Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

    With Firaxis having released an official 3.13 patch for BTS, I'm thinking the game is now ripe for multiplayer. What I'd like to throw around here is what options and such people would like to see in the next game that is hosted by TG.

    I played around a bit with setting up a MP Direct IP game tonight, and had some thoughts.

    Settings

    Anyone familiar with the maps and which would make a good MP game? I'm thinking the rest of the settings would likely be at the defaults with map size dependent on the # of people playing.

    Options
    • Advanced Start - this feature seems to be awesome! I'm thinking 1000 points or so and you should be able to get a decent start to the game without needing to do a live session like we did with ACTF.
    • City Flipping After Conquest - so that people are forced to keep garrisons.
    • Barbarians - unlike ACTF I think we should go with Barbarians this time around.
    • Restricted Leaders - unrestricted leaders seems an interesting twist but it seems to me like it could really unbalance things. I have to think the nations and their leaders were set the way they are for a reason.
    • Choose Religions - what is this option? I haven't played much BTS yet so hopefully someone knows.
    • No Technology Brokering - YES!!! We did this via honor system for ACTF and I'm glad I won't need to think about it next game. :row__536:
    • Do NOT Require Complete Kills - no one likes a bug hunt and who is going to stay in the game when all they have is units left and no cities?
    • No Vassal States - does having vassals actually make sense in MP? Has anyone seen it happen?
    • No Tribal Villages - too unbalancing IMO...especially when they start handing out techs.
    • Random Events - since Barbarians are basically random in themself it makes sense to go one step further and allow random events as well. However, it all depends on how significant an impact they have. If they decimate a Civ then obviously this should be disabled.


    Victories

    I would vote for having them all enabled although personally I think Conquest is meaningless if you have Domination enabled.

    Multiplayer

    Simultaneous turns, Take Over AI and Turn Timer are all givens. I would go with a 24 hour turn time again.

    How's this for a thought? Rather than pre-assign nations we go completely random. We also use the Anonymous option so you don't know who is playing what nation. Oh yes. :icon14:

    For difficulty level I'd also vote to run once again on Prince.

    Bernout
    Last edited by Bernout; 02-23-2008, 01:20 AM.

    |TG-MD6|


  • #2
    Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

    Have you considered a team game? Perhaps with random teams? Then you could get rid of tech trading all together. Tech trading alliances even without tech brokering are so crucial and yet take so little skill and so much luck to get in to the right ones. Being in a team should make the game a more social and better learning experience for everyone. It also softens both good and bad fortune. The teams can be small, 2 or 3 members are probably best so you can have more teams and hence some purely military / trade alliances.

    I like the idea of advanced start. But lots of people seem to hate it as the initial expansion is some of the most interesting. Plus there was I are rumours of a bug in it allowing you to get unlimited (or a lot) of gold. I never knew the trick myself but it was often used as a reason why not to do this. Maybe the naysayers had just made it up though to block the option ;)

    I have seen vassels in a Warlords game. It usually means you are on the way out of course but there is always the chance that your master gets knocked down and you can escape. I thought it was voluntary on both sides though so why ban it? I don't think it really matters.

    Random nations is a great idea. As is NOT having none national leaders. There are too many 'good' combinations - especially on the early military side.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

      Advanced Start - this feature seems to be awesome! I'm thinking 1000 points or so and you should be able to get a decent start to the game without needing to do a live session like we did with ACTF.
      If the group overwhelmingly wanted an advanced start I'd be fine with it. My own personal preference is to play it all...even though the initial turns can seem excruciatingly slow, I enjoy the "discovery" part of the game.

      City Flipping After Conquest - so that people are forced to keep garrisons.
      Sounds good.

      Barbarians - unlike ACTF I think we should go with Barbarians this time around.
      Yes. I prefer barbarians on.

      Restricted Leaders - unrestricted leaders seems an interesting twist but it seems to me like it could really unbalance things. I have to think the nations and their leaders were set the way they are for a reason.
      Restricted.

      Choose Religions - what is this option? I haven't played much BTS yet so hopefully someone knows.
      I haven't played any BTS yet. Too many fun Warlords mods. So I'm in the same boat...don't know what this is.

      No Technology Brokering - YES!!! We did this via honor system for ACTF and I'm glad I won't need to think about it next game.
      Yes.

      Do NOT Require Complete Kills - no one likes a bug hunt and who is going to stay in the game when all they have is units left and no cities?
      Indifferent.

