4000 BC: The Great Lighthouse has been built in a far away land!

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6712/greatlighthouse.jpg

Now why on earth would you do that?! :eek: Hmm, methinks this must be an islands map heavy on coast. Why else would you disable that wonder?

By the way, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that decision. :huh: Sure the Great Lighthouse is powerful on coastal maps, but a lot of other wonders are quite powerful too. Have the Pyramids and the Great Library been disabled because we have a Philosophical team, for instance? Is the Colossus still available? How much more has been altered?

I sure hope we won't find any other major game elements have been disabled down the track. If a team were to research a tech (e.g. Masonry, Literature or Metal Casting) only to find that the wonder had been disabled when they reached it, they might be rather... irate. ;) Quite a lot of the strategy in the game involves planning out what wonders you want to get. One of the options we were considering was racing for the Great Lighthouse... I'm sure many other teams were too. I guess we can all throw that out the window now.

Is there anything else should we all know before we continue planning our strategy in this game?

Now why on earth would you do that?! :eek:

Because the vote gave the mapmaker free reign

"Mapmaking" didn't also involve placing wonders and altering the core gameplay last time I checked... to me that falls under the category of "modding". But whatever.

I would have been slightly less irritated if this had been announced at the same time the map was released. Either way, I'd like to push for any other "surprises" regarding the core game mechanics (if there are any) to be released now, so we don't go and plan out a strategy only to find that another wonder we were going for has been disabled, or something. It's fair enough considering we were all expecting to play an unmodded, regular civ game.

By the way, I just checked in-game, and not only is there no announcement in the event log of the Great Lighthouse having been built, but the wonder is also still visible in the technology tree under "Sailing". So if this announcement hadn't been made, teams would never have known until they researched the techs and suddenly found they couldn't build the wonder. Thus we would also have no way of knowing if any other wonders were disabled. So we need to know now, I think, the answer to the question of whether anything else has been altered with the core game. Otherwise it's unfair to teams who - for example - research Metal Casting and suddenly find they can't build the Colossus.

So if this announcement hadn't been made, teams would never have known until they researched the techs and suddenly found they couldn't build the wonder.

Which is why, I assume, that this announcement was made. So we'd know. So long as we all know, then it's an even playing field and I don't have any problem with that. Now if, as you say, that we will be finding out about more of this kind of thing at random times then it might not be fair (not to mention it would also be somewhat like random events), but I doubt that is what is planned.

No, there are no more barbarian surprises.

Unless you count them missing Archery, but that's not a surprise to anyone familiar with WorldBuilderSave's.

Edit: hmmm no more surprises OK! BUT we did sign up for a land based map and taking great lighthouse out of the game makes me wonder what kind of a map this is.

"Mapmaking" didn't also involve placing wonders and altering the core gameplay last time I checked... to me that falls under the category of "modding". But whatever.

I would have been slightly less irritated if this had been announced at the same time the map was released.

I wouldn't consider it "modding" as such, but you can't seriously tell me that the annoucement being made now instead of two days ago has made an iota of difference to any teams planning.

On a side note i've played against Dave a few times and he is a fantastic player who know all the ins and outs of the game mechanics so i trust he had a very good reason for doing this. And i'm sure there is enough clever people out there to work out what this move says about the map we are playing on

Edit: hmmm no more surprises OK! BUT we did sign up for a land based map and taking great lighthouse out of the game makes me wonder what kind of a map this is.

I believe the game vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359235) was for mapmakers choice who stated it would be a mystery map

I didn't realise this was a genuine feature of the map until everyone started complaining about it. I dislike it on principle, but I'm happy to trust the mapmaker and map checkers' decision on this for now.

I think the timing of the announcement is about right in the scheme of things. They surely couldn't tell us before we picked our leaders. At the start of turn 1 would have been better, but the end of turn 1 isn't so bad.

I believe the game vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359235) was for mapmakers choice who stated it would be a mystery map

2 teams voted for map maker's choice the other 4 gave specific conditions. I don't think this vote was for a complete mystery map!

In any case teams have to know whether the map is land based or sea based from before to avoid overpowering picks in certain conditions like the Vikings or the dutch on sea based maps!

Good to know.

2 teams voted for map maker's choice the other 4 gave specific conditions. I don't think this vote was for a complete mystery map!

In any case teams have to know whether the map is land based or sea based from before to avoid overpowering picks in certain conditions like the Vikings or the dutch on sea based maps!

Yet when DaveMcW posted this;

Based on these results, I will be designing a custom mystery map for the Demogame. I already have several ideas about what to do, thanks to great suggestions from several of the teams.

No one objected to Dave's conclusion from the vote.

Yet when DaveMcW posted this;



No one objected to Dave's conclusion from the vote.

where did he post this? It is certainly not in the official map poll thread.

where did he post this? It is certainly not in the official map poll thread.

In the very first post in the game settings- final results thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9045064&postcount=1)

Well I hope the mapmakers did not make something silly and half our tiles will be sea tiles, cause the game will be seriously screwed up.

What if where you are starting is all you have? :mischief:

What if where you are starting is all you have? :mischief:

And what if it isn't!

What if where you are starting is all you have? :mischief:

Then I would consider it a farse and spend no more time with this.

Ooh, bold...

I like it.

*Notices Indiansmoke*

Erm, I mean... I agree with our glorious King! :hide:

I didn't realise this was a genuine feature of the map until everyone started complaining about it. I dislike it on principle, but I'm happy to trust the mapmaker and map checkers' decision on this for now.

I think the timing of the announcement is about right in the scheme of things. They surely couldn't tell us before we picked our leaders. At the start of turn 1 would have been better, but the end of turn 1 isn't so bad.

I think the bolded portion is the problem, no one knew that this is the extent of what "giving mapmaker free reign" had meant. I'm alright with this since I am trained myself not to depend on Wonders and clearly this means we got an Islands map and it's possible to have every city be a costal city.

Considering that technology trading is enabled, anything which at least a little bit slows down the tech pace is very much welcome. I'd say :goodjob: for the mapmaker.

Can we get some trust in the mapmaker, please?

I know from experience that when this kind of criticism gets rolling, it can pretty much wreck a game before anyone's had a chance to find out if it's fun or not.

I would also suggest keeping speculation about the nature of the map within team forums, lest people give away more information than they realise...

Considering that technology trading is enabled, anything which at least a little bit slows down the tech pace is very much welcome. I'd say :goodjob: for the mapmaker.

I agree, the disqualification of the GL is great in another way as well, it adds a bit of flavour to the game. I don't see any problem with telling us now either.

So is it safe to assume the rest of the Wonders are in the game?

Considering that technology trading is enabled, anything which at least a little bit slows down the tech pace is very much welcome. I'd say :goodjob: for the mapmaker.


