Civ Choice

[alva]

Jaguar the same, BTW: resourceless too.

Just wondering, but if we have a mapchecker, would/will he allow for a team to have no iron?
What are the variables/conditions for him to dismiss/accept a certain map?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by alva

Jaguar the same, BTW: resourceless too.

Just wondering, but if we have a mapchecker, would/will he allow for a team to have no iron?
What are the variables/conditions for him to dismiss/accept a certain map?

I don't know all of them, but here are some ideas:

- relative distance to next civ
- availability of at least 1 of the early strategics (iron, copper, horse)
- relatively the same area to expand in to (no Lego vs Vox terrain)
- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)
- balanced starting pos
- spread out happy and health resources (but this is true for most CIV maps)
- more or less the same risk: not one team in between 3 others (Lux), while another gets a continent for themselves (Lego)
- more or less the same access to huts
- the special resources (stone, marmer, elephants, and the later strategics) spread out: every team having access to some, not all of them.

I'm sure Dom might provide more, he has made more maps than I do (= none, in whole of my civ carreer)

DeepO

[DeepO]

so, Jaguar: iron should not be a guarantee, or we're playing a bad map.

And even if we've got iron nearby, Jaguars will come faster than swords.

DeepO

[Aro]

Originally posted by Arrian

Originally posted by DeepO


Dom, have you seen Trip's CIV equivalent [edit: of PTWDG I]? I'm not sure it was released with v1.52, though, so if not: please don't mention it in public


DeepO

??

What's this?

-Arrian

Indeed... Does it mean what I think it does?

… please don't mention it in public

[DeepO]

I mean outside of these forums, of course

I know, maybe not the best thing to do, but I didn't want to PM only the testers of our team... I'm a bit lazy. It's more a question of not ruining Trip's surprise, he worked hard on that scenario, he deserves the credit and public recognition for it. I would hate to be the one to spoil that.

DeepO

[Krill]

Well, yeah, Trip did a great job on it. I just wish he would release the 4000BC map. I want to play the map without neutered opponents if I play as GS, and I want to see what RP could have done if they were aggresive in more than just settling territory...

OK, On topic:

How would each person expect this team to play? well, the two things that characterized GS was the MM, and the aggressiveness. Well, this time we might not have the advantage of being stuck on an island, we may well end up on a continent, and we may end up involved in an early war if we are on a continent the size of Bob. I would prefer it if we hedged our bets: as nice as Phi is, the only civ that would preform well under these conditions is Greece.

I would like it if we could be Phi, I just don't see any civs that would help us if we were thrown onto a continent with several other teams without hamstringing us later on in the game.

[Aro]

I like Trip, he's a great guy and a very skilled programmer. I would hate to spoil anything to him (or anyone else).
Don't worry, I'll not mention it.


About the civ... I like Asoka's traits, but the fast worker... well, maybe is just me, but I don't like it. I guess I don't know how to use it.
But I would like to have a spiritual civ.
Saladin rocks, IMHO... Although a little vulnerable in the early game. Camel archer it’s a great UU.
Never played Mansa Musa. The financial trait is better in the middle game. I may be totally wrong, btw. However, its UU seems very strong in the early game, especially when the barbs come out.

Who am I kidding?
Actually, I don’t know so much about the game, I’m playing my firs noble game (Apolyton University ) and any choice will be a great chance to learn.

But I really like Saladin…

[Aro]

Originally posted by Krill

I would like it if we could be Phi, I just don't see any civs that would help us if we were thrown onto a continent with several other teams without hamstringing us later on in the game.

Mansa Musa could be a good choice. Spi is almost as good as Phi (better, IMHO ) and Camel Archer is a great unit. No resources needed, IIRC... Is this right?

Mansa would be my second choice, but maybe the aggressive-spiritual combo suits best the team. Aztecs. I don't know the jaguar so well. A swordsman cheaper but weaker than regular ones... on the other hand, no resource is needed. However, it’s weak... , and so on.

Decisions, decisions… Well, we asked for it!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
- relative distance to next civ
- availability of at least 1 of the early strategics (iron, copper, horse)
- relatively the same area to expand in to (no Lego vs Vox terrain)
- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)
- balanced starting pos
- spread out happy and health resources (but this is true for most CIV maps)
- more or less the same risk: not one team in between 3 others (Lux), while another gets a continent for themselves (Lego)
- more or less the same access to huts
- the special resources (stone, marmer, elephants, and the later strategics) spread out: every team having access to some, not all of them.

