General Games Settings Discussion Thread

[Krill]

Raging barbs shouldn;t really be on because it makes teams play against the Ai instead of against each other; it'll also give those teams that start with horses or copper in their caps an even bigger advatange; being able to rush at the start is quite an advantage.

No city razing should be allowed; what if you kill a team who sucked because they planted all thier cities in crap locations? You shouldn't be punished because of their bad play.

I think Big and Small would be a slightly better map than Terra if people want to make over seas colonies; the decision to expand to the islands comes alot sooner ebcause you can reach them with galleys, so they can play a much more importnat role in the game. It also has the advantage of being pangaea shaped with quite alot of coastline.

As to turn timer, 48 hours should be ideal; if you can't make it on one evening you should be able to make it to another, or if not you still have time to tell an alternative turn player what to do. (Easy to read and understand turn reports are your friend.)

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Nugog

What?

[Paddy]

maybe he is argueing the point with himself there

hope he gets the right answer

[Kylearan]

Hi,

some comments on map and settings:

- Terra Map: I'm against it. If I recall the map correctly, it's a (comparatively) small landmass where all teams start on. I seriously doubt the new world will play any role in the game, as the cores of each team will be on the starting landmass. There won't be much room to expand, so some teams might already be crippled or even eliminated before any team has the tech to settle the new world. The Terra map definitely prefers an aggressive approach, and puts peaceful builders at a disadvantage, essentially reducing the number of options of how to play the game.

I'd really prefer a different map type, where each team has enough room to expand a bit. Pangea, Inland Sea or something along that line would be better for a demogame. Terra Map is fun for single player, but not for multiplayer IMHO.

The CFC demogame had a custom map created by Sirian where each team had a landmass of their own, but all were connected via small land bridges. This was great, as it gave all teams room to expand into peacefully, but also allowed for quick contact via the land bridges and made navies important at the same time. It was the perfect map for a demogame!


- Random events: Off, if you ask me. There are some events that have too great an influence ("all axes get cover", for example...). One team can get too great an advantage only because of a simple die roll, which is bad for balance and that would be no fun IMHO.


- Speed: Strongly depends on the map size. It should be possible to build an army and attack with it before the units become obsolete. On a small map, normal speed might be okay; however, on a standard-sized map (or even a small map with low sea level), distances are too great for normal speed, so I'd say epic would be better.


- City razing should be allowed, definitely, for the reason Krill mentioned.


- Tech trading: On of course! Makes the diplo game much more interesting.

-Kylearan

[sooooo]

For a map, may I suggest a hub? It gives all the aspects people were looking for: early contact with other civs, the possibility for early war but it's quite difficult to do, and finally it makes navies important. Hub or wheel I'd say. Playing terra will be the same as playing pangaea for the most part, so I don't get the people saying "no to pangaea! but how about this terra map ..."

In terms of game speed I'd prefer normal. Warring on normal speed really isn't that bad. If players have the troop levels normally associated with mp (ie, high), then unit upkeep will stop people teching too quickly on normal. Plus the game progresses at a decent speed to stay interesting.

As to other settings, I like:

normal barbs
no events
allow all trading

[RobWorham]

Whatever map style we eventually end up with Keygen will be making one based on our agreed criteria.

As long as we give him clear, concise instructions we should end up with an excellent map.......

Thanks once again Keygen for volunteering to be mapmaker and game admin!!!!

[FeMme]

Originally posted by Kylearan

The CFC demogame had a custom map created by Sirian where each team had a landmass of their own, but all were connected via small land bridges.

I too think we should steer away from Pangaea and Terra maps so I like the sound of inland sea and the above suggestion. The current Warlords TDG map is well designed also. Although don't ask me what settings we finally decided on for that game because it took forever to come to a decision!!!

[RobWorham]

Remember that the actual size of the map would matter less if we chose Terra.

We could conceivably play on a huge map with 6-7 teams by having a good sized 'old world' and a good sized 'new world' separated by a large expanse of water.......

So in effect we could have an inland sea, or pangaea, or wheel or hub as the 'old world', and a similar, or for that matter different, landmass for the new world.

If we selected complete kills, then even if a civ is getting their proverbial handed to them on a plate, they could sail off to pastures new providing they had the cash for the trip......

The map is only limited by our imaginations, and Keygens patience and skill at mapmaking......

[Locutus]

Oww, I rather like the idea of using Hub. One of those MP maps that I normally never use, but it'd be perfect for a game like this. Early contact, plenty of space for everyone to develop AND navies matter... (Need to do something about excess desert though, Hub seems to have especially much of it -- but that's where Keygen comes in.)

[FeMme]

Originally posted by RobWorham

If we selected complete kills, then even if a civ is getting their proverbial handed to them on a plate, they could sail off to pastures new providing they had the cash for the trip......

Runaway!!! Runaway!!!

But seriously, this is a good idea.

[Krill]

Hub normally gives horrible land, and because of the choke points it is incredably easy to defend; Inland Sea would be somewhat better due to the normal methods of attacking still working.

I think it should be left up to the teams to decide the final map (though we should definately keep on discussing in public)

[sooooo]

Hub normally gives horrible land

it's horrible at the hub, but generally fertile at the landmasses

because of the choke points it is incredably easy to defend

only if you attack by land

[Krill]

If you want to have to spend an extra 500 hamemrs to even be able to transport units across the sea and don't have any triemes, fine...but Inland Sea would be somewhat fairer, with nicer land, and allow sea based attacks as well.

[Krill]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=258632

This is a variant on team battle grounds. One of the options is a donut shaped map, with the starts equidistant, and inner circle sea and the outer ocean. I think that if this were balanced my the game admins/map makers it could be a very nice map to play on.

[Hercules]

Maybe we now have all reasonable map variants. If so let's put the map options to a poll of teams.