I completely agree. Techspeed will be very high in this game with techtrading enabled. anything that counters that seems like a fairly good idea to me. :)

Frankly, when I ask for Mapmaker's Choice, I want to be surprised. I want diabolical twists and turns so devilish:devil: and fiendish:satan: and delisciously game-changing that only a human could have come up with them... I don't want the human to just let the AI do it. To me that is AI choice, not Mapmaker's choice.

I honestly wouldn't care if a bunch of wonders were disabled, and DaveMCW revealed that fact at random times throughout the game. It is disabled for everyone, so it is fair. the fact that you wanted it is just your misfortune. Sort of like a random event that you can't "X" yourself out of.

:goodjob:DaveMCW... keep us on our toes, please keep doing stuff like this. This is exactly what I want. A game where it is impossible to fall back on old conventions. A game where it is difficult to "plan" out anything. Just like we are truly exploring a truly "new" world.

I honestly wouldn't care if a bunch of wonders were disabled, and DaveMCW revealed that fact at random times throughout the game. It is disabled for everyone, so it is fair. the fact that you wanted it is just your misfortune. Sort of like a random event that you can't "X" yourself out of.

:goodjob:DaveMCW... keep us on our toes, please keep doing stuff like this. This is exactly what I want. A game where it is impossible to fall back on old conventions. A game where it is difficult to "plan" out anything. Just like we are truly exploring a truly "new" world.
Sure, because researching an expensive tech only to find you can't build the wonder is fair and FUN! :rolleyes: While we're at it, why don't we secretly tweak the Stable to give +20 XP without telling anyone, so the first team to Horseback Riding gets a massive bonus. Or secretly tweak Longbowmen to 60 strength, so the first team to Feudalism suddenly discovers they can win any war.

Let's play Civ here, not some obscure mod that completely unbalances the game.

(Note: I'm responding to Sommer's silly extrapolation here, not DaveMcW and the original topic of this thread. I'm okay with the Great Lighthouse being disabled if that's the only mod to the gameplay, and everyone knows about it.)

the fact that you wanted it is just your misfortune. Sort of like a random event that you can't "X" yourself out of.

:goodjob:DaveMCW... keep us on our toes, please keep doing stuff like this. This is exactly what I want. A game where it is impossible to fall back on old conventions. A game where it is difficult to "plan" out anything. Just like we are truly exploring a truly "new" world.


Never said I wanted it and never said that this was a bad idea, just would have appreciated knowing this sort of thing was what Dave was thinking of. I appreciate that he told us NOW that GLH is gone, but LP does have a point in what else is going to throw us for a loop? Though I do trust that Dave is trying to keep the game balanced.

But it would be like building the Great Wall only to find out that Barbs had been turned off.

I agree with LP that such changes could be really annoying once we are deeper into the game. To destroy lots of turns of planning (and researching) on a wonder build, by just saying, pooof you can't build it would really let people lose interest quickly.

But as Dave already stated this will be the only surprise. And I think this one is a good one :thumbsup:

Never said I wanted it and never said that this was a bad idea, just would have appreciated knowing this sort of thing was what Dave was thinking of. I appreciate that he told us NOW that GLH is gone, but LP does have a point in what else is going to throw us for a loop? Though I do trust that Dave is trying to keep the game balanced.

But it would be like building the Great Wall only to find out that Barbs had been turned off.

I wouldn't say that's the only reason, you also get the GSpy points which means an early GSpy which can mean easing off the research during the ancient age to rob from someone else.

What if where you are starting is all you have? :mischief:

That's impossible because there is an ice island with a great lighthouse out there as well :D

Never said I wanted it and never said that this was a bad idea, just would have appreciated knowing this sort of thing was what Dave was thinking of.

It wouldn't be a mystery map if he told us what he was thinking of;)

I'm not sure I quite approve of this, though at least it was before any team had actually committed themselves to the Great Lighthouse.

However even on a purely-sea map I still don't see the Lighthouse being overpowered; no more so than several other wonders, and this removes an element of racing for wonders from a lot of the teams. Specifically, this just made the Colossus even more important because now instead of that two-way race (hardly feasible for someone to beat everyone else to both, in general) it'll be a race for the Colossus. If the reason this was done was because of a water heavy map I don't see how giving the teams that extra information and setting them on the way towards the Colossus helps that much.

That said, I'm more than happy to play on - mostly I'd be more concerned if I was on the Dutch or especially Vikings who may have been planning from the selection of their civ for such a wonder. But I think we can all live with it/adapt and if nothing more like this "surprises" us dozens of turns in or something that's ok.

In the end, if DaveMcW thinks removing TGL from the map will balance it better, that's good enough for me.

We said he could do what he wanted, didn't we? AMAZON thinks they may know exactly how this map looks like, but we aint going to tell.

It wouldn't be a mystery map if he told us what he was thinking of;)

I would have been fine had he said "There may be a WW you won't be allowed to get" and left it at that. Honestly though I am not that upset over it so please don't think I am mad or complaining. Earthling does have a point that Colossus is more valuable though.

Not to mention the Viking UB gives a free trade route...

I would have been fine had he said "There may be a WW you won't be allowed to get" and left it at that. Honestly though I am not that upset over it so please don't think I am mad or complaining. Earthling does have a point that Colossus is more valuable though.

Not to mention the Viking UB gives a free trade route...

I believe you're getting trading post and cothon confused here.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/improvements/

I think you mean the Carthaginian UB, Shard...

You can tell I don't play those two Civs often, corrrection noted but my point still stands. Actually now I think Dave took out GLH to keep Vikings from being overpowering since their UB is the Lighthouse.

You can tell I don't play those two Civs often, corrrection noted but my point still stands. Actually now I think Dave took out GLH to keep Vikings from being overpowering since their UB is the Lighthouse.

Yep, that's the reason.

Now, let us stop trying to analyse it in public and scamper back to our private forums and relentlessly analyse it til the cows come home. :hide:

I encourage everyone to keep analyzing (and complaining about it) in public.:p

So now it's a race to Colossus you say?:)

Fine then.

It's actually a clever counter-ploy by Dave to make us think the GL would be OP on this map, but actually it's all a trick. The real important wonder will be Chicken Pizza (aka Chichen Itza)

Or it's all a trick, and the Great Lighthouse is really still enabled, but Dave's trying to deter us from heading there too soon. Who's going to research Sailing and Masonry first to find out? ;)

Fine then.

It's actually a clever counter-ploy by Dave to make us think the GL would be OP on this map, but actually it's all a trick. The real important wonder will be Chicken Pizza (aka Chichen Itza)

Because he's going to continually insert barbarian units right outside our cities with world builder, and we'll need every defence point we can get! :lol:

I'm disapointed that the lighthouse is gone, because I really wanted to go after it, but I'm excited to see what the map conditions are that justify it. In fact I think the map will look like...[contents reserved for the Sirius Team Forum]... oh and lots of bears.

