OCC in MOO1?

[Zed-F]

Well, you all should know my propensity for trying weird OCC games out by now. I've never tried one in MOO1. Given the nature of the vote, I didn't think it would be possible to win one. Nevertheless, of course I had to give it a shot anyway.

I played a game on average, small galay, 5 opponents, as Psilon, to give myself as many advantages as I could. It turns out that it *is* technically possible to win an OCC game under these conditions, but the number of preconditions you must fulfill are rather large. You need to start as close to the middle of the map as possible; if you're stuck in a corner, you won't be able to influence the vote strongly enough by blowing away the pop leader's colonies. Even given that, you also need several specific techs to have a shot at doing so. First on the list are Robotic Controls III and Auto-repair. You won't know whether you have these for a while, but not too long. More importantly, and this is the real killer, you need Thorium cells for unlimited range, which is waaaay late in the tree. Imagine playing a game for hundreds of turns, with the outcome of the game hanging on whether that tech was available... well I did, and it wasn't.

The result: a draw game. I couldn't win, even though I had the most pop at the end, because the senate goes away as soon as there are fewer than 2/3 of the planets settled. If I left them settled, of course, then I didn't have enough pop to be in the running. The only option was sterilization... but even in a small map, the furthest colony away will usually be more than range 13 (second best range tech + extended fuel cells). So, I couldn't wipe out that last planet, either.

Moral of the story, don't try this at home. It's possible, but any victory would almost automatically have to be a fairly contrived one, with likely a substantial number of map rerolls and re-attempts when critical techs are missing. I'll have to figure out a different variant to try next.

[Sirian]

You tried to play OPE by the standard rules and failed. I think you analysis sounds spot on. You'd be dependent on certain techs, which is not a valid recipe for scenarios in MOO. To the best of my knowledge, there are no tools to edit available techs in one's tech tree. If there were, maybe we could craft these kinds of situations.

However, there's no reason we must chain ourselves to the game's victory conditions. We could craft our own measurements and thus open the way to all manner of variants. I have plenty of ideas buzzing around in my head for possible scenarios, with and without scenario editing help. We need to reach and sustain critical mass on general participation first, though. That is, the purpose of variants is chiefly to extend the playable life of a game that would otherwise have grown stale and been discarded. Until reaching a point of exhausting the native options, the need for variants is not high. In fact, turning to variant land too soon could be a mistake, because again, we need to sustain critical mass and momentum to keep the venture alive, and that means bringing in fresh blood, newbie players, and crafting a welcoming environment for them.

I will do my best to balance the various interests to the good of the whole. Thanks for giving this a shot and reporting your results, though. Interesting stuff.


- Sirian

[Zed-F]

With respect to OCC, I guess my interpretation of that has always been fairly strict -- usually there is one restriction on number of cities/colonies, and no other variant rules or VCs. Doesn't mean we couldn't come up with some other setup, but for this game I wanted to adhere as closely as possible to what I perceive to be the essence of OCC. Certainly I can claim a moral victory as by the end of the game, no AI could have possibly won, and all I would have had to do was relax my restriction enough to form a disposable colony as a range extender for a couple turns (not even getting a significant amount of production out of it) and I would have won. I wouldn't have learned anything I didn't already know by doing so, however, so I simply retired the game instead. Interestingly enough, outposts from MOOII or MOOIII would have enabled a win here (and much sooner, I might add.) Additionally, it's theoretically possible I could have defeated the Guardian and looted Thorium fuel cells from Orion. Again, it wouldn't have proven anything.

While we don't strictly speaking need variants yet, there will be Imperia where we have players with a variety of experience levels, some of whom won't find an Imperium set at a lower difficulty level challenging. The first Imperium is a good example. I know that in past Civ3 Epics, oftentimes experienced players will set additional restrictions for themselves in relatively straghtforward epics that are aimed at less experienced players. Are you suggesting that we should hold off on such practices for the first game or two here, or are you referring more to the base level of challenge we set for Imperia? I was not trying to imply that we should set up variant Imperia just yet. However, some elements of the community might find reports of individual variant games to be instructive/entertaining.

[Sirian]

While we don't strictly speaking need variants yet, there will be Imperia where we have players with a variety of experience levels, some of whom won't find an Imperium set at a lower difficulty level challenging. The first Imperium is a good example.

Are you sure? You haven't seen it yet.

You're probably right. The ratio of defense bases that the AI builds on Average is simply too lowto challenge those who win most of their games on Impossible. Militarily, you might lose battles but be sure to win the war, at worst. On the other hand, diplomatically, until you control a third of galactic population, it's theoretically possible to tick off your rivals all at once and lose the game. That danger might increase if you hold contempt for them and fail to take them seriously.

