Crapstart (tm)

[Roy H Smith]

Is this game mostly luck?

In my second to last game I'm trapped on the Eastern Coast of a large continent with (seriously) 10-12 other civs. Persia is to the south and had more space to expand and grow. Everyone expanded very quickly and the game transformed into a screen saver that demands you push "Enter" every three minutes. So I set my Science to 0% and play Tech Broker...buy a tech for 1000 gold...sell it for 2000 gold to nine civs...and soon I've got 6000 gold and am making 500 gold a turn..so I build the Intelligence Agency and try to plant a spy on the Persians. Failed. Failed 10 times in a row. Move in with my outdated military and still smashed four or five cities..I offer ANYTHING for allies...no good.
Then 8 civs declare walk on me (I'm WINNING for God's sakes!) and I'm screwed.

In my last game I start on an island with the Americans. The island is basically a "drumstick" - a thick meaty part, a shaft, and a knuckle. I start at the knuckle - the Americans get the meat and expand to double my number of cities. Eventually I just build 30 Swordsmen and charge....I eliminate all but 1 American city and then Romans and Indians pop up and drop two settlers each on my newly cleared land.

Both of these games were decided for me.
1. You MUST expand early or die.
2. You MUST attack a larger rival or his simple production/science advantage will kill you in the long run.
3. And if you are lucky and he doesn't attack well, it's still just luck, and it's still pretty boring then.

So someone create a Crapstart utility. Crapstart (tm) scans a map and before the game informs you if you are wasting your time. Here are your parameters...
1. Starting in jungle, desert, or tundra or an area with a lot of these types of terrain.
2. Starting on an island all by yourself.
3. Starting on land with 10 enemies.
4. Starting in an area with no Iron/Saltpeter/Horse resources within 10 squares.
5. No fresh water to irrigate

Trigger 2-3 of these losing conditions and it's auto-reset and try again. In Civ 2 you could fight from ANY position but in Civ 3 it's pretty hopeless.

And if your good I'll tell you about the 50% desert island I started on once and STILL had to fight for (and against an opponent who had random cities pop up because the computer think sticking me in a craphole sandbox is fair but shutting down an enemy AI early is not.

I think you could get a Chieftain to Diety difficultly rating without computer cheats at all...just change where you start (and a crappy desert island you have to fight for is definitely Diety..good luck with more than 7 cities.)

[Hagbart]

hehe
i agree with you, there is too much jungle/desert/tundra in civ3. I hate these terrain types they are worthless
but half of the games i start in these terrains
i want some nice grassland/hills/forest

[Jaybe]

Expanding early is DEFINITELY a good idea!

But otherwise, I think you need to try some different geographies when you set up the type of world you are going to be playing in. Personally, I prefer the 'large continents' setting (almost pangea). I get 3 or 4 continents in the world.

[ACooper]

Civilzation has always been this way. I always play from where I start. But I like randomness and think it makes the game more fun.

[Salvor]

Hagbart, I have a sneaking suspicion that if you got your wish you'd just complain that you got cheated out of your oil, coal, and rubber.

Roy, I see your point. Most of the situations you described are winnable, but are certainly made more difficult because of the bad starting position. That part is luck, and determines a large part of how difficult the rest of the game will be. Personally, I'm OK with it. I like variety, I step up to a challenge, and I'm not afraid to lose sometimes. If I could start every game knowing for sure that I would win, what would be the point of playing at all?
Then Civ3 would be reduced to the joke game that came out back in 1991 depicting the gulf war. You click the icon, it shows a detailed map of Iraq and Kuwait, you click start, it flashes "We surrender. You win!" in big bold letters across the screen. Funny, yes. Fun, no.

[JimMac]

I think Roy makes a very good point.

I have started many games of Civ3. I always play on Regent on a random map. I dont always finish them because of the well known tedium which sets in. (Which IMHO is not because of the lack of stacked movement, but because of the lack of decisions to be made, so the game becomes an exercise of pressing the "next turn" key. The latest patch hasn't tackled this at all BTW and... anyway ...that is another issue). I would guess that in around a third of these games, I was severely handicapped by my starting position and in around a third of those games I felt that I received an unfair advantage because of my starting position.

IIRC in CTP,in a text file which I think was called the userprofile txt, you could set how favourable a starting postion you were to get, which I assumed was based on some assessment of the relevent 21 squares. (I am sure I.Wombat could confirm this).

I think the map is better for having uninhabitable or harsh land, I simply feel that none of the players should be forced to start there.

I am not sure what the solution is, say no-one is allowed to settle their first city until after turn 5 (and you have found a satisfactory spot)? If your capital was not automatically placed in your first city, this would also help.