Or it's all a trick, and the Great Lighthouse is really still enabled, but Dave's trying to deter us from heading there too soon. Who's going to research Sailing and Masonry first to find out? ;)

You know it could be an April Fools joke lol.

Exactly:lol:

We cant get the GLH because the big fire at the top would scare away the bears for miles and miles.

Something off topic......Azzaman's avatar freaks me out!

:agree:

Maybe we should have replace GLH with a wonder called "azzaman's avatar"... that will really scare the bears away:eek:

His avatar is weird. NVM

Stay on topic, please.

Well I do have to say that I'm not totally agreeing with the discision. It would have been a good race to see who could build it first.

I feel compelled to agree with the case as it has been presented by Lord Parkin, with no disrespect to others who are working diligently towards our common goal: a fun game.

This disagreement is caused by poor definitions. "Mapmaker given freedom" to me doesn't mean that the map maker can edit anything but the map. To others it seems that his powers are more liberal. This is a clarification that needs to be made in future games.

It seems reasonable to me that a map maker should not be able to alter anything but the map. He is the map maker. In my mind this does not give the person free rain to use all the tools within the world builder utility. Someone could argue that a map builder has free rain to build an entire world with all the tools (visibility, cities already settled, techs already researched, units already in play, etc.) I would make a distinction between someone who creates a map for us to play the game on, and someone who builds a scenario for us to play in.

If I would have logged in to find myself with all techs to the Modern Age discovered and a complete civilization of cities to rule I don't believe that any of us would disagree that the map maker had done more than "make a map." The line between making a map and providing a scenario needs definition; I don't think anyone wanted a scenario. For future reference I suggest that as soon as a map maker uses a tool besides the terrain tool, or the tool to place anything but the default starting units, then he is creating a scenario.

To emphasize: I'm not saying anyone is at fault here, I am saying this should have been better defined. I appreciate the work that the map maker has done! Live and learn.

I put my trust in the statement that there are no more deviations. Whats done is done this time. So I suppose the King of Team Merlot will be charging a modest admission for tourists to see our Colosus? ;)

Cheers :)

I agree with ash88, that was all I wanted really.

However, not only is he a mapmaker but also he is an admin which gives him the right to make these decisions.

I for one don't care whether it's technically part of his mandate or not. Stepping outside the box a little bit and applying good judgement is called showing initiative, which is usually considered a good thing. We're running a game not a law firm here.

We're running a game not a law firm here.
:clap:

Really, at this point it is what it is. Time to go back to your team forums and decide what changes in your strategy are needed, if any.

I hope no one is getting their britches in a bunch, afterall I don't think anyone is calling foul here. People have come forward and seem disappointed. I can understand their point. I can also see the point of the people that put absolute power in the map maker (whoever he is). The only thing that is needed to make everyone happy in the next game is communication. No?

However, not only is he a mapmaker but also he is an admin which gives him the right to make these decisions.

Let's not confuse the issue about the role of the game admin and the mapmaker. I believe that the changes were made while creating the map, and not as the game admin. I'm not aware of a game admin who takes it upon himself to make a barbo city and put a wonder in it for no particular reason. If it was a game admin decision and this was part of the designed scenario from the begining it could have easily been advertised as such - from the begining. This seems to be an issue of balance tied with the map, not an issue of maintaining the administrative function of the game. Just because someone wears more than one hat doesn't mean we need to confuse the point.

I for one don't care whether it's technically part of his mandate or not. Stepping outside the box a little bit and applying good judgement is called showing initiative, which is usually considered a good thing. We're running a game not a law firm here.

We all know that the difference between "showing initative" and "being disruptive" is in the result. Although we have all heard your point before the fact is that some people here seem disappointed. That disappointment could have easily been avoided by many things, like a simple poll before the game started for example, "Can the Map Maker change more than the terrain? Yes/No" If the answer was "No" and removing the GLH was needed to balance the map perhaps this wasn't a great map in that situation.

Again - this is all discussion for how to handle this in the future I think. I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the current mapmaker at this point. In fact people regard him highly.

imho.

Somehow, I find the uproar over this a little silly. Dave doesn't want the advantage skewed one way, and he was given the right to choose how to set the map up.

Haven't some of you realized that map layout can cause a FAR GREATER impact on the game than any single wonder, even that one? What if Dave hands only one civ marble/stone? What if one side is given bfc metal and a close spawn to someone else? Every single decision about the map has influence on the potential for traits and civs to influence the outcome of the game. And yet for one singular decision that if we guess the reasoning is not even the biggest deciding factor on the map, we're hitting multiple thread pages.

Someone who picked IND or ORG can whine over this all they like, but keep in mind that a water map puts others at a disadvantage too, if it is a water map. More importantly, if this wonder is so strong based on his decisions that it gives one side a controlling advantage, it makes sense to curtail the game being decided or largely decided in the 1000's BC.

The map, as a controlled setting, is different from random generations, and therefore we are expected to adapt...and the complaint is over a WONDER, one which we're informed from turn 0 that we can't attain?

I for one don't care whether it's technically part of his mandate or not. Stepping outside the box a little bit and applying good judgement is called showing initiative, which is usually considered a good thing. We're running a game not a law firm here. Amen :please:

I mean honestly... The Great Lighthouse? :dubious: The Lighthouse?!?:confused: I recently joined a pitboss mid-game and am playing right now with 16 players... Some of whom have teched things like Music and Paper...Music!, and there was no GLH Built. I started building it as a way to amass some quick cash, because I was sure that I would miss out on it... I had to build a lighthouse first... and I still got it:confused: No chopping, no micro to max :hammers:... I just got it... the point? Nobody cares about the GLH... I'm surprised anyone even responded to this news TBH.:p

I mean you're talking about... The Lighthouse?!?... The Playoffs?!? Don't talk about... The Lighthouse?!? Are you serious? You gotta be kidding me...The Playoffs?!?... The Lighthouse?!?:confused:

^Um... I think I get your point, but I'm not sure, could you explain more.

It's the same point I was essentially making...I don't possibly see the logic that made it necessary to remove the Great Lighthouse because the Great Lighthouse alone is overpowered. IMHO, it's not the most overpowered wonder - and if the map is heavily water skewed, then both other water-related advantages, and especially the Colossus, would probably need such "balancing" just as much. And specifically - and keep in mind I'm not on the Vikings team, and we've even got wonderful Cothons anyway over here with the Q - but I really see this as a strong nerf against the Vikings too, and am concerned over the fairness of that.

