Tied Poll: Map Specs. What now

[notyoueither]

Official Poll: Map Specs:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66457

I suggest we discuss it this time, before we poll.

[DAVOUT]

[notyoueither]

I agree with Random land mass and water coverage.

I disagree with random climate, temperature and age. Here's why...

Starting in tundra would be nearly the end of the game for that unlucky civ. You just can't do anything with it for far too long. Desert would be bad enough, but at least with desert there is a good chance of rivers and flood plains.

The solution to this? Warm temperature. The caps are minimised or eliminated altogether. With warm you would use Normal climate and 4 billion (defaults). If you chose wet you will have no tundra and no desert (likely). That means 0 oil in some games. Oops.

So I say Random land mass and water, choose Normal climate and 4 billion years. Choose Warm temperature.

Wouldn't it be just great to pick all random and have archi, arid, cool, 3 billion? NOT!

What do you think?

[Jon Shafer]

But that would be picking. If you remember, neither random nor picking won.

This thread is about what to do about THAT issue, not to press your map agenda. Doing so would be throwing out the results of the poll.

[notyoueither]

What result? It was tied. It must be redone, no?

And yes, a discussion is for pressing your views and discussing them with others along with theirs. I think that's how it works.

[ruby_maser]

I'm all for you notyoueither is saying.
The reason I voted no random in the first place is because there wasn't a compromise built into the poll.

I hate the idea of random climate because it maximizes the chances of a bad start location (which might not prove insurmountable in a SP game but probably will in MP). I also never play anything but worlds of 4 billion years because, again, I didn't buy the game to battle the elements (play the elements ), but I really wouldn't mind a random layout for the landmasses.

[Jon Shafer]

Random landmass is a given.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by Trip
Random landmass is a given.

alright...

[Jon Shafer]

But I agree with that also. I'm a vehement supporter of random landmass, you must understand.

[notyoueither]

I understand that, but some others may not be.

I can live with it.

[Spiffor]

I say we repoll !
OR we make a group poll on every precise issue like :

"What should our climate be ?"
Group A : cold
Group A : normal
Group A : warm
Group B : random

It might end up in a full randomization, but at least it would get things done. (Sad turn of events, since I'm a partisan of fixed settings )

[Jon Shafer]

Unless anyone has objections, I'll start a poll with it based upon each individual issue, where people will be allowed to vote random as well.

[History Guy]

Can't be too cold, but I'd not be happy with too warm a climate, either. Jungles are pretty miserable.

[notyoueither]

Jungles, desert, and rivers are a function of Dry/Normal/Wet.

Temperature controls Tundra/Grass/Plains.

/Edit. Doing some additional checking.

The ratios of Grass and Plains seem to bounce around with both Climate and Temperature.

Jungles and Desert are most effected by Climate.

Tundra is most effected by Temperature.

I have not looked for effects on forest.

[Arnelos]

NYE,

Wet DOES NOT MEAN that there is less oil. The total number of oil resources (or any resource) is set by the number of players, not the number of available tiles. Then the oil is distributed to available tiles.

Yes, this CAN mean that almost all of the world's oil supply is hoarded into a few tiles of desert in one location and a few tiles of tundra in another (I've seen this happen).

I say we go WET regardless.