(July 29th, 2013, 18:19)Ceiliazul Wrote: Is that a combination "yes" and "hiss" for the shiny but starving site?
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
Been reluctant to update this thread since I've been feeling pretty miserable about this game. First,
OVERVIEW
Gold out the wazoo, freakin' livestock convention to the south... why would this make me miserable? I could have just settled at my given start (triple livestock), built stonehenge, and dominated all this pretty land. But instead I had to play for flavour - BOO - I'm feeling kind of guilty for turning myself in to a delicious meal for Yuri/Mackoti to the south. I drew up a revised plan but it was ugly and I've already shot myself in the foot with a slow start and I think playing MY game will be more interesting SO
SUTTREE OF THE SUBOPTIMITES
is on the scene. Revised plan is Settler t37 (settled t39) and GLH t53. Research after BW is Sailing->Masonry->Hunting->Polytheism->Monotheism. My goal is to dominate the seas - first classical tech is Metal Working. I'll build Moai and SoZ in my capitol. With a source of +2 exp, I'll be competitive with the Vikings in mobility and outclass them in power.
That's a lesson that has to be re-taught quite a lot TBH. A lot of players look at a start and think "I could do better" and then just go screw themselves over. You had two 5 yield tiles (with commerce!) and a 6 yield tile that needed a single worker tech to hook up...so, yeah.
I made the decision too quickly at the time - I looked at the start and it seemed so BORING. This makes sense in a single player game, play a little, restart if it doesn't work out.
OOPS I've committed to playing this thing for a gazillion years.
well cheer up, you've got space for about ten cities that would all qualify as capital locations. (sans fresh water...) now you can win from behind like Krill or Seven
Well, I don't think my goal is to win - otherwise I'd scrap this whole GLH nonsense. Rather, my goal is to play an interesting game while not screwing over the other players who count on me to limit my neighbours.
(August 2nd, 2013, 16:14)suttree Wrote: Well, I don't think my goal is to win - otherwise I'd scrap this whole GLH nonsense. Rather, my goal is to play an interesting game while not screwing over the other players who count on me to limit my neighbours.