Fair Starting Positions

[War4ever]

I know many use premade maps to equalize starting positions, or they did so in the past. The main problem i have with these maps is even if you rotate 7-10 of them, its like playing the world map after awhile, in the sense that you know where the huts and/or specials are... little replay value here.

so we are left with crappy random generator maps, which often screw some , or put people to close to each other etc etc....

Now that the game has been out in MP for for over 4years, and we have all gotten better/more efficient in our playing styles, though some of you still lag behind , most of the cheats, or bugs have been sorted and we all play with a set of rules which we find best suited for our temperments, or with a group of players which offer us the most enjoyment for our time.

Has the continued development of trade ruined the game for players. I know many players who can't compete without land that i would normally drool over.

We all know wandering can pay off, ie finding gold, or a few four legged units from huts, and other times it backfires (crap land , or crap huts)

With trade being specialized , you really take a chance opening a hut, or lagging behind in despotism for an addtional 600 years, these things early can make or break your game.

Now good players always over come bad luck, but if your up against a skilled player who gets the breaks, and you don't, your going to lose plain and simple.

Even if you remove huts and wonders (to even it up so to speak) then rivers become HUGE. So truly, you must find trade to compete long term, b/c you can't steal every tech quick enough to prevent a horde of attackers from a different time period from invading your lands.

So really the only thing that will seperate two equal players , is terrain. If you have more of it, or it is better, then your sheer numbers will win.

Its interesting to see the evolution of the game, how we/i used to play , compared to the way i play now. Many things have changed. The one constant in this game , and what this game revolves around has not.

It has been proven many a time that you dont' need happy wonders/any wonders for that matter to win, but its damm hard to win, with only production, if you have no real trade to speak of. (unless you start within 10squares of your rival)

any thoughts on this?

[Frank Johnson]

Well the obvious anwser to that is to play with alot of players. Hopefully if you're of equal skill you can keep the margin narrow. If there's alot of players around, and the map is small enough hopefully people can't commit all their resources on smashing you, lest their backdoor be bashed in by other players.

As far as "starting" I think every player is allowed a 2 grassland start....as far as a capital. And an area that will allow them to get their 5-7 cities, for deity level at least.

Problem is too often the top players, usually 1 and 2, get stuck in their ties of trade convience, and the idea of attacking each other is impossible, and they go about killing the weaker trade blocks. The end.

I guess the next step is to ban foreign trade with caravans in a game. might change some strategies.

[War4ever]

YES, on land its easy to smash caravans, but coming off a boat, sometimes there is little you can do..

however many people also use their capital, or best trade city and internalize..which works well , not as well as foreign trade, but does work well...

if someone finds a one tile island, look out .....2 continent trading strat goes through the roof, or the repeated commodity .....

[Ming]

Yeah... land can make all the difference in the world with players of equal skill. And one or two huts either way can also make the differece. And early barbs can kill expansion. A barb king also can really help. There is some "luck" in the game, and land is only one of them... hopefully it all balances out

[War4ever]

and that is part of the charm.......but when a game is decided by luck, that is kinda lame too.....

tho most the time this isn't a problem......

[Hydey]

If Ming wins it is never luck that decides the outcome, only skill.


Hydey goes off with a brown bag full of money.

[War4ever]

if Ming wins, he should buy a lottery ticket j/k

[rah]

Land is just one of the luck factors. But it is one of the bigger ones. Other luck is easier to overcome when it's bad. Land is tougher and it takes longer to make up for.

[War4ever]

yes i agree...... but early tribes or nomads, especially more than one, can just devestate someone......it all snowballs, i just like it when the game evens things up

[Alexander's Horse]

Jeez war - in history did Britain get a fair starting position?

I'm really surprised at you War - this is the sort of nonsense those diplo games morons argue about

[War4ever]

actually AH i am not really *****ing, i am just pointing out how the game has specialized now that we all know it like the back of our hand........

the game is still evolving for those of us who continue to play, and that is good, maybe one day people will scream and a rave about production

[Alexander's Horse]

Well I'll play any start. I've had some real bad ones. Bad starts just have different challenges. You set different goals. I find almost any situation in the game fun.

[deity]

same.. it's fun to just roll with the luck either way. I got a crappy South Pole start recently but doing well now. If I'm up against a player of equal or better skill who got a better start I just do as AH suggested - set strategic goals....

[finbar]

Is my very recent episode of 3 consecutive tribes out of 3 consecutive huts - creating my 3rd, 4th and 5th cities - any sort of record? I should hasten to add that this post shouldn't be read in the context of the "luck" that is being bandied around in this thread. Tipping huts properly obviously takes skill.

[Frank Johnson]

I once got 3 advanced tribes, for my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cities, then a settler, which I think eventually made my 6th. It was all very funny untill everyone attacked me en mass the rest of the game. Ironicly, all the cities were pretty well placed.