it.

So, according to your previous posts here, you are admitting that you 'cheated' in SMAC and CIV2?

Now, I have no problem with folks posting about their game constructed by using the save/reload trick as long as they plainly state it was so.

But on page 6 you posted "Yeah, it you are going to play a comparative game in a tourney and you resort to reloading or trying multiple games you are morally bankrupt."

Well, which is it?

Also, you never answered my question as to how it is that the 'cheating' that we all admitted to could be carried over to multiplayer? You won't be able to save/reload in multiplayer. Also, unless people are using constructed maps instead of randomly generated ones, it won't be possible to have prior knowledge of where things are either. So how does any of this translate to multiplayer???

I agree with AnnC, I think you owe me an apology!

[Genies]

culture reach 10000 in 1872 AD and the score is 3357.

[Capt Dizle]

Ahlyis,

You wrote: "Or do you naively believe that playing more than once or reloading a saved game is somehow cheating?"

My position is:

Playing more than once and or reloading and then submitting a game in a tourney or comparative game set is blatant cheating. I can't imagine a worst form of cheating. This is my problem with you and why I insulted you.


To answer your questions:

One cannot learn to play the game better by hearing stories about how others cheat.

Learning from another's strategy is not cheating. Much of what is being posted here is not strategy. Letting people know that you can get a settler from a particular hut on a particular turn is not strategy.

When I referred to "people telling how", I was thinking about strategy. For example, if someone said that they used ICS to get a particular result, I might try an ICS game to see if I could get a similar result.

Are you stupid enough to think that I was reading the threads to see where the civs/factions are located or to get map specifics and then using that in a game that I would then submit? I think I am getting insulted here.

To clear up the next point, I have no problem with people posting about their contrived, choreographed, manufactured exercises AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT SUBMIT their production for consideration in the tourney. At that point it becomes cheating and morally bankrupt. I call for all who have done so to publicly withdraw from the tournament.

Maybe Dan can then put their work in a separate category called "These are the results you can get if you cheat".

Finally, in regard to multiplayer, I play PBEM and my thoughts were directed to that. In PBEM reloading is the prime method of cheating. Anyone who would reload in this tourney would surely reload in PBEM competition.

And would not be welcome in my games.

When you are willing to admit that reloading is plainly cheating I will be glad to apologize for pointing out your confusion.

jt

[AnnC]

You like that term "morally bankrupt", jimmytrick... and given the confidence with which you throw it around, we can assume that it does not in any way apply to your own values and behavior.

Is that the impression you mean to create?

[vincepai]

Score:2288
Space Race Victory

Not too terribly good, but I started this game on the 26th, had to hurry. No micromanaging done.

This is the file for the last turn, just press the end turn button at the bottom right of the screen, and you will see the (not very good) victory score.

[vincepai]

Oh yea the year was 1810...embarrassing hehe

[Capt Dizle]

In a reload game you could try tactics that would be ridiculous in a real game. One must assume cities will be defended by two spearmen. In a reload game you can send two archers. According to the civulator an archer has a 36.24% chance of defeating a fortified spearman in a town.
The chance of both of your archers winning would be 13.13%

If you are going to reload you can get by with that. In a real game you wouldn't even try it.

Therefore the results of these contrived games mean nothing.

[Dog of Justice]

I think it's clear that future tourneys should ban save/reload and reading a designated "spoiler" thread, as the Civfanatics tournament currently does. I still made my submission, however, because neither rule was specified, and a good fraction of the submissions before mine had involved violation of one or the other as well. I don't think I'm the only one here who enjoys finding optimal or near-optimal (my current estimate is that the true optimum for that map is a conquest around 1600-1700 BC, and I may post another save file later that demonstrates this, since such a game shouldn't even take that long to play) solutions to a well-defined (if stupidly defined) problem, though, so if I had fun in the process of playing my game, and in the meantime the submission has catalyzed a discussion of the rules that makes future tournament results more skill-dependent, all should be good.

