Admin, map maker

[ahmedhadzi]

It is all good and well in theory...but....when you get to play human experts of the game, if you don't balance the land in all respects (quantity, quality & bordering) then the best land situation will win... as simple as that.

Not according to the game from Sulla's website, where his team didn't have the best land and was still able to win. Balanced starts are fine when it comes to food and strategic resources (we all wanna build those Bronzy Axemen), but I would prefer some form of monopoly on luxury resources, since that can improve interaction between teams in terms of diplomacy and size of the cities (at least in the beginning).
Also a lot of these players here are top level SP players, who are used to be in disadvantageous situation when playing against AI, so roughly equal starts are enough for us to play the game and feel that we got a fair chance to win.
Five or six tiles is all that needs to be identical (or similar which ever you prefer), since you are anyway going to need some time to work all of those tiles.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Not according to the game from Sulla's website, where his team didn't have the best land and was still able to win.

In all fairness though, that was just as much (perhaps more) a product of the incompetence of their neighbours in that game. Granted, the map was exceptionally unbalanced in that case, but if Templars had played more sensibly/aggressively early on, and Imperio had had the forsight to grab that Copper/Horse resource earlier on, Team RB would have been fairly screwed. Against competent neighbours, no player could really survive that start (no nearby strategic resources + weak bonus resources vs abundant strategic resources + very strong bonus resources).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay RB's excellently played game. But my point is that you can't expect a team to just "deal with" a bad start if the teams surrounding them are actually competent. It's relatively easy to plow through a weak opponent regardless of your relative starts, but when all of the opponents are fairly evenly matched (as appears to be the case in this game), one team getting a dud start makes all the difference. (Take Saturn in the last game... sure we made some mistakes, but our poor quality land and lack of food resources compared to other teams meant we never really had an equal chance of winning from the start.)

Also a lot of these players here are top level SP players, who are used to be in disadvantageous situation when playing against AI, so roughly equal starts are enough for us to play the game and feel that we got a fair chance to win.

We are not playing against AI players though. A lot of good human players will try to exploit any weakness in another player's position at the earliest opportunity, and rightly so. For instance, a team lacking Horse/Copper/Iron in its nearby vicinity is going to appear as a prime target in the early game to a (competent) nearby human neighbour.

Being in a disadvantageous situation against an AI is relatively easy to deal with, because the AI frankly sucks on the battlefield, so the human player can regain their advantage there easily enough. But being in a disadvantageous situation (due to map layout/resources) against human players who are at least as cunning and intelligent as you are is effectively a death warrant from the outset.

Five or six tiles is all that needs to be identical (or similar which ever you prefer), since you are anyway going to need some time to work all of those tiles.

Well, not exactly... certainly the best tiles (i.e. those with resources) need to be similar. But having 5-6 tiles similarity is not enough. For instance, using your rule, one team could get a large number of floodplains in the remaining 15 or so tiles, while another team could get a whole bunch of plains. That's not balanced.

So I think the starts need to be more similar than you suggest (or at least, not too dissimilar) in order to be fair. Though I certainly agree that they don't have to be completely identical - that would take away flavour and make it less interesting (not to mention lose out on trade opportunities if everyone has the same initial resources). So I'm all for making the starts somewhat unique - just as long as they're not wildly different in how good or bad they are.

 

[ahmedhadzi]

In regards to approach from Templars and Imperio in RB game, even if he have balanced starts there still might be suboptimal play and mistakes which I would honestly expect since you have a respect towards knowledge and skill of the opposite team (or neighbor) and in some team caution might prevail.

When I said 5-6 tiles, I meant capitol tiles. And I agree that everyone should get roughly same amount of flood plains/grassland/plains/tundra/peaks... But even if I have the best land in the world around me it won't stop me to settle aggressively towards someone else’s land, just to claim few more tiles (if I think I can hold the ground of course). Therefore I think, the land for only few first cities is important, after that it's war baby (evil laugh)

But in the end I JUST WANT THIS GAME TO START.

 

[Indiansmoke]

In regards to approach from Templars and Imperio in RB game, even if he have balanced starts there still might be suboptimal play and mistakes which I would honestly expect since you have a respect towards knowledge and skill of the opposite team (or neighbor) and in some team caution might prevail.

That game was a complete joke. Templars were completely clueless and Imperio became inactive for many turns and were eventually taken over by another clueless person.

Hopefully this is not the case here and we will not get another Templars team or all this talk about the map the settings etc will not matter the slightest.

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I don't think that is going to be case here. As far as I can see there is few players that I respect on each team, and I pretty confident it will be a good game. Unless of course those good players don't have time for the game for some reason.

 

[Darkness]

I don't think that is going to be case here. As far as I can see there is few players that I respect on each team, and I pretty confident it will be a good game. Unless of course those good players don't have time for the game for some reason.

Seriously? You see any players on the CDZ team that you respect?

 

[ahmedhadzi]

Seriously? You see any players on the CDZ team that you respect?

Of course! I'm good in Civ like I'm good in Chess, and that's upper intermediate player. I never said that I was very good player, but for any opponent in any game I will assume that is much better then me, and play my maximum untill I lose or win the game in question. So hopefully there will be more players after the game that I will start to respect.

And it's a big community after all, you can't know them all!

 

[DMOC]

What about having a map design similar, but not exactly the same, to one that was made for the Realms Beyond Pitboss 2? That's a really nice ring-shaped map with a central island and a small personal island for everyone else.

