Two squares or one?

[Arkaeyn]

I decided to fiddle with the city distances with RAND, as the map wasn't filling up and the 1-square difference seemed unnecessary when not in the cramped RFC world. I decided to run five games on autopilot to 1300 (spawning as the Turks and playing a couple turns) under each to see if there were significant differences. I took note of which civs spawned, and which survived, and anything else that I thought was particularly significant. All games were played on a Large Temperate map, Monarch difficulty.

I wasn't really certain what to expect. I thought that the wider area between cities would make for better cities and thus stronger civs and fewer collapses on one hand, but on the other, the larger civs would be more likely to flip, as I didn't alter the civ spawning math.

Here is the raw data. Games 1-5 are with 1-square, A-E are with 2-squares. Italicized civs collapsed.

Spoiler :

Game 1:

Babylon, China, Egypt, India, Carthage, Persia, Rome, Ethiopia, Khmer, Arabia, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Netherlands, Mongol, Inca, Portugal, Aztec

Game 2

China, Egypt, India, Persia, Rome, Carthage, Japan, Maya, Vikings, Arabia, Khmer, France, Spain, England, Russia, Germany, Mali, Aztec, Mongolia

Game 3

Babylon, China, India, Carthage, Persia, Rome, Japan, Ethiopia, Maya, Khmer, Arabia, France, England, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Portugal, Aztec, Inca

Note that I messed up, left my capital weakly defended, and lost on the second turk of the game. So no Turks on the map.

Game 4

Babylon, China, Egypt, India, Greece, Persia, Carthage, Japan, Maya, Vikings, Arabia, Spain, France, Russia, Netherlands, Mali, Inca, Portugal, Mongolia

Forgot the screen shot. Greece was a superpower.

Game 5

Babylon, China, Egypt, Greece, Persia, Carthage, Ethiopia, Maya, Vikings, Arabia, Khmer, Spain, France, England, Germany, Russia, Netherlands, Mongolia, Aztec


Game A

Babylon, China, Egypt, Greece, Persia, Rome, Japan, Ethiopia, Vikings, Arabia, France, England, Germany, Russia, Netherlands, Mali, Mongolia, Inca, Aztec

Game B

Babylon, China, India, Greece, Carthage, Rome, Japan, Ethiopia, Maya, Vikings, Arabia, Spain, Germany, England, Russia, Portugal, Inca, Mongol, Aztec

Carthage and Babylon are superpowers.

Game C

China, India, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Persia, Japan, Ethiopia, Arabia, Vikings, Spain, France, England, Germany, Russia, Portugal, Inca, Mongolia, Aztec

Carthage was a world power, the Vikings took Paris, Arabia collapsed by 1300.

Game D

Babylon, Egypt, China, Greece, Persia, Rome, Japan, Vikings, Arabia, Khmer, France, Germany, England, Netherlands, Mali, Inca, Mongolia, Portugal, Aztec

This is one of the odder maps I've seen, with both major areas divided in half, north and south, by water. The old world also has three large islands. This game is also an abberation in how few civilizations collapsed. The only two that fell were ancient civs in the north half of the map.

Game E

Babylon, China, India, Greece, Carthage, Persia, Japan, Vikings, Arabia, Spain, England, Russia, Germany, Netherlands, Mali, Mongolia, Portugal, Inca, Aztec

India surviving and doing well is rare. Greece is a major power even after the Europeans spawn.

There's not a huge difference between 1 and 2 squares in terms of number of civilizations surviving. In the five games, 23 collapsed by 1300 in 1-square games, and 20 collapsed in 2-square games.

The most significant difference seems to me that the 2-square games caused more aberrant, or interesting, results. I'd never seen Arabia collapse early, and it didn't in the 1-square games. But it did twice in the five 2-square games.

The attached screenshots, from games B, C, and D, show this.

In game B, Carthage is a superpower, something I've never seen before (and the Carthage AI tends to cram their cities together in the 1-square version, so that makes sense. Babylon is also still surviving as a major power.

Game C has a far, far stronger Carthage. Check out the power graph. The Vikings are also the most powerful I've ever seen them, which means basically that they're at all relevant.

Game D is most interesting for its map, where the southern half is filled with civs, and the northern half is mostly independent/barbarian wasteland.

 

[Arkaeyn]

So what did I learn? First of all, the switch from 1 to 2 squares did not seem to hugely impact play. I prefer it aesthetically, and it seems to make the game more interesting to me, but not so much that I would definitely recommend it for all future versions.

