Balanced map generation

[Moogle]

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the enormous disparity in the quality of civilizations starting locations and the nearby areas. Some games I'll start with 20 nearby flood plains, lots of forests, lack of unusable desert, and tons of water. Other times I'll start with with almost no fresh water whatsoever save the required lake for my capital. As I play on difficulties that push my skills to the limit (presently monarch/emperor) a bad starting location will mean I am left in the dust, while a good starting location would have lay waste to the rest of the world.

I would think it wouldn't be hard to have each civilization start with a roughly equivalent ammount of good tiles, luxuries, resources, water, and anything else important nearby or around their starting area. Yes this isn't realistic. In the real world some countries are in deserts which sucks for them, and others have been enormously blessed. But I can't say I like being dealt a horrible loss or easy win simply as a result of the map generator.

So yeah I'm frustrated. I have spent many hours looking at the different maps made from different settings, but I've had little luck in finding anything I am particularly satisfied with. Has anyone else had any better luck?

 

[DaveMcW]

The map generator is programmed to give you bad starts on higher difficulties.

 

[InFlux5]

The map generator is programmed to give you bad starts on higher difficulties.

Yeah, I think the computer may even tailor your start to be in-compatible with your traits at the higher difficulties. It could be my imagination but it seems like if I start with Fishing, I'm not on the coast. If I'm Industrial, I don't have stone nearby. But even if it's not that complex in the game, the above quote is correct.

 

[Moogle]

Alright. Well I've randomly made 5 games on emperor since reading these posts.

In one of the 5 games, I got a start location with ~5 flood plains and 5 forests right inside my first start area, but just as important I had a nice long winding river along which I could build many cities. The other 3 times I had a short river, and the other game I had a short river near a longer river.

I rely heavily on rivers. If I have none or none near by I consider this an enormous disadvantage. The nearby tile squares generate an extra gold, I can irrigate cities from the start of the game, my cities are connected by the river, and I have fresh water health bonuses in all my cities. Not to mention the flood plains which come along with rivers...

Perhaps I just haven't figured out how to play well without rivers... but starting without a river, or any significant fresh water access feels like a death nail in a civilization before its even gotten started. There are so many advantages...

Without a river, I have less gold, my city sizes are limited for lack of the +2 health bonus, my grow is limited by inability to irrigate, I must build roads to connect my cities by trade and to other civilizations. At the start of the game when every single small benefit or detriment has enormous impact, I cannot understand why some starting cities get rice tiles and flood plains and forest, while others start in the arctic or a bloody jungle... not to mention the rivers thing.

I guess my frustration is that the random map generator feels to me as if it is playing far too large a role in determining the outcome of the game because the start location given each time can vary so incredibly widely in favorability. I don't like this, and would like the option for some consitency.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I think the map generator does a better job of balancing starts than in any previous version of Civ. It's not perfect and not likely to be. I actually like the variability in starts, because, I can choose to play an easier start or a harder one just by regenerating the map a few times. This gives more control over the difficulty of the game than just using the discrete handicap levels.

If/when the SDK comes out, it might be possible to use that to program in your own algorithms for balancing start locations. Until then, I think you have to settle for regenerating the map.

 

[RandomInsanity]

if you dont like the start at all you could always regenerate the map

 

[sandman_civ]

You could always use the world builder to even the start out a bit but this would be cheating.

 

[Moogle]

I don't know... I was a pretty big warcraft III player. Wonderful game... but you didn't ever restart that because you didn't like your spot. Much as I do restart in Civ... I figured as my skill grows I ween myself off that. I have stopped endlessly reloading saved games (unless I've just given up on the game and wish to redo things to learn things) and I'd like to just play the hand I'm dealt with the map generation.

But as I sit there getting some starts that feel very overpowered, and others such as my city being in the arctic, or on a tiny peninsula that started right next to another civ, or having no water save at the start spot... I am frustrated. I would not think it would be that difficult to assign features a relative value, and then each player starts with an area of roughly equivalent value, though not necessarily the same stuff by any means.

Warcraft III would be pretty stupid if one player started with a few footmen, while another player only got a couple peasants instead of the usual 5. Guess I'll just work on figuring out what to do without water. Can't say its ever likely to be better than with water though...

 

[Lewsir]

Sounds like a very useful toggle for an expansion (or maybe a patch if simple to do...). Let the player choose "random" or "balanced" resources for the game.

 

[BrutalusMaximus]

In single player the randomness of the start is fine because you can just start over until you are at a spot you like.

In multiplayer things would be different. I have never play MP but is it possible for one player to have a city surrounded by deserts and such while the other starts in a perfect spot with multiple resources in the fat cross?

It would really suck to be in a 1v1 small game with your brother in law and have him beat your ass down just because your start sucked and his was golden. (Yes my brother in law bought me CiV for Christmass and we are supposed to 1v1 soon.)

 

[Boppo]

One thing you may be overlooking is the possibility that the starts that do not look as good may have resources that you can not yet see which might even things out a bit overall. Having horses or Iron near that spot with no river could be a big boost.

This is just a thought.

 

[LordTerror]

The map generator is programmed to give you bad starts on higher difficulties.

I noticed.

On warlord, I would get placed by about 5+ floodplains every few games. When I went to monarch, I kept reloading until I got something decent. Each time I reloaded it just got worse and worse. I never find any games that have a "good" starting spot now because my standard of "good" is too high from playing warlord.

I think they should have a few premade maps (2, 4, 8, or 16 players) so the randomness is not a factor.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I am frustrated. I would not think it would be that difficult to assign features a relative value, and then each player starts with an area of roughly equivalent value, though not necessarily the same stuff by any means.

This is indeed what the game does---it has an algorithm for determining the value of each starting location, and it tries to make them balanced. It seems to me to work pretty well, although of course not "perfectly" (but I don't think I would want it to be "perfect" anyway).

Warcraft III would be pretty stupid if one player started with a few footmen, while another player only got a couple peasants instead of the usual 5. Guess I'll just work on figuring out what to do without water. Can't say its ever likely to be better than with water though...

Isn't it more interesting to play starts with different configurations than it would be to only ever play starts with a long river?