NIC - No Improvement Challenge Proposal

badams52 · February 13, 2003, 19:58

No Improvement Challenge, AKA – Barbarian’s Challenge

Background:
From the “Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man Shall Pass” thread’s revival back on December 12, Catt gave fruit to the idea that the most efficient way to win (i.e. the method by which you will win most often while playing CIV with having the least possible chance of losing), would be to build nothing but units and possibly barracks. Not fully believing this to be possible, I postulated that we could create a new challenge. With deference to OCC, which is for the most part a builder’s challenge, I give to you the No Improvements/Infrastructure Challenge, which for the most part is a warmonger’s challenge.

Rules:[list=1][*] No city improvement may be built, only units and (if so desired) wealth.[*] When capturing a city, all sellable improvements must be sold (wonders, aqueducts, hospitals, and wonder produced improvements cannot be sold).[*] All leaders created must be turned into armies or used to rush a military unit, no improvement rushing.[*] Once you build your capitol city, there your palace stays.[/list=1]
You could think of your civilization as a barbarian tribe intent to pillage and plunder while spreading like a horde with your “uncivilized” ways. As you capture cities, you raze them, and those that you don’t raze, you destroy those unnecessary improvements like courthouses and factories that take up space and cost money to keep up. You may also notice that your tribe is akin to a Civilization II barbarian tribe but with the ability to build more than one different kind of unit and also cities.

Personally, I would change rule number 2 to read: “No cities will be captured, only razed with the exception of cities you built yourself but were later captured by another civilization” to make the rules easier to follow without changing the underlying challenge. With captured cities, the strategy of capturing wonders comes into play where capturing Sun Tzu’s gives you barracks in all your cities, the Pyramids granaries, etc. which you could not have built by yourself. But I’ve left rule #2 as is since that was the rule I began playing with for my personal NIC and have since gone to razing.

What we can hope to gain from the challenge:
Some insights I believe could be better understood would be:[list=1][*] How to best use those 99% corrupted cities. [*] How to fight (and win) when behind in technology the entire game.[*] Usefulness of tighter city placement (for those of you like myself who still like a full 21 workable city radius for all cities).[*] Learning just how far the capital influence vs. corruption reaches out.[*] Usefulness of armies.[/list=1]
There may be other insights but for the moment that’s all I’ve got.

AU Game?
I personally am still stuck with CIV III 1.29f (it’s wife vs. PTW for me and my wife holds the trump card) making myself unable to create an AU scenario for everyone. This scenario might not be for everyone, but it is certainly a good learning challenge and one that I hope one of the AU creators will incorporate into a later AU game.

Hint for those who start:
You may already know this but if you want a cultural border without gaps in the middle, the farthest you can build a city from another is 4 tiles NE, SE, NW, or SW.

Dominae · February 13, 2003, 21:09

Nice challenge, badams52, and definitely something to consider for AU. One thing that you did not mention that will affect such a game more than anything else is the inability to build Aqueducts. Unless you've got access to a lot of fresh water, you're sure going to miss citizens 7-12 (much more than improvements).

Have you tried it yourself? I'll test-pilot this idea this weekend, and will post my results here.

Dominae

DaveMcW · February 13, 2003, 21:42

Interesting concept. I've gotten bored of mind-numbing unit production and movement, but some people might find it fun.

Possible tweaks to the rules:
1. Palace jump by abandonment or leader is allowed. (Relocate to that area with rivers!)
2. All captured improvements must be sold off; if the city contains an aqueduct, hospital, or wonder it must be abandoned.
3. One harbor per continent is allowed, but that city can't build or heal ships.

Obviously you'll need to win the game before the UN is built!

Catt · February 14, 2003, 00:00

I've actually played a few games under similar rules (long ago) to test some theories about the game -- though my rules were not quite so strict -- I could build aqueducts and wonders (including using leaders for wonders and small wonders), and I played on a pangaea. Absent a pangaea, my guess is that you'd have to build some improvements just between the time you take your landmass and the time you can cross the oceans.

