GodDamnItAlexander
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 202
All feedback appreciated.
Also present in donut.A great deal of Civ is exploring the map and adapting your strategy based on terrain and proximity to your neighbors.
You'd be surprised. In one of my previous games I was neighboring a Carthaginian coastal city that was near impossible to take solely by land (until siege units get indirect fire).And being placed in mirrored starting points on an artificially uniform map makes immersion more difficult.
How is this the case if every civ is neighboring two different civs? For example right now I'm playing Morocco. I'm neighboring China and Egypt. However China is neighboring Morocco and The Maya. Egypt is neighboring Morocco and Sweden. Symmetrical? Nope. Also there is a mod that lets you edit maps (IGE). You can see the entire map form turn 1 if you turn off fog. Load up any game of donut and I guarantee you will find that all starts will not be symmetrical. Just spawning on the inner vs outer coast line has a huge impact on the game.Civ is all about how you adapt to the situation the game throws at you, and the first situation is your starting-location. With all starts being symmetrical that situation is diminished.
Specify what type of imbalance makes the game interesting in your opinion. If one Civ is just simply better than all the other civs combined, then we call that broken and we demand a fix.imbalances is what makes a game interesting.
Can you explain this please?Civs that start with the capital on the outside coast are safer from surprise naval attack than capitals on the inside coast because navies only come from the left or right with plenty of advance warning.
Yep. Inner sea has higher risk/reward.I don't think donut allows navies to cross over the edge of the map (the edge of the map is a barrier)
So:
If the coast capital is on the outside ring coastline, attacks by sea cannot cross an ocean to get to the capital. They only come from left or right over a long distance.
If the coast capital is on the inside ring, attacks by sea can come from left and right over a short distance and also come from across the ocean.
Therefore inside ring coastal capitals are more exposed to naval invasion than outside ring coastal capitals.
Muh realism.I just can't play with that map. It's like playing in an arena. I prefer landmasses looking like a true planet.
You give donut too much credit. There are still many imbalances (although no islands). However donut gives you more tools to deal with other players imbalanced starts.I really like maps that create "unbalanced terrains". I like having to think about how to exploit huge mountain chains, peninsulas, forgotten island that I'm lucky to find before the others, ...
So donut map, why not for 1-2 games in order to play with the 2 seas, but it does not have a lot of "aberration", precisely because it would be unbalanced.
"that said I think it equally valid to interpret balance as giving every civ an equal chance to access its advantages"For what its worth, I admire your passion on this topic, Alexander. I think most would agree that in some ways 'donut' could be considered one of the more "balanced" maps as you describe... that said I think it equally valid to interpret balance as giving every civ an equal chance to access its advantages, and equal challenges, such as an equal uncertainty about the world its in. I haven't observed a very strong need for balance re-work for the most part in recent VP, though if that were the case I would hope to even things up as broadly as possible, rather than on any one very narrow ruleset that will be infrequently played by most.
I honestly don't know how to persuade people that having a more balanced game is a good thing if they don't already believe in it. For me that's a given. My best example is from dota. Their basic approach to balance is to fight broken with broken. Simply put, all the heroes have the potential to be absurdly strong in the right context, to the point where picking just one hero in the right context can hand you the game on a metal platter. However that doesn't mean that the developers don't try to make the game as a whole more balanced.I think many on the forum here need to be persuaded that this very focused balance approach would be a good thing, and not so much convinced that donut is in some way a very even map to play on. I also think you may be overlooking one very critical flaw with 'donut'. Consider that the human, when it chooses 'donut' already knows very precisely, to a much greater degree than on almost any other map, the shape of the geography its working with, and can very quickly infer where it is on that map within a few turns. I may be wrong but I don't think the AI is told what map script was chosen in the settings, and is left to blindly explore w/o any foreknowledge. This is a massive advantage to human... in this way, 'donut' is one of the least desirable maps for AI vs human games I think
Yep.It is true that the shape of the map gives humans an initial edge over AI but adjusting the difficulty absorbs that edge as always.
Donut is a subtle map type because there are imbalances all over the place in the terrain and placements that only become obvious much later in the game than other map types.
But sadly, the problem is there is no jungle in donut because of a bug in the map script.
Nope. Never said that. Your opinion is balance isn't the first priority. If the civs gods themselves were to hand you down a map type that would be the pinnacle of balance, would you play it over and over again? Probably not.Oh, I see the issue now. You're equating "there are other considerations besides balance" with "I don't care about balance at all." That is simply not true. Just because we recognize that balance is a single factor rather than the entirety of game design does not mean that we think balance is unimportant.