Qienchi said:What do people think about map balance and all? I feel (unsure though) that this map has a lot less resources than the standard Earth one, so civs with lots of space to expand tend to dominate (Russia, Persia, China/India), while the Europeans one always stay at the bottom (especially poor Greek). Then again I don't know if adding resources in Europe would help this in any way (but hey, historically Europe was pretty damn backward pre-renaissance compared to the rest of the world).
I played one game which I thought was reasonably balanced with only England, Germany, Spain and Greek in Europe. (Greek got squashed still - I think it's a problem with their starting city)
Yes, there is some need for balancing
There is also a problem with Rome - they need to long to build a settler and so always fail to settle first at the location of Milano. It is always occupied by france, which becomes a european powerhouse - controling stones and marble, that way getting a lots of wonders first.
I found out that there is not enough marble and stone in Europe. I will fix that.
Greece made a poor start as well, but then settled balcan and black sea area.
All in all Europe made quite well.
First place: Me -germany, occupying middle europe, scandinavia, baltic shores ( after a war with russia, that had settled Finland )
Second was france, with half douzend wonders and technological equal to me. I dont know how they did this with only 3 Citys... but they were all huge citys indeed. I've never seen a Pop-18-City in Middle ages before....
England was fifth or so.
China had some trouble with japan, india or mongols, ending as one of the smallest civs. I think they had more potential. Just bad luck.