1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Continent Map - Are restrictions on tribes needed in this case?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Democracy and Team Games' started by justanick, Oct 14, 2010.

  1. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    738
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, damn close.
    A continentmap of size 80x80 at 70% Water would have roundabout 960 landtitles. A 100x100 map with 80% Water would habe 1000 landtitles, at 90x90 it would be 810 landtitles. This would be my personal favorite decision in case of continents. There would be less landtitles than in german DG5, which seemed towards me to be a bit to much landtitles(70% water at 80x70). But it would be more land than in DG4(70% water at 70x70).
    The distance between continents would be relativly great cause of more water. This may handicap both agricultural civs and those with AA UU. So a restriction through ruleset may be unnessary. How do you think about this? Is it a valuable option, or do i simply spin? :crazyeye:
     
  2. Gabelbart

    Gabelbart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Westphalia
    As I voted for archipelago i did so as to avoid early war (warrior rush eg). But I did NOT want a great distance between continents. Trade between continents via harbour should be possible to increase value of diplomatic action.
    I think we should not resolve poll results. No agricultural and no antic UU is fixed.
     
  3. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I believe you should be using 60% water. On small and tiny maps Agriculture based Tribes have the same advantage as on larger maps. More water is not needed. If it was we could call the game Sea Battles. A lot of people voted for the Pangaea. Let's go with more land, not more water. Comparing your optimal choice to past DGs of CivForums makes no difference to CFCers. We are not familiar at all with your games. As I said earlier, using island sized Continents separated by vast oceans will not handicap the Agri Tribes. They will have the groth advantage, regardless of where they start. On the map you describe, the Netherlands would have an extreme advantage.

    It is probable that the 4 Tribes will be grouped two and two on different Continents. The reasons for restricting Tribes with AA UUs was justified earlier. Separating Continents by vast amounts of water would just mean early wars between the two grouped Tribes on each Continent, like programmed wars. Inevitable, planned and expected.

    I will now post a poll on water content for the map. As CFC has chosen Continents, water content plays a more important part.
     
  4. I. Larkin

    I. Larkin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,395
    Support this idea. Trade and Diplomacy more intersting than plain war. No AA UU.
     
  5. EvilConqueror

    EvilConqueror Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    455
    Location:
    USA
    Since there will likely be multiple teams on the same continent, I think it's still an issue.
     
  6. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,237
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    I think we still need the restrictions. Agricultural is strong on any kind of map (provided there's fresh water), and especially on continents it is important that you don't share the same continent with the Celts or Iroquois...

    But we should consider the idea that has already been suggested on Civforum: we could allow the "harmless" AA UU, like the Byzantine Dromon or the purely defensive UUs like the Greek Hoplite or the Carthaginian Mercenary.
     
  7. Sparthage

    Sparthage Fighting Tyranny

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,749
    Location:
    New Lunar Republic
    I agree with the harmless UUs. Also, a possible modification that I like to play my games with is that everyone can build Ancient Cavs if they have Iron and Horses. The SoZ still produces them though.
     
  8. justanick

    justanick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    738
    Location:
    Germany
    Than their cost should be increased to 50 shields and may be upgraded to knights.
     
  9. Sparthage

    Sparthage Fighting Tyranny

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,749
    Location:
    New Lunar Republic
    1. Yep, I usually charge 50 for them.
    2. Actually, I have Horsemen upgradable to them. They come in by discovering Horseback Riding.
     
  10. Calis

    Calis on time

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,967
    Location:
    Germany GMT+1
    I'd say the additional hit point is not worth more than 5 shields (compared to the Gallic Swordmen). But by allowing them, everybody has his strong offensive AA unit. Is that good or bad? :dunno:
     
  11. I. Larkin

    I. Larkin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,395
    I vote against AC "for all". Game will have military flavour from very beginning. If you want AC build SoZ.
     
  12. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I'm with I. Larkin. If everyone had a great mobile swordsman at HBR in the real world, there would not have been any great empires. If everyone were equal there would not have been Babylon, or Rome, or Athens, or Compton....
     

Share This Page