Also, I think that if you play such a game, you'll find some radically different lessons are important -- I won't share my takeaways yet so as to avoid spoiling it for others

Finally, I suspect such a game might be a bit harder now compared to when I did it -- under PTW it seems harder to extort techs from the same civ on multiple occasions as part of peace negotiations.

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveMcV
I've gotten bored of mind-numbing unit production and movement, but some people might find it fun.

You've "broken" the game as much as (or more than) anyone I've seen in the forums (here and at CFC) -- by "broken" I mean you can win from seemingly any position under any circumstance, and you can do it more quickly and effectively than the other mere mortals. Do you still play for the most efficient win? or do you play with different goals in mind? Do you still play outside of tourneys? Enquiring minds want to know.

Catt

Dominae · February 14, 2003, 00:04

Here's a screenshot from a Carthaginian NIC game I just started up (see below). Things are going pretty well so far. My closest neighbors are the Vikings, which helps things a little since they typically pose no thread early on. The other (distant) neighbor is the Zulu. Since their traits are the same, I've had some good trading opportunities, including techs-for-Workers from both the Vikings and the Zulu. That set the Vikings back quite a bit, and I'm taking them over easily. Once I finish them off, the plan is to REX like mad, build some boats, and gun for Chivalry.

Industrious/Commercial is definitely the combo of choice for NIC, IMO. I'm going to use one of DaveMcW's rules, palace-jumping, since you're technically not building a Wonder when you palace-jump. Everything else is "by the book" (raze all conquered cities immediately).

I have no idea how much "staying power" I will have without improvements, but I'm game to try! Wish me luck!

Dominae

DaveMcW · February 14, 2003, 02:53

Good luck Dominae!

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Do you still play for the most efficient win? or do you play with different goals in mind? Do you still play outside of tourneys? Enquiring minds want to know.

I'm currently involved in 3 PBEMs, 2 monthy tournaments, and experimenting with beyond deity rules when I feel get tired of the AIs losing.

The quest for the most efficient win is what keeps me playing...

BRC · February 14, 2003, 10:41

I remember a thread circulating a few months ago, and I think Theseus made a comment which implied that Vel had figured out the game. Apparently, it came down to military units and little else. I have no idea what that thread was, but I would like to reread it in light of this challenge.

Quote:

I'm currently involved in 3 PBEMs, 2 monthy tournaments, and experimenting with beyond deity rules when I feel get tired of the AIs losing.

Dave's feeling the pinch in our game. A triple-Alliance will do that to you.

just kidding Dave. I have contact with nobody.

Good luck Dom.

badman · February 14, 2003, 12:10

Sounds like a great idea (but I think building barracks should be allowed too).

I still won't participate because war-mongering really bores me.

badams52 · February 14, 2003, 13:07

Dominae - As you may have guessed I took on NIC (as the Chinese, wanted Militaristic and Industrial but I do see the usefulness of commercial) and will post the results in a spoiler thread for what I was able to learn from it. But I still want to know how yours turns out since I was using 1.29f which should be easier than PTW.

BRC - I don't know which thread you were talking about exactly, but I went ahead and bumped the most recent, relevant thread I knew of, the one where I first took the idea from Catt. The Breath of God thread might be the one you are remembering.

BRC · February 14, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus in Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Also, in a way this relates (I think) to Vel’s earlier discussions about the “meta-game” and “cracking the code” of how to win. I’ve always thought that he gave up a little to soon in fleshing out his ‘worldview’ of Civ3, having developed a fairly rote approach to winning typically standard games (I know, I know… HERESY!! But I’ve made this point before). It also relates to Aeson’s SVC, which I continue to consider the most sophisticated game I’ve seen.

This is the quote that I was searching for (thanks for the help though, badams52).

Theseus, or Vel, or whoever: Can we get a little more elaboration on this and on the style of play that was developed?? Did the 'fairly rote approach to winning' resemble the technique that is being experimented with here??

Datajack Franit · February 14, 2003, 17:09

I'll try that!

joncnunn · February 14, 2003, 17:42

Perhaps #2 should be changed to all cities with Great Wonders and/or structures that can't be sold must be raized to the ground.

