HOTW7 Set up thread

[Robert]

If what LzPrst said about ballanced is true then ballanced is off the table. I hoped it would be like that not someone had 10 resources near it's capital and someone else 1.

Regarding tundra: it's not that bad, that's true, ice is worse but almost never happens.

Rasputin, please stop the "you guys just wanna lose and dont understand the diplogame spirit" BS.
I played america in HOTW5 and ended last. I never had any change to climb up the ranks, but I enjoyed myself pretty good and never quited. We just have different opinions on this issue, that doesn't mean that we are whiney quiters and you are the brave bold reckless civ diplo hero warrior.

Huge Y
Terra Y
Random Y
Balanced N
Low Sea levels Y
Tropical Y

[LzPrst]

Huge Y
Terra Y
Random Y
Balanced NO
Low Sea levels NO (normal makes for more islands and generally more interesting maps)
Tropical NO (vary-frackin-ation)

here is the full balanced thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155863

I find myself agreeing more and more with Ras. I want to win the game, but that is secondary to having fun. And if some players are only playing to win, by any means necessary then I feel they should be playing ladder games not diplogames. I feel that part of the fun of diplogames is that you dont have to be top dog in order to be relevant or even do well. Those who demand balanced resources (we didnt have it in HOTW5) and good starts for all are basing their arguments on the idea that in order to do well you have to have a good start. Isnt this a diplomacygame? Isnt game mechanics only one part of the action? As cyber said, tundra isnt all that bad, ice is another matter, but if anyone gets ice we can restart, a tundra start is overcomeable. Also, keep in mind that it is fully possible to move your first settler a few turns before you settle. So what if you lag behind a little in the beginning, if you diplo well you can balance it out, and you might get a really really good starting position if you look around a little first.

You guys are basing your arguments on Dragon's playstyle. Only one thing works and if that doesnt happen you assume you're screwed. Well it is not the case, just adjust your playstyle. Civ4 allows for more varied options than any previous version. And if the players arent all sharks going straight for blood then unorthodox playstyles can be tried out allowing for... greater variation, better storytelling, more interesting diplomacy and overall more fun.

[Robert]

LzPrst: I want to win the game, but that is secondary to having fun. And if some players are only playing to win, by any means necessary then I feel they should be playing ladder games not diplogames.

I'm a little bit bothered by this kind of remarks.
Crap starting locations lower my fun, not winning doesn't matter. I don't care if I lose, I do care if I don't play any role in the game because I suck.

[KunojiLym]

*waves* I'm the dude who shot myself in the foot game-mechanics wise by *not* adopting Free Speech for hundreds of turns (even though I was one of the first to get liberalism). Ditto for Emancipation... man, I had serious happiness problems because of that XD

Why? It was cool. I wanted to tell a story, and I did it.

Anyway, vote, right.

Huge Y
Terra Y
Random Y
Balanced N
Low Sea levels DC = Don't Care
Tropical Y

[Robert]

I changed Ballanced to 'NO' btw, voted 'yes' by accident. The game will defenitely suck if everyone has all resources within a few tiles. I hope that all 'yes' voters for ballanced realise that.

[LzPrst]

my point cyber is that you can influence the game in more ways than just the mechanics, meaning that more or less regardless of start, again, look at that word, START, you can with skilled diplomacy and/or playing, work your way up during the game. who says all nations must be massive cohesive uniterrupted empires like china or russia? why cant some civs consist of cities divided by water or other civ's lands? like the ancient greeks, or the ottomans in early times or england before they got kicked out of france, or the vikings before they got kicked out of england and so on and so forth.

only someone who isnt at all interested in diplo can become irrelevant. we have to remember that with so many players, regional politics will be a whole new world of its own, and one "lesser" civ will very likely be able to tip the scales in the favor of one fraction and can as a result improve its condition by alliances, successful wars, trading and even trickery, just the suggestion that a "minor" civ might join a war or alliance could be exploited to the max, resulting in the patronage of larger nations that want to retain a balance of power or need allies. and there is always the new world to conquer. I am convinced that if players are flexible and skilled in game and/or diplo then nothing should mean you should be sidelined. unless of course you're stuck on an island consisting of only ice and tundra. (and even then, with special resources like fish or deer you can get some galleys and build cities in other places). what I am trying to get through here is that things will work themselves out if players are willing to adapt to circumstances.

[LzPrst]

to quote the biology quote from civ...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, but the one most responsive to change."
- Charles Darwin...

[Robert]

Yeah, though Darwin was wrong about that. But that's another topic.