Edit: as far as the mapmaker/admin thing - I'll say again I'm not too upset over this now and will go on just fine, and this really could have been fine too. But announcing it earlier may have helped - again, given my preferences on game settings I was longing for something less totally dull... and if announced in advance I would have been fine with the mapmaker having free reign to add in "hero barbarians" and other worldbuilder stuff in general. But I can also see how many other teams/players would not have expected such - though I too trust Dave made a decent call so we'll just let it run its course, probably this just being announced at the time it was is the only real concern.

Super bonus points to any team that can figure a way to capture the barb city.

Some possible ideas?
Massive culture bombing?
Can enough nukes melt the enclosing ice caps?
Opening and closing nearby borders to teleport a transport?
Paratroopers?

Irgy, Sommerswerd, TMIT, relax.

No one cares THAT much about the Wonder, in fact it's not really about the wonder, not to me anyways. It's about the level of modding to the map that I wasn't mad aware that the Mapmaker was going to do. I have no problem playing without the GLH. I don't think there really is anyone here that is that upset that they can't build the thing either.

Also Sommerswerd I tech Music ALL the time.

I love this. This adds so much excitement and intrigue. It's not like he told us the GL was disabled after a team had already teched for it.

At the end of the day the map maker knows more about map than anyone else and is in best position to know if the game would play better without a certain feature.

I could understand this thread if this had been announced after a few turns had been played but seriously... turn 0...

Its a lot of whining about nothing.

Underestimating the GLH on a map where you can get 2-3 commerce trade routes on each of the bonus routes is a grave error. Not only is it a strong wonder, but on a map where you get it without getting killed or boxed in with those conditions, it is easily the strongest wonder in the game, well above pyramids, oracle, or great library. At least several players from every team understand this. Now, whether Dave is doing this for balance purposes or as a comical prank, either way I don't see how it oversteps his bounds. If you remove the map-maker's ability to mod the map in this fashion, you might as well pull his ability to change terrain at all...the latter is far higher-impact.

No, there are no more barbarian surprises.

Well I am sure glad to hear that. Though I would have appreciated it if these warnings were ahead of time, so I wouldn't have to throw my other plans out the window now.

Plans are hard to have when you get a majority vote on a custom mystery map :/.

Somehow, I find the uproar over this a little silly. Dave doesn't want the advantage skewed one way, and he was given the right to choose how to set the map up.

Haven't some of you realized that map layout can cause a FAR GREATER impact on the game than any single wonder, even that one? What if Dave hands only one civ marble/stone? What if one side is given bfc metal and a close spawn to someone else? Every single decision about the map has influence on the potential for traits and civs to influence the outcome of the game. And yet for one singular decision that if we guess the reasoning is not even the biggest deciding factor on the map, we're hitting multiple thread pages.

Someone who picked IND or ORG can whine over this all they like, but keep in mind that a water map puts others at a disadvantage too, if it is a water map. More importantly, if this wonder is so strong based on his decisions that it gives one side a controlling advantage, it makes sense to curtail the game being decided or largely decided in the 1000's BC.

The map, as a controlled setting, is different from random generations, and therefore we are expected to adapt...and the complaint is over a WONDER, one which we're informed from turn 0 that we can't attain?

There are 2 things that need to be made clear.

First is the taking the great lighthouse out of the game. This is of no specific importance as it is for all and infact it is a good decision to make on water maps.

Second and in my opinion the real issue, is that the map was made sea based (as the great lighhouse ban indicates), without telling teams before they pick civs that the map will be seabased.

As a result, and if the map is infact seabased, Sirious who picked Dutch, have a BIG advandage due to their unique building. CDZ who picked Vikings also have a BIG advantage due to their extra move navy and their amphibious maces. If they win circumnavigation as well that will be 2 extra move navy, in effect impossible for anyone to protect multiple coastal cities.

These are facts!

As an example I only mention that CDZ in their internal pitboss game, chose to use No city razing option, because they recognize the fact that it is imposibble to protect multiple coastal cities from naval rushes...never mind defending from units that have 2 move advantage!

So if this was to be a sea based map the teams should have known before they pick!

Now since this is a diplo game, diplomacy will determine alot, true, but I don't see the point of getting a BIG advantage from the getoff, just because the mapmaker does not realize the implications of what he is doing.

However, alll this is theory, that I felt needed to be clarified so that everyone is clear on what the argument is and people don't say it is silly whinning.....actually I have faith that Dave has thought of all this when he made the map and that we are trully in for a nice unique map design and an enjoyable roughly balanced game.

To be fair the polls were showing a leaning toward Archipelago/Islands. If Dave really wanted to take the Sea based civs advantage away he should have made the map Pangaea type map or no water at all.

I think no one has seen has seen enough of the map to really know what it will be like, and since its hand made it could really be anything

...
So if this was to be a sea based map the teams should have known before they pick!


To be honest, I think you're actually the only person making this point so far. I'm not trying to lessen your point by saying that, it's still at least as valid as anything anyone else has said. But I don't think people are missing the point when they're not discussing it, they're just responding to other people's posts.

Personally I don't agree with this philosophically, but I'll admit it's partly a matter of opinon. I'll explain my view though. Choosing a sea-based leader is a risk, just as choosing an early game rush leader is a risk, and choosing a resource-dependent UU is a risk. To me, that's exactly why it was important that we pick the leaders before we knew what sort of map we were playing. Of course it's then also highly preferable that the map was decided without knowledge (or at least without accounting for) of the chosen leaders, but I'll put faith in the admins on that one.

Of course some people don't like those risks, and try to remove them as much as possible. That's presumably your point of view and it's valid. Personally, I prefer random leaders, random maps, random starts, put all the random elements in a bucket and hopefully on average they cancel each other out. To me, removing one just makes the others more visible, without making things a great deal fairer on the whole. In a game that will go for so long and involve so many people though removing as many random elements as possible is more justified.

Finally, just to be clear, I'm simply discussing the issue philosophically here. I think it's an interesting issue, but I'm not really trying to acheive anything here.

There are 2 things that need to be made clear.

First is the taking the great lighthouse out of the game. This is of no specific importance as it is for all and infact it is a good decision to make on water maps.

Second and in my opinion the real issue, is that the map was made sea based (as the great lighhouse ban indicates), without telling teams before they pick civs that the map will be seabased.

As a result, and if the map is infact seabased, Sirious who picked Dutch, have a BIG advandage due to their unique building. CDZ who picked Vikings also have a BIG advantage due to their extra move navy and their amphibious maces. If they win circumnavigation as well that will be 2 extra move navy, in effect impossible for anyone to protect multiple coastal cities.

These are facts!

As an example I only mention that CDZ in their internal pitboss game, chose to use No city razing option, because they recognize the fact that it is imposibble to protect multiple coastal cities from naval rushes...never mind defending from units that have 2 move advantage!