      No Vassal States - does having vassals actually make sense in MP? Has anyone seen it happen?
      Indifferent.

      No Tribal Villages - too unbalancing IMO...especially when they start handing out techs.
      Agreed. None.

      Random Events - since Barbarians are basically random in themself it makes sense to go one step further and allow random events as well. However, it all depends on how significant an impact they have. If they decimate a Civ then obviously this should be disabled.
      Could be cool. I say turn it on.

      Arise, Storm. North winds blow! South winds blow! Typhoons... Hurricanes... Earthquakes! SMOG!

      Snarlin


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

        * Advanced Start - this feature seems to be awesome! I'm thinking 1000 points or so and you should be able to get a decent start to the game without needing to do a live session like we did with ACTF.

        No. This creates a very unbalanced situation as you got very little information of where to place your initial cities and lead to some even more unbalanced starts than the normal game creates. I have played one game with the option http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=700 and even though it does speed up the game quite alot i would not think it is a very good option. I really want to raze my own capital as well as the other two capitals i captured(one square from the coast and one square from a river(+iron) as well). The strategic positions in the game at the time of the capture made razing them rather a bad idea however.. Not having optimal city placement in the first 3 or so cities in the game really makes the game rather weird.

        * City Flipping After Conquest - so that people are forced to keep garrisons.

        Only thing this does is that you can flip back a conquered city through culture. This is not going to affect the game much either way as culture flips aren't really viable in competitive MP. Just leaving this to the default is better imo.
        * Barbarians - unlike ACTF I think we should go with Barbarians this time around.

        Rather unbalancing and barbs + events means the potential of the barb events to happen which can totaly ruins someones game(happened in XXThreat and FCCCP over at civfanatics as well as some other games i have not played in). Also personally i hate barbs with a passion as they limit your early expansion which for me is the most fun part of the game. After that however they do have little to no effect so if you have advanced start on, selecting this option as well will do nothing except allow for people to get totally destroyed by the barb events.

        * Restricted Leaders - unrestricted leaders seems an interesting twist but it seems to me like it could really unbalance things. I have to think the nations and their leaders were set the way they are for a reason.

        I agree. Unrestricted leaders allow for a nice pace of change but it isn't really very balanced...

        * Choose Religions - what is this option? I haven't played much BTS yet so hopefully someone knows.

        This option doesn't actually affect the game one way or another so i am rather indifferent.

        * No Technology Brokering - YES!!! We did this via honor system for ACTF and I'm glad I won't need to think about it next game.

        Personally I think MP without no tech trading is rather silly as it means you have to have tech trading alliances if you want to compete.

        * Do NOT Require Complete Kills - no one likes a bug hunt and who is going to stay in the game when all they have is units left and no cities?

        Why check options that only make the game worse indeed?

        * No Vassal States - does having vassals actually make sense in MP? Has anyone seen it happen?

        Tons of ways to abuse this. That said i have won both of my two finished games so far though vassal fueled conquest as a way to speed up the game. +1 happiness just cause you are friend with someone is just the least of the problems this cause. The real problem lies in the ability to end wars and hence delay an attack by several turns through careful manipulated diplomacy. So keep it off.

        * No Tribal Villages - too unbalancing IMO...especially when they start handing out techs.

        Indeed popping a tech from a hut might be fun but some of the ways you can do this is just so unbalancing it is not funny.

        * Random Events - since Barbarians are basically random in themself it makes sense to go one step further and allow random events as well. However, it all depends on how significant an impact they have. If they decimate a Civ then obviously this should be disabled.

        Better than barbs since they have an affect through the entire game and are both good and bad. Barbs are only in the early game and have 100% negative effect. Obviously combining the two options is not really good as it can lead to some early eliminations...



        As for map options anything that creates severe unbalanced land distributions can obviously be unbalanced. However there are none of the map options that are truly suited for mp imo. Maybe hemispheres is nice? That is if you don't want some hack and slash pangea style map... Obviously getting isolated have less effect if tech trading is off.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

          Some thoughts...

          Advanced start would be good, but maybe stick to 500-600 points. Depending on how you use the points, that gives you 3 cities and a reasonable area, while still leaves lots of exploration.

          I'm not big on the barbarian option. In BtS, they really up'ed the Barbarian factor. You may not get many, but then again you may get an onslaught (depending on if you border a non-developed area or not).

