New Beta Version - August 16th (8/16)

[Deljade]

For those that play on maps different than Communitas and don't want to see Bananas in colder latitudes, I have made a modmod to spawn berries on Marshes instead.
Berries for VP (replacing Marsh Bananas)

Also the map Editor (but not the game?) crashes when creating a map at "Placing natural wonders." sometimes. Even with only basic VP.

 

[Voremonger]

OK, what is up with the resource density? I thought it might be a one-off, but it's not. Certain areas of the map have very high concentration of resources. I don't know what the cause or the mechanism is, but i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶a̶d̶ it feels very wrong. It's not just about the bonus resources, the luxuries are closer together than they used to be as well. Why? What's the rationale behind this?

Judging from the images I would say that Resources are generated independently of each other with a certain chance per Tile.
In contradiction to popular belief giving each unit of space a constant chance to contain something does not result in a somewhat uniform distribution.
Instead this leads to clustering with long stretches of empty space in between.
This is a mathematical property of the Poisson distribution/the binomial distribution for very large or very small probabilities.
A somewhat intuitive explanation for this is that after a Tile contains a Resource the most likely distance to the next resource is just 1 Tile, leading to clustering between resources.
However, there is also a comparatively small chance to encounter a long distance between resources, leading to long, empty patches between some resources.

I personally don't have a problem with the current state of resource generation.
I can imagine though that for sparse resources the clustering can become annoying.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Judging from the images I would say that Resources are generated independently of each other with a certain chance per Tile.
In contradiction to popular belief giving each unit of space a constant chance to contain something does not result in a somewhat uniform distribution.
Instead this leads to clustering with long stretches of empty space in between.
This is a mathematical property of the Poisson distribution/the binomial distribution for very large or very small probabilities.
A somewhat intuitive explanation for this is that after a Tile contains a Resource the most likely distance to the next resource is just 1 Tile, leading to clustering between resources.
However, there is also a comparatively small chance to encounter a long distance between resources, leading to long, empty patches between some resources.

I personally don't have a problem with the current state of resource generation.
I can imagine though that for sparse resources the clustering can become annoying.

I prefer more uniform distribution myself. Having clusters feels like some cities are going to be super-cities whereas others feel poor in comparison. Seems particularly strange if my third or fourth city (further away) is much stronger than my capital because of the relative wealth there.

I am also still getting used to all the things that are different in this version, so maybe I'll feel differently over time. IDK. Thanks for the explanation, I do remember Poisson distribution from school so that makes a lot of sense .

 

[vyyt]

@JamesNinelives , which map script is it?

 

[tu_79]

Hi I am abit confused at all the new options to select for communities map?
Is there a post that informs me what each of them do..?

They are explained in the map development thread.
Continents(default) / Terra. Tierra means all civs in the largest continent, map 30% bigger.
Circumnavigation on(default) /off. Circumnavigation creates a water path east to west, following the easiest altitude path, so it doesn't feel artificial.
Resource abundance. Sparse is just smaller deposits. Abundant is the opposite. Strategic is some extra guaranteed strategic resources around capitals. Epic start is more of the latter.

I prefer more uniform distribution myself. Having clusters feels like some cities are going to be super-cities whereas others feel poor in comparison. Seems particularly strange if my third or fourth city (further away) is much stronger than my capital because of the relative wealth there.

I am also still getting used to all the things that are different in this version, so maybe I'll feel differently over time. IDK. Thanks for the explanation, I do remember Poisson distribution from school so that makes a lot of sense .

One thing I didn't like from original Communitas is that it was really difficult to form farm clusters with all that many resources. So first thing I did was to reduce the number of deposits but people complained about silly things things like the extinction of sheep. So now they come with this cluster like distribution, which is the result of decreasing some exclusion ratios, and people stop complaining. Cities are not especially overpowered when all cities have a chance at finding a similar resource distribution. It's just slightly better for Progress style with their small borders.

 

[KittyKat3120]

They are explained in the map development thread.