Well, we can debate this issue forever. I'm not asking for an equal start for all. That's impossible and there's no fun in that at all. I just hope that we won't let anybody start with a hopeless position. And indeed, a small territory isn't hopeless. But having hardly any resources defenitely is (by example)

[LzPrst]

the quote is about as factual as they come. a species that cannot adapt to changing circumstances will likely die out, while a species that can adapt will have a far higher likelyhood of survival. and the same goes for civs.

think about it. growing more fur in cold weather decreases your chances of freezing to death. not doing so would require more energy to keep warm and thus be less efficient in the energyconsumption-energyexpenditure system resulting in having to spend more time acquiring energy (food). if you have to spend 2 hours to find food that will keep you alive for a day in bountiful circumstances you can do it several times in a day, increasing your chance of finding enough food if you fail for whatever reason. if you need 8 hours to find enough food to keep you alive for a day in bountiful circumstances then you are in a lot of trouble if you dont succeed the first time.

it is common sense. as for the theory of evolution in general it has certain inconsistencies as it is 150 years old. though lets not take that debate in this forum. too many discussions going on already.

anyway, I've said what I have to say on the matter, I am for normal everything, against tropical, and fiercely refusing anything to do with balanced start. it worked fine without in HOTW5. if it aint broken dont fix it. and for those who are thinking of voting yes on balance, check out the thread I linked above first.

[Robert]

Yeah, please don't vote 'yes' on ballanced!

Regarding the theory of evolution, the original theory is already broken, you're most probably refering to neo-evolutionism, you know, the principals of Darwin applied to genes. Yeah, I don't think that animals can adapt. I don't believe in genetical adaption, well, perhaps it happened a few times with much luck. (positive genetal changes are luck!)

[LzPrst]

I'm not sure what you refer to by genetical adaptation, but animals can certainly adapt. put a rat in a new place and he instantly finds new foods to eat, new materials to build a house from and they learn very quickly what dangers to avoid. if you are referring to growing a set of gills in order to be more aquatic that is something different alltogether.

never mind the evolution discussion, we'll do that on another topic if you're interested.

as for our map specs, people, please vote! if you dont care, just say so, but we want everyone to have a say. so say that you dont care if you dont, but have your say.

say... did that make any sense?

[Robert]

Ah, you're talking adaption, I thought you were talking evolution, I do believe in the adaption as you described it

never mind the evolution discussion, we'll do that on another topic if you're interested.

I'm always interested
Though you just lost points on first giving your own opinion and then trying to end the discussion immediately :P

[Frank Johnson]

Lz, invariably its the people who quit are the ones who understand the don't understand the mechanics and don't play to their potential.

The people using diplo as a shield saying "I shouldn't have to learn the game." are wrong. Its a learning experience. It's not a free ride. We're not here to super inmpose modern political morality on 2000bc. There's going to be some fights and nastiness just because it is benefitical to one player or another. Diplo might give you the chance to capitulate and change goals, but if you don't use that chance to continue learning about the game, then you just wasted it.

[Frank Johnson]

Huge Y
Terra Y
Random Y
Balanced Y
Low Sea levels DC = Don't Care
Tropical Y

[LzPrst]

I agree that those players who are not masters of mechanics should do their best to learn and better themselves, learning is part of the fun and just doing things almost by random cant be all that fun. the game is more interesting if you understand how it works so you can try new ideas. Yet I also want to avoid the frantic and intense situation where the best players are so fiercely thrusting the progress of the game forward by never doing anything that isnt 120% game effective that everyone feels forced to über-play to the max just to keep up. it is the same justification that we are implementing a tech trade limitation. we dont want things to progress too quickly as we want to enjoy all the aspects of the game and every epoch.

As Kuno mentioned, he ran russia as a Czarist serfdom empire long after he had the techs to change it, just to make some interesting stories. I want room for those kind of things. I want room for a game with a little touch of "this looks nice" rather than numbercrunching micromanagement that often occurs in more competitive games. I want breathing space for a civ that gets a rough start to try a different strategy without being quickly wiped out\annexed by a bigger stronger neighbour. I'm not asking for pacifism here, I am asking for a gaming attitude that is not just "straight to victory".

It is like talking a stroll through the forest. You can take your car and get to the destination way faster, but then you miss out on many of the enjoyable experiences of talking a stroll.

If you dont agree that a slightly more relaxed pace makes for a more interesting game then I think we just have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that a diplogame is something in between of what you and Rasputin describe respectively. There must be competition, but there must also be room for variation, experimentation, and fun. I want to win of course, but not at the expense of having fun. I hope that you (Frank) and Ras can meet in the middle on this.

Finally, what is diplogaming all about? Is winning the only thing? I consider diplogaming to be more than that, and I hope everyone will agree.