          The "Choose religion" option is just cosmetic. I think it was put there because IRL some people complained about having to be Jewish or Hindu, etc. So with this option checked, it allows you to pick from one of the remaining religions if/when you ever discover one. For instance, I think Hinduism and Budism are the first two religions that you can discover. With "Choose religions" checked, the person that discovers them can pick any of the religions to "found". Since all of the religions weigh/play equally, it's just a preference thing.

          I think the "Random leaders" option is for the computer players only, so it wouldn't do anything in a purely human MP game.

          And lastly, I would vote to have random events. It adds a lot of fun to the game and makes things a little more interesting. I've never seen it be unfair and most of the events are pretty small. For instance, the computer will say that you found a new way to grow something, so it will give you +1 food for that tile only. It's cool, but not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. There are also events that everyone participates in. For instance the computer will say that the first Civ to build seven coliseums will get a bonus. The bonus is normally a choice between two things, such as +4 culture for your capital because the coliseums allowed someone to write a play or whatever, or option two is the coliseums allowed you to form a national sports league and all coliseums for your civ will now have +1 happiness. The only drawback I can see is that there are often disasters, such as tornadoes and fires (not visually, just via the text message) and it can take out a city structure, a road, an square's improvement, etc. I think two structures are all I've seen destroyed. It sucks, but I'll see messages that other civs are getting things like that too. It just adds some realism and randomness to the game.

          No vassal states! I hate this addition (at least in single player, it's way screwed up).

          The other stuff looks good. :-)




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

            I'm in if I can be.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

              Originally posted by XSChunkylover77 View Post
              I'm in if I can be.
              This isn't a sign up topic, we're just throwing around ideas as to what the game format would be. You're of course welcome to sign up when the time comes, likely in early to mid-March.

              From the messages so far there seem to be a couple of common themes. Barbarians off. I know Snarlin and I suggested it be on but neither of us have played much BTS so I think we should defer to Oyzar and AFsoccer on this. Random events on.

              The tech issue is an interesting one. I know ACTF clearly showed the importance of having tech alliances and that can be unbalancing depending on who your neighbours are and how the diplomacy works out. The 2 - 3 person team idea sounds like a good idea to counter this or we could just go with no tech trading at all? Or we could just chalk up diplomacy as being part of the game and leave the no tech brokering in. The only thing I'd be completely against is free for all tech trading.

              I played around a bit more today with the "anonymous" multiplayer setting. What it appears to do is not substitute the player's name in the nation listing in the lower right (you always see the leader's name there). The random nations and leaders idea I still like but what you need to do then is assign players to player #s. Otherwise people would choose a nation as they log in for the first time and that obviously favors the people who log in first. So anyways, if we need to assign player #'s then it will be obvious who is playing what anyways.

              What I did see is the game has a team "shuffling" feature. So if we did decide we wanted to do 2 or 3 person teams then we could make the teams random regardless of which nations people needed to select.

              Originally posted by oyzar
              No. This creates a very unbalanced situation as you got very little information of where to place your initial cities and lead to some even more unbalanced starts than the normal game creates. I have played one game with the option http://www.civstats.com/viewgame.php?gameid=700 and even though it does speed up the game quite alot i would not think it is a very good option. I really want to raze my own capital as well as the other two capitals i captured(one square from the coast and one square from a river(+iron) as well). The strategic positions in the game at the time of the capture made razing them rather a bad idea however.. Not having optimal city placement in the first 3 or so cities in the game really makes the game rather weird.
              From what I saw when I experimented with it, the choice of where you place your cities isn't any different from normal. In a normal start you really depend on the computer to give you a fairly optimal capital location. In an advanced start, they have a red circle which tells you where your Settler would normally be placed. There's also the "visibility" feature where you can spend some points to explore territory thus making your other city placements more optimal. Plus selecting techs of course possibly changes what you are looking at. Oyzar...perhaps you could elaborate on what made the city locations so bad?

              What did occur to me when I was playing around with advanced starts is the fact that it is a challenge in itself. How best to use your points and what to focus them on would likely get 10 different answers from 10 people. If we did go this route I would highly encourage everyone to play around with it before game start. I also think, as per AFsoccer's suggestion, that lowering the point count to perhaps the default 600 would be ok too. Anything to get past that agonizing slow period when you are building your first units. Another option we could consider is placing restrictions if we thought it would help. For example: no more than 2 cities.

