Crapstart (tm)

[King of Rasslin]

I like the rough, tough terrain. Its fun to say you started as a peninsula desert civ on emperor and made 3rd place. That is a great accomplishment.

Its no fun when you win because you are midland with tons of grassland.

[Ironikinit]

It has a map editor, y'know.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
It has a map editor, y'know.

Yes, but someone will end up having more GL/huts/strategic resouce than others, so even a perfect 1vs1 map wont be balanced

[Ironikinit]

Basically what you're saying is that you want luck eliminated from the game, if I read you right. That's valid, but the game has a good deal of luck to it. The combat system, for example: a lucky ancient unit might beat any one medieval or industrial era unit. Luck is part of the game (and all the civ type games) and I don't think there's any getting around that.

I tend to look at great leaders as partly luck, partly skill. A good player knows how to maximize the chances of getting one, just as a good player can overcome a poor start to win the game.

I think that you can determine the position/existence of huts, but I'm not positive on that.

In any event, if it's a big deal, you can make a map with more or less balanced start positions.

[thinkingamer]

basically u r saying that Civ3 is has luck/chances and good players will play to maximisize those chances to his favor. Hmmmmmm......

K, If i get really lucky (just IF) and get 5 GL in a single game, and my opponent gets only 2 GL. And lets say that my opponent is my twin with the same iq, hobby, etc.

Wouldn't it be unfair if i win just because i got lucky??? And for this reason, games that takes more than 20 hours to finish have to be VERY, very balanced.

Sure, there can be (with a lot of luck) a fair/balanced game in Civ3, but if not, wouldn't u be upset waisting 20 hours or so to an unfair game?

For me ramdom stuffs are the biggest flaw in this game

[Grumbold]

Before the 'cheaters...' thread disappeared in a morass of personal abuse I was wanting to say that I miss the cheat menu from Civ II. Not for any huge desire to cheat like mad but just for the reveal map option. Having played dozens of games straight it was very handy when starting a new game to be able to peek at the map on turn one. Don't want to play that position? Just restart immediately. No need to waste 50 turns finding out how bad it is before deciding you don't want to play it.

[Salvor]

Life has luck.

Life isn't 100% balanced.

Life isn't fair.

Life takes more than 20 hours to complete (for most people).

So, are you going to quit?

[Grumbold]

No but I'm going to spend less of it on unsatisfying computer games. It is in the Developers interest to make their games as satisfying as possible for as broad an audience as possible. They sell loads of copies, get a nice big bonus and a lucrative contract to design the next version that we are eagerly looking forward to buying. How could having options to better balance the starting positions decrease your enjoyment of the game?

[tmai]

Luck/randomness can be an interesting factor or an overwhelming one. When (bad) luck can be counteracted it's just another _strategic_ consideration. An example of this would be the almost myhical spearman vs. tank tete-a-tete, where overkill (take in more tanks) will almost certainly save the day.

A lousy starting location however cannot be counteracted, because -as it is- it's not possible to plant weat or to raise a herd of cows. In this 'bad luck'scenario the only option is to suck it up and move on or quit the game. In this example luck is an overwhelming factor.

Finally, a game is a game. We don't want it to be 100% lifelike. We want it to be a strategic challenge, to test our skills, not to test our luck/karma/some software developer's random generator. In a game we don't want to loose a kidney simply because our genetic make-up made it likely to happen... we want to 'loose a kidney' because we made a poor decision.

[Spook42]

Re: Crapstart (tm)

Originally posted by Roy H Smith

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

Try this as a possibility:

1) In the Civ3 Windows folder, find the file “civ3mod.bic” and make a copy of this as a backup, giving it a unique name. This will backup your “default” .bic file.

2) Go into the Civ3 editor, and from there, open the "civ3mod" file. Under the "tools" menu, make sure that "No new map" is checked, but that "Use Default rules" is NOT checked.

3) You've now activated the "Edit" tab to the right. What you want is to edit "Units.” Bring up the Units tab page.

4) For your worker and settler unit, change their movement rates to as fast as can be allowed for ground units.

5) Save the civ3mod file, and also save as an added backup (like civ3mod-crapstart). Exit from the editor.

6) Start up Civ3, and after making your initial civ/world choices, save the game on turn 1 before moving either of your starting units. With the modified civ3mod file, you now have a couple of faster units. Have these units run around for several turns, exploring and seeing what the terrain near your start point is like, including nearby civ’s as neighbors if you’re so inclined. Then quit the game.

7) If you liked what you saw for starting terrain setup, then in the Civ3 folder, swap back the civ3mod.bic file with the copy of your initial default file (which should give you back your worker and settler at default movement rates). Start up your earlier saved game from turn 1 again and then proceed.

8) If you do NOT like what you see, then don't swap the updated civ3mod.bic file yet. Start a new game instead. Now the hastened units have a new map to run around in for a few turns.

This method is basically a cheat, it requires file-swapping, and you have to play for a few turns in each new game to "look around" from your start point. But it's one way for you to play for a short while and determine if your "foundation" is suitable enough for you.

[Ironikinit]

The whole Civ series has a significant element of chance, most games do. Backgammon has dice, poker has cards, yet skilled players will beat unskilled ones far more often than not, and Civ 3 is the same.

I could have mad crazy luck, just outrageous like popping settlers on my first two huts and getting 3 GLs in an early war and I still don't think I'd get a score that would make the HoF here. That's because I don't know how to use the strategies required and I don't ponder every move, I just play. Not to mention that I don't have the patience or desire to do it. Heck, I could have that much luck and still lose if I let myself get overconfident and started a boneheaded war or two.