So if this was to be a sea based map the teams should have known before they pick!


And if it was a land based map should we complain about that as well? As Robi said, nobody knows what the map looks like just yet, in all likelyhood there will be a lot of land so there is not really a problem there

Now with regard to the internal game, which was started ages ago, this No city razing option was only picked as something different to try, not due to any recognition of anything at all. We've played games where it has been allowed, generally the only constant has been no tech trading so i'm not sure of the relevance of that point.

There are 2 things that need to be made clear.

First is the taking the great lighthouse out of the game. This is of no specific importance as it is for all and infact it is a good decision to make on water maps.

Second and in my opinion the real issue, is that the map was made sea based (as the great lighhouse ban indicates), without telling teams before they pick civs that the map will be seabased.

As a result, and if the map is infact seabased, Sirious who picked Dutch, have a BIG advandage due to their unique building. CDZ who picked Vikings also have a BIG advantage due to their extra move navy and their amphibious maces. If they win circumnavigation as well that will be 2 extra move navy, in effect impossible for anyone to protect multiple coastal cities.

These are facts!

As an example I only mention that CDZ in their internal pitboss game, chose to use No city razing option, because they recognize the fact that it is imposibble to protect multiple coastal cities from naval rushes...never mind defending from units that have 2 move advantage!

So if this was to be a sea based map the teams should have known before they pick!

Now since this is a diplo game, diplomacy will determine alot, true, but I don't see the point of getting a BIG advantage from the getoff, just because the mapmaker does not realize the implications of what he is doing.

However, alll this is theory, that I felt needed to be clarified so that everyone is clear on what the argument is and people don't say it is silly whinning.....actually I have faith that Dave has thought of all this when he made the map and that we are trully in for a nice unique map design and an enjoyable roughly balanced game.

I am in heavy agreement with this ----> designing a map such that some teams score a HEAVY advantage based on leader choice is a bad move for a map maker trying to create a balanced MP game. Perhaps this, too, was taken into account, but the GLH move itself is not the big deal. I'll withhold any judgment until we are actually deep enough into the game to determine what's really going on with the map. I have a good bit of trust in the map creator's skills, and that will not change until I've been given cause to change it.

* please delete *

So if this was to be a sea based map the teams should have known before they pick!


But why? We all were not knowing what to expect.

I know, your team has voted for something different, but it was decided to just let the map maker decide.

You should have proposed an amendment to the ruleset, which states, that the map maker might make a surprise map, but please tell all the details before.

BTW, I don't know whether it really is necessary to take the Great Lighthouse out of the game, but I trust the map maker on this one.

nevermind

Now with regard to the internal game, which was started ages ago, this No city razing option was only picked as something different to try, not due to any recognition of anything at all. We've played games where it has been allowed, generally the only constant has been no tech trading so i'm not sure of the relevance of that point.

just for the record....this is from the original cut more crap pitboss thread.

barbu197728-09-2009, 17:30
Map maker reporting.

- With Indiansmoke, we are now 15, 16 will be maximum number for the map I have in mind.

- I think Espionage is good. And will remain on. If you don't like it, don't use it but others may take advantage of it.

- City razing is off, mainly to prevent late game coastal city razing without real chance for retaliation.

- We will not use BUFFY. The KISS principle applies here (keep it simple, stupid)

- 2 settlers does speed up things alot.

Matrix29-09-2009, 14:28
I myself am away from thursday till wednesday, but in the weekend I'll probably have internet and Civ4 available.

I'm not afraid of the settler-spawning-bad-city-placements-tactic, because that definitely won't help towards your victory. You're just screwing it up for yourself and possibly your opponent.

I think what makes the biggest difference is the presence of water. If we're playing on an archipelago map, city razing is a must IMO. On a pangaea map I agree city razing has more advantages than disadvantages.

I sense a poll is coming up... [rolleyes]


Matrix30-09-2009, 02:22
I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

Azza30-09-2009, 09:20
I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

I think that's definitely the most important reason for having a rule against city razing.

There *is* a way to defend amphibious city razing, by the way. Everyone's pretty creative, so I'm sure you can come up with it.

And if you can't, then for once in our lifetime we can use a civ IV game tip: on water maps, powerful navies are not optional.

Answer: use your own amphibious raid or sink ships. It might be true that you can't garrison and actually defend all of the coastal cities, but if it's come to that you screwed up and deserved the damage. Someone in those games won, correct? It was decided by each team's actions, right?

I am very much against arbitrary bans of actions that are allowed in the game outright. Amphibious attacks are heavily penalized in most cases, and yet remain one of the FEW ways in the entire game where the game isn't heavily biased against a human attacker in a 1 on 1. No walls far less concern over collateral initiative (but not none!), high priority on heavy scouting.

If amphibious raze is banned we might as well start banning more wonders, ban state property, ban bureaucracy, ban elephants, ban catapults. Why not?

There *is* a way to defend amphibious city razing, by the way. Everyone's pretty creative, so I'm sure you can come up with it.

And if you can't, then for once in our lifetime we can use a civ IV game tip: on water maps, powerful navies are not optional.

Answer: use your own amphibious raid or sink ships. It might be true that you can't garrison and actually defend all of the coastal cities, but if it's come to that you screwed up and deserved the damage. Someone in those games won, correct? It was decided by each team's actions, right?

I am very much against arbitrary bans of actions that are allowed in the game outright. Amphibious attacks are heavily penalized in most cases, and yet remain one of the FEW ways in the entire game where the game isn't heavily biased against a human attacker in a 1 on 1. No walls far less concern over collateral initiative (but not none!), high priority on heavy scouting.

If amphibious raze is banned we might as well start banning more wonders, ban state property, ban bureaucracy, ban elephants, ban catapults. Why not?

Nobody said to ban anything!

The point was that Vikings have an advantage in sea based maps, because amphibious attacks are so hard to defend anyway, let alone when the opponent has 2 move or even 3 move advantage navy.

Tip: A navigation2 galleon with circumnavigation is 7 move unit. In 2 turns (move last attack first) that is 14 tiles...you have lost all your coastal cities before you know anything is comming!

just for the record....this is from the original cut more crap pitboss thread.

Right but I'm pretty sure we also came up with some other rules for previous pitboss based on non events. At one point we had always war because of the issues with diplomacy but we scrapped idea when it became uninteresting as I am sure no city razing may be scrapped for the next game.

With regards to the 'advantage' the Vikings get, surely this is just an advantage which we have in one area. What about the other teams who have advantages in other areas which are just as potent? Darius for instance with his cheap courthouses and factories. The advantage was only gained for a disadvantage in other areas, the trading post/raider are not much use for empire maintenance for instance and i do think this 'advantage' discussion needs to keep that in mind.

