Map creation and referee

[Prince_Ralfi]

For the next step of our ISDG I think we need to discuss the final decision about our map and the referee system.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

Since we already pointed out, that we have to trust each other by the abuse of the world builder. We have somone in our forum who isn't participating in our group and would be willing to create a map with the preferred options.
We already pointed out some aditional options to make the map more balanced:
1. Each team has 1 source iron and horses close to the starting position
2. El Dorado and fountain of youth are replaced by other natural wonders

What are your opinions?

For a referee I don't have a clou. I think we need to find someone to just moderate in special occasions. Most things could be covered by the rules.

 

[Atlas627]

I would rather not alter the strategics and Natural Wonders, though the removal of El Dorado and Fountain of Youth does not bother me too much.

The random chance is part of the game, part of the risk you take into account when you make decisions to explore, expand, and exterminate. Changing these risk factors changes the game.

On the other hand, we all know of these changes beforehand. And we are all affected somewhat equally by them. Except for the fact that we have picked civs assuming we would not change these things right? We have picked to synergize strategies of civs with those of gameplay, and our gameplay should be based off of our original risk analysis.

At the very least, do not alter the strategics. It is part of going wide vs tall vs conquest.

 

[Brian1972]

Changing these risk factors changes the game.

So we shouldn't use a Maptype? Because each maptype has a huge impact on the strategy one should choose.

Every decision on the game settings alters the game. So I can't agree with this reasoning.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

In fact, the stuff with all strategics for everyone was my idea.
I think since we all agreed on strategic balance we should at least make sure that there is iron and horses near the capital. Let the rest be in Sid's hands.

 

[viktorianer]

I like it random - but OK with strategic balance and "make sure that there is iron and horses near the capital"

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

Wir könnten ja gleich hier weiterdiskutieren.
Deutsch als Amtssprache.

 

[Dudj]

Das würde es für mich einfacher machen

 

[Atlas627]

So we shouldn't use a Maptype? Because each maptype has a huge impact on the strategy one should choose.

Every decision on the game settings alters the game. So I can't agree with this reasoning.

The game is balanced for the default map type, continents. The thing is we agreed upon the change BEFORE picking civs (which synergize with our strategies). Changing the settings NOW would reduce or increase the strength of strategies that we have already started implementing through civ choice.

Edit: The change to Pangaea is what I'm talking about here. Your quote cut out the explanation of why this matters, which is that we have already started implementing strategy around the assumption of default everything else.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

As far as I remember we agreed on Pangaea+ as map type.
Only thing in discussion was a change to Pangaea to relocate CS to the continent.

 

[SilentConfusion]

So long as all teams can come to an agreement on map settings such as guaranteed strategics, I don't see a problem. My question here is what constitutes agreement: unanimous decision, majority vote?

That said my vote on my team (CFC) will be to leave strategics where they lie. To me this improves civilizations such as Russia, Japan, or Rome by taking away the risk of possibly having to work hard to get the strategics they need. Those civilizations with strategics are very strong and the balance for those civilizations is that they sometimes do not have the strategics close at hand. To me, guaranteed strategics makes gameplay less interesting for all. I understand why people would want guaranteed strategics, but I would prefer not to have them.

 

[Atlas627]

As far as I remember we agreed on Pangaea+ as map type.
Only thing in discussion was a change to Pangaea to relocate CS to the continent.

Yes, I know. I think either you misread what I wrote, or I am misreading what you wrote.

I am saying the change to Pangaea (from Continents) is ok because we agreed upon it beforehand.

A change to strategics now would not be ok, because we have already started implementing strategies through civ picks assuming default settings for everything else. mblum's argument for default strategics explains why we should strategize around the default settings.

 

[KiffeLesBiffles]

We agree on pangea map with strategic balance. It give everyone iron and horse. Every map will be a bit unbalanced.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

Maybe we are making to big a deal of it. Let's just use map generator on pangaea with strategic balance (which provides iron and horses to starting pos.) and go with it.
I personally hate the feeling that comes up when another player rushbuys a settler in R5 because he found El Dorado. But as you are right, that's part of the game.

Still no ideas for referee?

 

[Genghis.Khan]

Maybe we are making to big a deal of it. Let's just use map generator on pangaea with strategic balance (which provides iron and horses to starting pos.) and go with it.
I personally hate the feeling that comes up when another player rushbuys a settler in R5 because he found El Dorado. But as you are right, that's part of the game.

Still no ideas for referee?

agreed

 

[Atlas627]

Maybe we are making to big a deal of it. Let's just use map generator on pangaea with strategic balance (which provides iron and horses to starting pos.) and go with it.
I personally hate the feeling that comes up when another player rushbuys a settler in R5 because he found El Dorado. But as you are right, that's part of the game.

Still no ideas for referee?

I understand the complaints surrounding El Dorado and Fountain of Youth. I still feel they are part of the game, but the chances of having either A) in our game AND B) near enough to us to take advantage of are slim. We probably were not strategizing around these possibilities, and the removal of them is very very unlikely to affect these strategies.

Strategic resources however is very important. Rome normally would want to expand to ensure Iron, but now they both don't have to and are guaranteed their Legions which were balanced assuming one has to work to get them. Egypt now has less use for these horses they are guaranteed to get, or one of the uses of the War Chariot is removed. I am sure the resourceless-ness of the War Chariot was at least a small factor in determining to play Egypt for them.

I think this is a very good reason to go with default resource spread. But of course if the majority disagrees, we should go with the vote. Or however we decide it.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I understand the complaints surrounding El Dorado and Fountain of Youth. I still feel they are part of the game, but the chances of having either A) in our game AND B) near enough to us to take advantage of are slim. We probably were not strategizing around these possibilities, and the removal of them is very very unlikely to affect these strategies.

Strategic resources however is very important. Rome normally would want to expand to ensure Iron, but now they both don't have to and are guaranteed their Legions which were balanced assuming one has to work to get them. Egypt now has less use for these horses they are guaranteed to get, or one of the uses of the War Chariot is removed. I am sure the resourceless-ness of the War Chariot was at least a small factor in determining to play Egypt for them.

I think this is a very good reason to go with default resource spread. But of course if the majority disagrees, we should go with the vote. Or however we decide it.

I completely agree with GamerKG on both points. This is how I feel both about natural wonders and strategics guaranteed. GamerKG's explanation is very nicely worded. If the other teams think guaranteed strategics or removing El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth are better, I will be fine with it.

Can the other teams weigh in on these two issues and the issue of whether we want the map looked at for possible imbalances that might make a team not want to play? Once we decide on these, I don't think there are many more things that need to be decided except for a referee, and I think we have at least one recommendation already.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

I see the point in your arguments. But apart from Egypt you can turn it around. Assume that Rome has a source of iron nearby which can be connected with the first city and another player with iron or horses that far away, that it would mess up the whole expansion strategy to connect them.
There would be lots of whining after been overrrun by Rome or Egypt without even a chance to react because of a lack of strategics. Or if we play standard it should at least be made sure that they are somewhere nearby.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I see the point in your arguments. But apart from Egypt you can turn it around. Assume that Rome has a source of iron nearby which can be connected with the first city and another player with iron or horses that far away, that it would mess up the whole expansion strategy to connect them.
There would be lots of whining after been overrrun by Rome or Egypt without even a chance to react because of a lack of strategics. Or if we play standard it should at least be made sure that they are somewhere nearby.

I do see your point and the last thing I want is whining teams or players. I don't so much care which way we go. I'm just excited for this game and want it to start.

 

[Prince_Ralfi]

I'm just excited for this game and want it to start.

Me too.