Balance in Maps - Discuss!

[DrAlimentado]

This thread is intended as a discussion on what makes a balanced map so please all chip in with opinions.

Here's a quick list in no particular order of things I give consideration to when mapmaking (this is all just imo, it's not meant as gospel but I can't be arsed to preface everything with imo so just insert that yourself ;));

terrain: I try and ensure that there are fairly equal amounts of grassland and plains in what will be the core of each empire.

bonuses: again I will do a quick count of bonuses in the nearby vicinity and try to ensure a fairly equal amount. I also bear in mind that some bonuses are better than others, game is the same as wheat once a forest is chopped, and food bonuses on grass are worth a lot more than on plains due to depsot penalty.

strat luxes: Iron and/or Horses - access to both usually, but sometimes just to 1. bearing in mind early UU's and such - if I give access to just 1 then I give it some thought anyway. After that I am a bit more liberal, maybe the players will have to fight the AI's for later resources but in any event I make it balanced for both. On continents/islands I also think about later strats more, its fine if both are screwed for coal but no fun if your opponent has it in his core and you've got to travel half the globe for it.

luxuries: This can make a pretty huge difference in the early game. I'll often place at least one lux within spitting distance but as long as both have access to the same number in the immediate vicinity I think all is well. I will also think a bit about what luxes nearby AI civs have (and surpluses) in regard to trading.

AI civs: Often left as random, but if not then I will balance strong/weak civs for each player. And what is strong for a human is not always strong for the AI. As important as traits (and UU's) is aggression rating, some UU's standout though - hoplites and mercs for example. Oh, and AI start positions. I will place them so each player has an equal no of AI's at similar distances usually. With regard to AI starts I also consider what each has in relation to the players. I like to make the AI starts as good as the player starts. Also consider things like strats and luxes and just available expansion space, if the AI is lacking it is much more likely to go knocking on the door of a nearby rival to get what it wants...

start position: Just to say to give some special consideration to each start position. They don't have to be exactly equal but they shouldn't be too different. If one has a ton of bg and cows, whilst the other has just grass and wheat it will make a fair difference to the speed of the first few builds.

errmm... that's enough for now. I'll come back with more when/if i think of it :)

Melifluous Edit : Bloody good idea this, dont know why I aint seen it sooner

[Aggie]

Good points Dr A! Especially the one about ensuring equal trade possibilities. However, not all humans may use that, especially when they prefer war.

landmass: I try to ensure that both humans have an equal amount of land to grab, especially on non-pangaea maps. It would be too easy for one of them to get a domination victory otherwise.

AI civs: I try to get similar types of AI for both player nearby. So I often had the Greeks and Carthaginians as neighbours. Or Zulu and Aztecs. Then I mainly focus on the UU and agression and less on the traits.

Starts: I don't always bother to give all the AI an equal chance. However, I do try to balance the starts of the neighbours of the humans.

[col]

I also like to consider what the likely course of the game is. Its nice when you anticipate the 'stalemate' position. I dont think games where the players are adjacent or too close play out well either. Early wars can be very RNG dependent.

[Skyfish]

Very good thread Dr. A !
I have never made a map but I have found in my games that the Jungle does influence the way the AIs expands and you can have a map where both players are equidistant to other AIs *however* because one AI is close or very close to jungle it will expand towards the Human player, leaving one human good space and another one very much rushed or cramped by AIs.
I can give more detailed examples if needed.

[Melifluous]

Well all this chat makes me the lazy map maker.

I tend to ensure that Iron and horses are the same distance from each players capital is a reasonable direction. Note that this is NOT the same as ensuring that both players have these resources too close [}:)]

I tend to ensure that shield/food distribution are similar in both camps and that the Human player can build at least 4 more cities, but thats it. 5cc is a fairly easy game ;)

Difficulty level obviously plays a part in how easy/hard a game will be in relation to luxes. Generally players will have at LEAST one lux nearby and normally more than more of a single type, these leads to at least a chance of trade.

Other than the above I randomly generate the map until I find a start I like and will maybe add a couple of tiles to link wierd islands and/or even out domination difficulties.

I havent had much (sorry make that no) feedback from people I have made maps for but then again I have not provided any such for people who have made my maps.

