Another game? Focused discussion
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Also, if we are using another custom map, could we edit the map file to give all teams contact with each other right from the start... That would eliminate the advantage of starting on the coast (using fishingboats to meet civs) and help to address the race to form alliances... Or at least make it fair...
azzaman333
meh
I think staring with a 2 warriors (or warrior + scout if hunting), a worker and two settlers would be a good way to get the first 10-15 turns which are normally just exploring while waiting to the work to build would make the game more exciting at the start.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
I was thinking... there are a bunch of people who have played many MTDG on successful teams.
What I've seen is that people say "set up the team the way you want" - I'm wondering if there are structures that tend to work effectively, structures that should be used as a template.
What I've seen is that people say "set up the team the way you want" - I'm wondering if there are structures that tend to work effectively, structures that should be used as a template.
Indiansmoke
Deity
This is taking away advantages from exp & imp civs and makes starting techs much more important.
I would prefer normal start.
azzaman333
meh
No it doesn't. EXP and IMP civs still build workers and settlers faster.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Abit surprised you don't realize this. Jaoa for example would lose a serious start advantage compared to Elizabeth for example if we gave those units from the start.
azzaman333
meh
It reduces the power of the two traits, but not significantly IMO.
Indiansmoke
Deity
It does not only reduce the power of the traits, it is a total luck fest. Civs starting with agriculture and agriculture resource in capital will have serious advantage over others. If you start with Mystisism mining for examle and you only have forest hills you are screwed. Worker has nothing to do while others improve corn etc.
Tinkerbell
Prince
I suggest just start normal but with some extra visability so the team van discuss the first 10 turns.
We'll see how many times we can organize a 10-turn-party.
We'll see how many times we can organize a 10-turn-party.
azzaman333
meh
It already is heavily luck based regardless of whether you start with a worker or not. If your start is full of forests but you lack mining you're delayed an extra 5 turns getting to Bronze. If all starts have Pig and your techs are Agriculture and Hunting you're at an advantage compared to those who only start with Agriculture or Hunting, and an even bigger advantage over those with neither. And whilst it's probably just coincidence, the three teams (SANCTA, Cav, Kaz) that were the strongest each started with Fishing.
Now, I'd prefer to have a game that starts with the normal settler + warrior/scout, but if there's a consensus that some sort of accelerated start is preferred I would rather my suggestion over other possibilities.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
my thought with the worker was that it would cut down on the "not having much to do" phase - but I dunno - maybe it makes sense if we start in classical times.
I don't think having fishing made any difference - we were also the teams with the strongest food sources (Kaz irrigated Corn, SANCTA fish + irrigated wheat, Cav with irrigated wheat) - Saturn and MS had sheep and unirrigated rice.
I don't think having fishing made any difference - we were also the teams with the strongest food sources (Kaz irrigated Corn, SANCTA fish + irrigated wheat, Cav with irrigated wheat) - Saturn and MS had sheep and unirrigated rice.
azzaman333
meh
I don't disagree, I just found it interesting that we all started with Fishing.
Krill
Deity
Fishing resource, start with fishing = great.
Otherwise fish sucks.
Otherwise fish sucks.
donsig
Low level intermediary
This seems to be the crux of the problem. If we have a (so called) normal civ start then none of us will know what resources we'll have nearby and, by extension, what traits it would be most beneficial to have. So it all comes down to luck, which team manages to pick the best matching traits for their start.
Is the start really that important? I ask this in all honesty since I'm not a good civ player. I understand how Saturn was hobbled in this last game but the others (especially Kaz/Cav/SANCTA) were on equal footing even without identical starts and identical traits, weren't they?
If the start is so important, what do we do about it? If we give all teams an equal starting city (equal land and resources) then things still really aren't equal unless we all have equal traits. As Krill points out, everyone having fish does not make things equal if everyone does not have fishing.
Do we have the mapmaker adjust the map starting positions based on the team traits chosen? Those starting with fishing get no seafood, those with agriculture no grain? Or do we give the teams the resources that compliment their traits? Either way it seems we'd be taking something away from the civ game.
Unless we're all gonna play the same civ and same leader on a symmetrical map where each team has identical land and equal access to all other land, we're not going to have a game where one team doesn't have any advantage over another. Heck, even in such a scenario luck might be an even bigger factor than it was in the last game. So, let's just accept the fact that the next game may not be perfect and remember it's a game.
I suggest we do things in this order:
- Make some decisions on the type of game we want. (Peace versus war, available victory conditions, number of teams, general description of map wanted, level of play, any non-standard start options, whether we'll have unrestricted leaders, and how we will form teams.)
- Find map makers and admins.
- Form teams.
- Have team discussions and votes about map specifics.
- Have teams choose civs/leaders.
- Have the map made.
Krill
Deity
That's why balancing the start, and the surrounding lands, is very important in MP.
My comment was only if seafood were the only available seafood in the capital.
A good mapmaker knows how to balance those factors regardless of the starting civs picked.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Well, I assume that people who pick civs that don't start with agri are picking them for other reasons.
I'm fine with everyone starting with a fishing resource, or no one starting with a fishing resource, or some people with a fishing resource and some not. I'm even ok with some people needing to get to animal husbandry for food - but if so, they need something to make up for it.
I'm fine with everyone starting with a fishing resource, or no one starting with a fishing resource, or some people with a fishing resource and some not. I'm even ok with some people needing to get to animal husbandry for food - but if so, they need something to make up for it.
Indiansmoke
Deity
That is why I have suggested equal map, where all capitals have same BFC +1 ring but all other land is different to provide variety.
Krill
Deity
Technically speaking if you make each capital identical then the starting techs still make in balanced differently. It is possible to balance the starts so that they are different and still balanced.