              Anyhow, I'll peruse that link to see if I can get some more insight on what happened in the other game. For me, the advanced start seems a viable alternative to doing another live session. If we get 12+ people in the game then we all know how difficult that can be.

              Great discussion guys...keep it going! :D

              Bernout

              |TG-MD6|

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                If you have a set startup session before people sign up you will only have those who can play then join... The problem with advanced start is that you get rather limited visibility. In alot of cases. Sure you can buy extra visibility but that takes away from the techs/development you can buy instead. And even if you do buy it, there is no guarantee it will help you and you can't even place cities in bought places nor in areas revealed by settled cities. You are basically guaranteed to have at least 1 decent(if not good(my "capital" had a rice as only food source and the rest was just some hills and some flatland)). However there is no guarantee that where you would logically place your second city(or even any city) is within the area revealed by the advanced start. This mean that with advanced start it will be much more likely that you get some suboptimal locations in your first 2-3 cities while in a non-advanced start the starting location is actually somewhat optimized(even if the algorithm is faulty in BTS so someone might get rather bad starts it won't ever be totaly horrible), those 2-3 cities very well might not be. Of course this is somewhat the same for everyone and someone might even get some good cities however this is way better balanced in the normal kind of start than in advanced start and as such i think it is not a good idea to do it when we can just have a live session instead.

                About the tech trading issue: The biggest argument for tech trading(of any kind) is that it makes actually technical skill less relevant as you need to get good allies or you will go down and hence makes it more possible for anyone to win. If there is no tech trading people who have "no clue" what they are doing will be left behind and only ganging up on the "stronger" players will save them. This is often hard to get organized as those players are typically those who spend less time on the game and as such less time to manipulate the diplomatic intricacies of the game, as well as with no tech trading they obviously have little intencive to do so. Imo this is fine though as those who play best are those who should be entitled to win. Another problem is of course that luck of the start will somewhat play a factor but playskill should most of the time far outweigh this and only matter in the cases where the players are roughly equally good. Players should realize when they are outmatched and hence gang up on those who are better than them(obviously they can't take them one on one) as there can only be one winner in this game, second place doesn't "win" anything.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                  This posting is with respect to the advanced start.

                  The Experiment

                  My curiousity got the better of me so what I did was create a BTS game with 12 players on a large world. I allocated big points to an advanced start so that I could give each nation Animal Husbandry, Bronze Working, and Iron Working. These show where are all critical early game resources are. I also placed the capital exactly where the game recommended via the red circle.

                  The results are shown below but IMO they look similar to what I've seen during "regular" starts. In a couple of cases I used the "visibility" feature to push out a tile to see if any critical resource was present. All specified resources are in the fat cross. Anything in "()" is outside of it or not present in the normal viewing range.

                  Nation 1 (Ethiopia): Iron, Marble, Cows, Corn (No Horses)
                  Nation 2 (Egypt): Silk x 2, Wheat (Bronze 3 W) (Iron NW, 3N) (No Horses)
                  Nation 3 (Babylon): Coast - Deer, Horses, Pigs, Wheat (Iron SW, 3S)
                  Nation 4 (Korea): Wine, Cows, Stone, Iron (No Horses)
                  Nation 5 (India): Gold, Flood Plain (Horses SW, 2W) (Iron SE, 3S)
                  Nation 6 (Rome): Ivory, Corn, Dye (Iron 3SW, E) (No Horses)
                  Nation 7 (Spain): Coast - Rice, Sugar x 2 (Visibility - Bronze 5S) (No Horses)
                  Nation 8 (Arab): Corn, Pig, Fur, Bronze (No Horse)
                  Nation 9 (Viking): Coast - Corn, Cow, Horses, Clam, Fish (Visibility - Iron 5W)
                  Nation 10 (Byzantine): Cow, Gold, Flood Plain (Iron 2NE, N) (No Horses)
                  Nation 11 (Japan): Iron, Wheat (No Horses)
                  Nation 12 (France): Corn, Ivory, Iron, Dye, Gold (No Horses)

                  Advanced Start Information

                  Most anything you can build will require you to spend points equal to the hammer production cost.

                  Anything you can research will require you to spend points equal to the research point requirement. Ex: in my experiment, Animal Husbandry was 140, Bronze Working 168, and Iron Working 280.

