True randomness

[AlanH11]

In Civ2 there was an option to start a game with complete randomness. Everything could be random - the player's civ, the land size and format, the number of other civs, even the barbarian activity etc.
I don't remember this being carried over into subsequent games.
Now, in Civ6, there is very little randomness, and we get a dreary predictability about how far a scout or warrior can go before bumping into someone.
More randomness please!

 

[AlanH11]

No replies.
So, am I the only one who dislikes the predictability of the early game as you set out with your scout or warrior?
IMO. knowing what's about to happen removes the fun.

 

[Sostratus]

IMO. knowing what's about to happen removes the fun.

Well, the game plays very differently in terms of pace and micromanagement the larger the map. There are also significant performance considerations for players on weaker hardware, and I suspect that variability may not be something either players or the devs really want.
You can make most things random, albeit i submit that the number of players and city states isn't one of them. However, again, that number strongly impacts the game experience. (The game is balanced around certain amounts.)
That said, map types like fractal with random settings can really mix up the map, which IMO is the biggest part of how the game flows. So there's that, at least.

 

[tjs282]

I don't remember this being carried over into subsequent games.

Before Civ2, there was CivDOS, which also allowed/allows this.

Civ3 continued/continues to allow random selection of map-parameters (size, landform+%water, and geography), your Civ, your opponents, and barbarian threat.

Pretty sure Civ4 used/uses random map+civ selection mechanics as well (haven't played it nearly as much as Civ3, though, so can't be 100%).

I know nothing about Civ 5.

In CivDOS and Civ3, I usually chose/choose my Map-size, occasionally choose landform+%water, but almost invariable randomise everything else. Because as you say, doing so makes for more interesting/challenging games at any given difficulty level.

 

[Bliss]

Civ 5 had an option for random map size and also random personalities for other players. You could stumble over a peaceful Gengis Khan. They kinda wanted this to be default in CiV 6, so they created agendas.
In 6, besides randomizing your own civ, you can pick only the "shuffle" map type and that's all.

 

[AlanH11]

Thanks for these confirmations, and for the map suggestions.
I still occasionally play Civ2, although the old XP computer I use for it is at the end of its working life. For me, none of the more recent versions match Civ2 for its endless playability, and knowing you can tweak the game set up for maximum unpredictability.
I hope if there is a Civ7, the makers consider this.

 

[Scrum Lord]

In Civ2 there was an option to start a game with complete randomness. Everything could be random - the player's civ, the land size and format, the number of other civs, even the barbarian activity etc.

I forgot how random Civ2 could be. Civ4 could randomize many parameters too IIRC, including map size as well as climate.

Sadly, there isn't much that you can do in Civ 6 about randomizing the number of Civs or the size of the map. Not sure about randomizing barbarian activity either.

That said, it just so happens that I wrote a map script that specializes in highly random and unpredicable maps for the sake of more interesting / less tedious map exploration:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/got-lakes-various-worlds-map-script.26512/

 

[AlanH11]

That's great, @Scrum-lord, and I'll be sure to load your resource next time I start a game, which may be my last. Anything for some variation in gameplay.

I've just started a new 'epic' game on a 'huge', fractal map. So, what happens? Five minutes of isolation? No way. Within a few moves of my only warrior, up pops Cleopatra. This is a 'huge' map remember, but a few moves later, Cleo plonks her city within 4 tiles of mine. It's hugely disappointing, not because of the competitive game-play, but because it's totally predictable - this has happened on every game I've played, whoever the opposition is, however long the game, or whatever map-type I've used. Similarly, the barbs are totally predictable in the way they behave (suicidal and utterly stupid).

For me, this predictability issue is a major turn-off. I've only had the game for a month, but the risk of boredom with it is now likely. Years after getting Civ2, I never got bored.

 

[Scrum Lord]

That's great, @Scrum-lord, and I'll be sure to load your resource next time I start a game, which may be my last. Anything for some variation in gameplay.

I've just started a new 'epic' game on a 'huge', fractal map. So, what happens? Five minutes of isolation? No way. Within a few moves of my only warrior, up pops Cleopatra. This is a 'huge' map remember, but a few moves later, Cleo plonks her city within 4 tiles of mine. It's hugely disappointing, not because of the competitive game-play, but because it's totally predictable - this has happened on every game I've played, whoever the opposition is, however long the game, or whatever map-type I've used. Similarly, the barbs are totally predictable in the way they behave (suicidal and utterly stupid).

For me, this predictability issue is a major turn-off. I've only had the game for a month, but the risk of boredom with it is now likely. Years after getting Civ2, I never got bored.

Yeah, for some reason the base game's start positioner likes to place civs just barely outside of the minimum distance between civs. FWIW you can easily get the Island Hopping achievement this way--just start a huge island plates map with 2 civs including yourself and you probably won't even need boats to win!

The source code for the start positioner is not available in Lua like it was for Civ 5, so I can't tell for sure why this happens, let alone why it hasn't been fixed yet. My guess is that the positioner is hamstrung by too many hard rules such as must be at least X plots away from a natural wonder and/or must be near terrain that is above a certain fertility threshold and perhaps must be surrounded by plenty of land. Fewer valid plots for civs => higher chance of plots that are not well spaced-out...BUT at least all the starting plots have plenty of fertile land and are far away from natural wonders, right? *facepalm*

Now for some good news: although the start positioner itself is not Lua code, the code that invokes it lives in AssignStartingPlots.lua, so it is possible to roll your own start positioner either as part of a map-gen mod or as part of a map script...and it just so happens that I did exactly that for Got Lakes. I tried my best to balance the various priorities of choosing start locations, and if anything there is a slight skew towards closeness to natural wonders rather than other civs. Hope that helps!

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I love when I start a civ 3 game and my capital is surrounded by other three to five capitals, each at one square distance, then they have to move one square away to settle, and within the first 50 turn I have all of them conquered, then all the map is empty.... untill I reach another cluster of civs, all capitals similarly clustered... an awful lot of small cities all glued together, often also one square apart only...

I also like to randomize map starting with a negative value... pure awesomeness..

What a dream... ito read that natural wonders needs a minimal distance makes me really sad...

 

[tjs282]

I love when I start a civ 3 game and my capital is surrounded by other three to five capitals, each at one square distance, then they have to move one square away to settle, and within the first 50 turn I have all of them conquered, then all the map is empty.... untill I reach another cluster of civs, all capitals similarly clustered... an awful lot of small cities all glued together, often also one square apart only...

This 'problem' happens very infrequently in epic-games of Civ3, except possibly on those rare occasions when the pRNGods have decreed that a procedurally-generated map should be particularly inhospitable (e.g. Tiny/Small, 80% water, archipelago, 3 billion years, extremely cold/hot and dry), resulting in a paucity of decently separated potential spawn-points.

It seems to happen more frequently in epic-game random-map mods, though -- usually as a result of additional Civs having being made spawnable beyond the defaults, without balancing that against one or more additional factors:
-- Map-size not increased from default sizes
-- 'Minimum distance between Civs' not reduced from defaults
-- Additional terrain-types (e.g. Desert, Tundra) made non-Settle-able