Apolyton University Succession Game - Part 3

[Rhothaerill]

With the interest in getting this off the ground very soon I'm going to poll the main ideas we have had so far regarding "how" to play the modified version of a succession game for Apolyton University. For details of how I intend to set up the game please refer to parts 1 and 2. I will have a set of "rules" for the game set up soon too. This poll will time out on Thursday to allow me last minute changes to the scenario based on the result of the poll.

Option 1: One team game. Everyone plays a turn block and posts their DARs. Poll is set up to determine who has the save which will start the next turn block. Rule: No one can have their game serve as the start for the next turn block two blocks in a row. This will help ensure that everyone will have a chance to have their game be the one used for the next turn block.

Option 2: Two team competition game. Teams are divided up randomly by me (since as the scenario creator I won't be playing it ) and each team will strive to do their best to reach one of the victory conditions. Incorporates same turn block rule as option 1. This is the most similar to a standard succession game.

Option 3: Two team game with different victory conditions. One team will strive for a domination win. The other for a spaceship win. Diplomatic wins and all PTW victory conditions will be turned off. This will provide two perspectives of what you can do in the same game. Incorporates same turn block rule as option 1.

Option 4: Standard succession game. Each player is in a set order to play turn blocks and can not play anyone else's turn block unless that person is unable to for some reason.

Option 5: Something else. Please post your suggestion.

Option 6: Banana

[Nor Me]

I'm still uncertain that your suggestion is a good idea and whether any potential problems could be fixed beforehand.

I'm worried that some players may never get their turn chosen. You might end up with 2 or 3 players who are the best or perceived to be whose turns always get played.

Then there's the skewing effect of selecting turns on luck. If a turn ends in the middle of a war, it's likely to be the player who's luckiest whose turn is played. This is going to help warmongering.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Rhothaerill
Diplomatic wins and all PTW victory conditions will be turned off.

Doesn't turning off some of the victory conditions make the game easier, not to mention making a non-standard strategy optimal? Usually warmongerers have to worry about the AI building the UN, for example.

As for giving everyone a chance to have their game selected, I don't see any solution other than making a third game (possibly at a lower difficulty) for players who care about having their game selected, and perhaps having that game played as a standard succession game.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by alexman


Doesn't turning off some of the victory conditions make the game easier, not to mention making a non-standard strategy optimal? Usually warmongerers have to worry about the AI building the UN, for example.

I can revise that part if we want to leave it in. I forgot about AI win conditions. Instead, for that particular type of game if that's the one people want to play, we can just have it limited by the players similar to the way AU208 worked with total war being on the honor system.

Short of making it a true succession game, I don't see any way of assuring that someone will definitely have their game voted in. It's a problem, but I don't have a definite solution. But I still think "trying something new" for Apolyton University is worth it.

[Dominae]

Concerning Nor Me's fears:

1. There needs to be some level of competition for each player to strive to do their best.

2. Given that each block is voted on by a bunch of players (ideally the players from the other game), I'm sure the same person's game will not always be selected as the "best". Each member of the panel offers a unique perspective on what was the best play; it's not always clear what was the "best" play in a 10-turn block. Some players will judge that that early Temple was better, some will judge that two Archers was better. Without playing out further turns, it is impossible (more or less) to determine which was the best course of action (if there is such a thing).

3. It is ok for some player's games never to be selected. Learning involves a certain level of humility: if you cannot accept that someone else's plays/talents are better than yours, you'll never learn from them. I hope everyone can have a fun time with this without expecting their game to selected on a regular basis.

4. Nonetheless, it should be slightly annoying to feel powerless in shaping the game. What can we do to address this, other than say "that's not the point!"?

5. The panelists should not factor in the outcome of combat when selecting the best block (otherwise we would be loading the dice). A well-executed attack with heavy losses should always be favored over an incidental streak of luck. This means we should be prepared to "deny" a game/block that sees the appearance of a Great Leader, if another game/block was better-played but not so lucky with the RNG.


Dominae

[Rhothaerill]

Well said Dom. Thanks.

It should also be stated that even if you don't join in this AU game right away, that does not mean that you can't join in later on. If someone wants to lurk for a while, and then decides to "take the plunge" and play some of the turn blocks you will be welcomed with open arms.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Nor Me
I'm worried that some players may never get their turn chosen. You might end up with 2 or 3 players who are the best or perceived to be whose turns always get played.

I do not really think many will feel hurt if theirs is not the chosen one for the continuation. It will afford most the chance to learn. I mean if I am not doing well enough, then I will benefit from someone doing it a different way. Often several will be the same or nearly the same.
Anyway it is all in fun, so I would take it in that vain and not be upset when I stink it up. It won't be the first time nor the last.

It could be done sort like MZO, then all get a turn. The way I see that is that it will be easy to not learn as much. If you run your turns and see how others did it and if they did something different, you can see it and absorb it. The MZO way is no one will play the turns you played, so nothing to compare it with. You can still learn from observing what was done, but it will be a bit harder.
The bottom line to me is to have a reason to play and to enjoy the game. I am not worried about all the players that are better than me. I know it is a big world and there are lots of people better than me at anything I may try to do.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by vmxa1
If you run your turns and see how others did it and if they did something different, you can see it and absorb it. The MZO way is no one will play the turns you played, so nothing to compare it with. You can still learn from observing what was done, but it will be a bit harder.