I will leave it up to you. I want you to have a good time. However, at least for the first few games, it might be useful to new players to have straight-up examples from experienced players with which to compare. Once I have a feel for who's on board and how they're each doing, I can determine whether I should herd everybody together or create two tiers to support everyone's needs.

I put a Deity game at Epic Four. It would be a safe bet to count on an Impossible game by Imperium Five if not sooner, even if only a few decide to play it. Folks will want to participate, but I also expect a fair interest in watching the vets have at it unfettered. Epic Four was a memorable event both for participants :war: and spectators. :wub:


- Sirian

[Kylearan]

It would be a safe bet to count on an Impossible game by Imperium Five if not sooner, even if only a few decide to play it. Folks will want to participate, but I also expect a fair interest in watching the vets have at it unfettered. Epic Four was a memorable event both for participants and spectators.

I agree that the first game(s) should not be too hard because we have several people just learning the game, and I hope there will be some vets who play nevertheless, and in a "normal" fashion, because it is better for learning if you can compare one of your first attempts at MoO to a normal game from a vet instead to a variant one. But regarding early Deity Epics and Impossible Imperia, don't underestimate the number of players who are not yet ready to beat such a diff but are willing to try to learn from their mistakes. I just happened to go through the result pages from the Epics recently, to count how may I had played, and noticed some early difficult ones with more losses and retired games reported than actual victories. And yet, those players who lost didn't complain but seemed to have had a good time anyway and seemed to have learned a lot, if I remember correctly.

-Kylearan

[Zed-F]

On the other hand, diplomatically, until you control a third of galactic population, it's theoretically possible to tick off your rivals all at once and lose the game.

If I tick off all my rivals and lose a vote, that doesn't mean I lose the game, it just means final war. On average difficulty, that might not change much.

I'll concede that for comparison purposes, it would probably be more useful for other players if I played at least the first couple-few Imperia straight up. That of course assumes that the lack of challenge doesn't result in sloppy play, but I hope that won't be an issue. However, in and of itself, the need for good results to compare against in an Imperium doesn't recommend against playing and reporting on solo variant games. So, if I feel the desire to pursue a variant, for now that's what I'll do.

[Ozymandous]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no tools to edit available techs in one's tech tree. If there were, maybe we could craft these kinds of situations.

There is an editor on JonSullivan's site called 'oreo'. It doesn't allow you to change the tech's that are available in the tree but you can select specific tech's to give them to people. That's about the best I have seen.

This editor is the easiest to edit the whole game at once, if you haven't seen it yet, give it a try.

[Kylearan]

The need for good results to compare against in an Imperium doesn't recommend against playing and reporting on solo variant games.

Yes! That's the spirit! :D

-Kylearan

[barron of ideas]

Would it be possible/desireable for an epic to start after the intial exploration, with the first colony set up? Or at some other point with some of the initial scut/scout work done, so all the players start off more equally viable. Based on some of Sirian's reports, there is a lot of work done in the first ten turns or so that make a big difference later on.

If I start badly, my results will not be very comparable, or useful to others, except as a dreadful warning. A common start with two planets pretty much up and running and a little exporation done will "level the playing field" for the less experienced/competent, such as me. It's not that I mind losing, I have a lot of experience doing that with the Psilons at Average, medium sized galaxy, 4 players. I know there are issues I am not dealing with properly, like not getting new ships designed at the right time and built when I need them. But if my start is much poorer than other players, I just fall further and further behind and then get eliminated before the real game really starts. To make strategic decisions you need to have options. If you have the losing music playiing (figuratively) a dozen turns into the game there are no real options.

Maybe the challenge to start well is the whole point of a competition, on the other hand, the first dozen turns shouldn't be very different for good players, but spoil the lesser one's chance to experience the entire game, losing 50 or 100 turns into the game is not the best way to learn what to do.

[Zed-F]

Would it be possible/desireable for an epic to start after the intial exploration, with the first colony set up? Or at some other point with some of the initial scut/scout work done, so all the players start off more equally viable. Based on some of Sirian's reports, there is a lot of work done in the first ten turns or so that make a big difference later on.

I think you might learn more if you play your own start out. You'll then have the opportunity not just to compare your opening moves to those of others on your own, but also to solicit advice for how to improve from more experienced players, who may spot things your own analysis misses. If you start from an advanced start, you'll miss out on your best opportunity to improve your early game.

A large part of the tournament is to compare your game with others, and learn from what they did right or wrong, just as others may learn from your game. Which person wins the competition is at most a secondary consideration. If you're concerned about how your early expansion game will fare, then let's expose it to examination!