Admin, map maker

[Lord Parkin]

@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?

It depends too much on the map layout. If you've got a significant distance between you and your nearest neighbour, then lacking Horse/Copper/Iron at your capital doesn't matter so much (presuming you have some in the general area around that you can get to be able to fight barbs). However, I will say that unless Team 5 has a whole lot of fresh water and/or the Gold resources are on grassland hills and not plains hills, I wouldn't want to have that start. Lack of food is just too much of an issue - you'll only be able to work 1 or 2 of the Gold resources, if that, so the others are redundant.

@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.

Yeah, you've got it right. Although roughly balancing hammers and commerce wouldn't be a bad idea either - for example, one team having a lot of rivers/hills/forests, and another lacking some or all of those things wouldn't be good.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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

Of course you are correct absolutely correct and this is what I expected you would say but I wanted to make the example overly simple to get the second part of you response out there, which is the most important...

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.

This is the real "answer" IMO and the reason I asked such a simple question... to get a simple straightforward answer... And the answer it seems is simple...

If you KNOW what kind of map you are on, and you KNOW that enemies are far away, early food is best. If you KNOW enemies are close, strategic resources are best.

So my next question is when you have no idea whatsoever what kind of map you are on, which would YOU rather have? It seems like a toss-up, and that is what I am getting at. If the mapmaker is given license to create a complete mystery map, then the starts don't matter, as much, because there is no way to optimize your start. You have to prepare for all eventualities. But if we are going to know what kind of map it is, then Indiansmoke is absolutely correct, we must have virtually identical starts or it is unfair.

Yeah, you've got it right. Although roughly balancing hammers and commerce wouldn't be a bad idea either.

So in a practical sense, you and Indiansmoke agree on this. The starts should be identical because you want identical resouce counts. The beginning of your post where you were answering the question I asked Indiansmoke was very similar to Indiansmoke's. I don't think this is a coincidence you agree in principle with identical starts, you just dont need them to look identical. I agree, with you, but only if the map type is known.

 

[Indiansmoke]

So my next question is when you have no idea whatsoever what kind of map you are on, which would YOU rather have? It seems like a toss-up, and that is what I am getting at. If the mapmaker is given license to create a complete mystery map, then the starts don't matter, as much, because there is no way to optimize your start. You have to prepare for all eventualities. But if we are going to know what kind of map it is, then Indiansmoke is absolutely correct, we must have virtually identical starts or it is unfair.

I will repeat again (hopefully my insistance is not impolite ) that the map needs to be balanced in resources, land quality, land quantity and distance from opponents. There is no point playing a game where someone will have better or more land etc. We are not in the phase of discovering the game here, all teams have great players and unless we balance it it will be no fun for some.

I will also repeat that I am not in favor of leaving the shape of the land to the imagination of a human. We should use a specific map script that we all know how it roughly is (like grid, wheel, inland sea, ring, donut, TBG etc). Call me untrusty but I have yet to see a good map comming from a human trying to be creative, there are always important aspects missed which we realize months into the game.

 

[remake20]

Maybe you should mirror the 5 tiles around every start, same resources and everything.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I will repeat again (hopefully my insistance is not impolite ) that the map needs to be balanced in resources, land quality, land quantity and distance from opponents. There is no point playing a game where someone will have better or more land etc.

Its not impolite, its correct, and I think I agree with you here...

Because in theory we all really like the idea of the map being a mystery... a world like our own, that needs to be explored and discovered, where everyone will have surprises to deal with, advantages and disadvantages, different resources to encourage trade, etc... and this would be perfectly fine if people were willing to keep their peace with whatever they get and just do the best with whatever fate (or the mapmaker) deals them.

However, ther reality is, that even a miniscule difference in resources, terrain, natural barriers, forest counts, jungles, etc will cause folks to complain endlessly about how their start was unfair or that they had no chance to win because I got a 4 resource and someone else got a 5 resource, so I was doomed from the start, or you had 5 forests and I only had 3 so you chopped the Oracle, and I was doomed from the start or you had gold and gems and I didn't, so I had no chance, or I didnt get copper...etc, etc,...

