Actualy never had any problem with the unbalanced starting locations..... if you you start as Russia I usually give you more settlers than if you started with France (yes I live in Lyon).
Ah. You mean you edit the map before we start, to give one extra Settler to Russia? Or is it done after we start the game via the Cheat menu something? I've never played Civ II multiplayer so I'm totally in the dark here. Imo an extra Settler might swing the other way and be too drastic of a benefit...
Two for Germany, three for Russia might be balanced. But it's been a long time since I played Civ II, so we'll go with whatever you allocate (assuming we play those two civs).
Already played several games as russians and americans and always build powerfull states. They too have some advantages like huge territory to conquer. France, Spain, Germany, UK, India and China will be obviously the first powers at the begining but after all isn't realistic?
So France will stay small but powerfull at the begining and then, later in the game, russians if they expanded enough will be so far better.
Thing is though, the French will use their early advantage to conquer Russia (or weaken it and prevent its eventual rise to hegemony). Defense is easier than attacking though, so maybe it's not the walk in the park that I envision it to be. Napoleon, anyone?
(It's a pity that the Russian winter is not modeled in Civ!)
And obviously never start a game with 1 player in Europe, 1 in India, 1 in China and others elsewhere...... If we play with France you'll always have Spain and Germany and UK.
You mean because then it's a case of your Musketeers meeting their Infantries, by the time they manage to trek across the map? Even with 7 times as expensive techs, I can see that happening, so I do understand this rule. But that said it would be truly *epic* to have a grand battle between a massive America and China, etc.
I made this map for colonization games. Before great explorations of europeans (and chinese too in Indian Ocean) east coast of USA was covered by forests and swamps. Just realistic.
Clean others parts of the world of their swamps and forests like if the world was in the XX century while you start at bronze age is simply a mistake.
Imo, gameplay >> realism (note: not > or >>>). So I understand your point, but imo some compromises could be made. Like giving Washington some river grasslands instead of swamps and tundra(?!). (Since tundra looks like forests on your map, I suspect that its stats have been altered? EDIT: I see that they have. Not sure how logical it is that Deserts and Mountains cannot be mined but Tundra forests can... But at least it makes some areas more viable for settlement.) Most of the swamps and forests could remain, but some more fertile areas could be added, regardless if they really were there at that time or not. It takes units 50 years to move one tile in the beginning, so the realism of the game can never be perfect, in any case. Ofc it is your map and if ultimate (terrain) realism trumps all gameplay considerations for you, then so be it.
I wonder, how viable is colonization if everyone starts in Europe? Every settler and troop that you send overseas could instead go towards military to protect your lands, or better yet conquer those of your neighbors'! The rewards of European conquest would be bigger and more immediate and serve a blow to your enemies at the same time. Whereas clearing all that swamp will take a long time, and your main cities might already be conquered by the time New York or Cape Town is ready to do some heavy lifting. I suppose we'd have to actually play a game to know for sure though... But I strongly suspect that direct conquest would be better.
EDIT2: I see that you have nerfed Communism (palace distance modifier is no longer infinite); was this really necessary, given the massive advantages of Democracy and Republic already (although they may be worse in multiplayer; I wouldn't know)? I do like the nerf to Fundamentalism though; that government has always felt too powerful for me, once you have enough cities and troops to get your science through conquest from thereon. But then you also nerfed the Riot Factor from 14 to 12 -- on such a huge map?!
How many cities can you have before black faces start to show up? I'd think it'd be better to *raise* the Riot factor to something like 20 or 30, to allow for more sprawling empires. I mean, what is the point of having such a huge map, if you're not going to build many, many cities? I guess it's not too much of a problem though, as the screenshot of Russia seems to indicate. And a level 36 Moscow!
Of course it is all Grassland once you change a few terrains, so it is well possible. There's not a lot of good production though (only Forests), and in the beginning you'll only have a few grasslands -- while e.g. the Persian capital will have two good food/production resources, and plenty of Hills around. I'll take your word for it though, or you can play as Russia in our first game to demonstrate.
Btw, in case I want to play as the Sioux -- will you then take Aztecs or America? If everyone will have to be close to each other, as you said? The Aztecs at least are very hard to play, if not unviable; the food is simply not enough in their capital, and their choice of places to expand is pretty dismal as well. For some reason there are no rivers in Central America... And clearing all those jungles will take a long time. I notice that you also upped the time it takes to farm Plains tiles; it takes double the time for Grassland. Imo there's no need for such a drastic change, since it will further nerf the already inferior Plains-filled territories.
... The more I think of this, the more I realize it might be the case that I'm giving too much thought to individual cities in terms of imperial power. The last Civ that I played a good amount was Civ V, and in that game you only make 5 cities in a game, or 10 in a 'big' game for the most part -- a pathetic amount compared to Civ II. While I do seem to recall that a good starting place is important in Civ II as well, perhaps it's not the be-all and end-all. We shall see when we play a test-game!
Right now I'm too busy, but I'll try and get some work done tomorrow, so that we can maybe play the day after that. No promises though. And our Civ versions might conflict somehow... What version of Civ II are you running? It is MGE (Multiplayer Gold Edition), correct? Do you know of a way to see the version number? Mine has a patch installed that enables play on 64-bit systems; you might have to install it as well so that our games can 'talk' to each other.
EDIT3: I've attached Yagoda's map & mod to this post; the file also contains two more screenshots (cannot be bothered to upload them to imgur right now
).