Post a (tough) Deity map for me to play

Spoiler :
krikav's Alex map is certainly a better breather than the Alex map I posted I while back.
 
Spoiler :
krikav's Alex map is certainly a better breather than the Alex map I posted I while back.
Thanks!
Spoiler :
Nice to hear, I spent quite some time making it, had to learn how to edit worldbuilder files to move around the player and the two AIs.
 
Spoiler :
Makes me wonder which of the two Alex maps would, on average, be considered the harder of the two :think:. One would assume the Continents map, since on a Pangaea you can meet/manipulate the other AIs...but the same is true in reverse, and the continents map has you eventually take control of so much land (you're not going to get anywhere trying to stay peaceful, let's just be honest here) that it'd take a nightmare scenario to stop you. The Pangaea, meanwhile, forces you into a very early war that's going to drag on for at least a bit, after which you'll need to recover your economy and bulb/trade your way back into the tech game. Certainly doable, especially with a PHI leader. But I wonder if the vulnerable time you spend recovering and the chance of someone throwing a surprise wrench in your plans (decide to DoW someone without metal? Someone trades them Copper for a Cow :shake:) is worse than a nightmare scenario on the Continents map, given the amount of land you'll have access to.
 
Spoiler :
Makes me wonder which of the two Alex maps would, on average, be considered the harder of the two :think:. One would assume the Continents map, since on a Pangaea you can meet/manipulate the other AIs...but the same is true in reverse, and the continents map has you eventually take control of so much land (you're not going to get anywhere trying to stay peaceful, let's just be honest here) that it'd take a nightmare scenario to stop you. The Pangaea, meanwhile, forces you into a very early war that's going to drag on for at least a bit, after which you'll need to recover your economy and bulb/trade your way back into the tech game. Certainly doable, especially with a PHI leader. But I wonder if the vulnerable time you spend recovering and the chance of someone throwing a surprise wrench in your plans (decide to DoW someone without metal? Someone trades them Copper for a Cow :shake:) is worse than a nightmare scenario on the Continents map, given the amount of land you'll have access to.

Spoiler Overall details of the Alex map. :

The concept that is difficult with the continents map, simmilar to say the NC Fredirch game, where you are also in semi-isolation with napoleon is that you have to ackomplish two competing goals.
You have to do a military buildup and conquer your island, and THEN you have to play catchup with a bunch of AIs that are running away completly.
In the map I have here, the AIs are chosen such that some will conquer the others and thereby get an large edge.
They are also chosen such that they won't just play nice and go for a cultural victory where you can just snipe their cities.

If I wanted to make a impossible map, I would want to combine these difficult concepts with the concepts that are illustrated by the current Pacal map.
Imagine that you would have the Pacal start, boxed in quickly by Kublai. And that they layout of the land is such that if you choke Kublai, Saladin would get a ton of land.

These are the three AIs on your continent. And on the other continent you have a buch of techers that are likely to go to war from time to time, such that you end up meeting a monster Hanibal with Mansa as a peace vassal.
 
Spoiler :
That sounds like a nice plan, but how can you trust the AIs to do as you intent for them to do? I don't think I've posted a map so far where the AIs did as I initially intended them to (including doing something when I expected nothing from them, see Frederick the zealous DoW monster...), all the way back to the GK map. Even something like "Shaka will be a warmonger" is something I've learned not to rely on, since he ended up basically being Lain's BFF trading partner on the Sally map.
 
:old:

Just came across this map. Should be pretty fun to watch on video if you decide to play it. The early game is pretty sparky, if you know what I mean (I'm sure @Fippy would love this map btw :D). The rest should be a piece of cake (I only played the first ~80 turns as always, a nightmare scenario can always happen)

Anyways, here's the start:
church.PNG

(sorry for the Antivirus thingy, having trouble taking a screenshot on my workplace computer, leader is Churchill)

Oh and it's a continents map btw (medium seas, cold climate, unedited)


Oh, and to anyone else playing this, have fun :thumbsup:

Edit: Combat 1 warrior on screenshot is because original leader was Toku (agg), changed him to a leader you hadn't played on video yet. Just corrected this and reuploaded the save.
 

Attachments

:old:

Just came across this map. Should be pretty fun to watch on video if you decide to play it. The early game is pretty sparky, if you know what I mean (I'm sure @Fippy would love this map btw :D). The rest should be a piece of cake (I only played the first ~80 turns as always, a nightmare scenario can always happen)

Anyways, here's the start:
View attachment 505993
(sorry for the Antivirus thingy, having trouble taking a screenshot on my workplace computer, leader is Churchill)

Oh and it's a continents map btw (medium seas, cold climate, unedited)


Oh, and to anyone else playing this, have fun :thumbsup:

Edit: Combat 1 warrior on screenshot is because original leader was Toku (agg), changed him to a leader you hadn't played on video yet. Just corrected this and reuploaded the save.

Thanks!
A very Spoilery T4 Screenshot, for those who want to feel the pain but don't have the time to start the game.
Spoiler T4 Screenshot :
T4 Screenshot.jpg
 
Spoiler on the newest game :
Welp, that archer
 
Combat odds are sadly not accurate,
most of us have experience with that and need no further proof (even if there have been plenty doubters before ;)),
but you can actually proof that very easily.