                  Settlers and Cities both cost 100.
                  First border increase (via culture) is 25.
                  First population increase is 33.
                  Pasture and Mine were both 24.
                  Road is 12.
                  Visibility on a tile is 5.

                  My Recommendation

                  I can definitely see the disadvantage that Oyzar mentioned with respect to placing any cities in addition to your capital. At the very least it seems like it can't be done without having overlap on tile coverage. The only way I would do it is if there was some critical resource I wanted to have access to right away.

                  However, I am still convinced that using the advanced start is the way to go in lieu of doing another painful realtime session. Let's consider what could amount to a typical accelerated start:

                  Capital Placement: 100 points
                  Settler (for 2nd city): 100 points
                  Border Increase for full resource access: 25
                  2 Population increase: 33 + 33?
                  1 Worker: 50
                  1 Scout: 15
                  1 Warrior: 15

                  Let's see...this puts us at about 370 points. If we went with the default 600 points that would give us 230 points for other things such as improvements and research.

                  And in doing all of the above, we've probably saved a minimum of 30 boring turns. ;) BTW, I also noticed that the first turn in which everyone does their set up has no timer. This is very nice. If we wanted to give everyone a couple of days to think about it then we'd be able to do that.

                  Thoughts?

                  Bernout
                  Last edited by Bernout; 02-23-2008, 10:20 PM.

                  |TG-MD6|

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                    Thanks for doing all that research Bernout. I also think using Advanced Start is the way to go.

                    People can do what they wish with their points, but I think the best thing (in most cases) is to build one or maybe two cities and then a settler. It can sit in your city until you explore and research enough to find a perfect place for it to plop down a city.




                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                      Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                      This posting is with respect to the advanced start.

                      The Experiment

                      My curiousity got the better of me so what I did was create a BTS game with 12 players on a large world. I allocated big points to an advanced start so that I could give each nation Animal Husbandry, Bronze Working, and Iron Working. These show where are all critical early game resources are. I also placed the capital exactly where the game recommended via the red circle.

                      The results are shown below but IMO they look similar to what I've seen during "regular" starts. In a couple of cases I used the "visibility" feature to push out a tile to see if any critical resource was present. All specified resources are in the fat cross. Anything in "()" is outside of it or not present in the normal viewing range.

                      Nation 1 (Ethiopia): Iron, Marble, Cows, Corn (No Horses)
                      Nation 2 (Egypt): Silk x 2, Wheat (Bronze 3 W) (Iron NW, 3N) (No Horses)
                      Nation 3 (Babylon): Coast - Deer, Horses, Pigs, Wheat (Iron SW, 3S)
                      Nation 4 (Korea): Wine, Cows, Stone, Iron (No Horses)
                      Nation 5 (India): Gold, Flood Plain (Horses SW, 2W) (Iron SE, 3S)
                      Nation 6 (Rome): Ivory, Corn, Dye (Iron 3SW, E) (No Horses)
                      Nation 7 (Spain): Coast - Rice, Sugar x 2 (Visibility - Bronze 5S) (No Horses)
                      Nation 8 (Arab): Corn, Pig, Fur, Bronze (No Horse)
                      Nation 9 (Viking): Coast - Corn, Cow, Horses, Clam, Fish (Visibility - Iron 5W)
                      Nation 10 (Byzantine): Cow, Gold, Flood Plain (Iron 2NE, N) (No Horses)
                      Nation 11 (Japan): Iron, Wheat (No Horses)
                      Nation 12 (France): Corn, Ivory, Iron, Dye, Gold (No Horses)

                      Advanced Start Information

                      Most anything you can build will require you to spend points equal to the hammer production cost.

                      Anything you can research will require you to spend points equal to the research point requirement. Ex: in my experiment, Animal Husbandry was 140, Bronze Working 168, and Iron Working 280.

                      Settlers and Cities both cost 100.
                      First border increase (via culture) is 25.
                      First population increase is 33.
                      Pasture and Mine were both 24.
                      Road is 12.
                      Visibility on a tile is 5.

                      My Recommendation

                      I can definitely see the disadvantage that Oyzar mentioned with respect to placing any cities in addition to your capital. At the very least it seems like it can't be done without having overlap on tile coverage. The only way I would do it is if there was some critical resource I wanted to have access to right away.

                      However, I am still convinced that using the advanced start is the way to go in lieu of doing another painful realtime session. Let's consider what could amount to a typical accelerated start:

                      Capital Placement: 100 points
                      Settler (for 2nd city): 100 points
                      Border Increase for full resource access: 25
                      2 Population increase: 33 + 33?
                      1 Worker: 50
                      1 Scout: 15
                      1 Warrior: 15

                      Let's see...this puts us at about 370 points. If we went with the default 600 points that would give us 230 points for other things such as improvements and research.

                      And in doing all of the above, we've probably saved a minimum of 30 boring turns. ;) BTW, I also noticed that the first turn in which everyone does their set up has no timer. This is very nice. If we wanted to give everyone a couple of days to think about it then we'd be able to do that.

                      Thoughts?

                      Bernout
                      Building a border increase in capital is probably not worth it... It is probably better to have bad cities than to get delayed several turns while looking for them. If it goes with advanced start people will end up with 2 or 3 cities at 600 point and some of them are going to be rather bad. Of course it is worth it to settle those cities asap rather than wait and build settlers most of the time.. Overlap doesn't kill anyone.. It should be noted that start like #4 with only one food resource are actually bugs.. Also to me the first part of the game is rather enjoyable...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                        Originally posted by oyzar View Post
                        Tons of ways to abuse this...The real problem lies in the ability to end wars and hence delay an attack by several turns through careful manipulated diplomacy. So keep it off.
                        There is an easy solution to prevent this particular "capitulation-force-peace" abuse. Players just got to follow the rule:

                        - BEFORE accepting capitulation of a civilization you must first declare war to all civilizations who are currently in a state of war against the capitulating civilization.


                        Regarding advanced starts it's important that the map is not too crowded or else those players that log in last in the first turn might be left with inferior city placements.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                          Originally posted by Dandridge View Post
                          Regarding advanced starts it's important that the map is not too crowded or else those players that log in last in the first turn might be left with inferior city placements.
                          I didn't see this in my test. In fact, nation 12 (France) had what looked like one of the best starting positions. Hmmm...but then again 12 nations on a large map may not be considered crowded.

                          Originally posted by oyzar
                          Building a border increase in capital is probably not worth it... It is probably better to have bad cities than to get delayed several turns while looking for them. If it goes with advanced start people will end up with 2 or 3 cities at 600 point and some of them are going to be rather bad. Of course it is worth it to settle those cities asap rather than wait and build settlers most of the time.. Overlap doesn't kill anyone.. It should be noted that start like #4 with only one food resource are actually bugs.. Also to me the first part of the game is rather enjoyable...
                          I'll buy that last sentence but the rest is arguable. ;) You can go and start with 2 or 3 bad cities if you like, but personally I'd keep 1 or 2 Settlers handy and build them in more optimal locations...especially if we are playing with no barbarians. All depends on what strategy you want to employ. 600 points isn't a lot when you need to balance it between cities, units, and tech. Also, I have definitely started past Civ 4 games with only a single food source so I'm not sure why you would consider that a bug with advanced start? I just call it unlucky.

                          Anyhow, this might be something to start a vote on if enough people feel strongly enough against using it.

                          Bernout
                          Last edited by Bernout; 02-24-2008, 09:56 AM.

                          |TG-MD6|

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                            Originally posted by oyzar View Post
                            As for map options anything that creates severe unbalanced land distributions can obviously be unbalanced. However there are none of the map options that are truly suited for mp imo. Maybe hemispheres is nice? That is if you don't want some hack and slash pangea style map... Obviously getting isolated have less effect if tech trading is off.
                            What's the easiest way to check out map types? Some use of World Builder I assume? I don't think I've ever used it.

                            I think we'd want to go with Fractal again unless someone feels strongly that another map type might work better.

                            I do know that having a large ocean content slows down the game a lot since nothing really starts happening until Optics and Astronomy.

                            Bernout

                            |TG-MD6|

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Beyond The Sword PTBS - Format Discussion

                              Originally posted by Bernout View Post
                              What's the easiest way to check out map types? Some use of World Builder I assume? I don't think I've ever used it.

                              I think we'd want to go with Fractal again unless someone feels strongly that another map type might work better.

                              I do know that having a large ocean content slows down the game a lot since nothing really starts happening until Optics and Astronomy.

                              Bernout
                              Create a new game and click ctrl + w. Regenerate 4-5 times and you should have a pretty good idea how the different maps looks. My biggest problem with all land maps(note that fractal doesn't actually mean all land) is that everyone get contact with everyone very fast in the game.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X