Reply With QuoteMe too which is why I like the double movement. Without it, Navies are just way too slow and hardly worth building
Navy is fancy. And mostly neglected in normal games. I like navies.
Me too which is why I like the double movement. Without it, Navies are just way too slow and hardly worth building
I found a truly big earth map; it may be the starting point for map development.
It is the biggest map I've ever have seen..
It comes with a giant earth map mod..
http://www.megadev.info/EN/Downloads...iew-l-319.html
Really take a look at this! It also comes with some new graphics.
This map is big (must have said this before). Be sure to scroll to the right of the above picture. We see the entire country of France, in the main view. Now check how small that is in the world view!
It is even possible on this map to let all 18 players start in the Old World, withbarbarians in the new world...
Last edited by Calanthian; November 21, 2011 at 15:20.
OMG! I like this big map!
I also like the idea of ALL nations start in the Old world.
I think we are setting the foundation of really exciting new diplo-game.
All start in old world is good idea. Maybe leave Africa unsettled too
WOW Great Map!!! I like it!
Destiny of Empires II Players LIST!
1. Ozzy
2. Toni
3. Sommerswerd
4. 2metraninja
5.
6.
etc
Add yourself in guys!
5. Calanthian
Whatever map we use, we should restrict most of the happiness resources to Americas and Africa. Also, try to limit resouces to particular continents so, put most or all the corn and coal in North America. Just give strong colonialism incentives ya know?
Last thing, give everyone access to the map in advance so it can be freely edited by Ozzy without any unfair advantage
Based on all your reactions, I looked some more into it..
* There is a whole forum on this map http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=296
* Resource spread seems to be historically correct
so there is no corn in europe, no horses and cows in america, spices only in the far east etc..
Last edited by Calanthian; November 21, 2011 at 16:41.
AND HERE IS THE MAP WITHOUT THE MOD
GiantEarthMap AncientResource v5.1-clean.zip
But Im am not entirely sure if this would be the wisest choice..
Last edited by Calanthian; November 21, 2011 at 16:40.
Eek! Too big! Load times on DoE were crazy already, my computer couldn't handle this map in the late game.
I know not everyone shares my thoughts about map size and diplogames, but I hate big maps. Games with big maps turn into boring building games. Everyone has more than enough space, there isn't much of a need to fight anyone. And by the time people have filled out their own land and start thinking about taking on a neighbor, they are too strong and developed to bother. Plus, with such a large map and with distances so far, it is impossible to strike at an enemy in a reasonable amount of time. So there is very little war. Very little chance that the civ on top ever loses their top spot.
That is what I think was so amazing about Destiny of Empires. Good name too, since the map constraints did guide our actions, and we were destined to come into conflict. Which we did in spectacular fashion! It made for a horrendously nerve-racking game, but epically fun!
I understand that people didn't like being stuck with just 6 cities all game. I understand that. There are two solutions to that problem that don't involve using a monstrous map like this. The 1000 AD scenario has some pre-placed cities that are closer to each other than is possible normally. So while France fit 4 cities in France & Spain, the scenario has 6. And if you've played the scenario before, you can definitely do very good things with these cities. Plus, the scenario starts with 15 civs in the old world. I propose that we fill these slots and leave the new world to AI/barbarians. Part of the problem for the lack of space in DoE is that there was minimal land to expand to overseas (since the four American players had it all) and I, having an exceptionally awesome game plan, was able to get galleons long before everyone else and claim most of what was left. Plus with 15 players instead of 18, mathematically that leaves each of us more room. I think that should be perfect.
Does this mean we have to each be satisfied with 10-15 cities instead of 30-40 cities? Yea. But I think it makes for a better game.
That being said, if people insist on it, I'll play the larger map, but I strongly vote in favor of 1000 AD.
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
Larger France.
REs = random events. Horrid game addition.
Is this super earth map going to be balanced?
If we do it, we should at least set barbarian cities all over the "deserted" continents. Personally, I don't mind loading times as that's when I browse the forums
Destiny of Empires II Players LIST!
1. Ozzy
2. Toni
3. Sommerswerd
4. 2metraninja
5. Calanthian
6.
