About the World map

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

What must not be forgotten in a debate about the various sizes of starting positions is this: if all of the Firaxian talk holds true, then a Civ in Real-World England should be able to do as well as someone in Real World North America, so long as they manage their territory properly-and engage in effective specialisation.
i.e. here is hoping that territory size doesn't matter any more, in which case it doesn't really matter about the size of people's starting locations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Freddz
Yes, I agree, playing England when 3 cities hardly fit on the island is not fun at all. I also tried it. I'm not sure this will be corrected though, even on a large map.

Well, England did found the 13 colonies, wasn't it?

[Jim Cobb]

Seems to me the solution for starting places would be yo offer options: one "historical" (nobody started in BCE where they've ended up now) and one random.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by GeoModder


Well, England did found the 13 colonies, wasn't it?

Yes, as England I'll found a colony at Mauritius and one at Tenerife

[Freddz]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
i.e. here is hoping that territory size doesn't matter any more, in which case it doesn't really matter about the size of people's starting locations.

Hmm... yes, but perhaps you're hoping for too much in this case... how easy it is settling new cities is always a factor in civ - as it should be. I think that starting territory size will matter, and a lot, even in civ 4.
Just hope then that one can get ships fast as England and that early ships aren't expensive to build, then you are not far behind perhaps, so perhaps you may have a point.

[yin26]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
What must not be forgotten in a debate about the various sizes of starting positions is this: if all of the Firaxian talk holds true, then a Civ in Real-World England should be able to do as well as someone in Real World North America, so long as they manage their territory properly-and engage in effective specialisation.
i.e. here is hoping that territory size doesn't matter any more, in which case it doesn't really matter about the size of people's starting locations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

There is simply no way this can hold true, and I plan to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

[Freddz]

Originally posted by yin26


There is simply no way this can hold true, and I plan to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Well, I hope you are wrong but unfortunately I expect that you are right.
I hope ICS is half-gone though. Half-gone is perhaps a better word since expanding is a vital strategy of CIV, but it becomes rediculous if it's the only VERY good strategy.
Anyway, if it's only partly gone, no one should be able to force you to eat that box...

[Dale]

I'm just hoping that China, in it's left-alone spot of the world doesn't become a major power-house and over run all of Eurasia.

Dale

[Bkeela]

I felt alone at loving the Earth map. Infact, I think it is kind of pointless playing historical nations on a random map. SMAC suited such a context, but it is stupid with Civ.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I felt alone at loving the Earth map. Infact, I think it is kind of pointless playing historical nations on a random map. SMAC suited such a context, but it is stupid with Civ.

Do you have any idea what we usually do with heretics such as yourself?

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Bkeela
I felt alone at loving the Earth map. Infact, I think it is kind of pointless playing historical nations on a random map. SMAC suited such a context, but it is stupid with Civ.

I am almost inclined to agree... playing the earth map is an obsession. But I won't play it at all unless it has fixed starting locations!!

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by yin26
There is simply no way this can hold true, and I plan to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Please don't, the cardboard needs you!

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
What must not be forgotten in a debate about the various sizes of starting positions is this: if all of the Firaxian talk holds true, then a Civ in Real-World England should be able to do as well as someone in Real World North America, so long as they manage their territory properly-and engage in effective specialisation.
i.e. here is hoping that territory size doesn't matter any more, in which case it doesn't really matter about the size of people's starting locations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The idea that space does not matter is not good (see our discussions on secessionist movements). IMHO there should be optimum space for a civilisation at each development stage. Having smaller territory will be to a disadvantage, as you will not have sufficient resources. Larger territory should lead to increased administration costs and frequent secessionist movements.

The latter (disadvantage at large spaces) is poorly designed in Civ3, but so it is. Because of this nations with small territory are at severe disadvantage. They lose for three reasons:
1) They cannot expand while everybody else expands (curragh in CTP has no carrying capacity)
2) They cannot trade (with CTP curragh you can trade in tech, but not in resources)
3) They cannot wage war and get leaders

Eventually the nation becomes so laggard, that it is no longer worth playing.

To balance this there should be
1) Disadvantage from growth. Actually, if we take map as a whole, it does not have so much territory occupied by Germans. Still they have vibrant economy and are an independent state. Should you allocate the percentage of earth that Germans have to Germans in Civ3, they will lose. This is because they will have only 2 cities or so. And they will not be able to further develop thier land after 0 AD.

2) Ability to further develop the same piece of land (Farming in Civ2!). Ability to have service sector in Civ!

3) Create many more civs in the game (say 25). Then civs should tend to ally against stronger enemies.

4) Provide the curragh the ability to carry units (plain simple, but makes game more realistic).

[Jonah5]

Originally posted by Jim Cobb
Seems to me the solution for starting places would be yo offer options: one "historical" (nobody started in BCE where they've ended up now) and one random.

I think the nation of Egypt started along the nile, if I am correct, it's still there. Same goes for China and Greece.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jonah5

I think the nation of Egypt started along the nile, if I am correct, it's still there. Same goes for China and Greece.

HA! Egypt was so pathetic that it lost its independence when Cleopatra had a snake bite her.

The weakling known as Egypt didn't regain its independence for over a thousdand years -- from Cleopatra's death to British withdrawal from Egypt in the 20th century.

I piss on Egypt.