Map Discussion

[Lord Parkin]

What type of map would we like to see in this game? At some stage the map makers will want to hear some input from the teams, so let's get started on discussing this now.

There have already been quite a few suggestions for map layouts in this thread, including a ring-shaped continent (or continents), a map like the last game (pangaea/global highlands with everyone spaced around the outside), and many others.

Let's start with the division of civs. What would we prefer to see? All 6 teams on one continent, however it is shaped? A split onto two continents, with 3 teams on each? A split onto three continents, with 2 teams on each? Or even every team starting on their own island?

Generally it's a fairly usual request that all teams should be able to contact one another by coast (so even if they're on separate islands/continents, they can still conduct diplomacy and wars pre-Optics/Astronomy). Do people still think this is a good idea? I'm open to the possibility of some continents/islands being separated by ocean, as long as the number of teams that can contact each other is the same for everyone. For instance, it would not be balanced if 4 teams can contact each other pre-Optics but the other 2 can only contact each other pre-Optics, but it would be okay if it was 3/3, or 2/2/2, or even 1/1/1/1/1/1 (although the latter might be a bit boring diplomatically).

Then to the land form. Any ideas here? Personally I quite like the idea of a ring arrangement... there are a lot of potential variations, for instance putting three small coastal slices through the ring at 120 degree spacings, thus dividing it into 3 continents with 2 players on each but in a ring shape. I also like the idea of having at least one or two islands which nobody starts on and which cannot be settled until Astronomy (or Optics for Joao), perhaps with some unique resources that are not present on the rest of the map (e.g. Gold, or even perhaps Oil or Uranium?) - this gives an incentive to those teams wishing to expand overseas. I think it'd also be cool if there were one or two small islands reachable by coast for each team, perhaps with a strategic resource (Horse or Iron) that would make them worth settling early.

But that's just me - what do you guys think?

 

[azzaman333]

Not a pangaea.

 

[Lord Parkin]

By the way, there are a few examples of map types that can be achieved by a map generator in this post from the last game. Might be useful to give people ideas.

 

[champinoman]

I like the idea of having separate land masses however I believe they should be joined by coast. Having separate land masses usually means that there will be 2 main powers (who rein supreme over their continent) racing towards a peaceful victory condition in... peace.

 

[hell_hound]

Only have a pnagaea if there is some interesting variation on it, otherwise some form of modded big and small or continents is good for me

 

[DaveMcW]

(stolen from Sulla)

Here are five general options to think about:

Wheel: One of the better Multiplayer maps for this sort of game, and a very "fair" map, with equal territory for all civs and access to each team. May be too unnatural for some teams' tastes. Also on the small side.

Donut: A fun script added in the expansion. All the teams start on the outside edge of the donut, with a large region of peaks in the middle. The peaks can also be replaced by water, or standard terrain, if desired. Lots of early contact on this map.

Islands: A map that features lots of water and naval combat. Each team has their own starting island to themselves, which may or may not be what you want. The islands by default are separated by ocean, but they can be bridged by turning on the "tiny islands" setting.

No Tiny Islands

Various Tiny Islands

Archipelago/Snaky Continents: One of my personal favorites, due to the crazy and unpredictable land forms it spits out. Navies will still be emphasized heavily on this script. Here are three different looks, with different settings:

Global Highlands: A more interesting take on Pangaea, IMO. The peaks make for all sorts of wacky geographical formations, and interesting decisions on where to settle. Lots of customization options in the settings too. The latter two pictures explore some of the peak options.

Now what I would like from each team is to discuss and agree on a ranking of your three top preferences. This doesn't mean that you'll necessarily get the script that you picked first, but I will take into account what kind of map each team wanted. For example, if your team was dead-set on an Islands map, I'll lean more towards the naval ones in the overall decision. You can also simply say, "we trust the map maker, come up with a mystery game that looks awesome" as I know a couple of teams have suggested. If that's the general team feeling, you can skip this discussion entirely.

Once again, I'm asking each team to come to a decision on their top three map preferences by Saturday, March 27. At that point, I'll see what each team decided and do my best to come up with something agreeable to everyone (although that may be impossible...) Thanks for your input, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

 

[azzaman333]

FWIW, the last game was on a Global Highlands type map.

 

[Lord Parkin]

(stolen from Sulla)

Yep, I already linked to that same post in my first post. Thanks anyway though.

 

[AlphaShard]

If we do a one landmass then I would go for wheel. I like the idea of islands with one per team. Continents has always been my favorite and I vote for large or huge map.

 

[fed1943]

I like big maps, because they allow peace, war and barbs.

A question: will leaders/civs be chosen after map type is known?

 

[AlphaShard]

Yeah I would like Map to be decided before we finalize our leader/civ choice.

 

[Lord Parkin]

If we do a one landmass then I would go for wheel. I like the idea of islands with one per team. Continents has always been my favorite and I vote for large or huge map.