7.
8.
9.
.
.
.
etc
Add yourself in guys!
About Ozzy's doubts for the larger map and having too much of a space, I think Sommerswerd's idea of fitting ALL the nations in Eurasia is very very good one. We will still have small space initially, so sparks will fire for sure. But then again there will be space for expansion. And this expansion is not a piece of cake. I have heard from experienced Earth players (there is a whole Earth League) that expansion in the New World is very very risky and in a normal competitive games no one is actually doing it, because this leaves you exposed to attacks from your Old World buddies. Just what happened in DoE btw
So, with this big juicy map I think we will still have tension between the players, much interaction, as we will be still tightly packed initially, but not to extreme levels like in DoE where Exploit was able to claim almost all of Europe with placing only one city.
Loading times are consideration, but then. Yeah, same habit here.I don't mind loading times as that's when I browse the forums
Oh, I'm in by the way. Not sure how much posting I'll be doing this time around, though. Kind of burned out right now and on to newer pursuits, but that can always change.
For the options, I like some of Option 1 and some of Option 2... Can we just vote on each and let the majority (of voters) carry it, keeping in mind if anyone is really dead-set on not having something we'll be lenient and nix it if it's not overly popular? I don't understand the point of packaging them.
What about the mod? In the other thread, there were these ideas:
- no score mod
- greater "known tech" bonuses (50% or more). This seems to be working well in DoF.
- right of passage options (only non-mil units can enter). This seems to be working well in G&H, although it's too early to really tell.
- some cheaper version of the explorer that dosen't have supply costs for RP uses.
And game rules? We had a lot of ideas in the other thread on that, and it's probably just as important as picking the map. I think eliminating "human" troop gifting might be best now, with only naval/tank/plane gifting and upgrading allowed instead. That's most realistic, and it prevents all sorts of ridiculousness. Players can still get advanced arms through upgrades, but they need to provide the men/production. We really need some way to prevent the fairly absurd city gifting that went on in DoE also. Really breaks the game's immersion and, as we saw, didn't end up garnering much in benefit for the players.
There are certainly a lot of things left to figure out. But we need to take stuff one step at a time or we will just go in circles forever.
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
Destiny of Empires II Players LIST!
1. Ozzy
2. Toni
3. Sommerswerd
4. 2metraninja
5. Calanthian
6. DNK (aka INCA)
7.
8.
9.
.
.
etc
Add yourself in guys!
I love too the idea all of us starting in Europe. All else left empty. Still I see it as a problem with continents like Asia and Africa. Euro countries closer to that region would have an advantage when expanding there. How can we manage that?
I like Ozzy fear that we may have more of a builders game with such a large map. Don't get me wrong I would live to get more then the 6 cities I had this game, but I like Oz wish for a dynamic game with much diplo, negotiations and fear of being attacked fromyour neighbors.
PS big YES for the no score mod.
Last edited by Toni; November 22, 2011 at 09:18.
I would like to address the problem of pauses. But I think Ozzy is right that we should settle one thing at a time. It seems like we have agreed on Rather Map, and are deciding on size. I favor the larger Map, but I am open to smaller ones if folks have loading issues. The main thing is game must be playable for everyone
Last edited by Sommerswerd; November 22, 2011 at 09:30.
I proposed we not all start in Europe, but in Europe and Asia - if we aim for 18 civs, half of them can be Asians. Turkey, Russia, Arabia, Persia, India, Mongolia, China, Khmer, Japan. The other half can be in Europe - England, France, Spain, Portugal, Vikings, Rome, Germany. HRE and Celts more to the East. Thats 18. Anyone will choose where he wants to expand. Some will have easier way of expansion early on, while others can aim for later expansion trough superior tech.
About pauses, I think a fully uncontrolled game would be not good. We can adopt few good rules and they can save us lot of troubles. Rule number 1: do not send in-game messages to nations in war. Rule number two - the timer is separated in two if the one who is supposed to play first misses his half of the timer, the other can doublemove and the order is switched.
I agree with Ozzy that the most interesting player interaction will probably on the 1000 AD map.