Melifluous

[Cartouche Bee]

I'm starting to believe that random everything is the only way to really make a PBEM ladder work! More evenly balanced over time and less false starts.

[Plux]

On the contrary to all the remarks made above, I think it can take the fun and especially challenge out of a game if it is too well balanced (every time). For that matter, I think there is some truth in CB's comment, alhough not for the same reason intended (false start because of map mistakes). But I think that if, also in the early game, most factors like resources, AI-behaviour/threat/whatchamightcallit are always the same, most players will probably stick to the same sort of game. For me, the fun in civilization is to try to stay agile with your tactics and always be prepared to change your style if the game develops in another way than expected. Of course, I also wouldn't like a game where all factors are against me, but I do think that, for instance, it may be possible that one player should really stretch to find iron, where the other has difficulty because of early AI aggresiveness. Or coal and rubber in later era's. I hope you get my point.

Don't any of you agree a bit with me on this? :)

[WildFire]

Yeah but if someone doesnt like the map, they can blame it on whoever made it [:p]

[anarres]

Well, I was always in favour of slight imbalances, I hope everyone knows my attitude now towards restarting unbalanced maps. ;)

I think people need to accept that sometimes things happen that are 'unfair' in maps, and that often these imbalances are not as great as they imagine. Getting the GL from an AI at the right time can be much more unbalancing than not finding iron nearby for example. yet no-one asks to restart if their opponent gets 20 free GL techs without trying.

I have had a couple of games where the map was in my favour, and a couple of very clear against me. As CB says, it all evens out over time.

[Aggie]

I mostly try to balance things out in the direct neighbourhood of the human starts. It wouldn't be fair to give one 3 luxuries and the other only one for example. Also the expansion of the AI is important to check, as I have noticed in Sky vs PP.

Issues like the anarras - Gothmog map didn't occur to me until very recently... I still am thinking about how I am going to solve this. Tweaking of the map is very time consuming!

[anarres]

For our (Gothmog vs ms) map I could have started in Russia's start loc Aggie, that would have been much more even. Tweaking the resources was not needed. ;)

[DrAlimentado]

well no-one ever said balancing maps was about reducing everything to a fixed set of constants... in fact I have a funny feeling I have made that point before...

Plux, I think you make some good points, I often agonise about how much tweaking I should do to a map so that it won't become predictable - and I *think* us mapmakers succeed most of the time. It is not unusual for me to make maps where players are going to have to go looking (often with a pointy stick) for there iron or horsies for example (but if we do that every map then that becomes predictable too...) It is a difficult line to tread though, as Aggie says tweaking maps takes time and effort, and inevitably stuff gets missed. Even just swapping start locs takes time because you have to analyse the map to see what the repercussions are...

I kind of feel we are damned if we do damned if we don't reading stuff here! There has been so much discussion on maps being unfair, so what should mapmakers do?? Do you want them fair or just random? It is kind of disheartening to spend so much time trying to produce good maps to find that there not wanted! But if that is the case then make it clear, it would save us all time and effort. And by 'fair' I mean fairer than a random map, because maps are inherently unbalanced, every one that isnt a mirror map, I guarantee it.

and if you want a totally random map there is a very simple solution... just generate one!

[Cartouche Bee]

DrA, that's kind of the point, I do understand the great deal of effort that goes into making these custom maps. I wonder if we need to devise a checklist for custom maps and develp that checklist to suit the needs, otherwise we just drop down to random maps and have to accept what we get dealt.

[Plux]

Well, for these first 1-1's I think any map would do, so I don't mind them being balanced, but somehow I have a deeper love for randomness :). Anyhow, everyone who wants to have a more random map (not totally tweaked), can of course just say so. I know I will next time, if my opponent to be will agree on it.

[DrAlimentado]

A checklist would be helpful, and I can co-ordinate that if needed. (in essence it will be a summary of points made before.) The thing is that even with a cast-iron checklist of every single thing we can think of mapmakers will still miss stuff, make mistakes, etc. We just have to accept that I think - as has been discussed before if a map is SO unfair it beggars belief then a restart is acceptable, but imo it really has to be 'beyond the pale' for this, else we expect too much. If one player thinks it is unfair and the other not then we need to have a process for deciding stuff, a ladder admin or mapmaker.

