A new AU idea

[nbarclay]

I like years a lot better than turn numbers. Unless players actually count turns while they play, they are likely to be far more used to keeping track of progress based on year.

While I agree that event-based milestones can have problems on some types of maps (for example, milestones oriented around meeting civs off the home continent have no meaning on true pangeas), such problems could be solved by removing milestones that make no sense in a particular game. And on non-pangea maps, I think securing contact with and maps from all the other civs is definitely an important enough event to be worth a milestone. Not only is it relevant from a spoiler perspective, but contact with other civs is also important in that it sets the stage for future trade relationships.

One other thing: 1000 AD is not necessarily before the industrial era at all, much less a good point to break up action between 10 AD and the industrial era. Consider when I entered the industrial era in some of my games:

AU 401: 810 AD or earlier
AU 207: ~990 AD.
AU 204: ~910 AD
AU 203: ~770 AD (assuming Steam Power wasn't a free tech)
AU 202: ~850 AD

Now suppose I start talking about where I'm building my iron works in my 1000 AD DAR?

[Dominae]

You're right that it should be dates and not turn numbers; they're equivalent, but one is easier to remember!

On Emperor you do reach the Industrial Age before 1000AD in some games. But it's always pretty close, right? In any case, the very point of breaking it up at points that are not game-dependent is to compare what players have achieved in a certain amount of time.

On Monarch and below, the Industrial Age is rarely reached before 1000AD. Since many AU players do not play Emperor or Deity, I still think 1000AD is a good "in-between" date for the Industrial Age.

I'm not saying this is perfect, just that we should give it a go as is and see if it works. If the 1000AD DARs are all over the place, we can always make a change for the next scenario.

And, let's not get lost in the details here. This is AU, after all, not GOTM: the point of the DARs is not increase competition, but to promote more participation in reports. If we were to rank players as GOTM does, I could see how this would need a lot more debate. But we're not doing that here.


Dominae

[vmxa1]

I think that we shuld not be concerned about spoiling things for others in a spoiler thread.
I mean what do you expect to find in such a thread anyway? It is not like an RPG where you get the answer to a puzzle. If you do not want to know the lay of the land, wait until you have exposed the map yourself, before posting.
I know I have looked at some of the older ones, but if and when I ever play those maps, I am not going to remember anything about them. Anyway the map is available in the editor for those that are so inclined.
In AU208, I found it more fun to clear the starting island and then find out I had no horses without taking Iroq capitol and no saltpeter at all. Then I could start crying.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

On Emperor you do reach the Industrial Age before 1000AD in some games. But it's always pretty close, right? In any case, the very point of breaking it up at points that are not game-dependent is to compare what players have achieved in a certain amount of time.

Is it better to focus on how players spent particular arbitrary periods of time, or on how they spent particular phases of the game? Early in the game, the order of events varies too much from one player to the next to make an event-driven approach practical. But later, I like the way an event-driven approach focuses attention on how players spent a particular phase of the game without so much regard to when that phase occurred. And it's not like players won't post dates in an event-driven system.

An event-driven approach also has major advantages in helping people reduce their exposure to unwanted spoiler information. For example, if a thread stops at the beginning of the industrial era, players know they can read it and not worry about finding out about the coal, rubber, and oil situations. In contrast, I usually have Steam Power and know about coal by 1000 AD, and if I'm progressing quickly enough, I might even know about rubber. Similarly, a player could read a thread covering up to the beginning of the modern era without worrying about finding out about aluminum and uranium. I'm not saying people can't read ahead if they want to, but players would have more control over what information they expose themselves to.

[Dominae]

That makes sense, Nathan.

1. First 40 turns

2. 40 turns - 1000BC

3. 1000BC - 10AD

4. 10AD - Industrial Age

5. Industrial Age - End


DAR4 will cover a pretty big interval game-wise on difficulties Monarch and lower, but that's a compromise, I guess.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

I would make it

1. 4000 BC - ~2000 BC (whatever the exact year would be).

...

5. Industrial Age.

6. Modern Age.

The first change makes the cut-off date easier to work with, and while it puts puts a few more turns in the first report than in the second, the second would still encompass a lot more activity (considering how little actually takes place in the first few turns, except maybe for expansionists).

Splitting up the industrial and modern ages allows players to see what others did in the industrial age without risking modern resource spoilers, and going all the way from before riflemen through modern armor battles and/or the space race in a single reporting period seems like it could be a bit much.