Personally "Wheel" feels a bit artificial to me, but if the mapmaker can do a variation on it that works in a similar way but feels a bit more "natural", I'd be all for it.

I like big maps, because they allow peace, war and barbs.

Yeah, I think big maps usually work out pretty well for this type of game. With 1 civ per team, I'd go for Standard or Large; with 2 civs per team, I'd go for Huge. This gives everyone room to expand without feeling claustrophobic or getting rushed by a guy 12 tiles away.

A question: will leaders/civs be chosen after map type is known?

Yes, based on the last game, our final leader/civ choice will indeed be made after the map type has been decided. Then the map maker will make the map with our leader/civ in it, according to the decided specifications.

It's definitely important to know the map before we finalise our leader. For instance, Willem wouldn't be much used if it turns out to be a Highlands map (though I doubt that it will).

 

[Irgy]

Standard seems big enough for me - too big and it all just takes too long I think. Standard is already a bit bigger than default with only 6 civs.

I think whatever it is should be a surprise. And that the map maker shouldn't know which civ has which start until the game begins either.

It sounds like people don't want to be isolated, don't want pangaea (is this mostly just the civ-in-the-middle problem?), and don't want two continents. I suspect three continents of two teams each is going to have most of the same problems as two continents. I definately prefer natural looking maps. So what does that leave really?

Archipelago/Snakey continents looks good if we ensure all civs are connected without astronomy. Otherwise some sort of natural looking hub or ring seems reasonable.

 

[Lord Parkin]

It sounds like people don't want to be isolated, don't want pangaea (is this mostly just the civ-in-the-middle problem?)

It shouldn't be, because it's easy enough to make a Pangaea-type map where all 6 civs are spaced evenly around the outside, and the middle of the map is a battleground for whoever dares to venture there first.

and don't want two continents. I suspect three continents of two teams each is going to have most of the same problems as two continents. I definately prefer natural looking maps. So what does that leave really?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a single post in this thread where anyone has said they're against having 2-3 continents, at least if they're connected by coast. So it leaves that, for one thing.

 

[Irgy]

It shouldn't be, because it's easy enough to make a Pangaea-type map where all 6 civs are spaced evenly around the outside, and the middle of the map is a battleground for whoever dares to venture there first.

All I'm really going on is Azzaman's comment "not a pangaea" and a few other comments in the old thread. I was taking it to mean 'not the pangaea map script', without excluding some of the ring or wheel setups, but I might be reading too much into it. I don't have a problem with a single continent ring setup, other than it possibly not involving enough coast or water.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a single post in this thread where anyone has said they're against having 2-3 continents, at least if they're connected by coast. So it leaves that, for one thing.

When I said 2-3 continents I meant specifically just the case where they're separated by ocean. Separated only by coast tiles (or by peaks even) is different I agree. If they're connected by coast I don't think it matters quite as much what the split is in terms of who can get to who by land, even a 3-2-1 split or something odd like that isn't the end of the world. It might put a stop to a stone/classic age rush for the '1', but that's where playing the map and being flexible comes in.

 

[Lord Parkin]

There is a considerable bias if the number of civs that can easily contact each other is not equal (just see Sullla's writeup of the Realms Beyond demogame). For instance, if the setup was three continents in the order of 3/2/1 laid across the map and connected by coast, then the 2 in the middle get easy contact with everyone (quite powerful for tech trades) but also get pummelled from all sides; the 3 on the left get easy contact with 4/5 others (very decent); and the 1 on the edge gets easy contact with only 2/5 of the others (quite bad) and risks being pummelled by the 2 in the middle. Of course, this can be balanced slightly if the coastal connections wrap right around the world, so the 1 civ is also connected to the 3 civs.

This is not saying I'd be against a 3/2/1 or something of that sort... it would just have to be balanced very carefully.

 

[AlphaShard]

Is a Terra map even an option? competing for new world territory?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Thing is, the new world territory will be irrelevant to the game. The battle to win the game will be fought (and won) on the old world long before the new world is settled. See Sullla's write-up of the Realms Beyond democracy game for an example - that game was played on a Terra map, and nobody even got to the new world before the game finished.

So having a Terra map is kind of pointless, because half of the map will never see the light of day.

That is, unless you started 3 of the civs in the new world and 3 in the old. But then the old world tends to have more land, so that wouldn't be too balanced either.

 

[DaveShack]

How about the 6 civs on medium-small remote islands (big enough for 5 cities maybe) and all modern resources on a big central land mass?

 

[Lord Parkin]

How about the 6 civs on medium-small remote islands (big enough for 5 cities maybe) and all modern resources on a big central land mass?

Yep, could be interesting. Or else having most of the modern resources in the centre of a Pangaea map. (Or even on an island within the centre of a Pangaea map. ) That might make for some fiercely contested battles. (On the other hand it might just hand the game to one civ if all other factors are equal.)