 

[Lord Parkin]

What about having a map design similar, but not exactly the same, to one that was made for the Realms Beyond Pitboss 2? That's a really nice ring-shaped map with a central island and a small personal island for everyone else.

Sounds pretty neat. Do you have a screenshot of that one?

 

[BCLG100]

Seriously? You see any players on the CDZ team that you respect?

Speak for yourself

Of course! I'm good in Civ like I'm good in Chess, and that's upper intermediate player. I never said that I was very good player, but for any opponent in any game I will assume that is much better then me, and play my maximum untill I lose or win the game in question. So hopefully there will be more players after the game that I will start to respect.

And it's a big community after all, you can't know them all!

I'll sum it up for team CDZ

BCLG100= Awesome
Everyone else= not nearly as awesome!

 

[pindicator]

I'd suggest an archipelago theme but the tedium in micro-management might diminish the fun of the game.

That brings me to another question: do we want to know in advance the amount of water? Civs with water-based UUs & UBs may not appreciate being stuck on an all-world map. Or we may decide that this is just the risk we're willing to pay for a financial leader. Or Joao

 

[Lord Parkin]

I doubt we'll be seeing an all-land map, since it removes any naval strategy component to the game. All past demogames that I'm aware of have been played on maps with 1-2 continents (unless all teams are on their own islands) partly for this reason. Playing on an all-land map removes any chance for the Colossus and Great Lighthouse to be useful, removes any aspect of naval warfare from the game, not to mention severely weakening leaders like Willem and Ragnar. Basically it's much more difficult (if not impossible) to outflank anyone on an all-land map, so it really ends up as more of a "fortress" type game. Not that that's not okay for some flavour, but it doesn't really suit a demogame IMHO. There needs to be a naval element to allow access to that key component of the game.

 

[DaveShack]

I'll sum it up for team CDZ

BCLG100= Awesome
Everyone else= not nearly as awesome!

I think that's supposed to be

CDZ = Spammy
Everyone else = not nearly as spammy.

Spoiler :

Dave = doesn't spam, but does give lessons in parables

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I think that's supposed to be

CDZ = Spammy
Everyone else = not nearly as spammy.

Spoiler :

Dave = doesn't spam, but does give lessons in parables

Hey I was hoping your next post will be announcement of those team forums, sooner we have those, jokes like the one above will be funnier! Since we will have reason to make fun of each other! But respectfully!

 

[classical_hero]

Well we have no ideea what type of ma it will be, since that will be decided by a group vote according to the teams once the team forums are open.

As a member of Templar, the hole point of that game for that team was to roleplay and not necessarily win the game.

 

[BCLG100]

I think that's supposed to be

CDZ = Spammy
Everyone else = not nearly as spammy.

Spoiler :

Dave = doesn't spam, but does give lessons in parables

Say's a member of cdz with his own forum....

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Indiansmoke - Can you imagine/describe a situation where evenly matched players get radically different starting land, but both have relatively equal chances in the game?

For example... If in their starting location BFCs:
team 1 had Iron and Horse
team 2 had Copper and Elephant
team 3 had Fish, clam, Corn and Wheat
team 4 had cow, pig, sheep, deer, fur and horse
team 5 had 3 gold
team 6 had 8 flood plain tiles

Assuming that these were the only nearby resouces (and teams 1-5 had a 50/50% mix of plains and grassland... can you say who you think would be better off? What I mean is, who has the better land?

@Lord Parkin - Saturn's situation last game was similar (one seafood and one land-food), but it was less total than the other Civs. And I don't think I am going out on a limb to say that you were unhappy with that start. So I think when you say they don't have to be identical, you are saying that they don't have to have the same resources (i.e. everyone does not have to start with corn and only corn)... But you want the counts to be identical (if I have 8 worth of resources, you want the same... is that right? In other words the starts don't have to look identical as long as they play identically.

 

[azzaman333]

I wouldn't want to be team 4 in that example.

And would probably want to be team 5.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wouldn't want to be team 4 in that example.

And would probably want to be team 5.

@azzaman: Since you seem to be saying that team 5 is the best and team 4 is the worst, is there one or two additional resources that would make team 4 comparable?

For reference:

For example... If in their starting location BFCs:
team 1 had Iron and Horse
team 2 had Copper and Elephant
team 3 had Fish, clam, Corn and Wheat
team 4 had cow, pig, sheep, deer, fur and horse
team 5 had 3 gold
team 6 had 8 flood plain tiles

Assuming that these were the only nearby resouces (and teams 1-5 had a 50/50% mix of plains and grassland... can you say who you think would be better off? What I mean is, who has the better land?

Do others agree with azzaman that 4 is worst and 5 is best in the example above?

 

[Indiansmoke]

@Indiansmoke - Can you imagine/describe a situation where evenly matched players get radically different starting land, but both have relatively equal chances in the game?

For example... If in their starting location BFCs:
team 1 had Iron and Horse
team 2 had Copper and Elephant
team 3 had Fish, clam, Corn and Wheat
team 4 had cow, pig, sheep, deer, fur and horse
team 5 had 3 gold
team 6 had 8 flood plain tiles

Assuming that these were the only nearby resouces (and teams 1-5 had a 50/50% mix of plains and grassland... can you say who you think would be better off? What I mean is, who has the better land?

This is a very simplistic non realistic example and of course there is no answer.

Generally though if the map is small and early fighting is propable, I would not want to be any of the civs without copper or iron...but no food sucks as well and if you are not attacked early food will propably win.