I have never actually drawn up a list myself - looks like you have the essential points, though.

When making/checking a map, there's a give and take between trying to make a perfectly balanced map (according to your points above), or making a map that's less balanced but still fair.

For instance, I have made some maps for PBEMs where some civs were more isolated than others, but got worse land and/or fewer resources. This can backfire, of course, but I have not heard any complaints to date.

The other option is balance through symmetry, which is what I toyed with in the map for the C3CDG. Everyone had the same access to everything initially, down to a few key tiles around the starting location (most importantly, Ivory). Many players do not like such maps because they feel cooked.

CIV makes map making/checking a bit harder, I think. You simply cannot give everyone Stone, Marble and Ivory. Who is to say which is better? On the other hand, it makes map making easier because there's more strategic possiblity, so success depends a lot less on sheer tile quality (in Civ3 you could heavily load a particular starting location by adding just one Cattle, or a few Bonus Grasslands).

One secret to map making/checking is asking yourself: what would I do with this starting location, and "do I have game" (i.e. is this enough to feel competitive)? If you know the game well enough this is a good test. Oftentimes I have been pleasantly surprised to find that players/teams do wildly different things that I expected them to do, making the best of what they have.

In demogames there's a big pressure for the map to be "balanced", but I think this is because of bad experiences in the past. The PTWDG map was only really unfair for one team - Vox. When you consider how much of an effect diplomacy has in demogames, the particulars of the map seem a lot less important than in PBEM or SP. In fact, giving one civ/team a strong starting location can actually put them at a disadvantage because they will more likely be targeted first.

- relatively the same chance of contacting others (no team separated by ocean when all the others are within galley reach)

This is the one factor I would consider non-negotiable, not from a balance point of view, but simply because experience has shown that players dislike isolated starts. We are playing demogames to interact with other teams, not to write spreadsheets (although we, of course, do both!).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Krill
How would each person expect this team to play? well, the two things that characterized GS was the MM, and the aggressiveness. Well, this time we might not have the advantage of being stuck on an island, we may well end up on a continent, and we may end up involved in an early war if we are on a continent the size of Bob. I would prefer it if we hedged our bets: as nice as Phi is, the only civ that would preform well under these conditions is Greece.

This argument could also be made for Mansa Musa's Skirmishers.

Skirmishers are good but not great in SP; I rarely build Archers at all anymore, preferring to be on the offense when at war and at peace the rest of the time.

In MP their value goes up because of the increased chance of being put on the defensive. They thus act much like Hoplite or Numidian Mercs from Civ3: as deterrents. Skirmishers are a "pass" into the mid-game. It's okay if Skirmishers never see play; unlike Alexander's, Mansa Musa's traits are just great at peaceful building.

[notyoueither]

2nd post updated with voting for civ leader.

Voting for Civ Leader:

Mansa Musa 6: Arrian 3, dejon 2, DeepO 1
Saladin 6: dejon 3, DeepO 3
Qin Shi Huang 2: Arrian 2
Montezuma 2: DeepO 2
Asoka 1: dejon 1
Elizabeth 1: Arrian 1

--

Arrian: 1. Mansa Musa, 2. Qin, 3. Elizabeth
dejon: 1) Saladin, 2) Mansa Musa, 3) Asoka
DeepO: 1. Saladin, 2. Montezuma, 3. Mansa Musa

[DeepO]

Originally posted by DeepO
So, based on the discussion so far, my 3 picks would be

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
3. SPI/AGR : Montezuma : Jaguar (sword)
3. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : skirmisher (arxcher)

DeepO

nye: Fixed. Sorry.

[Krill]

1. FIN/SPI : Mansa Musa : Skirmisher (Archer)
2. FIN/IND : Qin : Cho-ko-nu (Crossbow)
3. SPI/EXP : Izzy : Conquestador (Knight)

Krill

[notyoueither]

DeepO, I listed Monte as your second choice for 2 votes since he is listed second.

[Aro]

My votes:

1. SPI/PHI : Saladin : Camel Archer (knight)
2. SPI/FIN : Mansa Musa : Skirmisher (archer)
3. SPI/EXP : Isabella: Conquistador (knight)