Hi. I'm the source they asked to produce the maps. I supplied maps that complied with everything requested. I'm sorry this has spilled out in to the open, but that was not my doing.
I disagree with Dave and Rik, apparently, about the desirability of symmetrical resources. If all civs were meant to have all resources all the time, then the resources themselves should be abstracted out of the game and all civs always able to build and do everything. One concept of fairness demands symmetry, but another allows for variance. I'm a proponent of the latter. Every team had the same shot at resources as every other, with differences controlled by the dice, and on top of that I ensured that nobody got stuck with too poor of a hand. Is this not better than everybody knowing up front that they don't have to work for their resources?
I feel now this should be thrown open for discussion. What do the teams want? Do you guys all want perfectly "fair" resources, with every team having easy access to Copper, Iron, Horses, Coal, etc? Since that was NOT among the requests made of me as the mapmaker, I did not do that. What I did do is rely on a base of randomization and then ensure that none of the results were out of bounds. I made sure no teams got raked over the coals, but Dave and Rik seem to view this as "slightly unbalanced" and therefore unacceptable.
I figured that if you all wanted identical resources, you'd have asked for that. (You had the opportunity to ask for anything you like, and as far as I can tell, this didn't even come up.)
Just describing what Dave thinks are "issues" with the maps has revealed spoiler information. In my view, this will negatively impact both games. Whether that's acceptable or not to the teams here, I can't predict. These kind of spoilers are my pet peeve, though, for those familiar with my Civ community and history.
I've been sitting around for weeks waiting on CLEAR instructions as to what to do with these maps, and then I get instructions last Saturday and act on them the same day, only to find out now that I wasn't given clear instructions after all, and they are unhappy with parts of my work?
My only aim here was to help everybody have fun with these events. I stayed in the shadows because that seemed to be what the admins wanted, but I wonder if that has produced the best results. I am not entirely comfortable having supplied maps that met all stated criteria only to have someone else second guess them -- and not to me, in private, but out here on the boards, dropping spoilers in the process.
I'll tell you what I'm willing to do. I'm willing to throw out these first maps and start over. It doesn't take long to produce a good map. Clearly, it takes a lot longer to get people on to the same page, especially when nobody is taking the bull by the horns. This many players on this many teams deserve a fresh start with no spoilers. If you want me to produce a new set of maps, though, then more clarity is needed: either more clarity to me on what should go in to the maps, or more clarity to the admins on what lies within my discretion.
What do you guys on these various teams want to do here? I see a few options:
A. You could go with the maps as I produced them.
B. You could go with Dave's edits.
C. You could put your heads together and decide what EXACTLY is and is not tolerable/desirable with these maps and trust me to make new maps that comply with this info, and not have anybody including the admins second guessing what you have requested.
D. Something else I haven't thought of.
If the teams decide on Option C, I'll do my best to ensure that things get done right the next time around -- and that they're done quickly, so that the game will start as soon as possible. Otherwise I wish you all well, and I hope that everybody enjoys the gaming.
- Sirian
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