So its a trade-off really... Either we have the "fun" of a mysterious, unpredictable map, and we just have to suck it up about imbalance...

Or We have the "fun" of an RTS-game style, completely balanced map where everyone has a gold mine/ stone source/ vespene geyser/ mineral deposit, fill in the blank resource... and everyone has equal everything so no-one can complain... and we just have to suck it up about mystery.

IMO either way people will find something to complain about and those who don't fare as well will complain the most.

Finally, and most importantly, the advantages/disadvantages of both the 'mystery map' and the 'mirror map' can be enhamced/diminished by diplomacy... especially with tech trades ON. A 5 on 1 dogpile would easily negate the great land (or balanced land) of the solo team for example. Do we agree on this?

 

[Indiansmoke]

However, ther reality is, that even a miniscule difference in resources, terrain, natural barriers, forest counts, jungles, etc will cause folks to complain endlessly about how their start was unfair or that they had no chance to win because I got a 4 resource and someone else got a 5 resource, so I was doomed from the start, or you had 5 forests and I only had 3 so you chopped the Oracle, and I was doomed from the start or you had gold and gems and I didn't, so I had no chance, or I didnt get copper...etc, etc,...

So its a trade-off really... Either we have the "fun" of a mysterious, unpredictable map, and we just have to suck it up about imbalance...

Or We have the "fun" of an RTS-game style, completely balanced map where everyone has a gold mine/ stone source/ vespene geyser/ mineral deposit, fill in the blank resource... and everyone has equal everything so no-one can complain... and we just have to suck it up about mystery.

The map does not have to be tottaly mirrored to be balanced, just roughly the same ammount and quality of food, strategic and luxury resources around starting areas and then land quality can have many forms so it does not have to be identical.

 

[DaveShack]

Once upon a time I considered writing a map balancing utility, that would basically spit out a report on the tiles within a N tile circle around each start. The objective of such a report would be to give each civ equal amounts of "stuff" in the BFC of the start location and in the N tile circle, where equal would compare unimproved and fully improved counts, and stuff would include terrain types, food/hammer/commerce, and resources. A map maker would use this to adjust the starts. The distance between civs could be tweaked. Land outside the circles would remain random.

I think this captures the essence of balanced for a MP game, other things being equal. However there are things like civ choices and how well the civ choice matches the map to consider too. In the above map sample, if the civ with gold is financial and has all grass that can be irrigated, then maybe it's not so bad. A landlocked start for Portugal or Netherlands can be trouble even if the land itself is a little above average.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Now that the private forums are set up, I suggest all teams start a poll or thread on their map preferences for this game. The sooner we get this vote done, the sooner the map can be made, and the sooner the game can get started.

 

[Irgy]

Once upon a time I considered writing a map balancing utility, that would basically spit out a report on the tiles within a N tile circle around each start. The objective of such a report would be to give each civ equal amounts of "stuff" in the BFC of the start location and in the N tile circle, where equal would compare unimproved and fully improved counts, and stuff would include terrain types, food/hammer/commerce, and resources. A map maker would use this to adjust the starts. The distance between civs could be tweaked. Land outside the circles would remain random.

I think this captures the essence of balanced for a MP game, other things being equal. However there are things like civ choices and how well the civ choice matches the map to consider too. In the above map sample, if the civ with gold is financial and has all grass that can be irrigated, then maybe it's not so bad. A landlocked start for Portugal or Netherlands can be trouble even if the land itself is a little above average.

It seems quite wrong to me though for the map maker to even know which civ has which start while making the map. If I was doing it I'd finish making the map first, then assign starts to civs randomly. Being ironless as Rome or landlocked as Netherlands or horseless as Mongolia should just be the risk that you take when you choose those civs. Which is the other problem with perfectly balancing the resources - you have to either give everyone iron or not give anyone iron, and either way you disbalance the choice to play the Romans.

I'd much rather realistically random looking starts. If I did it, I'd start with a randomly generated map, then just tweak the starting positions and resources the tiniest bit only if one civ had a start that was noticably "better" (in a very broad sense) or noticably "worse". I think it's good for the civs to have qualitatively different starts as long as no-one has been clearly given the short end of the stick.