|
Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore |
|
[NO PLAYERS] Mapmaking, Boasting, and Wild Speculation Thread
|
|
Because I can't start enough lurker threads these days.
![[Image: tumblr_mjte2wHY0u1rwnp75o2_250.gif]](http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tumblr_mjte2wHY0u1rwnp75o2_250.gif)
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon
Forests (and jungles) still take 3 turns to chop, so forest-heavy starts aren't as desirable as quick-speed. Roads also still take 2 turns. I don't know if either of these should be a consideration though.
I don't really think all that much should matter to you in terms of quick versus standard speed. The points Jojo made stand, of course, as worker turns are slightly different between the speeds, but it effects all players the same so I don't really think it makes a difference. The most important thing is a fair distribution of resources and land quantity/quality. Starting with a good script will save a lot of work, too, unless you for some reason wanted to draw the whole thing out yourself in world builder. (Or did the players specify what script to use?)
You'll have to evaluate each player's land quality somehow, whether by eyeball or tool. I'd use both, but don't rely too much on any one source. I like novice's map balancing tool a lot, use it as a guide. My process is iterative, I shape a map until I'm happy with it and the tool finds it to be fairly balanced. But the eye test is critical - the tool won't catch that someone's copper/iron is too far away to be settled before they get zerg rushed by a neighbor with copper at his capital, for instance. Make sure players have fair amounts of happy resources. Whatever quantity and type you put on the map, make sure those categories are roughly equal in availability, i.e., don't give one player gems/furs/ivory and someone else silks, dyes, whales. They will hate you for it. I try to give everyone an ancient age resource or two (out of furs, gold, gems, silver, ivory, etc.), and then more resources later further away from the starting location. I try not to put high commerce yield resources right by the capital because of the way it distorts economic output in the early game (preemptive: I know I haven't always succeeded!). If someone gets a gems tile and the others don't, for instance, that player has a huge early tech advantage. So either give everyone an economic boosting tile like that near their start or give it to no one. Basically, the same advice as other resources. And extras of any given type are good, encourage resource trading, it spices up the game. I try to limit the number of different resources available to any one player, though (don't give everything, that makes the game kind of boring if there's no contention over resources). And although most games don't go all the way to the space race, you never know which ones will, so make sure late game resources are available for each player (aluminium, uranium, oil, etc.). The only other thing that comes to mind is as you're making the map make sure its shape is interesting. If you wouldn't want to play on the map you're making, most likely other people won't either. But if it looks like fun...yeah! These are my opinions and not established precedents of any kind. I've only made maps for two games (PB17 and PB19), your parameters may vary significantly and lead to good results. In any case, the best guarantor of success is to have a few people look over the map before releasing it to the players. More eyes on a problem finds more flaws, etc. Good luck! (Final advice: when the inevitable teeth gnashing from the players begins, just ignore it. Players whine about maps, it's as innate to the human condition as converting oxygen into carbon dioxide. I've had trouble with that advice, but it still sounds good.  )
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon 
Rolled the 20 combos:
Sitting Bull of Japan Charlemagne of India Hannibal of France Kublai of Khmer Churchill of Celts Cyrus of Dutch Huayna of Sumeria Peter of Germany Isabella of England Frederick of Egypt FDR of Rome Pacal of Russia Victoria of China Hammerabi of Byzantium Monty of Mongolia Ragnar of Portugal Catherine of Ethiopia Ramesses of America Justinian of Vikings Wang Kon of Holy Roman Empire My comments: Sitting Bull of Japan (too weak) Charlemagne of India (ok) Hannibal of France (too strong) Kublai of Khmer (ok) Churchill of Celts (too weak) Cyrus of Dutch (ok) Huayna of Sumeria (too strong) Peter of Germany (ok) Isabella of England (ok) Frederick of Egypt (borderline too strong?) FDR of Rome (borderline too strong?) Pacal of Russia (too strong) Victoria of China (too strong) Hammerabi of Byzantium (borderline too weak?) Monty of Mongolia (borderline too weak?) Ragnar of Portugal (ok) Catherine of Ethiopia (ok) Ramesses of America (ok) Justinian of Vikings (ok) Wang Kon of Holy Roman Empire (ok) What does everyone else think?
In my opinion,
Definitely too strong: Hannibal of France Huayna of Sumeria Pacal of Russia Victoria of China Definitely ok: Charlemagne of India Peter of Germany Wang Kon of Holy Roman Empire Isabella of England Catherine of Ethiopia Ramesses of America Ragnar of Portugal Cyrus of Dutch Definitely too weak: Sitting Bull of Japan Churchill of Celts Questionable: Kublai of Khmer Frederick of Egypt FDR of Rome Hammerabi of Byzantium Monty of Mongolia Justinian of Vikings
My review before comparing with your results was:
The List Wrote:Sitting Bull of Japan - PHI/PRO - Weak So, broken down into your categories that's Definitely too strong: Huayna of Sumeria - FIN/IND - Strong? Pacal of Russia - FIN/EXP - Strong? Victoria of China - FIN/IMP - Strong? Definitely too weak: Sitting Bull of Japan - PHI/PRO - Weak Churchill of Celts - CHA/PRO - Weak Questionable: Ramesses of America - SPI/IND - OK/Weak Wang Kon of Holy Roman Empire - FIN/PRO - OK? The rest: Charlemagne of India - IMP/PRO - Ha. Interesting. OK Hannibal of France - FIN/CHA - OK Kublai of Khmer - AGG/CRE - OK Cyrus of Dutch - CHA/IMP - OK Peter of Germany - PHI/EXP - OK Isabella of England - SPI/EXP - OK Frederick of Egypt - PHI/ORG - OK FDR of Rome - IND/ORG - OK Hammerabi of Byzantium - AGG/ORG - OK Monty of Mongolia - AGG/SPI - OK Ragnar of Portugal - FIN/AGG - OK Catherine of Ethiopia - CRE/IMP - OK Justinian of Vikings - SPI/IMP - OK I didn't cull as many from the list as you did, and I'd even be inclined to allow the players to choose from among the questionable/weak if someone sees something there that strikes his fancy. I'm not here to protect anyone from bad choices. Maybe that's a problem depending on their selection method and 17 is too many to choose from? Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon |
