Galciv Game of the Month

Count me on.

How would you "make" the games?

I'd start a game and save it on the first turn, and then put the save game on a web site for people to download. Everyone downloads and plays the same game.

Of course, I'd test the game out to make sure the start wasn't absurdly good or bad.

There are two nice things about this format. One is that it helps people learn from each other. If you and, say, Ray the Wanderer end up in the exact same situation, you can compare the way you dealt with it to the way he dealt with it, and suggest ways for Ray to improve his game (or possibly vice versa). So it gives you insights into how other people are playing. The other nice thing is that this is as close to "head to head" competition as a single-player game like Galciv can have, so it provides a different way for people to compete than the Metaverse does (whether it is better or not is of course a matter of opinion).

Yeah right! He'll learn from ME! LOL

You wouldn't necessarily have to have the game start on turn one. I think it would be better to start the game in the middle, so you could have some sort of a storyline.

Nand1: If you start in the middle you lose the critical (and enjoyable) initial expansion and initial tech and resource choices. Skillful handling of that period is one of the things that separates the best from the rest.

For a (semi)coherent story line, consider a "succession game" where a small group of players (5 or 6) play a game in series, each playing (say) a year and then passing the game to the next (successor) player. Naturally, the game would have a thread where each player in turn reports actions and progress (usually in the most grandiose terms imaginable). See the Apolyton CTP2 Forum for a couple of examples.

Should I take these suggestions as expressions of interest?

Please do, vincible, but some more things to think about:

1. Game size - are you planning a gigantic size game? I find these too long (and so may some others) - any thoughts on small or medium?

2. The 'succession' idea is a bit different to your original proposal - players have different styles (warmongering, influence, etc) and it would be tough to change midstream. Thus, the first couple of players would tend to 'set the tone' for the rest. It can work well, but that needs to be acknowledged. We can all play a GOTM simultaneously, so to speak, but a succession game relies on everyone getting through their turn and passing it on promptly - two different experiences.

Wombat, I'd probably start with Medium maps with Occasional stars. Until very recently I was on a comp that couldn't handle gigantic maps (which is part of why I've been playing them obsessively recently). I wouldn't inflict that on anyone else. Also I think the AI plays best on Medium or perhaps Large.

I won't arrange a succession game--not this month, anyway--but if someone else wants to they're certainly welcome. That might be a good way to compete between empires!

As far as scenarios, I do have an idea or two, but I don't want to make any promises at this point. First I want to see how many people care to participate--given the weak response so far, arranging three games seems like it would be excessive.
[Message Edited]

Count me in Vincible. Especially if it's not Gigantic as I find those too much of a "chore" rather than fun.

I am particularly interested in your "Who can win in the shortest time" statement, as that is one aspect that is not reflected in the scoring (to my knowledge). With the Civs, MOOs and SMAC there was a lot of debate and strats for fast wins, which I haven't seen much of here - if any.
Would be interested in both the maso and non-maso games.

So I think it would be cool to see what we would come up with in terms of how fast we win as opposed to how much we score.

Vince
What kind of time frame are you talking about?Would we download one game and need to be down within x amount of days or will we compare for a length of time.

Generally my work fluctuates where one week I can play several nites and other weeks maybe not at all or I'm out of town.

This seems interesting enough depending on time requirements.

I will join.

I'm just thinking about all the interesting scenarios that we could create for a GOTM once we get a scenario editor.

~SDC~

This is a great idea!

I'll give it a try. It should be really interesting!

Will zero scores be counted, I mean scores that total zero but don't use the cheat key?

I am the same. I am assuming that Vincible would post 2 games (one maso and one non-maso) for download a certain date each month. And then we would have up to 30 days to play it. Or maybe 20 days and then a 10 day period where we hop in a thread and discuss it.
Would be interesting chatting to folks on here about a specific map that we all had played, as opposed to the generic discussions we have on strategy. Which AIs were dominant, who you aligned or battled with.

And as I said previously, I also like the emphasis on the fastest win as opposed to the highest score. The the post-game discussion with people on here would be the main attraction for me. I've pretty much stopped playing (at least for now) but would really like to do this once a month if others did it, and we could chat about how we played it afterwards.
Go Vincible!!

Havent had much time to play recently, but I've always wanted to try the GOTM before.

This would give me an excuse to start playing obsessively again

~SDC~

I love the idea now that you explianed it more Vincible. I love doing that kind of stuff. Count me in!

Not sure about the details of the time frame, but you'd have at least three weeks to play it.

3-4 weeks between new games sounds about right (judging by equivalent contests in Civ2/Civ3/CTP2/etc). Gives time for someone to go on vacation (or get buried in work).

Midstream changes are part of the fun of a succession game. "He did WHAT???" But WW is right that it's a very different experience. GOTM lets people play in parallel; succession is (a continuing) serial. That's very slow, and players are apt to burn out or drop out. GOTM by its nature allows more active participation.

Hermann is right about succession games. These are GREAT. Apolyton's civ2 succession games with the late Scouse Git are some of the best threads I read over there. And playing a succession game is really fun. Unfortunately, it requires to be able to download the save game and play fast when the previous poster is done.
I might DL a GOTM. Not sure, though, because it's hard to post a nice AAR.

The initial expansion period is one of the easiest parts of the game once you know what to do. If you want to experience the expansion period, you can always just start a new game. What's the point of having an GOTM if it's just settings? It's better to start in the middle so you can fit in a storyline. You can also include materials out of the game on a website to make you feel more involved(look at some of the past GOTMs).

Nand1, I disagree, in one of the GotM we did, one system was very contested during initial expansion. Some went to war over it, some got it and some didn't. This made for interesting comparions, as the strategies would vary because of that. I went at war against the Altarians for instance, only to have the Arceans land on the planet first!
Settings include teh alignment of the ai. I suggest that the ai's alignment be set by vincible and hidden from the players so we would know the alignment of the ai only when we meet them.

I'm with LDC on that one - you really should be allowed to play it right from Move One. I lurked in the Civ forums for ages and some of the AAR reports were fantastic. I dont think the time factor is really critical to the process; say vincible posts a game saved on the intro move on Nov 1st. Anyone who wishes can download and play the game whenever they like, and players can post to a thread on that GOTM that is open from 1st Nov to 30th Nov. The next GOTM goes up on Dec 1st and active discussion on the previous one ceases on 30th Nov. If you dont manage to play in that month...no big deal. It shouldn't be onerous, either for the person setting the game or the other participants. Isn't the fun basically in the discussion?

I'll give it a go.
[Message Edited]