Right but I'm pretty sure we also came up with some other rules for previous pitboss based on non events. At one point we had always war because of the issues with diplomacy but we scrapped idea when it became uninteresting as I am sure no city razing may be scrapped for the next game.

With regards to the 'advantage' the Vikings get, surely this is just an advantage which we have in one area. What about the other teams who have advantages in other areas which are just as potent? Darius for instance with his cheap courthouses and factories. The advantage was only gained for a disadvantage in other areas, the trading post/raider are not much use for empire maintenance for instance and i do think this 'advantage' discussion needs to keep that in mind.


I don't have much else to say here, I think that my point that some details of the map should have been made public before we picked is clear, you might agree or disagree.

I recognize that this is partly my fault for assuming we were going to have a land based map.

Nobody said to ban anything!

The point was that Vikings have an advantage in sea based maps, because amphibious attacks are so hard to defend anyway, let alone when the opponent has 2 move or even 3 move advantage navy.

Tip: A navigation2 galleon with circumnavigation is 7 move unit. In 2 turns (move last attack first) that is 14 tiles...you have lost all your coastal cities before you know anything is comming!

I know this all too well. Even gamespy weak players can pull it off, and I've been on both ends of it.

The dutch are nearly as bad btw, since they have the ability to sink everything and blockade pre-chemistry, and dedicated astro pushes can come very soon. IF IF IF this map isn't balanced, those two civs will have a controlling factor for a fairly large window. Somehow I think we're overreacting a bit. There's plenty of time for identifying the map as unbalanced against the leaders after we play it ;).

But advantages or not, I'm definitely not in favor of banning anything but glitches and deliberate cheating (aka oracle for multiple techs, etc).

I don't have much else to say here, I think that my point that some details of the map should have been made public before we picked is clear, you might agree or disagree.

I recognize that this is partly my fault for assuming we were going to have a land based map.

I think that this map may yet have a few more twists so there is a reasonable chance that the shipping thing may not be an issue!

I am very much against arbitrary bans of actions that are allowed in the game outright.

And this is why people got upset over the GLH. As you also stated why not take out the other Wonders while were at it?

And this is why people got upset over the GLH. As you also stated why not take out the other Wonders while were at it?

The map was considered to be unbalanced with it. The map makers are in the best position to know, I'll trust them until we all "know" the map and we can nitpick and criticise specific details.

Wow this issue is still alive!

Maybe we need to get through the turns a bit quicker to give people something else to discuss;)

Seriously lets face it, how can we have a meaningful debate/discussion/analysis/whatever on the map, the mapmakers choices or what we should or shouldn't have been told before choosing civs or whatever else after 5 turns of the game and seeing 20-30 tiles of the map. All we are working with is assumptions based on very very limited information so any conclusion we may reach is about as useful as looking up at the sky to see what the weather will be like next week.

And this is why people got upset over the GLH. As you also stated why not take out the other Wonders while were at it?

Removing the GLH was (hopefully!) not arbitrary, but rather done to offset the map setup. Also note that players can not defy this ban ---> there's no rule against TRYING to take the city, or build GLH, or to do anything of that nature. Time will tell whether it was a good idea, but it is very different from restricting non timer-based player actions..

dw just race to paratroopers and drop on the barb city and capture that lighthouse!!

Yeah but by the time you get Paratroops you'll have obsoleted the GLH.

There *is* a way to defend amphibious city razing, by the way. Everyone's pretty creative, so I'm sure you can come up with it.

Yes, you do this by following the BLUE CIRCLE recomendations for settling your cities ONE TILE OFF THE COAST. We have the brainiac geniuses at Firaxis to thank for this super-smart city planner. I'm not sure how much they paid that brilliant coder for that, but I'm sure it was worth every penny.

Given how it seems the map turned out I for one am glad no team is the Lanun.

Don't see the issue going anywhere though as we all just have to wait and see and my opinion remains rather uneasy on what's going to happen with the Colossus.

Given how it seems the map turned out I for one am glad no team is the Lanun.
That would be rather overpowered, yeah. 3-5 food regular coast tiles with extra hammers and commerce... let alone the Heroes. :p

Yes, you do this by following the BLUE CIRCLE recomendations for settling your cities ONE TILE OFF THE COAST. We have the brainiac geniuses at Firaxis to thank for this super-smart city planner. I'm not sure how much they paid that brilliant coder for that, but I'm sure it was worth every penny.

And here I was thinking along the lines of razing their cities so they can't produce any ships :rolleyes:.

Strategies can largely be done back. I'm not 100% convinced that this is such an uber strategy that everyone is forced to abide by it.

dw just race to paratroopers and drop on the barb city and capture that lighthouse!!

:lol:. Too bad you'll obsolete it on your way there!

And here I was thinking along the lines of razing their cities so they can't produce any ships :rolleyes:.

Strategies can largely be done back. I'm not 100% convinced that this is such an uber strategy that everyone is forced to abide by it.



:lol:. Too bad you'll obsolete it on your way there!

Gift it to someone who hasn't obsoleted it.

Gotta think outside the box. [_] (this box is more of a cup, but you get the idea)

Gift it to someone who hasn't obsoleted it.

Wasn't this set as pure violation of the rules now? No city gifting with wonders in it.

Wasn't this set as pure violation of the rules now? No city gifting with wonders in it.

I dunno, to be honest I never bother to read the rules unless someone on another team does something I don't like.

Wasn't this set as pure violation of the rules now? No city gifting with wonders in it.

Not that i recall, but regardless good luck convincing a team to stay in the medieval for the entire game on the off chance you capture the GL so you can exploit its benefits

Not that i recall, but regardless good luck convincing a team to stay in the medieval for the entire game on the off chance you capture the GL so you can exploit its benefits

The obsoleting tech is corporation, so you can let them go renaissance :p. But the point stands. By then, the lost commerce from not having corporation might make people a little restless, assuming they're working with you in tech trade. I don't believe any team in this match would be anywhere near bad enough to be duped into such things.

People don't spend two years of effort to lose to arbitrary reasons. I'm sure players last game started off with the good intention to not whine about the arbitrary RNG streaks, we saw how that turned out.

Choosing a civ for a "mystery map" and finding out you're not viking/dutch on water map; and finding out two years later that, despite your good intention, viking/dutch are simply too overpowered, well...it doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

People don't spend two years of effort to lose to arbitrary reasons. I'm sure players last game started off with the good intention to not whine about the arbitrary RNG streaks, we saw how that turned out.

Choosing a civ for a "mystery map" and finding out you're not persian/indian/mayan/carthaginian on a land map; and finding out two years later that, despite your good intention, persian/indian/mayan/carthaginian are simply too overpowered, well...it doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

The obsoleting tech is corporation, so you can let them go renaissance :p.

