non-tedious max score game

[geofelt]

I like to play against the AI vs humans because it is fast. One measure of success is the max score, but to do this well is extremely tedious. To fix this, I propose a game with some restrictions that might be fun and different to play:

1) Minimum sized map(25x40) to limit the amount of work to do.
2) No food caravans for the purpose of building population; use for wonders is ok.
3) No terraforming. Conversion of swamps and jungles by mining or irrigation is ok.
4) No airbases may be built. The terrain will have lots of hills and mountains which would benefit, but let's save the effort.
----------------------
If anyone is interested in trying a comparison game, I'll start one, and send them the b-4000.sav file. A better way would be a scenario to allow different levels, but I don't know how to do that.
I can do an OCC game in an evening, and I expect a mini-max game to only take two.

[Ming]

Interesting concept geofelt!
But I do think it will only work in a comparison game. Playing it with random maps will just be a contest of who can get the best world... ie, best land mass for building most cities, and best terrain for population growth.

[DaveV]

geofelt - I think you're underestimating the amount of micromanagement required. Max score = max population, so you will have to build cities that have access to every possible food square (including building on the poles to use the tundra and ocean squares). You'll want as many happy citizens as possible, so lots of small cities with max luxuries and Cure for Cancer is the answer. Better to have 5 size 2 cities with 10 happies than 1 size 10 with 6 happies. Of course, you'll need lots of trade routes, supermarkets, superhighways, harbors, ...

**shudder**
[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited May 15, 2000).]

[Ming]

Yes DaveV, any game where the intent is to max the score will require far more micro management and slow turns than I'd want to play right now

GO MP!

[geofelt]

I see some art in finding a marginal,but workable location for a city. In a 25x40 map, there will not be enough space for very many cities. In addition, there will be lots of mountains, a challenge in itself.
If it is true, that an ICS approach with many small cities is more effective, then perhaps there is some rule that would avoid such tedium. Would a cap of 30% luxuries at the end(or some other number) change the ICS advantage if there is one?
If anyone is interested, I would like to start a game with agreed rules, and send the b4000.sav file and see how it goes.

[Campo]

Perhaps you should consider limiting the number of cities. There would still be a lot of micromanagement but if it's only, say, 20 cities it would be faster than an unlimited number.

Or maybe you could limit the number of your own built cities to 5 or 10, plus allow whatever AI cities you conquer.

[Cato]

I, for one, would be interested in such a comparison game (sans logs). I also propose limiting reloads to only auto and auto2 files (or is that the norm?).

Set it up and lets play