[SPOILER] Nobody's Business But The Turks

[Ramkhamhaeng]

I don't really have anything to say: the start is bad, the map is bad, and the only way to win is to not play.

I got in touch with Lord of the Civ and we had the same opinion about the starting position: It's is totally ok. He build the first settler in <30 turns.

Four swamped tiles are as good as a second food resource. It is understandable that you moved on a hill with plains. But moving away from the only (irrigated!) food resource was risky and didn't pay of.
(Edit: Probably the changes between both start positions were the reason)

Here, I have no sympathy for giving up the game with information from turn 0.

[Krill]

I don't really have anything to say: the start is bad, the map is bad, and the only way to win is to not play.

I got in touch with Lord of the Civ and we had the same opinion about the starting position: It's is totally ok. He build the first settler in <30 turns.

Four swamped tiles are as good as a second food resource. It is understandable that you moved on a hill with plains. But moving away from the only (irrigated!) food resource was risky and didn't pay of.

Here, I have no sympathy for giving up the game with information from turn 0.

You are wrong.

Flood plains are not the same as a food resource: a player must maintain high population to equal the same yield as a second food resource, and this leads to a drag effect on growth between turn 12 and 30. Also you are using a faulty measure to justify the effectiveness of the start if your only consideration is the time until a settler. For example, moving 1S and building a settler completes it on eot20, but that doesn't make it the best opening in absolute terms, over the entirety of the available starts on this map. The ability to improve a second food tile also gives the opportunity to split this food off into a second city, but this is not a necessity: however rushing a settler and having to ability to improve a food resource quickly is another example of why the time taken to complete a settler is a bad metric for judging a start.

And to value the starts appropriately, you should not be considering the effect of traits. If you had randomized these starting positions between players, and only then balanced the starts to the leader allocated to the start, the players aren't playing the game: you are.

But the infuriating thing, Ramk, is your sympathy: the map makers job is to create a balanced map that players can play a game on. Your sympathy is irrelevant, your competance is what I'm questioning: Your (joint) decisions are going to lead to imbalances from T0 because you can't judge start quality, and are harming what should be a showpiece event.

But perhaps the worst indictment of this game is that I gave up when you posted the invitation and rules discussion, and now you are just proving me right.

[Lord of the Civ]

showpiece event

I think you're taking this game way too seriously, I would never make such a claim.

In regards to your particular starting position: in our humble opinion it's totally fine and has as much potential as any other on the map.
But everybody has their preferences and that's ok.

As this game's arbiter I'm trying to keep the game going as smoothly as possible.
I'm not sure what to make of your last few posts: are you still playing or are you quitting this PB? It's fine either way. But if you want to quit, I'd rather have you do so now while it's still turn 0. Because then we could try to find a substitute who could play the game from the start.

[Krill]

I was never playing in this game: this civ is superjms baby. However I am completely unspoilt and got hooked on the "How to play the start due to deity costs". So right now I'm not here as a dedicated lurker.

If you have balanced every start down to this level, then either the entire map is as barren as the moon or someone is going to move and luck into a much stronger capital. Or god forbid, superjm moves SW a bit more and basically crams his capital with free starting archer right in someone's face: it's a world map, and this is Central Asia, we know where opponents will roughly be.

[superjm]

FWIW I'm not interested in getting into a protracted debate about map issues, I'm not liking some aspects of this start but any comments are simply in the context of me trying to play the game, so I'm willing to take everything in stride. Krill elected to keep his knowledge of the game limited to my thread but he most certainly does not speak for me, not that he thought he did at any point here.

Nonetheless I find the arguments on map construction interesting enough so in this case where he remains unspoiled I don't have a problem with Krill using my thread to make his points.

[Papa Bear]

Hi all,

I am a user from civforum.de and will follow your thread here.

Hope you enjoy the game!

[superjm]

West of spawn just showed me more peaks and hills so I moved back to the original planned settle spot, and T2 showed a stone near my capital, though I don't know to settle that spot at all if there's no food around and anyway it seems like a bad idea trying to compete for wonders against literally every IND leader in the game. It's an option though. Also my capital has an oasis, uh, yay?

I'd really like to circle around and see what's out East. I don't quite remember the rules for moving between peaks, am I able to move onto that forest hill 1S2W of my warrior. It doesn't look like you can but I also remember some cases where you could so I'm not sure what governs that exactly or if I'm just remembering wrong. Not that I'd move in that direction necessarily, I'm just curious.

[Charriu]

Looking at the first screenshots I feared that under the fog is another desert. So for me the oasis is a positive result. At least better then a desert.

About the peak movement. Yes you can move through there.

[Miguelito]

I also think the green valley SW is uplifting. From the previous shots I expected lots of desert to the south

[Krill]

That oasis is one hell of a troll.

I take it you are going for Worker>Granary?