Why I dislike premade maps - Page 2

Lt. Killer M · 06-12-2003, 02:56

WF: my island is shitty shitty shitty - but I cna tell you the map settings to reproduce: warm wet 3 billion! No wonder it works out so far - after all we don't even have contact yet! You just wait until we have and trade maps (if I do not simply raze all your cities right away [

]) - it may be I have double

or half your avaiable land

Sir Eric · 06-12-2003, 09:44

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

I just invented Iron Working in Tiny Chaos 2 (everyone may know), and immediately checked where all the iron is. "Yes, just next to my capital! Oh wait, everyone probably has got iron right next to his capital.

" That's boring!

I miss a serious element of the game. It's fun that you have to build cities next to hills because iron is only on hills and mountains. When you know iron is near you anyway...

.

Yes, of course, it's not very fair. But frankly I don't care; it's part of the game. And I don't mind losing, I really don't. Not to brag or anything. But imagine I played against someone (even) a worse player than I am, I would always win on a premade map, while on a random map he might have a chance (or have absolutely none at all).

It's quite pointless to say this since I'm probably the only one with this point of view, but I just wanted to share my thoughts about this. I'll still play on a premade map every time the majority asks for it. It's just not my preference. Tough luck for me. [shrug]

I'm prob one of the worst players here, probably even worse then you

.
But I would rather play against someone that is better then me on a map that gave me half a chance, loose that game, but learn some valuable playing lessons at the same time. Rather then play on a map that is one sided and win when I had an advantage or loose when the other did.
I had a game recently where I would chart my progress in the early stage by checking the F11 button religiously.
My oppostion was churning out more settlers then I was from their capital,then I was from mine, it tells me that they are doing something different to what I am doing. Had we had a random map I couldn't do that cause their start would have been very different to mine.
Created maps aren't perfect but they are good practice.

Matrix · 06-12-2003, 13:18

As I said: everyone disagrees with me. [

] But I stick to the fact: luck is part of the game, and the random map is part of luck. Though the only thing I'll never mind is when someone creates a random map and only moves the starting positions to a spot where it looks equal.

Anyway, you are all right, but still... [

]

Matrix · 06-12-2003, 13:21

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by DrAlimentado

So you can't actually see the rest of the map, you are just infering that every start has iron because there is iron near your capitol.

what a strange assumption to make...

Ok, but then it's the thought "Gee, I have iron right next to my capitol. I wonder what they have in return.

" While I like the aspect feeling unlucky for the fact that one type of resource is not near me, but later on feeling lucky for noticing that the other type of resource is near me, because you never know.

Sir Eric · 06-12-2003, 13:24

There was a map that I d/loaded for van civ ages ago where every civ had THE exact same bit of land that was joined by forest in the middle. It would be a perfect map to play on in a pbem game.

Perhaps we should have a who's worse pbem and see who looses first. :lol:

Grille · 06-12-2003, 17:03

A special problem in C3C is that they changed the resource variable in the default rules.
Now, less strategic resources are put on a map.

I played three "QSC"-like SP games last night and have had the worst luck with resources so far.
1. game: Iros, demi, standart pangaea (min ocean), 7 AIs; capital was a 4-turn settler factory due to river/cattle starting position; a nice start and I could expand well (14 native cities around 1000 bc, no wars for me). I had 3 luxs (but no excess lux for trade) and 1 iron in my territory, which was ok. But NO horses anywhere near my borders to grab by war.

My MWs would have been build-able at a point of time when chivalry was due.
2. game: Dutch, deity, standart archipelago, 7 AIs; shared island with Romans who had 'our' only horse and iron resource near their capital (alas, to deep into Roman territory to grab with archers in one war). I had 2 luxs though and got even to philo as first civ - but then those fucking legionaries showed up...
3. game: Maya, demi, large pangaea, only 5 AIs; I quit as I realized that there was no single lux, iron or horse resource within a 20 tiles (!) radius around my capital (had an edged starting pos).
Beyond that radius, I had not explored the map in detail, but I did not spot any lux resource.

In all cases, it would have required a lot of effort to deal with the ai/secure resources - possibly giving a human opponent (w/o such handicaps) a nice head start in a MP game.

Beam · 08-12-2003, 15:13

Balancing resources and putting iron and horses next to capitals are 2 different things imo. You can put them somewhere in the area where a civs initial expansion most likely is to be, yet so far away that effort (expansion, the techs) is required to secure to access.

This basically is only necc. for Iron and Horses. Having no Salp. is a disadvantage but at that state of the game not unbalancing since one can by that time either trade or conquer access.

