Crapstart (tm)

[Seghillian]

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.

I can't see anyone creating this utility in a hurry Roy. There have been suggestions that you use the map editor but then obviously you would lose the element of not knowing the map. So let me make a suggestion that might work for you.

Start a game. Immediately save the game under a name that defines map/civ etc. (egypthugeemperorA.sav for example) then save the game as MULTI. Load MULTI. Examine map. Is this a good start position and a game you want to play? If so keep egypthugeemperorA.sav or whatever it was called. Start a new game and try the same technique. Keep starting new games - examine them in MULTI, delete the starts you don't like. Presumably after a while you will have several game start files which look worth playing. I'm sure you won't be able to recall much detail from each so now you can randomly choose any one of them and start playing. And when that game is finished you'll have several more waiting for you.

Just an idea that might appeal and will be quicker than waiting for the "crapstart" utility.

[Ironikinit]

tmai,

You say that a Civ game is not expected or intended to be a game of chance, yet combat results are based on a random variable and start positions are unequal. That's how it has always been. Since most Civ games are played against the AI, the player decides whether or not the start is good enough for their liking. Some will play every single start, some will restart until certain criteria are met, some even restart until they have a poor start position in order to have a challenge.

I don't know what strategy games you're talking about that don't incorporate luck. Chess and go are examples, but they are quite different than Civ. Almost every wargame that I've played has involved dice or cards to determine combat, excluding IIRC the boardgame version of Civilization and Diplomacy. However, you'll note that those last two mentioned did not have equivilent starting positions.

This problem of random maps has been in the game since the begining of the computer game series of Civilization. It's only a problem in that starting points aren't equal. Mostly, however, random maps are a great boon to replay value. Part of what makes the game fun is overcoming a poor start or taking advantage of a good one. I suggested a method to give players even starts, and I'm sure there are other ways to do so.

[tmai]

You say that a Civ game is not expected or intended to be a game of chance, yet combat results are based on a random variable and start positions are unequal.

Yes, and the latter was the little something I was not really happy about.

That's how it has always been.

Not quite. If you look at SMAC for example, it allows for more improvement of the starting location through terraforming. Not all SMAC terraforming options would suit a (historic) Civ game, but taking land from the sea would have been a realistic option, as would planting weat, raising cows, etc have been.

I don't know what strategy games you're talking about that don't incorporate luck. Chess and go are examples, but they are quite different than Civ. Almost every wargame that I've played has involved dice or cards to determine combat[...]

True, and I don't object against it as long as the random aspect is not overwhelming, in other words, can be overcome by applying strategy.

This problem of random maps has been in the game since the begining of the computer game series of Civilization. It's only a problem in that starting points aren't equal.

Well that's true, but the difference is that with Civ3 the rapid AI expansion does not leave the player much time to move around looking for something more suitable, which is what I used to do with other Civ-like games. We have to start building and expanding right from the start or be overrun/cornered by the AI.

Mostly, however, random maps are a great boon to replay value. Part of what makes the game fun is overcoming a poor start or taking advantage of a good one.

I too like random maps, even more than static maps. Almost the best thing since sliced bread, but I would prefer not having to press 'Start New Game' 50 times in a row whenever I feel like a fair starting position on Archipelago. And modest agricultural improvement features as mentioned above would keep me from having to do so. So here I am...

[Ironikinit]

It would be nice to be able to add in terrain bonuses, but since they could be added to areas that are already good, it wouldn't solve this problem. The rich could still get richer.

Yes, it's annoying to look for a particular sort of map and have to restart until you find it. Luckily, there's a map editor. You don't even need to doctor the sites. Just pick one you think is fair and restart until you get it.

SMAC's major improvements to terrain didn't come into play until later in the game. In that amount of time, a Civ 3 player could move his capital to a better position, or at least put up a ForbPal.

Of course, that's mainly a matter of improving the capital's position relative to the rest of the empire. I often end up having some insignificant hick town end up as my capital, because the capital's production in and of itself isn't a big deal. This is a situation mirrored in real life, as national and state capitals aren't always the most happening cities. Coincidental, of course.

I'm getting off track. What it boils down to is that I don't think that luck is an overwhelming factor in the game. If I find myself restarting too much, I know that it's time to turn down the difficulty, because what I'm really doing is not looking for an equal footing, but an advantage.

[Worthingtons]

Sheep on Hills, Bring us this!

[nationalist]

There are two things that bother me about terrain set-up in Civ 3. The first thing is that there seems to be an over-abundance of poor terrain squares, be they tundra, jungle, or desert. The second problem is that it seems that I ALWAYS get stuck right in the middle of these terrains, while the AI seems to consistantly get much better positions. While I'm stuck in the middle of a desert with no fresh water to irrigate, most of my opponents are in grassland with rivers, or in some other situation that is far better than mine. I know that sometimes bad luck happens, but my gripe is in the fact that it always seems to happen. If this is designed to make the computer a more capable opponent it fails miserably; it is simply another annoying aspect of the game that makes it less fun to play. What is the point of always being stuck on a desert island, or in a junle surrounded by civs that started out in a much better position?

