Patch idea: symetrical map generator.

[muxec]

The curent version of game have a huge randomness I think that new feature needed in map generator: make starting locations equal.

[miccofl]

Not a very good idea, sorry. That would remove the Social Darwinism factor from the game. The strong must conquer the weak. (Why else would we play?!) This would also defeat the purpose of trade and commerce; if everyone had the same, or all resources, the only thing left to trade is maps and tech.

It might prove useful in creating a tutorial/super-easy scenario, but how often do you want to play one of those?

[muxec]

Originally posted by miccofl
The strong must conquer the weak.

No, The wise must conquer the foolish. I think that wise game needs less randomness.

[General Ludd]

Why not make your own map if you don't want it to be random?

[miccofl]

The wise must conquer the foolish.

War does not, and cannot prove which side is right, only which side is stronger. Don't get me wrong, I’ve won the game by culture and diplomacy but it lacked the excitement of battle. But that’s my opinion.

I think that wise game needs less randomness.

Without randomness there would be no need for wisdom.

[dunk]

I agree with Osweld. You can make your own map if what you'd like is a even starting position map.

As far as the strong conquering the weak, the strong would still perservere, as they would be ahead in tech, or have superior numbers and tactics to defeat the weaker players, even with an even start.

I also like making do with what I start with. I'll play the gaem even if I get stuck on an iceberg (I've had that happen to me once) or on a desert island. Just to see if I can swing it.

It would be best for MP. And if so, then maybe a random even-start map which neither player knows beforehand would be an ok idea. So, in the time it took me to write this post, I have changed my mind and wish to change my vote from BAD idea to GOOD idea.

[phunny_pharmer]

The strong must conquer the weak.

No, The wise must conquer the foolish

Not to disagree, but I think you guys are arguing around each other. Muxec wants to see a different kind of game than Miccofl. Both of you are right!

Add it in as a preference- "equal starting locations." Some of the mods, like DyP, become very unbalanced because certain civs get bad starts. Perhaps (with this option enabled) the editor then can assign a certain number of 'good' terrain tiles to each civ's starting location...

[Todd Hawks]

Very bad idea IMO. I like to explore and I would hate to know exactly that the several parts of the map look exactly the same. And it just doesn't look right.

But of course I wouldn't mind if it was an option... I'd just never use it.

[YC4B4U]

It is good if the start locations are similar in terms of food, commerce and shields. This does not include resources or terrain type. This is so you can get one good city. After your first city - random!

It is not particularly good if one person is stuck in a jungle or mountains and the other has a river with floodplains and hills nearby. Particularly for the upcoming multiplayer version... It may even be worth Firaxis providing premade maps with the expansion.

[alva]

Originally posted by YC4B4U

It may even be worth Firaxis providing premade maps with the expansion.

I see what you are saying , but you know what's going to happen , CHEATING!!!

[muxec]

Originally posted by miccofl
Without randomness there would be no need for wisdom.

The wisest strategy game - chess have no randomness.

[GI Josh]

Substantially equal, not symmetrical

Symmetrical is a bad idea - the early turns have a profound impact down the line and part of the strategy is balancing early exploration with other unit production, etc.

However, especially for MP, having roughly equal starting positions is *very* good idea. One way would be that each tile has a certain # of points, which is the sum of its food, production, and commerce points. Depending on the size of the map, if the equalize button was active, each player would have a starting position where the total of all the tiles w/i a certain radius (say 20 tiles) would be within 20% of the average for all players. The computer could simply add extra resource bonuses (e.g. cows) to roughly equalize the areas. Strategic resources would continue to be distributed randomly - for MP, the exhaustion and reappearance rates could be greatly increased, insuring that no player had a huge advantage in strategic resources throughout the game - this would also force players to constantly negotiate/war for changing resource patterns.

In sum, your concern is valid. Symmetrical is bad, roughly equal is good.

[miccofl]

Originally posted by: phunny_pharmer
Not to disagree, but I think you guys are arguing around each other. Muxec wants to see a different kind of game than Miccofl. Both of you are right!

Originally posted by: muxec
chess have no randomness.

And that's what makes Civ3 such a great game!

[General Ludd]

Balance shmalance, it's no fun if everything is 50/50.

Stick someone on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean, give someone a continent all to them selves - I don't care, so long as it's not all even and balanced.

[zorbop]

i wouldn't like the symetrical idea normally.
but in a multiplayer game something, like it is needed.
i don't have the energy to write much more