When i set up combats with injured units fighting each other in a test game,
the stronger one might be shown as 90+% winning odds, gets beaten,
and combat log might tell you the weaker unit has won 3 rounds vs 1.
Ofc we all know that 1:3 does not reflect 10% or lower chances in real life,
more like ~25%.

So overall, those combat rounds are really messy.
If every round stands for a coin flip, you can actually lose 100% battles too (and have seen it happening).
While odds like 99.5% are nonsense imo, would need maaany more rounds to reach such fractals.
 
I can easily believe that odds shown are incorrect, but also I know that probabilities are hard to understand. I find the constant complaining of bad luck a bit off-putting. 90% is not 100%. 99,5% is not 100%. It's easy to ignore the times you win a +90% fight and get upset when you don't win it.
 
Well i have nps with that system, just means i switched to always trying for enuf backup units in place.
(unless playing sgotm, where every turn counts and we had some crazy fights there with PR ;))

Was just explaining my theory of incorrect odds in some cases,
if much weaker units get coin flip chances to win combat rounds,
this explains why the famous (?) Spear won vs Tank example happened.

Not judging if somebody likes that or not, i can see both sides..
to be fair, this benefits AIs (or barbs) more than players,
as they will randomly do reckless attacks.
 
IIRC the original :spear: happened because Civ I didn't have unit HP, so a Spear only needed to get lucky once to beat a tank. Civ II introduced it, though it had it's own quirks because of how it handled ties in a combat round.
 
IIRC the original :spear: happened because Civ I didn't have unit HP, so a Spear only needed to get lucky once to beat a tank. Civ II introduced it, though it had it's own quirks because of how it handled ties in a combat round.

Yeah hp was the diff. I remember losing like cruisers to 1 strength units in original civ
 
I can easily believe that odds shown are incorrect, but also I know that probabilities are hard to understand. I find the constant complaining of bad luck a bit off-putting. 90% is not 100%. 99,5% is not 100%. It's easy to ignore the times you win a +90% fight and get upset when you don't win it.

People tend to remember negativity though. And in more critical situations like 1v1s with barb units charging your improvements, instead of not taking a city because 3 longbows stopped 10 units by one combat, it tends to leave a sorer spot.

I still rage at the combat system but have learned to normalize it so that 90% means like 50% in reality, anything that says 70 something means you're probably gonna lose the fight with equal upgrades (Cuir vs knight comes up lot) twice as often as you'd think, etc.

It could be worse. Civ Rev has a table based system of matchups: this unit at this power vs. that unit at that power = fixed combat prob because no RNG seed and no rounds, and it's not remotely what you'd expect. 45 power tanks have better winrates against 30 power rifles than 60 power tanks!
 
Another part of combat being seen as unfair, at least for me, is that the rare times you see the AI in a similar situation they never seem to have bad RNG happen to them. If I put a Warrior next to a Lion I don't assume his survival odds are going to be equal to a coin flip, but on the flipside I've seen AI Scouts fight off barb Archers at multiple points. Of course you'll win the occasional fight at low odds or even take a city after a string of low odd fights, but I've yet to see an AI get seriously bothered by a barbarian.
 
But doesn't AI get bonuses against barbarians? I remember that on noble the bonus should be 0%, from there on scaling up towards deity.
 
I assume they do...seems like AI get +40% versus animals, and +25% versus barb units on all difficulties, including Settler? Not sure if I'm reading the .xml correctly.
 
Lain, great job on the Fantasy Realm map. You got basically the fantasy realm equivalent of a "plains cow" start -- not a lot of great, or even good, tiles (fortunately, with the catapult rush you were able to get much better land!)

I'm kind of glad you switched off the default Toroidal map-wrap: on a toroidal map, city distance maintenance costs are even higher (it's based on percentage of the maximum distance from the capital IIRC, and the max distance when the world wraps both vertically and horizontally is smaller.) You had a difficult economy as it was.

If you go with "Crazy" resource distribution instead of "Irrational", the map generates a lot more bonus resources. This makes yields much better and more like a normal map. It does it in a strange way, though: there will be one or two random resources that appear in clumps all over the place, and one or two random resources that don't appear at all (or maybe appear in one spot, perhaps). I assume this is to reduce the potential trade value of tons of bonus resources, unless you happen to have the rare ones, and make it harder to get a complete set of resources while settling only a normal amount of land.

Another thing about Fantasy Realm maps: if you watch out, you'll find places where there's a fresh water lake near to a salt water sea. Sometimes the fresh water lake will be huge. If you can place a city next to the salt water, but also get the fresh water lake tiles in your BFC, you can build a lighthouse and every one of those fresh water tiles is 3 food. (You can't build a lighthouse on fresh water coasts, but if there's salt water nearby you can get around that restriction by settling there; the lighthouse still works on all water tiles in the BFC.) If you're financial or in a golden age you get decent commerce as well. Moai or the Colossus might make sense in this case, too, as you get potentially a bunch of nice yield food-positive tiles with no worker turns. Once you've got a decent happy cap it makes for a very good city.
 
Back
Top Bottom