[Dominae]

I was trying to cut down the number of DARs per AU course, but I suppose we can put in an additional (very optional) Modern Age one. If you finish the game in the Industrial Age, you would never need to do a write-up for the Modern Age (an added incentive to win/lose quickly!).


Dominae

[vmxa1]

As I have been looking at some of the games that people have posed questions about and looking at some of the AU games played. It occurs to me that a detailed road map of a game by one of the many strong players here would provide the answers needed by those players.
I have seen other games have gotten such a treatment, but not CIvIII. I know it would be a huge task for soemone, but many here are very good at making AAR's.
It would need a save at decent intervals, so people could follow along.
Any AU game would make an excellent vechile.

[Rhothaerill]

Hopefully this is the right thread for this, but does anyone have an idea when the next AU course will be out? I'd like to play it and write my own AAR/DAR from the beginning rather than getting into it a few weeks late like I am with AU208. Thanks all.

[vmxa1]

I would say that it is and the next one will likely be spwaned here.

[Catt]

I'm very non-commital regarding the new proposal. It could be very helpful, or it could add more "obligations" in preparing AARs.

I especially enjoy those AARs (or DARs) that do more than just recount key events. What adds to the interest, learning, and fun for me, are those explanations sprinkled throughout the various AARs that enlighten the reader as to why certain actions were taken; i.e., "I determined that I needed to do X, because of A, B, and C, and then concluded that X could best be accomplished by doing D, E, and F. Unfortunately, Z cropped up and I was forced to alter my approach to . . . "

Catt

[vmxa1]

Well you are just the one to do it.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Catt
I especially enjoy those AARs (or DARs) that do more than just recount key events. What adds to the interest, learning, and fun for me, are those explanations sprinkled throughout the various AARs that enlighten the reader as to why certain actions were taken; i.e., "I determined that I needed to do X, because of A, B, and C, and then concluded that X could best be accomplished by doing D, E, and F. Unfortunately, Z cropped up and I was forced to alter my approach to . . . "

Those types of AAR's are definitely the most helpful for strategy tips. I've heard it said that "The journey is more important than the end result." The same holds here too. The process of why you took an action is more important than "I got the Great Lighthouse". Why did you go for that particular wonder? Are you on an island and need to contact AI civs?
I know reading the strategy forums and the AU AAR's (after I finally found them ) has helped me become a better civver. Three cheers for more AU courses and more AARs/DARs.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
I'm very non-commital regarding the new proposal. It could be very helpful, or it could add more "obligations" in preparing AARs.

I especially enjoy those AARs (or DARs) that do more than just recount key events. What adds to the interest, learning, and fun for me, are those explanations sprinkled throughout the various AARs that enlighten the reader as to why certain actions were taken;

Your AARs are model examples, so you should not worry too much about having to do extra work, Catt. The idea is to try and "coax" everyone to write more detailed AARs. Many players finish a game and write a one-page report which, unfortunately but inevitably, contains very few elaborations on strategy but a lot of "facts" ("I conquered Germany in 900AD"...who cares?). I'm not sure how you come up with such great AARs, but it surely involves taking notes. The goal is to get everyone to create some superb reports of AU games.

What it is sometimes difficult to remember when writing an AAR is that no one but you has played your game. Therefore no one has any interest in what you've been through unless you describe it 1) clearly and 2) in an interesting way. Some people are natural story-tellers; some are not. By breaking up the task of writing the entire AAR, DARs will hopefully make the whole process a lot more reader-friendly and less daunting for the writer.


Dominae

[vmxa1]

I am not sure what the goals of the AU are now that you have settled on the mod.
If it is an attempt to see what the best method of play is for a given game and help others adapt their styles to this improved form, then the current reports will not accomplish it.
I love reading them and some are very entertaining, but I have no clue about what the choices were made, when they were made or why.
The gaps are just to great between looks and no explanation is given.
I was looking at Nathans AU201 and saw how there was something like 36 units ready to go from 11 cities at 710bc. I thought, man that is a nice job, how was it done? What was the key move?
Then the next report was a fabulous looking 290bc shot with most of the land covered.
Most readers of the AAR will no doubt be impressed, but not have a clue as to how to set about getting either of those situations.
So the only thing I see being learned, is that Nathan is a great player. but we knew that already.
even a bunch of intermediate save leading up to the 710BC, may give others a chance to see the process.