Well thats makes it much more appealing, since you'd be a less backward subservient team;)

I don't believe any team in this match would be anywhere near bad enough to be duped into such things.

My 2:commerce: would be on Sirius:D

persian/indian/mayan/carthaginian and 20 impis/praets/jags/skirms/bowmen/dogs/WCs/keshiks/cataphracts win you land game I hear.

People don't spend two years of effort to lose to arbitrary reasons. I'm sure players last game started off with the good intention to not whine about the arbitrary RNG streaks, we saw how that turned out.

Choosing a civ for a "mystery map" and finding out you're not viking/dutch on water map; and finding out two years later that, despite your good intention, viking/dutch are simply too overpowered, well...it doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

So fun only equates to winning? No fun in playing the game, no fun participating in the team, no fun learning new ideas, nope none of that, just winning is what counts

So fun only equates to winning? No fun in playing the game, no fun participating in the team, no fun learning new ideas, nope none of that, just winning is what counts
+1

Team Saturn lost badly in the last game, partly due to a rather imbalanced starting location which we didn't realise until halfway through the game. Yet we still had a heap of fun along the way. :)

People don't spend two years of effort to lose to arbitrary reasons. I'm sure players last game started off with the good intention to not whine about the arbitrary RNG streaks, we saw how that turned out.

Choosing a civ for a "mystery map" and finding out you're not viking/dutch on water map; and finding out two years later that, despite your good intention, viking/dutch are simply too overpowered, well...it doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

Well around here it is kind of hard to explain these things :lol:

+1

Team Saturn lost badly in the last game, partly due to a rather imbalanced starting location which we didn't realise until halfway through the game. Yet we still had a heap of fun along the way. :)

Yea lots of fun, the activity dropped to a one person team pretty fast handling a tottaly hopeless civ by himself.

Yea lots of fun, the activity dropped to a one person team pretty fast handling a tottaly hopeless civ by himself.

Saturn was arguably one of two teams, along with Kaz, that wasn't being run by a single person at the end of the game.

So fun only equates to winning? No fun in playing the game, no fun participating in the team, no fun learning new ideas, nope none of that, just winning is what counts

All this fun, new ideas, participation etc etc can be had without having imbalanced maps/civs.

It is not about winning, but it should be about starting without disadvantage.

All this fun, new ideas, participation etc etc can be had without having imbalanced maps/civs.

It is not about winning, but it should be about starting without disadvantage.

There are precious few ways to guarantee that, other than things like mirror with identical civs/starts.

There are precious few ways to guarantee that, other than things like mirror with identical civs/starts.


Nobody said mirror, but when you ask 10 people that play multiplayer what civs are best on islands map guess what they will say!

Nobody said mirror, but when you ask 10 people that play multiplayer what civs are best on islands map guess what they will say!

Aggressive and Protective civs!

All this fun, new ideas, participation etc etc can be had without having imbalanced maps/civs.

It is not about winning, but it should be about starting without disadvantage.

How do you know there is an imbalance in the map/civs? Have you seen the whole map to know?

Nobody said mirror, but when you ask 10 people that play multiplayer what civs are best on islands map guess what they will say!

There is a difference between best and unbeatable

Aggressive and Protective civs!

Well, the Vikings *are* aggressive with restricted leaders...

There is a difference between best and unbeatable

The best will come out ahead given even skill most of the time, however. If this IS a water map, two civs do have an awfully mighty advantage...but of course it isn't unbeatable. Stranger things have happened than someone losing with vikings on a water map. I'm not betting on anybody losing based on suckage in MTDG though...

Aggressive and Protective civs!

Aggressive and protective are leaders not civs ;)

How do you know there is an imbalance in the map/civs? Have you seen the whole map to know?



There is a difference between best and unbeatable

Nothing is unbeatable, just has an advantage.

About the map no I have not seen, but I have seen the civs, alot of water so far and the great lighthouse banned...oh no I gave away that I have seen alot of water...dam, you propably are in the middle of a pangea yourselves wondering why theTGL was taken off :p

Maybe we should just save ourselves some time and play "CIV LITE."

The Rules
1. Both teams secretly pick a civ - one land based, one sea based.*
2. Roll a die. Odd means the "map" would have been sea based. Even means land based.
3. The sea based leader is immediately made the winner on a sea based map. The land based leader is immediately declared the winner on a land based map.

*The teams have 48 hours to make their choice - we run on a 48 hour turn timer because obviously there is a lot to consider before making your choice. 24 Hours isn't enough time because people need to discuss a lot of strategy before picking A or B.

Ta Da! Game over man, game over.

OR we could just know the map settings before we pick our leader. Sort of like how it is in the Staging Room when you play a multi-player game? So if someone wants to play in a sea based game where they remove the GLH, or they want to play in Erebus, or they want to create a modern scenario where we don't have the ability to make Settlers - good on them, we all knew beforehand.

These Turn Zero "Ace in my hand" advantage shanigans are a product of not running the game the way that it is written. Everyone sees the settings before the leader is chosen.

So just make a note for next time. No fault this time - we just shouldn't do it again!

;)

Honestly, Lets all just take a deep breath. It is what it is, and as many of you have stated its just a leason we have learned for next time. I for one will enjoy playing the game, and trust that things will work themselves out. So for any who are disappointed, I understand how you feel, but its for the better to let it go and enjoy the game, The map was made for a reason, and most likely we all have no idea what really lies outside of what we've all discovered already.

You know what? I voted for a Landbase map. I didn't care about the UU, all I wanted was Williem's traits and UB. I would not have cried foul had we ended up on a Pangea/Wheel/Donut map.

Just because we have a slight advantage doesn't make us invincible, same with the Vikings.

Choosing a civ for a "mystery map" and finding out you're not viking/dutch on water map; and finding out two years later that, despite your good intention, viking/dutch are simply too overpowered, well...it doesn't sound like much fun, does it?

One would have to be a beginner to not understand Willem & Ragnar are overpowered (all things being equal) on this map. So it goes without saying that the Map-Makers are well aware of this and left some penalties in place with these two civs.

If it turns out however, that this is not the case, then I would understand that complaint, and you'd have a right to do so.

I'm not going to complain until I finally see what the whole world looks like.

But I admit, had we known ahead of time, there would only be two leaders chosen this game. That should tell you something.

So it goes without saying that the Map-Makers are well aware of this and left some penalties in place with these two civs.


If this is the case, I would extremely annoyed at the mapmaker, more so than anything else that was done mistakenly, and I say so as not even being on either of those teams. If any team's start/lands/other settings were purposefully made worse that would be an awful decision. It's also specifically against the guidelines that were given to the mapmakers afaik - to fully complete the map with "potential starting locations" and then randomly place the six teams among the prepared starting locations.

