@woodan
In MP 95% of the time there is no tech trading and no alliances, and along with this, very little information is shared. Player X and player Y would have no idea what the remainding players adv/dis-adv were in the early going. There is very little cooridination invloved (unless you play team, something I do not). So the bottom line will still remain: Whoever has the best starting location and surroundings will always have the advantage (if all equally skilled). So contrast to what you are trying to say, there is NO DOUBT, beginning resources and surrounding land will always have a HUGE effect on the outcome of the game. To kick a dead horse again, if everyone is equally skilled, the person with the best resources and terrain available to them will have the early advantage. I don't see how that's even debatable.
Without a doubt there would be a downgraded replayability. No question about it. But with more emphasis on equal starting positions and "game balance" there would be a much deeper game playability. You don't have to worry about random luck in resources and production. Everyone would have exactly the same initial start. Take playing Zerg vs Zerg as an example. Identical units/capabilities/upgrades/etc. Everything is 100% equal. There is no doubt that the best player will win more games in the long run (of course the occasional mis-scout or unlucky event could happen).
There is no need to have an "advantage" over players in MP as you say, but rather, "equality". It's not too much to ask for. And of course everyone wants to win. There would be no point in playing a game if you couldn't be the winner! Losing sucks. Sure you learn from mistakes, as you will in every game, but eventually, you want your skill to shine, and OWN everyone you play. Give everyone the same chance with the same resources. Make if fair!
Lol, and it's not juvenile. The goal should be balance and equality. And if you are in MP, and are a weaker civilization, you won't be a good ally for anyone. Once again, in MP, 95% of time there is no tech trading and no alliances. You will simply die faster.
Obviously, I disagree with most of your points. They don't focus or strive for a balanced game and that's all I'm asking for. Oh yes, I am sure Brood War would have more players if they had a random map generator as does Civ. Nothing wrong with having more options. I for one have never played a single tutorial or brood war scenario. I began by watching replays and devising my own build orders/tactics to win in multiplayer. Nothing is more satisfying than beating another player....its the top of the top.
@syndrome
replayability and reproducibility might as well be Twin Brothers. They go hand in hand and have similar meanings:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reproduce http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replay
You can't have one w/out the other. They are both made possible by what is probably the best "game balance" offered to any gamer via Brood War.
You further say no strategy but only a click fest? My response is HUH?? and RE HUH???? Kidding right? Below is the dictionaries definition of strategy.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
So you need to use skill, planning, and specific methods.......Not like I needed to actually cut and paste the definition....anyone reading this (God help them, lol

) would be able to discern for themselves that Strategy is HUGE in any game, Brood War included. I don't care how fast you click your little or big fingers, if you don't do it strategically, you will lose.
GRANTED, there is lots of repeatablility in strats, wheter it be Terran vs Terran or different race matchups, however, you have to strategically implement the use and perfect timing of these strats at precisely the right time in order to maximize your results (and that time is different every single game). YES, speed and a click fest are very important in Brood War, but they still need to be used in conjunction with the rest of your game. Besides, I worked countless hours of random, incoherent, meaningless (seemingly), and boring clicks in order to speed up my actions and greatly improve my game. That was part of my Strategy!! Get faster hands so I can create a larger skill difference between me and my opponent, therefore giving me an even bigger advantage to crush them, gogo!
@seth (cool name by the way)
You say
"we don't need to think, simply execute, " sums up Zed's comments in a nutshell. No thinking in a strategy game!! That's not replayability but repetition. Try lather, rinse, repeat in Civ4 (SP or MP) regardless of map and you won't last long.
Thinking about the game is what MAKES Civ4
Why don't we take a look at the BIG PICTURE?? In a previous quote from me that you have quoted in your post I said the following:
of course that would be maps which do not change, just like Brood War. They would need to be SP as well, because us MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP, so that once in MP, we don't need to think, simply execute, thus greatly improving our speed and overall gameplay.
Let's take a look at this piece of my quote:
MP users need to be able to practice over and over again our strategies in SP
MMMMMMmmmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the word strategies is in there? The whole point of all the practice as already stated, is to perfect our strategies. There is lots and lots of boring and repeatable exerecise that goes into perfecting a strategy. You have to allow for literaly 10's and 20's of different contigincies. If he does this how will I adapt my strategy? If he does this what will I do then, etc etc etc. So there are ALL KINDS of strategy, literally hundreds of hours could be poured into A SINGLE STRATEGY. So as you can see, once I am actually involved in a real life MP game, I will have all the contingencies thought out (at least the ones I thought I would encounter) and can simply REACT and EXECUTE, which of course will allow me to exploit superior game play mechanics/speed/what have you to further the skill gap between my opponent and myself, therefore affording me the opportunity to utterly own him. There will be times where my strategy fails for whatever reason, maybe even to a contingency I didn't originally forsee..........this puts me back to the strategic drawing board in SP so when I once again enter the MP realm I can REACT and EXECUTE.
Anyways, just wanted to show you w/out any doubt, that I used the word strategy.........after all, didn't you see it, it is in the quote you posted from me??!

