Continent Map - Are restrictions on tribes needed in this case?

justanick

Emperor
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
1,562
Location
Germany
Restrictions being applied on both types of Tribes is the winner here. A close race.

Yeah, damn close.
A continentmap of size 80x80 at 70% Water would have roundabout 960 landtitles. A 100x100 map with 80% Water would habe 1000 landtitles, at 90x90 it would be 810 landtitles. This would be my personal favorite decision in case of continents. There would be less landtitles than in german DG5, which seemed towards me to be a bit to much landtitles(70% water at 80x70). But it would be more land than in DG4(70% water at 70x70).
The distance between continents would be relativly great cause of more water. This may handicap both agricultural civs and those with AA UU. So a restriction through ruleset may be unnessary. How do you think about this? Is it a valuable option, or do i simply spin? :crazyeye:
 
As I voted for archipelago i did so as to avoid early war (warrior rush eg). But I did NOT want a great distance between continents. Trade between continents via harbour should be possible to increase value of diplomatic action.
I think we should not resolve poll results. No agricultural and no antic UU is fixed.
 
I believe you should be using 60% water. On small and tiny maps Agriculture based Tribes have the same advantage as on larger maps. More water is not needed. If it was we could call the game Sea Battles. A lot of people voted for the Pangaea. Let's go with more land, not more water. Comparing your optimal choice to past DGs of CivForums makes no difference to CFCers. We are not familiar at all with your games. As I said earlier, using island sized Continents separated by vast oceans will not handicap the Agri Tribes. They will have the groth advantage, regardless of where they start. On the map you describe, the Netherlands would have an extreme advantage.

It is probable that the 4 Tribes will be grouped two and two on different Continents. The reasons for restricting Tribes with AA UUs was justified earlier. Separating Continents by vast amounts of water would just mean early wars between the two grouped Tribes on each Continent, like programmed wars. Inevitable, planned and expected.

I will now post a poll on water content for the map. As CFC has chosen Continents, water content plays a more important part.
 
As I voted for archipelago i did so as to avoid early war (warrior rush eg). But I did NOT want a great distance between continents. Trade between continents via harbour should be possible to increase value of diplomatic action.
I think we should not resolve poll results. No agricultural and no antic UU is fixed.
Support this idea. Trade and Diplomacy more intersting than plain war. No AA UU.
 
The distance between continents would be relativly great cause of more water. This may handicap both agricultural civs and those with AA UU. So a restriction through ruleset may be unnessary. How do you think about this? Is it a valuable option, or do i simply spin? :crazyeye:

Since there will likely be multiple teams on the same continent, I think it's still an issue.
 
I think we still need the restrictions. Agricultural is strong on any kind of map (provided there's fresh water), and especially on continents it is important that you don't share the same continent with the Celts or Iroquois...

But we should consider the idea that has already been suggested on Civforum: we could allow the "harmless" AA UU, like the Byzantine Dromon or the purely defensive UUs like the Greek Hoplite or the Carthaginian Mercenary.
 
I agree with the harmless UUs. Also, a possible modification that I like to play my games with is that everyone can build Ancient Cavs if they have Iron and Horses. The SoZ still produces them though.
 
Than their cost should be increased to 50 shields and may be upgraded to knights.
1. Yep, I usually charge 50 for them.
2. Actually, I have Horsemen upgradable to them. They come in by discovering Horseback Riding.
 
I'd say the additional hit point is not worth more than 5 shields (compared to the Gallic Swordmen). But by allowing them, everybody has his strong offensive AA unit. Is that good or bad? :dunno:
 
I vote against AC "for all". Game will have military flavour from very beginning. If you want AC build SoZ.
 
I'm with I. Larkin. If everyone had a great mobile swordsman at HBR in the real world, there would not have been any great empires. If everyone were equal there would not have been Babylon, or Rome, or Athens, or Compton....
 
Top Bottom