I don't see the need for us all to play the same type of maps either, as long as both players are happy to agree to a game being a ladder game it shouldn't matter whether a map is random-generated or handmade, or handicapped, or rules modded etc. But then the ladder really isnt that important imo... it won't actually reflect skill levels until we've all played a LOT of games anyway... anyway what I mean is maybe I am way off mark here but for me I see no problem with having different types of games on the same ladder.

[Aggie]

You can all be assured that we mapmakers prefer a random map over anything else: it's faster to build. I sometimes replace resources, luxuries and even rivers to balance things more. But I rather try generating random maps a couple of times than tweaking myself.

By downside of totally random maps: look at DDPP! (ERIKK...)

[jack merchant]

Maybe we're all really expecting too much from our mapmakers ? Tons of things can happen in a game of civ that are totally unpredictable. If mapmakers should be beta-testers too we better pay them for it :).
Basically what I'm trying to say is that we should perhaps take a more minimalist approach to what we expect from the maps: a basically equal start in food, and not much more. Then if people want to be assured of having equal access to all resources or room to expand, they should specifically ask for it in the map request.

Either way, I greatly appreciate all the time and effort that goes into the making of maps, and for that, a hearty [thumbsup] to the mapmakers.

[Lt. Killer M]

one very important point is that either both UUs must not ba able to win the game or must come at the same time! Like Riders and Siphai - both good units, but if the Chinese can attack with Riders as soon as they get them...... and the other way round, what good is it to have a nive empire and riders if the Ottos have Siphai?


This problem is weaker on bigger maps in my experience, but if it is a stadard map with littel land and all is cramped.....

[DrAlimentado]

good point killer - but the consideration of UU's is up to the players! Your not worried about what UU the AI civs get are you? ;)

[anarres]

I still think people give too much credance to 'balance' in maps.

I think you should all suck it up and enjoy the game as you find it. If you are losing that badly give up (concede) and play another....

[Lt. Killer M]

Ben, I clarified this in chat, I will repeat it here: what I mean is that if the map maker places Chine next to the US, both humans, then he knows China goes for a mass upgrade and game over. If he gives them a little room there is a way the US can defend: by getting Muskets before the Riders arrive. Without that, the game is fucked. No AI has a killing intent, I have never seen an AI going for elimination wins!

[anarres]

quote:what I mean is that if the map maker places Chine next to the US, both humans, then he knows China goes for a mass upgrade and game over.Killer, you know as well as anyone else that statements like that are too general. Sure, China has a better chance, but what if America has better land? What if America is a better player? What if China has Germany and the Zulu on the opposite side to them as the US? What if China gets sucky RNG? What if China hasn't managed to get both Iron and Horses?

[Lt. Killer M]

what if the mapmaker simply thinks about when what player can see how much of the map and realizes: shit, by the time the US sees the danger coming there is a less than 30% chance of a successfull defence? Whatever the other factors? The problem is the win criterium: kill the other human!


Dan, I know it all evens out, but do we play these games to get wiped off the map or wipe someone off the map? If so, yes, but then you cna take random maps from the game. And no, it doesn't even out in the long run because a long run would be 20 games or so - that will be a few years........

[DrAlimentado]

quote:Originally posted by anarres

I still think people give too much credance to 'balance' in maps.

I think you should all suck it up and enjoy the game as you find it. If you are losing that badly give up (concede) and play another....


I agree, but I also think map-makers should strive to make maps fair, no?

[col]

quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M

Ben, I clarified this in chat, I will repeat it here: what I mean is that if the map maker places Chine next to the US, both humans, then he knows China goes for a mass upgrade and game over. If he gives them a little room there is a way the US can defend: by getting Muskets before the Riders arrive. Without that, the game is fucked. No AI has a killing intent, I have never seen an AI going for elimination wins!


Well speaking as the US who happened to be placed next to China, it seemed clear to me that I had to wage a very early war. I lost the game but it was in the balance and could have gone either way at a couple of points. The game was over around turn 100 with only swords and horsemen available. No point waiting for riders to be available. You have to use the tactics appropriate to the particular game. Here ancient war was my best chance so thats what I went for. Maybe if I'd been better I'd have won. The map determines the style of game.

[Lt. Killer M]

col, that game was decided by luck, as you say..... and if we had banned MAs against each other (as most do now) it would have gone an entriely different way!