If the rules specified no save/reload, and one still engaged in it, THEN I would agree in designating the person as "morally bankrupt". As it is, it needs to be accepted that this round of the tournament is not as competitive because nothing was said about these gray areas.

Incidentally, I have no problem if the best performers under the rules to be imposed on future tournaments are recognized this round; that should be feasible since people don't seem to be hiding whether or how much they've engaged in save/reload or use of spoiler information. (That's the nice thing about informality, nobody has a motive to be that stupidly ruthless.) I have no interest in being portrayed as someone I'm not, i.e. the best Civ player here, and I already mentioned in a previous post that I'm normally too much of a "builder" to come close to the highest score in a tournament like this. (Though that won't stop me from trying in a future Apolyton tournament. )

[Capt Dizle]

Okay, I admit to having intentionally wandered just a tad beyond the boundaries of decency.

I just do that to focus discussion and stimulate debate. It is one of my faults.

I apologize to all. I don't think anyone here is morally bankrupt. Maybe insolvent (but why quibble).

Am I forgiven?

[Kalani]

Okay, here's something no one else encountered, I bet.

I've been playing a single game on this map since a few days after the 15th. Enjoying it quite a bit up until a few nights ago, when we had a big lightning storm here in Hawaii (believe it or not). The next day the computer I'm playing on just won't turn on. So, in the year 1605, a large storm in another universe severed the leader's contact from his empire (which was doing quite well).

In my game I didn't reload at all. I enjoy playing with what comes your way. I did manage to secure the iron and horses to the southeast before the chinese or egyptians got there. Development was proceeding apace. I neglected my military initially and paid for it when Egypt decided I looked ripe for the picking. So they came and knocked over Nineveh (near the iron) and two other cities up north through the jungles. (Gold Jungles someone said? What gold jungle?) They also got the Aztecs to try and join in the fun (killing me). So, having lost three cities, we went into serious military retrenchment, became very active dipolomatically, and got the other civs (Chinese, Persians, and Zulu) to declare war against the Egyptians. While they were fighting, I took back my three cities, and eventually took Eastern Egypt while China scooped the west.

To keep this (my very first!) post short, other highlights: A large Persian Army was isolated far from their turf, finally led to war. I think I'd waited for cavalry, so Persia was crushed. Aztecs were tiny and negligible. Grabbed Persian cities far to the east to contain Greek expansion. Then mutual protection with Greece, and they suggest we divide the Roman lands, which we did, each of us taking five cities (but I got the capital!), but they also razed five--interesting, I hadn't seen the AI do any razing. In those far flung frontier towns I rushed (in Democracy, with money) temples, libraries, even cathedrals, which should pay off once the IBM proprietary power supply from the Mainland (yes, the continental US) gets here around when the tournament ends. Oh well, I'll post my score late.

One of the things I really enjoyed after becoming a large and intimidating empire is that I can extort money per turn for peace treaties. This is prob nothing to some people on here, but I was happily taking in over 100 gold per turn from my neighbors, which I used to support my armies, devoting the rest to research. Definitely a first that couldn't have happened in Civ2!

One thing I noticed: in this game I think aggressors quickly were attacked in return by alliances who then divided their territory. Or rival civs just decided it was time for someone to go, and they all joined in the feeding frenzy. This happened to Egypt, then Persia, then Rome.

Another interesting thing: I got two great leaders (one after heroic epic, I think). One I used for an army, entirely of elite cavalry, which, after being taken down to bare minimum attacking a Roman city, was counterattacked by a Roman knight and destroyed--I hate watching that flag-bearer crumple pitifully! The other leader I used to rush Universal Suffrage. Earlier wonders in Babylon were JS Bach's, Newton's U, and the Great Library (which only got me about three techs!).

Oh, I also got three Persian cities, about five Chinese (including Shanghai, which surprised me), three Aztec, and one Zulu city through culture. I'll be interested to see in multiplayer games if those despot-conquest players can stand up to a more measured conqueror with a robust culture as back up.