Dominae · February 14, 2003, 17:48

BRC, IIRC what Vel was getting at was that, on average, he knew that simply military conquest was the "no-brainer" way to win. Sure, there were games when more skill was required, but his opinion was that almost every game "felt" the same, since the major decisions were not really decisions (get Horses, get Iron, build Horsemen, Swordsmen, upgrade to Knights, wait for Cavalry, win). He was not saying that he had an algorithm for winning every game, just that games too often looked the same to him.

Before the summer, I shared his sentiment, but now I'm back trying new things and it is loads of fun. Sure, if you play the game the same way you'll eventually get bored. But I, unlike Vel, do not resent the fact that I know a good way of winning the game, and am forced not to use it to have fun (consider: ICS).

Dominae

Dominae · February 14, 2003, 17:51

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Perhaps #2 should be changed to all cities with Great Wonders and/or structures that can't be sold must be raized to the ground.

Bah, be a real barbarian and raze all captured cities. It does not make the game that much harder, IMO (you should have Settlers and gold aplenty - why gold? no barracks = no upgrades).

Dominae

Catt · February 14, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
BRC, IIRC what Vel was getting at was that, on average, he knew that simply military conquest was the "no-brainer" way to win. Sure, there were games when more skill was required, but his opinion was that almost every game "felt" the same, since the major decisions were not really decisions (get Horses, get Iron, build Horsemen, Swordsmen, upgrade to Knights, wait for Cavalry, win). He was not saying that he had an algorithm for winning every game, just that games too often looked the same to him.

Before the summer, I shared his sentiment, but now I'm back trying new things and it is loads of fun. Sure, if you play the game the same way you'll eventually get bored. But I, unlike Vel, do not resent the fact that I know a good way of winning the game, and am forced not to use it to have fun (consider: ICS).

I think that's a very accurate description of Vel's views as well -- which prompted him to start work on Candle'bre.

And, like Dominae, I still have a lot of fun with the game, but I deliberately deviate from what I know to be "better" strategy in order to have fun (as Dom pointed out - witness ICS).

Catt

BRC · February 15, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

I think that's a very accurate description of Vel's views as well -- which prompted him to start work on Candle'bre.

And, like Dominae, I still have a lot of fun with the game, but I deliberately deviate from what I know to be "better" strategy in order to have fun (as Dom pointed out - witness ICS).

Catt

I didn't want to find out that ICS was the best way to play. That's what I was scared of.

Oh well. My fun games will use 21-tile to make up for the games that give me headaches (city-tile-tile-city).
Thanks for explaining that guys. It's been itching me since he wrote that.

Theseus · February 16, 2003, 20:22

Uh, see my little rant in the "Best Civs" thread.

This sounds like mucho fun... but no barracks for a warmongering special??!!

Dominae's post made me think of something... I don;t know who's participating in the Intersite game, but we need to practice with Carthage.

Dominae · February 16, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
This sounds like mucho fun... but no barracks for a warmongering special??!!

I wish were having more fun with this, but really it gets very tedious after a while (probably has something to do with my Cavalry beeline that has left me using Galleys as transports...ugh). But as an interesting exercise, I'm glad to have done it once. You should try it sometime.

No barracks is hugely important. I would say NIC with Barracks is far easier than without; the loss of upgrading power is rough.

Dominae

badams52 · February 17, 2003, 00:30

And let me second Dominae's sentiments. This is a challenge that will probably be longer and not as much fun as your standard game. But it is something that will be interesting and feel good to have completed once.

And though it may seem like a warmonger's special, it's just a by product of the rules that one has to warmonger since histograph, domination and conquest would be the easiest routes to victory. But I also profess that a player could win diplomatically!

If you leave one or two cities of the civ on your continent with a harbor/airport, you could open up trade routes to the rest of the world or you could wipe out all but 3 civs, let one of them build the UN and be on better terms with civ number 3 than the other guy. It could happen!

edit: typos