General Games Settings Discussion Thread

[Hercules]

Just a thought, if people take the time to join the DG game, I am sure they would not welcome early rushes, with the possibility of an early exit. What would they learn from that. Death by chariot. Fun indeed.

In my view the map should be designed to encourage various approaches and the full possibilities of BTS, without the threat of an early bath.

[Krill]

ffs...tell that to Vox.

[RobWorham]

We are still waiting for some teams to join, once they do I totally agree that a poll is the only way to go.......

[RobWorham]

I still think the best idea would be to give our mapmaker a brief on what we would like out of the map rather than 'we want this map like this and this and this'.

For instance :

We would like a map with fairly early contact possibilities, but not necessarily all teams meeting each other right at the start. We would like plenty of water so naval units can be utilized to the max. We would like the map set so resource trading is emphasized, and we would like an unoccupied new world somewhere so teams can find pastures new if things turn to custard in the old world.

That way we won't be able to manipulate having intimate knowledge of the map to choose the perfect civ to do the job. Not knowing exactly what the map is going to be like will introduce an element of risk and dynamics whatever your choice may be.....

[Krill]

Yeah, the brief is a good idea, but you can get everything that you asked for, for example, on a pangaea map, or an archi map. Also, depending on the map makers level of understanding, they coudl decided that giving one team the majority of the grain resources is just as fair as giving another team the majority of the plantation resources even though it would lead to a massive imbalance in the game due to quality of land.

[RobWorham]

Keygen designed the Warlords DG map IIRC, and, apart from the fact that it is huge, (an unfortunate misunderstanding caused by numerous map threads/polls, and a restart IIRC) I think it is an excellently crafted map. Of course I only speak for Southern Cross here, but judging by the charts, demos, scores and top 5 cities, it seems that the balancing is very good.......

[Will9]

Map: I'm a fan of Fractal, but I think Keygen would have to step in and make sure 1 or 2 teams don't get cut off from the rest.

Speed: normal or epic. Another option would be normal modded to make unit production cheaper.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by Will
Another option would be normal modded to make unit production cheaper.

I don't think that would be a good idea. The unit and building production costs are balanced not to favor any victory type (military vs. non-military), and we shouldn't tamper with that.

-Kylearan

[Will9]

The balance in each speed is different (the longer it is, the more bent towards warmongers) and the main complaint about normal is that it is too balanced toward building. The best way to fix that would be to make units cheaper.

[Krill]

Normal isn't balanced towards warmongering; the ladder gets by OK-ish attacking on quick, attacking on normal is balanced fine.

[Krill]

Also, because you can defend with less units than you need to attack with, making units cheaper will just skewer the game even more to building instead of warfare, because you can spend less on units and more on buildings...

[Beta]

Rob wrote ...

OK, after reading through the whole thread again, it seems that we have a shortlist of three basic map types.

Pangaea
Terra
Inland Sea

It also seems that the general consensus is for early diplomacy/war opportunities to promote healthy discussion from the word go. Good use of navies also shows strongly, so ample water will be a must.

Map Size seems to be Small or Standard, based on the number of teams who have signed up, or have shown a strong desire to sign up.

Climate and Sea Level I say we leave to Keygen.

Era is a given at Ancient

Speed : Normal seems to be just edging out Epic.........

World Wrap : Some sort of wrapping seems to be in the majority.

Normal Barbarians

Any victory condition

To start with, I do not like the idea of limiting the number of teams to 4 or 5 as was suggested earlier. If we get 7 or 8 strong teams - let's go with them. That is the beauty of pitboss. And more teams makes for much more interesting diplomacy.

As to map - I am not a fan of inland sea for a game like this. It is way too predictable, and does not make for good naval tactics. ie a destroyer able to cross the sea in one turn, or less. Lets make the map'worldly' and interesting. Terra would be interesting, or a stringy pangaea type map usually creates more than enough opportunities for navies.

Map size based on the number of teams we get.

Noble difficulty for all the reasons Krill gave earlier.

Standard game speed. (Work out the timing with a 36 or 48 hour turn timer and epic speed. )

No tech brokering. Would work well with standard game speed in keeping the advances slower. And still allows tech allainces - in fact - it forces teams to think a bit more about the options and tech allies.

City razing should be allowed, IMO. The Mongols, amongst others, did not hesitate to use this when necessary.

[Whip[lash]

I agree with all of the above and think that a snakey continents map would be good. I would also favor no huts and no events to keep things on a level playing field.

And once again, I suggest two civ's per team. It provides an extra dimension to the game.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Beta
Rob wrote ...



To start with, I do not like the idea of limiting the number of teams to 4 or 5 as was suggested earlier. If we get 7 or 8 strong teams - let's go with them. That is the beauty of pitboss. And more teams makes for much more interesting diplomacy.

If we get 7 or 8 strong teams it's all well and good. But I prefer 5 strong teams instead of 8 weak teams. As I said before, we want to avoid the situation the C4WDG is in now with a majority of one man teams...

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Originally posted by Beta
No tech brokering. Would work well with standard game speed in keeping the advances slower. And still allows tech allainces - in fact - it forces teams to think a bit more about the options and tech allies.

But this would severely limit diplomatic options. Tech trading was one of the most fun aspect in the CFC Civ4 Demogame so far, and a demogame is all about diplomacy. I don't see why we should use any option that reduces diplomatic options and narrows gameplay.

-Kylearan