That's about where I left it: tension is thick with Greece, and their army is bigger, though I'm building Darwin's, which will give me tanks in time to run riot. The Chinese control the western end, the zulu hold sway in the south, the Greeks the east, with me everything in between. Egypt, Persia, and Rome have left the world stage, and miraculously a tiny three city Aztec "empire" has persisted in the jungle till now. Time: 1605, current score about 1300-1500 I think, as my culture is quite high. I think a domination victory could result soon. Though of course I wish soon didn't mean I have to wait four days for a part from the mainland before I can finish my game!

Oh well, c'est la vie!

P.S.: Hopefully now that some groundrules have been hammered out, we won't have to read so many posts of people arguing in the future.... Other than that, very interesting to see all the different strats, and I look forward to downloading the various replays to see the alternate worlds, as well as posting mine!

(Okay, so it wasn't short.)

Any thoughts?

Aloha!

[AnnC]

Ahlysis, send me email at webmaster@planetacol.com

[MarkG]

well, this time i'll accept all submissions, unless i see something blatant. i dont have the time to play "civ3 cheating judge" so this is mainly up to everyone of you.

people who dont like the idea of save/reloading cheaters are free to check the submitted saved games and provide accurate evidence to back their claim.

i'll do my best to correct any wrong doing

[MisterMuppet]

I understand the results for different victory conditions will be listed. Can I enter the lost 20 times in a row category ?
If not is it possible to add all of the scores from my dismal failures together and submit that ?
Can we have a tournament game on warlord so I stand a chance of completing it?
The Muppet is Sad.

[carpo]

Wow .. what a great game. I love the resources, fighting for strategic areas on the map, and the diplomacy most of all !!

I hit my golden age very early, almost my first battle. I was annoyed at this first, then thought 'what the hell' and proceeded to capture many cities !! .. it was great to have a city producing heaps of shields very early in the game. i wuickly decimated the Aztecs and the Persians. Then a lengthy period of peace allowed me to gain the tech lead, culture lead and force my wonderfull civ onthe rest of the world. mmwaahaaahaaa ! i love it!

Dont think im in the running after seeing some scores, but im mighty happy that this is my first win in Civ3!! .. only played 2 games .... one was the big world map ..and i havnt finished that yet ..and this was my second game !!

Domination win in 1806-8 ..3503 points.

Cant wait 'till the next one !!

(i stuffed up and posted this to a new thread ... can you delete a thread that you started? ... i feel very silly

[Ossi]

My idea for the next tournament: Everybody starts with 2 settlers and no huts near the 2 settlers and no reload allowed. Of course you can't check this, but somebody who works with reloading has not that huge advantage in this case.

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Are you stupid enough to think that I was reading the threads to see where the civs/factions are located or to get map specifics and then using that in a game that I would then submit? I think I am getting insulted here.

I don't think anyone directly accused you of this, but there are certainly people who feel that reading this thread is blatant cheating, just as you feel that people who reload are blatantly cheating. Neither is discussed in the rules. I don't see how anyone can claim after reading this thread that they didn't glean some information from it. You happen to feel that reloading is the worst thing anyone can do. We were simply pointing out that other actions which you have performed could be construed as cheating. The point wasn't "we think jt cheated" it was "these issues weren't covered in the rules, so accusations of cheating are unwarranted."

In the CivFanatics tournament, reading the submission thread is clearly disallowed by the rules. Perhaps it should be the same here.

Finally, in regard to multiplayer, I play PBEM and my thoughts were directed to that. In PBEM reloading is the prime method of cheating. Anyone who would reload in this tourney would surely reload in PBEM competition.

Well, that's quite a stretch. How do you get from "reloads, and tells everyone they did it" to "reloads, so they must be a dirty rotten cheater and they'll definitely cheat in multiplayer"?

[jet_y]

I enjoyed the game, here my win.

Ignore the messages, just press next turn.

thanks and regards jet_y