First, I'm responding to this NOT because I want to critique your play (although you've basically made it an issue now) or have any reason to be at fault, or that there is a fault (it's a diplo game after all), but over the concerns of map balance.
Everyone keeps claiming the Vikings were a tiny, insignificant power that took down the greatest, most awe-inspiring superpower diplogaming has ever know all by themselves, so it's not outside the bounds of reason...
Sometimes the alternative is riskier than the risk. What good is an alternative if it guarantees you'll be dominated for the rest of the game?
I don't recall saying these things, you are confusing me with the Ottomans a bit. Only one of you/Japan needed to be decently aggressive. As I said before, Mongolia was a mid game check on China, I think.
Also... India and China ARE in a tiff over a few border areas, and India has a fairly large, modern army given its economic situation, plus nukes. Japan conquered SE Asia, parts of China (Nanjing?) and Korea/Manchuria during its various wars, so there.
To repeat, China did not have a huge lead over you or Japan in land until fairly late in the early game, I think. You all have amazing territory for your first 4 cities, no doubt (perhaps the jungles compromised this, I forget how it looked). The differences aren't that huge. I wasn't there, but that's how I remember it and how it looks from afar.
I'm not sure what you want the map-maker to do then to assure balance. Expect that in any scenario, one of the three or four competing civs will be significantly superior to the others in gameplay, but then not know which of the 3-4 starts it will be, so... ??? What? Just make solid core territories and make everything else all but useless to settle? Give everyone 6 solid city sites and then make the rest deserts? That makes for a horridly boring map when there's nothing to fight over. You didn't want a "fun map", though, okay, don't complain about balance then.
I counted before. Delhi has more resources than Beijing, and more ancient resources than Beijing. It also has way more grasslands. You divided the resources up into other cities, but that doesn't change the start Delhi had.
You've set up your empire to not be able to attack China, that's why! (and it's okay, but understand that you then forfeit the ability to contest land with an expansive neighbor.) I have way weaker starting terrain than almost anyone, Mongols included. My capital had 3 resources and a whole lotta coast/desert/mountains (I couldn't even work one of the 3 resources until much later as I couldn't keep it secure from barbs, being on the opposite side of the Andes). My second city had just 2 land tiles to work and some coast. My third had 4 resources and all jungles with a lot of coast/mountains. My fourth had 1 resource and 21 jungle tiles...
It does matter if they aren't supplying units from just one city, especially as their coastal cities would be farther from Guangzhou than your eastern coastal cities (because it's a diagonal going the opposite direction). Also, maintenance costs, which in the early game can be quite significant with a 10-tile distance. Also, a lot of the intervening land is hills, which take longer to cross and road, while yours is all flat. Effectively, it's a lot closer to your center than China's.
Originally posted by India (DoE)
View Post
A. Yes, human, not pre-programmed. Aggression is a risk, and many humans will avoid risky behaviour if there is an alternative.
Your presupposition is that all three neighbours would be aggressive risk-takers, and none of them peaceful builders. You say that Mongolia should have acted like Mongolia, but what about India? Should I have acted like... Mongolia? What about sea-faring isolationist Japan? Should they have acted like Mongolia?
Also... India and China ARE in a tiff over a few border areas, and India has a fairly large, modern army given its economic situation, plus nukes. Japan conquered SE Asia, parts of China (Nanjing?) and Korea/Manchuria during its various wars, so there.
If ONE of them decided to be friends with China it would be 1 very rich civ + 1 not so rich vs 2 not so rich. Your assumed responses of the 3 roundlaying nations is flawed....
I'm not sure what you want the map-maker to do then to assure balance. Expect that in any scenario, one of the three or four competing civs will be significantly superior to the others in gameplay, but then not know which of the 3-4 starts it will be, so... ??? What? Just make solid core territories and make everything else all but useless to settle? Give everyone 6 solid city sites and then make the rest deserts? That makes for a horridly boring map when there's nothing to fight over. You didn't want a "fun map", though, okay, don't complain about balance then.
D. Beijing has 8 resources, Delhi has 5 or six. I can't seem to connect to the game so I can't check. But you are absolutely right, the original Indian player should have immediately taken the Guangzhou area. But a mid-level player obviously did not realize the huge strategic significance it had.
As for my inactivity against China it should be obvious as to why, there is NO way I could ever challenge them even WITH the Mongolians fighting them in the north. Partly because of the ease they had in seizing Guanzhou which makes any attack practically impossible.
Also, you say that diagonal tiles are "further in distance" than regular ones? Allow me to ask you this in practical terms: Does it take longer to move a settler 10 diagonal squares to a given square than it does to move 10 squares from left to right? If the answer is no, then for practical effects and purposes the distances are the same. If it takes China 5 turns to move to Guanzhou and India 5 turns to move to Guangzhou (from their respective capitals), how can you say that one is further? Your point is moot.
Comment