Lt. Killer M · 08-12-2003, 16:02

Grille: I had three games with not ONE strategic resource on my island when playing archipelago, two games with niether iron nor horses in reach (i.e. my lands and half my neighbours), and several with around 3 iron or 4 coal on a 8 civ map only......

it sucks

that menas, that a lot of random maps will have real game stoppers for 1vs1s. After all, it can be very easy to keep a certain civ (i.e. the other human) from getting an important res, especially later in the game.

Grille · 08-12-2003, 16:41

Beam: Yeah, I basically agree. I did not scrap the Iro game's save (IIRC?), but my UU will be just wasted (MWs will be outdated when I get horses). Such similar can happen with Egypt etc, too, of course. I can at least rely on iron (so not all that bad). I felt like ranting because I had not seen MWs (that I command) for some time.

Killer: Agreed, too. Ironically, in the Dutch game, it would have been much better if there were NO

horse and iron source at all on that island. The unbalancing factor derived from Romans having both stuff next to their capital as only sources on that island.

06-12-2003, 02:56	#11
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	WF: my island is shitty shitty shitty - but I cna tell you the map settings to reproduce: warm wet 3 billion! No wonder it works out so far - after all we don't even have contact yet! You just wait until we have and trade maps (if I do not simply raze all your cities right away []) - it may be I have double or half your avaiable land __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

06-12-2003, 13:18	#13
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	As I said: everyone disagrees with me. [] But I stick to the fact: luck is part of the game, and the random map is part of luck. Though the only thing I'll never mind is when someone creates a random map and only moves the starting positions to a spot where it looks equal. Anyway, you are all right, but still... [] __________________

06-12-2003, 13:24	#15
Sir Eric Warlord Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Australia. Posts: 265	There was a map that I d/loaded for van civ ages ago where every civ had THE exact same bit of land that was joined by forest in the middle. It would be a perfect map to play on in a pbem game. Perhaps we should have a who's worse pbem and see who looses first. :lol: __________________ Twitchin'

08-12-2003, 15:13	#17
Beam c00l b33r Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether. Posts: 5,094	Balancing resources and putting iron and horses next to capitals are 2 different things imo. You can put them somewhere in the area where a civs initial expansion most likely is to be, yet so far away that effort (expansion, the techs) is required to secure to access. This basically is only necc. for Iron and Horses. Having no Salp. is a disadvantage but at that state of the game not unbalancing since one can by that time either trade or conquer access. __________________ That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14 Linux never looked this good!

08-12-2003, 16:02	#18
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	Grille: I had three games with not ONE strategic resource on my island when playing archipelago, two games with niether iron nor horses in reach (i.e. my lands and half my neighbours), and several with around 3 iron or 4 coal on a 8 civ map only...... it sucks that menas, that a lot of random maps will have real game stoppers for 1vs1s. After all, it can be very easy to keep a certain civ (i.e. the other human) from getting an important res, especially later in the game. __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

06-12-2003, 17:03	#16
Grille Join Date: May 2003 Location: in a swamp. Posts: 901	A special problem in C3C is that they changed the resource variable in the default rules. Now, less strategic resources are put on a map. I played three "QSC"-like SP games last night and have had the worst luck with resources so far. 1. game: Iros, demi, standart pangaea (min ocean), 7 AIs; capital was a 4-turn settler factory due to river/cattle starting position; a nice start and I could expand well (14 native cities around 1000 bc, no wars for me). I had 3 luxs (but no excess lux for trade) and 1 iron in my territory, which was ok. But NO horses anywhere near my borders to grab by war. My MWs would have been build-able at a point of time when chivalry was due. 2. game: Dutch, deity, standart archipelago, 7 AIs; shared island with Romans who had 'our' only horse and iron resource near their capital (alas, to deep into Roman territory to grab with archers in one war). I had 2 luxs though and got even to philo as first civ - but then those fucking legionaries showed up... 3. game: Maya, demi, large pangaea, only 5 AIs; I quit as I realized that there was no single lux, iron or horse resource within a 20 tiles (!) radius around my capital (had an edged starting pos). Beyond that radius, I had not explored the map in detail, but I did not spot any lux resource. In all cases, it would have required a lot of effort to deal with the ai/secure resources - possibly giving a human opponent (w/o such handicaps) a nice head start in a MP game.

08-12-2003, 16:41	#19
Grille Join Date: May 2003 Location: in a swamp. Posts: 901	Beam: Yeah, I basically agree. I did not scrap the Iro game's save (IIRC?), but my UU will be just wasted (MWs will be outdated when I get horses). Such similar can happen with Egypt etc, too, of course. I can at least rely on iron (so not all that bad). I felt like ranting because I had not seen MWs (that I command) for some time. Killer: Agreed, too. Ironically, in the Dutch game, it would have been much better if there were NO horse and iron source at all on that island. The unbalancing factor derived from Romans having both stuff next to their capital as only sources on that island.