Also, I disagree that the only leaders chosen if we'd known the map wouldn't be quite so "land-heavy" early on would be Willem and Ragnar. We could likely still see Pacal, Elizabeth, or Victoria as easily as those could have chosen in this game. But just because not everyone made the "beginner" choice of their leaders doesn't mean you should complain certain other teams are so overpowered and give up on the game.

You know it's funny but I think the only team really screwed is the Amazons, but I haven't seen one complaint from them that their Immortals are now useless. Not only that but I feel on this map Darius would have been better for them and again no complaints as far as I can see. Of course this is all IMHO.

Also if I had known it was going to be an Islands map I would have voted for Joao II and his Carracks aka Early Galleons. Also Ghandi, Pacal and Hannibal are fine choices for this map. Frankly I think Pacal is a very good choice.

There are plenty of ways to match the Vikings and Dutch, were not invincible.

Any chance we could leave this discussion until the end of the game? We're not supposed to communicate about what we're seeing in the game, and some recent comments are very suggestive.

That isn't listed on the ruleset of this game; only trading screenshots and engaging in diplomacy before meeting a team is prohibited. There was something like that last game but it appears never to have been stated this game.

Though anyway, several players (whether or not they speak for their teams) have been discussing similar things from very early on. Of course, people could assume they are lying or whatnot, but teams mentioning what resources they see/etc... has already been happening. The admins/mapmakers themselves provoked this discussion of a "water-heavy" map.

But I am happy to just play and see how things turn out, and have been - it's just some particularly heavy-handed remarks like hoping certain teams were "penalized" and given worse starts that I'm here to discourage/stand against.

That isn't listed on the ruleset of this game; only trading screenshots and engaging in diplomacy before meeting a team is prohibited. There was something like that this game but it appears never to have been stated this game.

But anyway, several players (/teams) have been discussing things from very early on. Of course, people could assume they are lying or whatnot, but teams mentioning what resources they see/etc... has already been happening. The admins/mapmakers themselves provoked this discussion of a "water-heavy" map.

Ah, okay. Seems I misread the rules.

Edit: Although, what exactly is meant by 'enagaging in diplomacy'? Would trading written information about the map not count as that?

You know it's funny but I think the only team really screwed is the Amazons, but I haven't seen one complaint from them that their Immortals are now useless.

this is because the map give us a new fantastic resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heraldicseahorse.JPG

:lol:

You know it's funny but I think the only team really screwed is the Amazons, but I haven't seen one complaint from them that their Immortals are now useless. Not only that but I feel on this map Darius would have been better for them and again no complaints as far as I can see. Of course this is all IMHO.

Also if I had known it was going to be an Islands map I would have voted for Joao II and his Carracks aka Early Galleons. Also Ghandi, Pacal and Hannibal are fine choices for this map. Frankly I think Pacal is a very good choice.

There are plenty of ways to match the Vikings and Dutch, were not invincible.

It's not like we aren't aware of the implications of different map types on our civ/leader selection. However, there are a lot of turns left. It's too early to complain, just as obsolete said.

Besides, what are we or any non-viking/dutch team going to do, quit? There's plenty of time for that if and only if we get wiped out :p. Of course, you know how I feel about cherry tapping (you've seen me pick sludge like toku of germany), so if we somehow found a way to come out ahead WITH a disadvantage...heh. I would smile. At least.

this is because the map give us a new fantastic resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heraldicseahorse.JPG



Now THAT would be overpowered :lol:.

You know it's funny but I think the only team really screwed is the Amazons, but I haven't seen one complaint from them that their Immortals are now useless. Not only that but I feel on this map Darius would have been better for them and again no complaints as far as I can see. Of course this is all IMHO.




Be warned - we have many sea horse resources.

Let me make it clear that I do not underestimate the Amazon team I have seen TMIT get some bad starts and STILL come out ahead. Not to discount the rest of the team, I just don't know you guys yet heh. I'm just saying people should be thinking of what they do have and not what they don't.

I'm just saying people should be thinking of what they do have and not what they don't.

That is a good tip thank you :D

We're not supposed to communicate about what we're seeing in the game, and some recent comments are very suggestive.

I can not tell if you are being sarcastic or perhaps missed some earlier posts.

You do realize one of the first SUGGESTIVE posts (of astronomical proportions) was when the map-makers revieled (and showed) the isolated Great Lighthouse.

To argue about anything else after this as being suggestive makes me wonder if you are for real.

@obsolete

:lol: I see you're still disinclined to let anyone else's mistakes slip by without dishing out a bucketload of condescension.

I thought certain people were coming close to revealing info about their starts which other teams might not know, and mistakenly believed was against the rules to mention such things outside of the team forums. I'd still question the wisdom of it, but if it's within the rules, then people are free to reveal whatever they want.

But just because not everyone made the "beginner" choice of their leaders doesn't mean you should complain certain other teams are so overpowered and give up on the game.

I never said I would give up, and I don't know who did?

I just stated the facts that are quite well known by anyone who is half-competent. And to further a point, I'm sure even YOU know that when the forums are made public, Raggy's team will show them doing cartwheels when they first found out they hit the jack-pot of maps for that leader.

That should say something in itself.

I'm starting to dislike the tone of discussion here. Especially the posts targeted at individuals.
Either discuss the topic not the poster (and in a civilized way), or don't discuss.

That isn't listed on the ruleset of this game; only trading screenshots and engaging in diplomacy before meeting a team is prohibited. IMO, talking about the map at all is against the spirit of the rules against diplomacy before meeting. How can we all be meeting in the UN talking when we have not met in game? The UN should really just be closed (except for needing things, and rule amendments) until all the teams have at least met in-game. All this talk about the map is ruining the game before we even get started. Though anyway, several players (whether or not they speak for their teams) have been discussing similar things from very early on... The admins/mapmakers themselves provoked this discussion of a "water-heavy" map. First of all, two wrongs dont make a right. We should stop the discussion about the map... period. Forget what has been said in the past. Secondly, while I agree that the GLH thing started this... and TBH I wish that it had been kept a secret/surprise, but it wasn't... so again, can we just end this map discussion here and now before the game is ruined? Or shall we all just start posting our sceenshots here in the forum and just get it over with? Maybe just have the admins give us a shot of the whole map and be done with it... :confused: That way we can just skip all this hinting and inuendo.:( one of the first SUGGESTIVE posts (of astronomical proportions) was when the map-makers revieled (and showed) the isolated Great Lighthouse. I agree, but I wish we could just stop talking about the map entirely. the only team really screwed is the Amazons, but I haven't seen one complaint from them ;) That statement alone should end this discussion.