Anyways again, your post showing my quote simply validated the exact thing I had already said. You didn't refute anything, but rather proved my point a second time, Thanks.
Oh, a quick Edit. I have already stated I know I am the small % in my thinking about map regeneration.....probably due to the fact 80% of Civ players play predominantly SP (including myself recently) and enjoy a far greater variety in gameplay. I have ZERO issues with SP, and like the variety which occurs, but in MP I just can't get past the "balance" issues. To me, they are horrible and destroy the ability to compete equally. So just food for thought (cough, Non-random maps as an option, for MP/SP(to practice for MP), cough!, lol!!).
So to wrap up, I have played way way WAY too many hours of MP games online, and in my own mind, I have an absolutely perfect grasp of what is and what is not balanced, lol

(besides, there can be no balance if MP players begin with different resources/production/commerce tiles). So until someone makes a valid point in reference to MP and game balance, I suppose I Agree to Disagree with you guys.
Another P.S., lol. Seems the big difference myself and some of the other posters have is I want to play in a MP environment where every single person starts with exactly identical resources/tiles/etc so that NO ONE has a beginning advantage in any way, shape, or form. I want equality and balance. Other posters are in favor of more variety, diversity, and unknown values which undoubtedly lead to far superior overall depth of the game. I believe that can be achieved in SP just fine. I just don't see how this fits into MP. To me the greatest aspect of MP is COMPETITION. In order to have a fair and even matchup everyone needs to start with the same rules/laws/equipment/or Resources (tiles). How can you possibly have a fair competition if someone has a greater initial advantage before you do?? Take 2 sprinters. One of them gets track shoes, the other does not. Who will win? Take MP Civilization. One player gets Copper/2 gold/2 corn/4 additional hills. The other player gets 2 fish/2 forest/no hills. Bottom line for me is..........at least in MP, I definitely prefer everything starting exactly equal and balanced. Give me an even and fair competition in MP........give me diversity and variety in SP. GG no re
And.... LOL, just to throw more fuel to the fire...........After serving in the U.S. Army for 11 years, and being raised by conservative grandparents, I am proud to SUPPORT G.W. Bush, our troops, and the War, and of course, let us not forget

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

, and PRO-CREATION (6,000 year old Earth). Nothing depresses me more than to see people with immoral values push their agenda.....this would encompass Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, and anti-war Liberals (well really, anyone liberal). So if you had some ill feeling that you just didn't quite get along with me, or thought something was aloof.....hopefully everything is now cleared up (as I am fond of Literal Biblical Values)
God Bless America
P.S. If I have offended anyone please forgive me, I am not perfect. If you're liberal and break your leg I will still help you get to the hospital and buy you lunch, just don't ask to date my daughter

Agree to disagree
