BtS MTDG - Game Settings & Map

I like:

-Unbalanced Resources
-Deterrent to Rushing (maybe simply an agreement between teams up front or forced peace?)
-Mostly Equal Starting Locations
-Naval Warfare
-Geographic Barriers (intelligent use of impassable terrain and the existence thereof)

Don't Like:

-Hub or Inland Sea Map Types (IMO, play style is too linear)
-Uneven starting locations (in regards to distribution of locations -- i.e. one player surrounded by others while one one is in the 'gunfighter seat'. Eliminate this.)

Other than that, I agree that the map scripts do a good job. I would like to know, though, that the map has at least been checked by HUMAN eyes and is given the seal of approval that it will be a good, fair, game.
 
I personally do not have a whole lot of preference. I have made tons of maps in my day and know that it is extremely difficult to balance them well. Someone may have a good idea how their map is likely to play out, but random events and player decisions can overwhelm any attempt at balance through design. I tend to feel that random maps are more fair, because at least that way there is noone to blame except the random number generator. It would be a tragedy if any of the teams were to lose and feel that a designed map was to blame.

That said, with only five teams it would seem like a pretty boring game if there wasn't early contact. Additionally it would seem impossible to eliminate some geographical advantage without designing the map specifically. IE if there are two rows of continents, three in the top and two in the bottom, or two on each side with one larger in the middle, the team in the middle may have an advantage or a disadvantage. If all five continents are of equal size and oriented in a pentagon type shape and are equidistant from their neighbors, then there should be no advantage.
 
Does anyone have someone in mind that could make a map for us if we asked them to (as opposed to generating and perhaps modifying a random one)?

Ginger Ale directed me to this thread, and I suggested that I'd be happy to work on a map if requested. If I were selected to do the map, here are the questions I'd ask of the teams:

- Do you want a completely customized map, or a normal map script with minor tweaks to ensure fairness? (This is the most important question, IMO.)

- How much contact between teams is desired, and how early should it come?

- How much of a role would the teams like navies to play?

- Do the teams want a "very balanced" game (equal access to resources and similar land), a "somewhat balanced" game (only enough tweaks to make sure individual teams aren't grossly disadvantaged), or a "random" game.

Let me throw out some map ideas for consideration; here are a few scripts that could potentially work well:



Pangaea: Everybody know this one, simple and to the point. Lots of contact and early action. One of the biggest problems is that teams in the center are disadvantaged by having more fronts to defend. Can be customized in a lot of ways, depending on what the teams want.



Wheel: One of the better Multiplayer maps for this sort of game, and a very "fair" map, with equal territory for all civs and access to each team. May be too unnatural for some teams' tastes.



Donut: A fun script added in the expansion. All the teams start on the outside edge of the donut, with a large region of peaks in the middle. The peaks can also be replaced by water, or standard terrain, if desired.



Global Highlands: A more interesting take on Pangaea, IMO. The peaks make for all sorts of wacky geographical formations, and interesting decisions on where to settle. Lots of customization options in the settings too.



Archipelago/Snaky Continents: One of my personal favorites, due to the crazy and unpredictable land forms it spits out. Navies will be emphasized more heavily on this script.

I could go on, but that should at least give some ideas for starters. I'll be happy to tailor the map to whatever the teams want. :)
 

Attachments

  • CDG-1.jpg
    CDG-1.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 529
  • CDG-2.jpg
    CDG-2.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 1,549
  • CDG-3.jpg
    CDG-3.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 1,584
  • CDG-4.jpg
    CDG-4.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 1,474
  • CDG-5.jpg
    CDG-5.jpg
    41.2 KB · Views: 1,639
I still think that a Island map would be cool. Each team gets their own Island on a large map (but something close to it if civ 4 does not have large).
 
I think the map Sirian made for MTDG1 resembled wheel a bit (just with world wrap on). How did everyone like that map?
 
I'm not a fan of islands for a game like this. Invasions can be too easy to repel, which doesn't always fit everyone's playing style :lol:

I agree that hub and donut may be fairly unrealistic, but I don't think that's a compelling reason not to consider them. After all, this is a game - by definition, not real ;)

Personally I'm finding Global Highlands and Pangaea most compelling. Terrain isn't known beforehand (like with Wheel), and each team will be forced to have different diplomatic goals based on their geography - just like in reality.

As for the balance issue, I don't think each team should have access to every resource. Whether or not each team should have access to the key military resources is a tougher decision, but I'm usually a fan of playing the hand you're dealt.
 
I think a global highlands map with bottlenecks that can be defended would be very interesting.
 
For those of us who aren't familiar with Sirian's work, check out this page about map scripts: HERE.
Many examples are displayed for your viewing pleasure.

Should we setup a vote so we can nail this down?
 
:wow: These are all great options! Thanks Sulla! :hatsoff:

I don't even know how to choose - they all sound very interesting.

Perhaps we should just open a poll with all the options?
Or maybe ask people to vote for their top 3 - then do a weighted vote? (ie, each first place vote is worth 3 points, second place votes are worth 2 points, and 1 point for each 3rd place vote)

My vote would probably look like this:
  1. Global Highlands
  2. Archipelago/Snaky Continents
  3. Wheel
 
I should be clear that there are many more options than these five. (For instance, if you ended up with four teams, the rarely used "Four Corners" variant of the Team Battleground script would make for a very interesting game...)