Whatever, it will have to be sorted before multiplayer arrives.

Jim

[Pyrodrew]

That Too

Originally posted by Hagbart
i agree with you, there is too much jungle/desert/tundra in civ3. I hate these terrain types they are worthless
but half of the games i start in these terrains
i want some nice grassland/hills/forest

It is not that there is "too much" jungle/desert/tundra in Civ3... simply that the Civ3 jungle/desert/tundra is "too worthless". These terrains should be better balanced.

Civ3 replaced Civ2's Jungle Banannas (growth) with Civ3 Jungle Disease (death). This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair or adequate start in a jungle. Likewise, Civ3 replaced Civ2's Desert Oasis (good) with Diseased Flood Plains (death). This makes a desert start position near impossible. One could also use oil in Civ2 at the start of the game to help... in Civ3 you cannot. Unless 1.17f changed any of those, which from what I read it didn't.

Patch 1.17f fortunately made oil only on desert & tundra now. However, oil is not discovered until MUCH later & is of no use at the start... resulting in you still being left behind & the prey of other Civs when they see/want that oil later. Patch 1.17f does improve game resource (+2food now), which will help tundra not be as horrid. Tundra also has it's back up against a wall (north/south pole), unlike desert or jungle. Grasslands is still FAR too powerful since it can be mined (or irrigated) & has great growth. True grasslands may not have any strategic/luxury resources, but even on Huge maps grassland starting Civs always (from what I've seen) will be near coal hills, gem mountains, saltpeter deserts or whatever to expand into 1st... because of their exceptional growth + mining power.

[Dinner]

It's to bad Civ3 doesn't have a way to costumize random maps like CTP2 does. In CTP2 you have several different sliding bar scales (rain or desert, land or ocean, contents or islands, many resources or few... etc) that allows the user to specify betwwen 1 and 10 how much they want of each.

The more I look at it the more I realize CTP2 was a very well thought out civ game (if not well implemented at times).

[DrFell]

Re: That Too

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Civ3 replaced Civ2's Jungle Banannas (growth) with Civ3 Jungle Disease (death). This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair or adequate start in a jungle. Likewise, Civ3 replaced Civ2's Desert Oasis (good) with Diseased Flood Plains (death). This makes a desert start position near impossible. One could also use oil in Civ2 at the start of the game to help... in Civ3 you cannot. Unless 1.17f changed any of those, which from what I read it didn't.

Why does everyone think flood plain is so bad? It was actually very good terrain indeed for pop rush, perfection, not death. I agree with how horrible jungle is now though. Jungle is indeed guaranteed death now (with such slow development rates, no resources, and no production)

[Acemo]

Re: Re: That Too

Originally posted by DrFell


Jungle is indeed guaranteed death now (with such slow development rates, no resources, and no production)

no resources in jungles? how about coal and rubber? i have found jungle painfully slow to get going, but extremely valuable later in the game.

[DrFell]

I meant 'bonus' resources, coal and rubber come late, too late if you actually have nothing but jungle to expand into. If that is the case you will end up pitiful all game and be lucky to survive until rubber is available.

[thinkingamer]

Re: Crapstart (tm)

yes, this game is mostly luck. And sure, random maps makes each game different making it interesting, but is it balanced? definitely not. Also anyone who manages to get enough "lucky" GL (with a solid start) can win deity level.

Anyone who played Aok random maps will notice how balanced those maps are; yet, if a player finds 4 more sheeps than his opponent, that player ends up having a huge advantage.

Many great games did not used random maps (ej: Starcraft and Heroes of Might and Magic); In my opinion, civ3 will never be a balanced game if it continues to use random maps.

[ACooper]

Random maps are key to what the game is. You don't know the world around you. Just like it really was in 4000BC. This is one reason I hate scenerios in general. You know where things are. I think it takes away from the skill needed to play the game if you know where to go.

[Acemo]

Originally posted by ACooper
Random maps are key to what the game is. You don't know the world around you. Just like it really was in 4000BC. This is one reason I hate scenerios in general. You know where things are. I think it takes away from the skill needed to play the game if you know where to go.

You are 100% correct. This is what gives the civ series "infinite replay" value, it is always different. That is why I never get sick of it.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by ACooper
Random maps are key to what the game is. You don't know the world around you. Just like it really was in 4000BC. This is one reason I hate scenerios in general. You know where things are. I think it takes away from the skill needed to play the game if you know where to go.

I would have no complains about random maps as long as it is 100% balanced. I dont know about u people, but im not willing to spend 24 hours to win a Lucky game (which is not a real victory), or lose a Unlucky game.

Instead i want a civ game with some maps that are replayable as chess (u know the same map [board] that gives u a diifferent experience each game)