[Roy H Smith]

Howdy

What bothers me is that I use Difficulty to determine my, uh, difficulty. But a Monarch game with grasslands, hills, and resources is a Cheiftian level game and my fighting for a desert island game is a Diety level game.

Where you start is more important than your difficultly level. I'd win easy on Diety if all the other civs started on a huge desert continent and I started in a grassland paradise with all resources. Sure they'd out-tech me in the beginning but the ability to produce a Wonder three times faster than they would more than balance things out.

Difficulty level in itself means nothing...maybe Civ 4 could have a correcting mechanism...you ask for a level 3 challenge game but start in a level 4 challenge encironment so the game plays at a level 2 to balance things out...or is this too simple?

[Calvin Vu]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree with this assessment. In Civ 2, you can use your initial settlers to walk around for a dozen turns to look for a good spot, or even for goody huts [it's even fun to walk around even ], and is still very much in the game, now it's just a helter-skelter rush to claim land against the AIs in a grand ICS scheme.
BTW, I suspect that the difficult with Civ 3 MP is due to the big roles that random factors play in the outcome of the game. It's one thing to lose a unlucky game against the AIs since you can just play another one. It's another thing when human egos are at stake and the best player might very well be crushed right at the begining due to a bad start, by lacking a Horse resource, and inability to get a GL (as compared to his luckier human neighbor/opponent). It would be worse if he will be publicly derided for the crushing loss by a mean winner as it happens sometimes.
And, unlike Bridge, he can't play some 50 hands in one evening to even out the probabilities. This game should never be compared to Bridge, that's a very bad idea. One hand of Bridge does not take a whole week.

[Grumbold]

On the basis of there being no such thing as too many options, perhaps the "Gold" edition could include start paramaters for your starting location:

Fertility: Random/Good/Average/Poor All players Yes/No
Productivity: Random/Good/Average/Poor All players Yes/No
Resources: Random/Good/Average/Poor All players Yes/No

There, that should keep everyone happy

[Highlander_two]

OK -- hers's my two cents worth.

I've read quite a number of these types of threads, and one thing comes to mind. I've seen it before, but I'll say it again: bring back the CIV2 engineer unit and allow limited terraforming. Make this unit available in the early/mid-industral age, make it twice (or more) as expensive as a settler and allow mountains to hills, tundra to plains, jungle to forest and flood plains to grassland conversion.

IMHO this would accomplish two things. First, it would allow the player some hope of improving those crappy starting locations into something reasonably productive. Sure, it wouldn't be a fix early in the game, but it wouldn't condemn that city to a totally unproductive role for the whole game. Second, it would provide some relief from the late game tedium that so many poster complain about.

Again imho, this element would model world history since this type of limited terraforming has been available to mankind since the late 19th to early 20th century and would not seroiusly unbalance game-play if the AI were set up to take advantage of this as well as the player.

Again, just my 2 cents worth.

[fezick31]

The random maps in Civ3 can make starting hard. But if you don't like where you start, just restart before you have any time invested. If you want some good maps, check out these that quasar1011 made. I've only had a chance to play one (beteleguese), but they are resource packed and make for interesting play.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40276

[Ironwood]

I do agree with the soil erosion comment made by a previous poster. It would require a radical changing of the terrain model to implement (though I think a start was found in SMAC), but I've always wished the AI, after cutting down every stretch of jungle and forest, would end up in a morass of silt. I WANT TO SEE A YELLOW RIVER!

However, I disagree with the crapstart aspect. Recently, as the Persians, I started out in the middle of the desert. Admittedly, I was playing on Regent (or was I? I recently started playing on Monarch, and don't quite recall if this was before or after the switch). Actually, it was a mix of deserts, floodplains, hills, and mountains, with some decent grassland to the east (and the Iroqois and the Aztecs, my neighbors, having wonderfully grassy forested rivered start positions).

I didn't cry about it. I just made sure to grab as much hills as possible, discovered Iron Working, built a stack of six immortals and two horsemen, and set about making their lands flowing with milk and honey, my own. (Actually, the Aztecs started it by taking part of the Iroqois territory, and I took it from them). I ended up as the undisputed hegemon.

Probably the best way to hedge your bets where start positions are concerned is to pick a civ with an ancient era CSU. Persians, Romans, and Greeks are probably the best for this purpose. Egyptians are nice enough, since I like their CSA combo, and they get the earliest 2/1/2 unit. Babylonians probably have the unit least useful for early wars against other civs, but Barbarians are helpless against Bowmen.

[Fidel]

i like crapstart challenges. once i started in a complete jungle and my horde of indians had to clear it completely.
IMHO, good starting position usually comes with german/zulu/bab neighbourhood penalty...