Talk about unfair starting locations...

[morchuflex]

Hello.

One thing that ***really*** annoys me in this (great) game is that starting locations are sometimes so unbalanced that some civs have no chance whatsoever to catch up with others.
On pangea map types, there is still war to catch up. But I like playing archipelago, and that's where the map generator does not really shine.

I've attached an exemple.
As you can see, the Indians and the Sumerians are simply doomed from day one: ridiculously small islands, nowhere to expand, even with MM (that is, provided they were smart enough to make researching it a priority, which is another problem...).
It is obvious that all competition will be between Carthage (that's me), Korea and Spain, maybe Zululand.
I really wish there were more terraforming options. In fact, I wish you could start with each civ on one different island, all these islands being roughly equivalent in size, fertility and resources. (Just as in this great MacIntosh game, Spaceward Ho, where you could play in "cluster" galaxies).
As the game is, 90% of archipelago games are boring: because your starting location is too pathetic (50 tile island with 45 mountains. Don't laugh, I've seen it), because it's too great (rare but just as boring) or (very frequently) because the world is not archipelago at all despite what you chose on the beginning.

 

[Reprisal]

Some might say that this imbalance echoes reality in some respects... Have you ever read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? It's a good survery of what we might call civilizations in general, and a good read for anyone interested.

- Rep.

 

[morchuflex]

Well, as we all know, realism does not always give good gameplay.
Don't know about this author. I'll have a look.

 

[Swooping Hawk]

I find this happens to me a lot because I like the archipelago settings, but I don't mind that much because I dislike having too many cities. When I realise I'm trapped, I switch to science mode and try to make contact with other civs to buy/trade techs with.

You could try out a few maps in the editor and remember the map seed. When you find a good one add it to your list.

 

[digitalgoodtime]

I agree with you, it's really bad when your trying to get a mp game going... And resources damn, is it really fair to have iron and oil become exauhsted in the same game when they are your only sources... I admit that haveing to trade or go to war for resources adds to the game but sometimes it's just ridiculous...

 

[morchuflex]

You could try out a few maps in the editor and remember the map seed. When you find a good one add it to your list.

Sounds interesting but how does this work? I never tried using the editor.

 

[digitalgoodtime]

Just load the editor and click generate map and you can look at the map seed and enter it at the top of the land mass setting screens... I think being able to put in map seed was added with the new patch so you gotta have that. Or you could just save it in the editor and load it as a scenario... Some people may consider this cheating :devil2:

Even though it frusturates the hell outta me I normally just try to play the world the civ gods send me too

 

[alamo]

Yep, the isolated civs tend to be the big loosers.

Generating perfectly balanced maps is a difficult problem.

Some adversity is good for adding challenge to the game for humans, but the AI probably won't deal with it well.

 

[Black_Hole]

its not as bad if they are seafaring

 

[Kronis]

Some might say that this imbalance echoes reality in some respects... Have you ever read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? It's a good survery of what we might call civilizations in general, and a good read for anyone interested.

- Rep.

I dunno- I think The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins might be a better reading.

A good civilization (and by that measure, a good civ player, I suppose) should be able to carve out a niche no matter how hard the obstacle. There are a variety of different approaches that can be undertaken. I recall in another thread, one user stated he liked to build massive numbers of early cities in tundra, and then use nukes to induce global warming. If you want specific examples in history of civilizations with ominous or limiting "starting points" in history, that have endured and prospered, just look to the Japanese, or the Jews.

 

[morchuflex]

its not as bad if they are seafaring

This trait won't help a lot if there are more than 4 squares of ocean around you in all directions, as is the case in my example.

 

[nullspace]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is very interstesting (and appropriate to this topic) because it explains how geography is the reason that Europeans had those three things in the title, but people like the native Americans and Pacific islanders did not when they first met.

In the game of Civ, archipelago starts are usually unfair. But really, on any map settings, you're usually only really competing against the strongest 3 or 4 civs anyway. On pangea, the guys with bad starts get conquered by the stronger guys. On archipelago, they just get to live a bit longer. I don't think it's a really big deal.

 

[Reprisal]

I dunno- I think The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins might be a better reading.

A good civilization (and by that measure, a good civ player, I suppose) should be able to carve out a niche no matter how hard the obstacle. There are a variety of different approaches that can be undertaken. I recall in another thread, one user stated he liked to build massive numbers of early cities in tundra, and then use nukes to induce global warming. If you want specific examples in history of civilizations with ominous or limiting "starting points" in history, that have endured and prospered, just look to the Japanese, or the Jews.

I'll have to check that title out, thanks for the recommendation.

I agree completely. It is a given that the world's societies did not start out in any equally beneficial starting position, but there are tendencies. I'm in no way a complete environmental determinist, but one's surroundings and experiences do go a long way in determining how your life turns out. The situation of the Japanese, the Jews, and other civilizations were indeed quite disadvantageous compared to others such as the Mediterrannean civilizations, but it is a testament to human ingenuity that such cultures not only survived, but thrived.

I think the only time that you should lament a horrible starting position is when you're playing a multiplayer game. Even then, players should use premade maps for those instances if balance is desired... I suggest those of you who are interested start looking at the map portion of the Creation and Customization section of these very forums, there are some good maps to be had!

- Rep.

 

[bingen]

This just demonstrates that archipelago maps tend to be the least balanced. They can be quite easy, like your example(I am quite sure I could win that on Sid), or they can be devastatingly hard. When playing the hardest levels(Deity+), the hardest ones IMO are not the ones where you start on a small island alone (although they are brutal), but the ones you start on a small/mid sized island with a single opponent, they come after you very quickly.

Regarding the books, both are excellent, but I do not understand why Dawkins' book was recommended over Diamond's. Diamond's book is fantastic, and also a lot more relevant to this thread.