And that's EXACTLY why I wanted to modify the succession game for AU purposes. It's always nice when someone else says what you meant to say only better.

[Mountain Sage]

A question about option 2 and 3:
How do you play as a team? Do you swap saves or decide on a common strategy, or what?
I'm a bit lost.
Aso take into account the time difference between Europe and the USA.
I voted option 1 as a '1st trial game', to be revised later.

[Dominae]

Mountain Sage, the method we're probably going to use works like this (about time someone spelled it out!):

1. Players are placed into teams of ~6. It looks like we're going to have a couple of teams.

2. Each player receives the 4000BC save and plays a block of ~15 turns. There is a time limit of ~5 days.

3. Each player then writes a AAR for his or her block (with screenshots and all that).

4. The AARs are posted and the saves submitted to the chancellor.

5. After the deadline, players read the AARs of players in the other team. Each then votes on which is "best" for that block. We leave it up in the air what "best" means, with one restriction: good luck is not an indicator of good play (although the two sometimes go hand in hand).

6. The votes are tallied, and the block with the most votes is selected as the starting point for the next round.

(It would be nice here if someone could write a summary of each game in order to have it all in one place; the AAR threads for each block are bound to get confusing for the casual reader.)

7. The chancellor redistributes the "bests" save after the first block to all players in the team, which serves as starting point for the second block.

8. Repeat until the game is over.



Dominae

[Arrian]

We leave it up in the air what "best" means, with one restriction: good luck is not an indicator of good play (although the two sometimes go hand in hand).

I just want to highlight something: everyone has their own concept of what exactly is "good" luck, or "extraordinary" luck (or bad luck, for that matter). If a militaristic player chooses to do a lot of fighting and is rewarded by a few GLs... well, is that "good luck" or is it a reasonable outcome of strategic choice? It depends on the circumstances, I think. If I were to use an early forest chop to punch out a barracks and then built vet archers off the bat instead of going with a granary-fed REX, I'm taking a calculated risk that my vet archers will gain me as much or more than peaceful expansion would. If I'm right, and I nail a couple of AI settler teams and get an early GL... was I just lucky? Or was I good? Or maybe both?

I think it might make for interesting debates...

-Arrian

[Tassadar500]

What we really need now is the new players

[Dominae]

Arrian, I agree.

I'm just pointing out that we should reward good decisions, not good results in battle. Otherwise we would be loading the dice by always selecting the most successful game, which is a form of "cheating".


Dominae

[Arrian]

Ok. If I leave an elite warrior unprotected on grassland and he happens to beat an archer on defense and generates a GL, I will take zero credit for said GL, since my move was a poor one, and I was given a gift by the RNG. Not that I would do that to Grog. Grog typically gets better treatment than that.

-Arrian

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Dominae
Mountain Sage, the method we're probably going to use works like this (about time someone spelled it out!):

1. Players are placed into teams of ~6. It looks like we're going to have a couple of teams.

2. Each player receives the 4000BC save and plays a block of ~15 turns. There is a time limit of ~5 days.

3. Each player then writes a AAR for his or her block (with screenshots and all that).

4. The AARs are posted and the saves submitted to the chancellor.

5. After the deadline, players read the AARs of players in the other team. Each then votes on which is "best" for that block. We leave it up in the air what "best" means, with one restriction: good luck is not an indicator of good play (although the two sometimes go hand in hand).

6. The votes are tallied, and the block with the most votes is selected as the starting point for the next round.

(It would be nice here if someone could write a summary of each game in order to have it all in one place; the AAR threads for each block are bound to get confusing for the casual reader.)

7. The chancellor redistributes the "bests" save after the first block to all players in the team, which serves as starting point for the second block.

8. Repeat until the game is over.

I'm just going to let Dominae speak for me from now on. He says it better. Seriously though, this is about dead-on with what I was thinking.

On another note, the scenario is almost done, though I'd like to run a few more tests on it before Friday. It doesn't have quite the gut-wrenching start of AU209, but it should be challenging without being discouraging. Plus it lends itself well to various styles of play.

[vmxa1]

Maybe luck is like porn, no one can define it, but they all know it when they see it. Oh wait that was the courts.

[Arrian]

[GodKing]

I must say I like the idea of two teams going for different victory conditions. Sounds like fun.

[Rhothaerill]

I like the idea of two teams shooting for different victory conditions as well...as much for the fun of seeing what can be made of the game in a few different ways as teaching aspects. The only problem I have with it would be dividing the teams so that I don't accidentally put someone on the team shooting for a spaceship victory who really wants to be part of the domination/conquest victory condition. I'd like to think that most of the players wouldn't have a problem being on either team (and I'd divide the teams randomly and assign their victory condition randomly as well). Any other ideas out there?

[alexman]

How about letting everyone choose their own team?

We might get more participation this way, as people would feel free to contribute a DAR at any point in the middle of either game, without having pressure to complete all sessions, and without having to sign up and get assigned to a team.

[Rhothaerill]

That's fine. What I was trying to avoid was the tendency to gravitate to certain teams based on the players already on those teams or for one team to have several players while the other is light. I don't suppose the first point makes much difference, but the second would. If everyone who is already playing would like to add their preference (or add that they don't mind which team they will be on if that is the case) to the sign-up thread I can add that to the top of the thread.