The more important thing I was able to learn was how the ancient and classical civs tended to behave, which also speaks to their starting locations.

India, if it survives, is rarely relevant. Likewise Egypt. China tends to be crushed by barbarians, or isolated. Babylon can occasionally stick around.

Greece and Carthage - which both spawn next to oceans - are most likely to succeed of the classical civs. Persia and Rome may survive, or may not, but generally aren't relevant. Japan tends to go more with Persia and Rome, but I know from playing experience that it's most likely to become a major power in the modern age.

Ethiopia and Khmer are rarely relevant. Maya usually collapses from barbarians.

Arabia is one of the most interesting and dynamic civs. Vikings are usually dull and don't do much.



Perhaps most importantly - building the Great Wall early seems to be a massive game-changer. I know that Greece built it in one of the games where it was dominant. I'm thinking it may be almost comparable to Leonardo's Workshop from Civ2. I'm thinking maybe a nerf - like barbarians who enter lands with the Great Wall have Russian Winter-like drains, as opposed to simply ignoring it.

 

[musicfreak]

Perhaps most importantly - building the Great Wall early seems to be a massive game-changer. I know that Greece built it in one of the games where it was dominant. I'm thinking it may be almost comparable to Leonardo's Workshop from Civ2. I'm thinking maybe a nerf - like barbarians who enter lands with the Great Wall have Russian Winter-like drains, as opposed to simply ignoring it.

I've noticed this as well, but I thought maybe it was just coincidence. Maybe just make it something like +100% strength versus barbarians within your borders or something, because the "drain effect" slows down the game (and isn't really realistic when you think about it).

 

[musicfreak]

Oh yeah, about whether to have one square or two, since it doesn't really affect gameplay I suggest using two simply because the AI make smarter use of their space. With one square they tend to crowd their cities together, and while this is good for RFC, it doesn't make too much sense for RAND, since there's so much open space.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

But if we cram more civs into a standard map (hopefully all), which I'm hoping someone will, then it shouldn't really be necessary. After all, I'm not the only one who supports all civs in a standard sized map. However, if it's left the way it is I agree with you musicfreak, two is probably better.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I've noticed that in the games I play, as opposed to just simming, they've been much more fun with 2 squares. Though that could just be that I'm getting better at stability.

 

[musicfreak]

But if we cram more civs into a standard map (hopefully all), which I'm hoping someone will, then it shouldn't really be necessary. After all, I'm not the only one who supports all civs in a standard sized map. However, if it's left the way it is I agree with you musicfreak, two is probably better.

I would've done that by now if I could figure out how.

 

[Rhye]

I don't think that it's the 2 that makes games more interesting.

The Great Wall is decisive in classic RFC too, isn't it

 

[Arkaeyn]

I haven't played RFC as much lately, but when I did, I usually played as China, and found that repetition made the Great Wall not necessary. I knew where to put Axemen and where to put Spearmen.

I think that there are also more easily defended chokepoints on the earth map than may appear randomly.

 

[onedreamer]

Even without repetition you just need to build enough axemen and spearmen around the empire and move them at the right moments. Usually the barbarians will first roam some turns around your borders so you have all the time you need for your manouvers. The AI though sucks at this and most ancient civs are destroyed. But I think this is ok (historical). The only thing I don't like is holy cities being razed...

About city spacing, as I have already said, I don't think that switching to minimum 2 plots is a good idea. First off, it's actually worse for stability, and not better, especially in RAND. Second, in some cases it's just better to build closer. What should be worked on is the way the AI chooses the locations to settle, it should have a minimum food and resources available in the fat cross. If this was done, AI cities would perform much better. Also, this would not affect certain civs like Babylon and Egypt or Arabia because their starting land just plainly sucks most of the time and city spacing won't make a difference, as you could note from your tests. It would make a difference for other civs though, like Spain, which could make much better plans on settling.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I haven't noticed any significant deviation in stability. If anything, it seems slightly more stable than normal, either in the test runs or my games.

Improviing AI city plot selection would be the ideal solution, I agree. But I'd imagine that takes a lot more work.

 

[musicfreak]

Improviing AI city plot selection would be the ideal solution, I agree. But I'd imagine that takes a lot more work.

(Emphasis mine.) Yes, it would be, which is why I don't think it's realistic. Like I said, I'm not for or against it either way, I'm just worried about the fact that the AI don't really make good use of their space if the limit is 1 square.