Hi sorry but I can't seem to find it?
Do you mean the one at Civ5 - Map Scripts? As I thought the information there was outdated, where the first page stated the changelog was for v1.06

 

[tu_79]

Hi sorry but I can't seem to find it?
Do you mean the one at Civ5 - Map Scripts? As I thought the information there was outdated, where the first page stated the changelog was for v1.06

Check my signature

 

[JamesNinelives]

Cities are not especially overpowered when all cities have a chance at finding a similar resource distribution.

That's not the case though because the distribution isn't uniform. There are usually one or two 'super-city' spots near my capital and the rest are mostly normal with more empty areas sometimes.

It's just slightly better for Progress style with their small borders.

I honestly find it a bit annoying because it makes things like Angkor Wat feel less relevant.

@JamesNinelives , which map script is it?

Continents Plus is the map. I'm using Really Advanced Setup so I may be missing some of the options that are available if the standard setup has changed? I'm using the same settings as I did before which is Huge Map, standard everything else.

Something that irritates me is the feeling that there's less strategy to settling. When the resources are spread out I can pick between being near two luxuries, one of the luxuries and some horses, or horses and some iron. There are multiple good options for city location planning. Now it's just: go for the clusters first, then fill in the gaps.

 

[LucidAPs]

Pretty sure she told me to screw off or something but yeah...


Moderator Action: Changed your post to something more appropriate. Please do not try to fool the autocensor. leif

 

[Deljade]

Map generation seems to go overboard with the Bison, while lacking in Cattle a bit. There seems to be high amounts of Stone but a lot of it is in otherwise inhospitable areas like Snow and Desert.
Resource distribution also seems different but I am open to try it since there seem to be some interesting scenarios being created.

 

[tranx]

Seems like Stop City Razing button is not working...
.
.
.
Sorry Mumbai

 

[azum4roll]

Well, at least I can say that luxury distribution hasn't been changed at all.

 

[salty mud]

I've also had some strange AI declarations. In my current game, The Goths (modded civ) have the west coast of the continent and the Aztecs have the east. Three civs, including me, separate them, but they've gone to war with each other. A bizarre turn of events!

As an aside, I was pondering Domination Victory. Has there ever been a discussion regarding turning it into a Civ IV style victory, with owning >50% of the world, instead of conquering all the capitals? Conquering capitals just seems too gamey and can honestly be quite a detriment to your game if the capital has a sucky location, is extremely well defended and so on. Conquering all capitals is much more suited to a Conquest type victory. Owning over half of the world sounds like a Domination victory.

 

[legoras]

So not only for me AI oddly declare war to other Civs, with no any border or even at different continent.

 

[bahamut19]

[QUOTE=" Conquering all capitals is much more suited to a Conquest type victory. Owning over half of the world sounds like a Domination victory.[/QUOTE]

This would never work on a Duel map. One Civ just needs to go Progress and settle a few more cities than the other Civ, then the game is over. It would make wide the only potential way to win.

 

[stii]

I mean loads of things don't work on a duel map.

 

[salty mud]

I understand the objection, but in the same vein, one could simply go Authority, spam some units, zerg rush the enemy capital and win even quicker as it stands now. As @stii noted, duel isn't ideal for balancing systems.

 

[Drakle]

I don't even know why duel size maps are a thing, aside from allowing a way to cheese a cheap Diety win. Odd choice for the Civ5 developers. But they made a lot of odd choices.

 

[InkAxis]

I don't even know why duel size maps are a thing, aside from allowing a way to cheese a cheap Diety win. Odd choice for the Civ5 developers. But they made a lot of odd choices.

I think duel is made for what the name implies - a deathmatch between you and another player, probably a human friend.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

AFAIK the game (or at least VP) is balanced around standard size standard speed continents type maps.
I don't mean that every single setting that differ from the above setting is horribly unbalanced but A lot of things can be exploited or just break the game balance on different settings and duel is one of these.
You can try playing huge map with 20 cities and do silly stuff like Nationalization é corporations or a small pangea on marathon to win the game in the ancient/classic era with Songhai or Persia.