• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Map creation and referee

Prince_Ralfi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rome would have had to take the risk of getting Iron Working without guaranteed Iron. The overrun civ has multiple choices. They can go economy, which means they are taking the risk of being overrun if Rome gets Iron. This can be counterplayed by scouting, harassing, and allying other players. Alternatively, the overrun civ could also have chosen to go for military. So then the question is whether they chose to risk Iron Working or if they chose to get the guaranteed forces by either rushing Iron Working AND expanding or if they wanted to rush Civil Service, risking getting rushed. Their decision can be made safely with proper scouting, harassing, and allying with other players.

Might there be whining? Sure. But it is noone's fault but their own. They don't have strategics because they took a risk and got unlucky. They have plenty of options available, each with a minimizable risk. In a game designed around multiple players (not necessarily humans), not everyone can win.

Well regardless, I just want to start! :lol:
 
For me (not as group leader, but propably most of my polish comrades would agree with me) strategic balance and removing imbalanced natural wonders is must have.
I lost too many games due to lack of coal or uranium on my side of map, without event saying about iron/horses, huh.

And I'm on of those guys, who are always against all random-things (<3 mirrors) when it comes to serious game, for which I will spend a lot of time.
Also, checking in "Community GMR Game" thread, for balance were: Deutsche (Prince_Ralfi), French (KiffeLesBiffles) and polish team, can't find setting proposed by 4 team, but it still majority.
 
Very well. For future reference, we should work this out before deciding civs. :)
 
DudJ, following this post:
Goodie,

so it's on. I think we could get on board with 1 CS per player but without regulations.
I'll repeat:

Map Type: Pangaea/Pangaea+ (vote)
Map Size: Tiny
Difficulty: Emperor (compromise between noble and immo)
Game Pace: standard
Resources: strategic balance
CS: 1 per player
Policy saving: no
Promotion saving: no
Barbarians: normal
Ruins: yes/no (vote)
DLC: all
Click to expand...

Seems like we need to decide only about ruins and type of pangaea.
 
Maiar said:
DudJ, following this post:


Seems like we need to decide only about ruins and type of pangaea.
Click to expand...

Ok so the following votes need to happen:

Ancient Ruins:
  • On (Introduces more randomness and potentially more fun, but not necessarily)
  • Off (More balanced, less contrast between start points, may change scouting priority)



Type of Pangaea:
  • Pangaea (Normal pangaea with all civs and all city-states on one landmass)
  • Pangaea Plus (All civs are on the same landmass, but city-states are on islands surrounding the landmass, which makes for later CS contact and forces you to rely on other things early for culture/food/happy/etc.)
 
Ok, apparently we did decide that already? My mistake. We certainly never DISCUSSED it, even if we did agree to it. Oh well.

Ruins should be on for the same reason strategics should be default/standard/randomized, because that is what the game is balanced around. They should be off for the same reason strategics should be balanced, which is that a bad start could make the game unfun for a whole team for a long time.

I prefer ruins on. It is part of the risk you take when spending resources on early scouting.


I think bullying, allying, and conquering CS early is an important part of the game, but I don't like abuse of the CS. Since we already agreed to de-incentivize worker steals by forcing 10 turns of war (instead of insta-peace with CS), I think it is a better option to do normal Pangaea with reachable CS.
 
My own opinion is Pangaea Plus and No Ancient Ruins, but perhaps we should as a team decide our preferences and then have each team report back. That will probably lead to a more clear outcome.
 
Though I personally am with Maiar in this matter and would love to turn off everything that brings a "luck factor" into the game.
civforum.de votes for:

Maptype: Pangaea+
ancient Ruins: on
 
I've heard people ask about Pangaea Plus being part of a DLC that our players would have to have to play the turns. Does anyone know more about this? Which DLC is it that Pangaea plus comes from?
 
It comes with G&K ... so no problem.
 
Genghis.Khan and SilentConfusion are from the same team?
I mean, everything for me is little confusing...
Maybe only "representatives" of specific teams should talk in organizational threads?
And thx Prince for marking your team. : )

About polish setting, we discuss about it already, so it should be in a moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Civ 8 And Commanders/1UPT/Doomstacks
Replies
1
Views
248
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
GPR
Talislanta scenario
Replies
0
Views
190
GPR
GPR
Nizef
  • Sticky
TSG 269 Opening Actions
Replies
17
Views
787
elotar
E
Mesix
What is the easiest path to Modern victory at Deity?
Replies
10
Views
2K
stealth_nsk
stealth_nsk
W
wltk's Detailed Map Tacks
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
wltk
W
Back
Top Bottom