There is also an immediate war going on : Islam vs. Christianity.
(I'd love to play the Arabs
I would love to do some crusades (I tried to organize a crusade in DoE to reclaim the Christian Holly city - had the French Pope's blessing and West Europe support, had my army gathered, hired mercenary fleet to sail my army trough the Med and in the last minute, the Great War broke out and my knights had to be realigned
On the bright side, the game will be somewhat advanced when we start, so most probably we can make it to modern times.
On 1000 AD:
Yes it is unbalanced. But that is not the point.
Each civ is very playable!
Actually the Christians are in a better position. At game start the Arabs have had their period of rapid advance and the Spanish Reconquista is about to start. The Arabs are in war with France, Spain, Germany and England and will start loosing cities right away. Furthermore they will probably fall behind in the tech race..
But it will be a ball playing them
I doubt we're going to get 18 again, though. It really seems like it was a stretch for DoE, as many players quit early on or mid-game. DoF got 12, G&H 10 or so, and we were down to like 10 in DoE by the end. Aiming for 10-12 seems best.Originally Posted by Russia (DoE)
I agree, though, that we should not just be Europeans, but Asians as well. I think we should do all we can to balance the map, though, rather than letting some have easier expansion than others, unless we do tiers again. It's not that hard to edit a map to limit expansion while keeping it "real Earth": just add plains and remove bonuses. It's fairly realistic anyway, as much of the planet is quite marginal for agriculture, and we can always claim "climate change" if we want to add a few extra plains or grasslands where they shouldn't be...
The Arabs start with a rather huge empire actually. They probably have 10-15 cities to start with. They start the game with all of north africa, part of spain, all of Egypt & Sudan, all the mid-east, and all of Persia. They start also with the holy cities for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Islam and especially Christianity are very widely spread and *very* lucrative to start the game. They also start with they pyramids (and maybe another wonder in Egypt, I forget). Arabia starts the game in the strongest position out of everyone. The downside of course is that they start the game at war with Byzantium, England, Spain, France, Holy Romans AND India. The Europeans start with units right by Jerusalem to start the crusade.I would love to do some crusades (I tried to organize a crusade in DoE to reclaim the Christian Holly city - had the French Pope's blessing and West Europe support, had my army gathered, hired mercenary fleet to sail my army trough the Med and in the last minute, the Great War broke out and my knights had to be realigned
On the bright side, the game will be somewhat advanced when we start, so most probably we can make it to modern times.
So yea, Calanthian is right, the scenario is very unbalanced, but FUN. I've played this through many times with just about every civ in the game, and won the game with just about every civ in the game. Each game is different, each game is a hell of a lot of fun. I think it would inject something new, fresh and different into our diplogames and I'd love to try it!
If not of course I still favor using the map, like we did with DoE. But I think the scenario itself is amazing and we should give it a go.
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
I agree. We aren't going to get 18. This is another reason the big map isn't going to work. Even if we had 18 I'd worry that we'd all have way too much land to work with. But if we have 10-12... it'll just be silly.
As for the 1000 AD scenario, since we start with pre-made empires I think it accommodates having AI civs very well. If need be we can tweak the initial scenario to give the AI civs more units or tech or whatever we need to make it more balanced. The civs in the scenario:
1. England
2. Vikings
3. France
4. Spain
5. Holy Roman Empire
6. Byzantines
7. Arabia
8. Mali
9. India
10. Mongols
11. Korea
12. Japan
13. China
14. Khmer
15. Inca
16. Aztecs
If we populate all of the old world we need 14 players. 13 if we leave Mali AI. I think that is a reasonable goal to shoot for. I suppose we could leave Mongols AI too, and just beef up their military (and aggression) so they are a constant pain in the ass for the wealthy Koreans and Chinese (and Arabs and Russians). But otherwise the Mongols would be fun to play.
This would leave all of the Americas and most of Africa open to colonization/conquest.
Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012
When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah
I like it. Especially leaving Mongols, Americans, and Africans as AI. That leaves room for somebody to join the gain or even to switch teams if their situation becomes desperate
Mongols needs to be played by human - how otherwise we will have the Mongol invasion?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks