[NO PLAYERS] Lurker Thread for lurkers lurking loudly

[plako]

One possibility to make it better for the central player is to make the central seas smaller using mountains connecting the shores. Most of the smaller lakes could even be smaller than 20 tiles. Don't overdo central players poistion hotugh. Central area probably already has the strongest land.

[spacetyrantxenu]

One possibility to make it better for the central player is to make the central seas smaller using mountains connecting the shores. Most of the smaller lakes could even be smaller than 20 tiles. Don't overdo central players poistion hotugh. Central area probably already has the strongest land.

I don't want to discourage naval action too much, and having a smaller sea to operate on would probably reduce the amount of navy required and built. The larger seas make interaction between non-adjacent players at least possible, even if it is slightly to the detriment of the central player. I think it's an OK trade on the side of interesting/dynamic game play versus 100% fairness to the guy in the middle. For reference you can see each player's starting area in this view:




And a view with resource bubbles showing the central player's map. You can also see their land neighbors at the top and bottom edges of the map, to get an idea of what their land approaches look like:




@Catwalk, I don't think land access to the middle player needs to be easier, they already have one fewer land approach to defend. The approaches here seems like they could be attacked, but would not be indefensible. I wouldn't want to tighten the approaches because then Krill's central builder scenario becomes more likely.

Edit: One other feature, most (all?) of the waterways can be traversed by canals/forts, so if someone does invest in a large navy they should be able to get it where it needs to be for the most part. That kind of feeds into my preference for larger sea bodies allowing access between more distant players. Mountains in the middle would stop any kind of long distance naval action, if they chose it, because of not being able to fort/use forts outside your culture.

[Catwalk]

Whoops, I meant making water access to the middle player harder. Also, make sure to carefully consider which seas you want to turn into lakes.

[spacetyrantxenu]

OK, so you're with Plako then. I prefer more openness in the water approaches, I think it will make the game more interesting without being a complete nightmare.

Starting screens coming up.

[spacetyrantxenu]

If you guys see any glaring problems let me know. Otherwise I can post these for the players and let them start their pick process.






















Revised map - fixed some vision issues with a few starting locations:

PB19_7.0.112-RC.CivBeyondSwordWBSave

[Catwalk]

I would be very cautious with trading fairness away for interesting game dynamics. What are your instructions as far as fairness goes?

[Catwalk]

How about replacing cows with deer? That way Hunting has some value too, leading to slightly more interesting civ choices. I agree with mostly mirroring starting locations, by far the safest bet. Can we have some screenshots of the extended starting areas to guestimate the value of early expansion options?

[Mardoc]

Number five is the only one without an option to move to have a coastal capital. Granted, I think that giving up the plains hill start would be a mistake, but maybe someone will want to try for a coastal wonder.

Relatedly, some of them can move to the coast and keep all their visible resources, while others can't.

I don't know that either of these is glaring rather than a nitpick, though.

[spacetyrantxenu]

What are your instructions as far as fairness goes?

No instructions, I just don't want to be a bastard mapmaker in this instance.

How about replacing cows with deer? That way Hunting has some value too, leading to slightly more interesting civ choices. I agree with mostly mirroring starting locations, by far the safest bet. Can we have some screenshots of the extended starting areas to guestimate the value of early expansion options?

Oops, that was the original intent, to use Hunting, Agriculture, and lead into Animal Husbandry (too bad for Fishing civs, I wasn't looking for coastal capitals). I can swap either of the sheep or cow for a deer, I think I prefer keeping the cow so they have a few more base hammers. So swap all sheep for deer, and add a forest since it looks like that won't screw up visibility and make me edit anything else.

[spacetyrantxenu]

Number five is the only one without an option to move to have a coastal capital. Granted, I think that giving up the plains hill start would be a mistake, but maybe someone will want to try for a coastal wonder.

Relatedly, some of them can move to the coast and keep all their visible resources, while others can't.

I don't know that either of these is glaring rather than a nitpick, though.

I think the plains hill starts are better than anything they can get by moving to the coast, and in the cases where they'd lose something by moving to the coast that ought to be reason enough to settle in place.

Player4 (start 5) is the only one that is inland, but if he wants a coastal wonder he can plant a first ring city on either side of the capital that is coastal. Plus he got a lake for his troubles, better than the measly coast tile everyone else got right?

I think most of it should be nitpicking, but that's why we're here. I'll swap the sheep for deer/forest and repost.