Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ahawk, Jan 31, 2013.
This. I play Duel games every so often, and I always assumed this was true.
Excellent thread and post ahawk.
It led me to wondering if a numerical difficulty value could be applied to these factors to create an overall difficulty rating to any particular group of settings.
For example you suggest that playing on a duel map is - 50% and a huge map is +50%.
The starting point would be assigning a numerical factor to each of the difficulty levels maybe using Advanced Start Points from http://www.civfanatics.com/civ5/difficulties
Of course it would be highly subjective, maybe some polls are in order
Thank you for posting this.
I found HUGE map size was equal to at least one difficulty upgrade verses standard in Civ4.
I was finding the same to be true in CIV 5, so I decided to try out deity on a tiny map... hehehe. Left me wondering if that is why folks complained about deity being too easy.
Give those goosed AI's more goosed cities... and then give them a continent by themselves? ouch. And I love the... just nuke your way to the capital strategies. It's a long way to that capital from any border on most huge maps.
I am pretty good at coming in second on huge Emperor maps though...
I looked at some of the raw numbers in relation to map size
After a quick search I found this post on the 2K forums which may be of interest
I don't know if this data has been changed for G&K though.
I'll have to take a longer look at the link you sent in the morning (~2:30 am Central time in the U.S.), but at first glance that looks like it might be quite useful
No, the data hasn't been changed AFAIK. Large and Huge maps are scaled differently, although I don't know why. It could be that there is more space, reduced policy cost, and such so that each empire is supposed to have more initial cities. It could be that the devs were trying to find a balance between performance and map size. Either way I agree with the numbers in the proposed chart.
Mainly larger space and it would be super awkward to see tons of unfilled land spaces even into the 19th or 20th Centuries
As a frequent Netherlands player, I can guarantee their start bias does not ensure a coastal start. Same with Ottomans and Byz.
Marshes, desert floodplains and rivers I would think...
I could see that. Netherlands is in a special position because their naval UU is phenomenal, yet their unique improvement (polder) almost begs for you to start inland in a nice patch of marsh or floodplain, as smallfish points out. The other naval civs have little reason to not start on or adjacent to coast: Polynesia needs the coast for their unique improvement, while England and the Ottomans would want to be on a coast to make ships. Carthage wants the coast for their UA. And so forth. Really, other then the Netherlands, most civs with any naval benefits at all will tend to want a coastal start.
can you have an indirect geography bias?
What I mean is this:
- some civs are biased to start near other civs (example, US is biased to start near the other america civs)
- if another civs is biased to start in X terrain and you are biased to start near that civ, then you are biased to start in a certain geography.
So for example the US is biased to start near other american civs, and if the other america civs are biased to start near the jungle, then america is biased to not start in tundra geography (b/c tundra is typically not near jungle).
IIRC, Netherlands have a grasslands start bias, which is the environment in which you are most likely to find marshes.
Are you stating a fact, or expressing a preference regarding game design? To my knowledge, there are no documented civ-proximity start biases, and any civ-neighbor patterns that you observe in your games are coincidental.
Civ III had civ related groups; but no regions.
Found the starting bias info: It's in the Civililzations.xml file towards the bottom:
England & Ottoman are the only empires with Ocean bias
You can still see the commented out xml that used to give America the River bias before it was commented out.
Arabia has a desert bias
Aztecs has a jungle bias
India has a grassland bias
Iroquois has a forest bias
Russia has a tundra bias
Egypt has both a AVOID Jungle & a AVOID Forest bias
Siam has a AVOID forest bias
Songhai has a AVOID tundra bias
Those are the only vanilla biases but the DLC civs are scattered in seperate folders
DLC 1: Mongolia has a plains bias
DLC 2: Spain has an ocean bias; Inca has a hills bias
DLC 3: Polynesia has an ocean bias
DLC 4: Denmark has an ocean bias
DLC 5: (Korea) NO biases
DLC 6 is ancient wonders (no civs)
DLC Deluxe: (Babylon) NO biases
Expansion: (G&K) composed of two files; the first deals with vanilla only civs and the map settings is a cut & paste from the original file
Carthage (and Spain) have an ocean bias
Celts have a forest bias
Netherlands have a grass bias
No G&K civs with avoid
To be fair, I think that's more due to "clashing" of start biases and game memory than anything historically detailed. Huns or China starting in the same game as Rome would just be that, coincidental at best, random at worst.
Of course, I do think havng multiple continents and landmasses differentiated as "Africa", "Americas", "Asia" and "Europe" might play a big part there too...
I'm gonna add a couple of infos concerning the map size as I'd suggest an even more detailed approach to it. I've also posted this discussion in one of my videos.
2 player duel map is definitely the easiest, mostly because you need to defend only one side of your empire and the AI doesn't have any options to build alliances against you, sign RA's, trade etc. However already from 4 player map the corelation size/difficulty is more complicated than just stating larger maps are more difficult.
On smaller maps (4-6 players) the spawning locations are squeezed together, which forces early aggression, very often from all your opponents. This makes some strategies more difficult than on large maps (and of course some easier). If you're going for domination and early army small map is definitely an advantage as with the amount of damage you deal in the early game you get more benefits (for example aquire 50% of overall territory, where on large map you'd get 20% of the overall territory with the same army/gold/resigning on science investment). And of course aquiring 50% basically grants you the victory, getting only 20% certainly does not.
Also getting a lot of wonders is easier on smaller maps, as you have less civs competing for them.
However going for scientific or diplomatic victories is easier with increased map size. Simply because you have more civs, some of which are placed far away and want to have peaceful relations with you for the whole game. Then you can plan your game on spamming RA's and getting allied CS (of course your friends will vote for you as well). Such strategies are way more difficult on 4 player maps as no one will want to do it, cause you'll suffer diplo hits just for being too close. Also a certain number of CS can get taken out the UN vote which is more likely to happen on small map (ie. on 4 player map only 3/8 CS taken out and no one voting for you cause they all hate you effectively disables the diplo win).
Cultural strategy is in conflict with the map size, as on one side it's easier to get the wonders on small map, on the other it's easier to maintain friendly relations on larger maps (meaning no wars for your culturally advanced but technically and militaristically delayed empire). Here I'd say map type, starting situation and opponents types have more influence than map size.
"Are you stating a fact, or expressing a preference regarding game design? To my knowledge, there are no documented civ-proximity start biases, and any civ-neighbor patterns that you observe in your games are coincidental."
I think it worked this way in civ4, and I assumed, perhaps too readily now that you have questioned it, that it worked the same way in civ5.
EDIT: - the feature I was remembering from an earlier version is "culturally linked starts". And it looks like that didnt make it into civ5, from this thread:
Sorry about that.
I saw a mod recently that groups together Civs near real-world locations.
I generally play continents/continents plus maps, standard size with 8 Civ's but 24-26 CS's. I often find that you get 5 or 6 Civ's on one continent, and just 2 or 3 on the other. This allows those Civ's to build greater momentum, while I'm stuck fighting my way out of of a corner on my land mass.
Not sure why we don't see an even split, although on one particular game, I had a continent almost to myself, surrounded by 3 cultural CS's and china stuck down on a small peninsula.
Just to add, when I move up in difficulty, I tend to reduce the Number of Civ's to allow me some time and space. Play a couple of games like this then go back to standard settings.
Separate names with a comma.