Still, for the purposes of sanity and ease of decision-making, polling from these five might be the way to go. :)

Some extra views of the last two map scripts. (We all know what Pangaea looks like, and Wheel and Donut always spit out the same formations.)

Archipelago/Snaky Continents





Global Highlands

This one has lots of additional options. First, Scattered Peaks with Low density:



Another look: Clustered Peaks with High density. Really interesting, IMO.



Let me know what the teams want, and I should be able to design something good. :cool:
 

Attachments

  • CDG-6.jpg
    CDG-6.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 1,473
  • CDG-7.jpg
    CDG-7.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 1,467
  • CDG-8.jpg
    CDG-8.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 1,474
  • CDG-9.jpg
    CDG-9.jpg
    35.2 KB · Views: 1,520
I'm usually a fan of playing the hand you're dealt.
:agree:
Especially in a team game, it's possible to win from a bad position, and a bad strategy can lose from a good one. And when you get right down to it, there's a lot of luck in combat too.
 
Rofl, that green team in the second picture has their own continent xD
The archipelago map seems fine to me ONLY because it has alot more land compared to the highland maps. For vanilla bts I prefer to play on Big_Medium, but that's just preference. There are also the custom map scripts like my favorite Tectonics which I would prefer above all. Also, I like the map that was used in the first MDOG, lot's of land and decent choke points.
 
Difficulty Level: Emperor/Immortal. What I'm thinking here is that, since there are no AI's, this is not a huge factor. However, I think that the lower happy/health cap would provide more of a challenge. Since the map will likely be fairly small, the effect on maintenance won't really matter.

Map Script: Doesn't really matter; I would lean towards balancing starting locations just in case. Doesn't have to be all one land mass, but if there's an odd number of teams, I think it's important no one is isolated on a continent of their own.

Climate: Default/Temperate.
SeaLevel: Depends on the map type
Era: Ancient
World Wrap: Cylindrical.
Resources: Random, with the caveat as above that the starting locations are checked so one team isn't completely hopeless.
Barbarians: If the difficulty is going to be higher, preferably not raging; it would also be nice (though I don't know if it's possible) to avoid that early game overrunning random event.

Edit: I second the fact that Tectonics is one of the best random scripts.
 
Just a reminder here:

Once there's a clear preference of, say, 3 to 6 map options, they will all be voted on by the teams themselves. It's good to keep discussion going, with individuals voicing opinions about the pros and cons of each script; but in a couple of weeks there will be a formal team-based poll based on the option that have the most support here.

And as a quick analysis of that Green civ in the second map in post#31: indeed, they have the continent to themselves. Is it a blessing or a curse? :hmm:

More space = more population = more culture = more resources = more production; until and unless they meet another civ, they have ZERO tech trading options = more backwards = easier to out-tech and invade.

This is why Diplomacy is far and away the most important aspect to the Multi-Team format. A team of non-micromanagers that has great diplomatic skills will usually do much better than a team of OCD hermits who care only about tweaking their cities and don't talk to the other teams :yup:
 
Hi,

:agree:
Especially in a team game, it's possible to win from a bad position, and a bad strategy can lose from a good one. And when you get right down to it, there's a lot of luck in combat too.
But of two teams with roughly equally good strategies, the rest like combat luck being about the same, the one with the worse starting position loses. Personally, I find this not fun. I love climbing out of holes, but not in competitive multiplayer games.

I'm still against balanced resources as this would take the fun of trading away, and I realize that the starting positions cannot be exactly the same and would be boring. But they should be roughly equal in quality at least. Not one team starting with one pre-calendar medium food resource and another with two food resources and two gold at their capital... ;)

-Kylearan
 
And as a quick analysis of that Green civ in the second map in post#31: indeed, they have the continent to themselves. Is it a blessing or a curse? :hmm:

The pictures are simply designed to show what the map scripts look like... Obviously one team is never going to get their own continent to themselves! Come on, give me a little credit here. :)
 
Thanks for the extra pictures Sulla!

I agree - we should use this thread to keep hammering out ideas, and narrowing down our best options... then let each team vote their preference. Seems like a good way to reach an eventual decision. :thumbsup:

After viewing the Highlands "Clustered Peaks with High density" map - I'm even more interested in that option. Would be really fun, imo!

Like Kylearan, I'm a fan of "climbing out of holes" and "playing the hand you're dealt" in almost every situation. But a highly competitive multiplayer game that will likely last for many months - is a slightly different animal. If I get a crummy start and go on to lose a game that lasts for hours (LAN party) or even for weeks... that's ok. There's always the next game where it might go the other way. The MTDG is higher stakes, just in terms of time invested, if nothing else.

We don't need massive human intervention. Just a quick check (like Kylearan has suggested) to make sure there's a fair distribution of pre-calendar happiness & food resources. You don't want to be on the team that gets Bananas, Spices, Whales, and Oil as your cities bonus resources, while your neighbor has fish, gems, iron, and marble. :ack:

We can have a fun distribution of resources that encourages trading - and also ensure a fair distribution of pre-calendar food, luxury, and strategic resources with only a modest amount of human involvement. So why not do that?
 
I think that's fair, but I still want a island map like the one in the civ 3 MTDG 2. I know General W knows about it and could tell you about it better than I could. And when are we deciding team names and civs.
 
Top Bottom