The thing about luck is that it averages out. Civ 3 is so big that it's hard to imagine that any single event or battle will determine the outcome.

Personally, I'd like it if there were random events as there were in SMAC, but I understand that people don't like them and so there aren't. Excluding them is to me highly unrealistic, much more so than the planes vs. ships controversy. The Spanish Armada and the Mongol invasion of Japan failed largely because of storms. The battle of Waterloo may have been won and lost because Napoleon's hemorrhoids acted up. The Confederate battle plan for Antietam was discovered by Union soldiers by blind luck.

Obviously, a game can have too much of an element of chance. Players want to know that they won or lost because of their skill, although they tend to be willing to attribute the former to skill and the later to luck. Too much bad luck and players get frustrated and quit. Too much good luck means that victory seems hollow or they feel stupid if they manage to lose despite their good fortune.

Personally, it doesn't take me 50 turns to figure out that I have a junk starting position. If I have room for seven core cities, I know that I'll be OK. If I don't, I might be in for trouble. I did sometimes use the see map cheat in at the beginning Civ 2 games, but I don't miss it too much now.

Anybody who really needs a balanced start can use the editor to make a random map and adjust it so that every start position has a river, a luxury, iron, horses, whatever it takes. Just making a few good maps should keep them covered for a long time, because each start position will make things a bit different, and they can play with a different civ and different opponents each time. If you can't stand the element of chance in a game, my only advice is to play chess or go because every combat system in every war game I can think of involves random variables.

[Worthingtons]

In my last game I got 4 great leaders before a Single Medieval Tech had been discovered

[pg]

i don't think it has anything to do with jungle/desert/tundra/etc being that much worse than they were in civ1/civ2. the main problem seems to be that these horrible terrian types run in clumps(in my experience) along with the distance, and number of city based corruption rules. in civ1/civ2 you could just build somewhere else if there was bad terrian. in civ3 you are forced to build nearby your capital. also now that ics is way worse in single player than before you have to build quickly or else you lose your chance.

the game is flawed, and unless the core rules change no patching/tweaking is going to fix it. this is by design.

[Sandman]

Ideas and issues:

Large clumps of hills are almost useless, but you can still build on them, meaning you have to, to prevent the AI doing it. Bring back irrigation on hills! It's possible with the editor, but it looks terrible.

A total luxury drought is a game killer for me. I just can't keep up with other civs without a decent luxury supply. Unlike resources, luxuries stay put for the entire game, never running out or appearing, so you've got no hope of a 'miracle'.

More often than not, I start one square away from the ocean. This is so damn annoying! Either move your first settler and fall behind in production, or be saddled with squares which cannot be improved because you can't build harbors or platforms inland.
Solution one: Change the starting rules so that this happens less often.
Solution two: Allow harbors and platforms to be built inland (I may see if this is possible in the editor).

Is there any way to switch off goody huts? I play with civ-specifics switched off nowadays, so the expansionist civs won't be affected.

Forests should be a viable alternative to grasslands. And deforestation should cause soil erosion.

Grasslands: boring boring boring. In civ3 there are distinct climate bands, unfortunately, desert, jungle and tundra are terrible starting locations, plains is OK and grassland is an guaranteed high scorer.

More bonus resources would be nice. As someone said, oasis and bananas would be very welcome. Also, wild game and luxuries should be destroyed if their forests are cut down.

Map-making should be earlier on the tech tree, to help island civs.

New idea: fishing boats. Send these guys out to that whale which falls annoyingly short of your city radius and the whale will be harvested and send back to a designated harbor city. To prevent SMAC type crawler abuses, you can only fish for special resources, and the home city must devote a citizen to become a 'fisherman' specialist. And it would give your navy something to protect as well.

General idea: There should be less super-terrain, i.e. grasslands and it should be mixed with less good terrain.

That's all my ideas for now.

[tmai]

The whole Civ series has a significant element of chance, most games do. Backgammon has dice, poker has cards, yet skilled players will beat unskilled ones far more often than not, and Civ 3 is the same.

True, but a Civ series game is not expected (or intended) to be a chance game and will attract a different kind of crowd.

The thing about luck is that it averages out. Civ 3 is so big that it's hard to imagine that any single event or battle will determine the outcome.

Somewhat true. A really bad starting location can finish a game before it started. However, one of the basic rules for strategic and competitive games is a level playing field to emphasize on skill over beating the odds.

Personally, I'd like it if there were random events as there were in SMAC, but I understand that people don't like them and so there aren't.

I don't mind random events on a level field. Most often these events are optional, which is a good way to please everyone. Firaxis didn't put them in for one or the other commercial reason.

Obviously, a game can have too much of an element of chance. Players want to know that they won or lost because of their skill, although they tend to be willing to attribute the former to skill and the later to luck. Too much bad luck and players get frustrated and quit. Too much good luck means that victory seems hollow or they feel stupid if they manage to lose despite their good fortune.

That's why strategic games are not supposed to incorporate a luck factor. Without luck involved, both victory and defeat are most pleasing. Defeat or victory is what you _deserved_, the direct result of your skills.

Anybody who really needs a balanced start can use the editor to make a random map and adjust it so that every start position has a river, a luxury, iron, horses, whatever it takes.
[...]

That would get a bit tedious after 10 games wouldn't it? You are only describing a clever workaround to an unsuccessful random map generator, but it defeats the purpose of the random map generator.