Well, we need a thread to get our starting positions, so I guess this is it!
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.
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.
Hey guys, haven't forgotten about this. I saw the latest email. I'll have some time tomorrow at work most likely to think this over a bit more and chime in with a few more thoughts. Seeing the starts gives a lot to think about.
Yeah, I like how there are four different tech-requiring food resources. Settle in place seems best for both, regardless of what we pick. Ideas on the scout movements?
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.
Okay, this is going to be stream-of-consciousness.
1) FIN leader needs to go in the north, whoever that ends up being. That capital gets us at least 6 riverside grassland tiles, and I THINK that's two floodplains in the fog there which is awesome. So yes, FIN in the north, done.
2) Southern spot is really weird. My first thought is it needs to be a Fishing civ because WB first is attractive (5hpt for a 4T work boat is just great), then I realize EXP would be nice because it has the hammers to get the bonus. I'm thinking WB first is a must there though - the clam can be improved the turn the WB is available which is great. Maybe Fishing + SPI to grow to sz2 and then whip a worker? I dunno, something to think about.
3) FWIW, Fishing civs with their accompanying tech
America - Agriculture
Carthage - Mining
Dutch - Agriculture
England - Mining
Greece - Hunting
Japan - Wheel
Native America - Agriculture
Portugal - Mining
Rome - Mining
Spain - Mysticism
Viking - Agriculture
From that list, I like Rome and Carthage the best. They both have great UUs and they both have Mining. Also, I suspect the other team is likely to go with an early Melee unit of some sort, and it would be pretty sweet to basically nullify that with Carthage's super fun UU. The rest of the choices are fairly underwhelming. So I'd tentatively vote for non-FIN Carthage in the south. Also, even if they don't take Rome or something, just having a two-mover is so useful.
The only way it really backfires is if they take Egypt in the south. Thing is, it's a mirror map. That means they're probably looking at a Fishing civ for the south too, so we can piece together who they might place across from Carthage. Look at that list and tell me they don't take Rome. Maybe they take Greece, fine whatever. We still have a Str5 2-mover that gets 50% vs Melee units & starts with Flanking I.
4) I know IMP got thrown around a bit in the email thread, but I think we need to avoid that completely. It's a tight map with higher maintenance. IMP is going to be really weak. Plus there's too many traits that are better than IMP already.
5) North leader should be pure builder. So: Pacal, Willem, Huayna - pick one. I think we need to consider if we want IND or not, because I think that heavily influences what we pick. It's risky, really. If we skip it and the other team takes IND, that's a pretty real disadvantage. Quite a few wonders are especially powerful in a teamer because it affects both players - so we could take IND, ignore CRE, and build Stonehenge and it'll work for both of us (right?). That's really attractive. It makes Hanging Gardens much stronger too. However, taking IND makes things difficult as we only have 2 traits left to choose from, and I want more than that:
-EXP: difficult to seriously not take this
-CRE: more valuable in this kind of game than a standard game IMO
-CHM: Super awesome for Carthage. Because those Numids start with Flanking I, you can do some nasty stuff with access to quicker promotions. As he's reading this, Commodore is nodding his head. Also, it's nice for happy bonus since we don't see any pre-calendar happies anywhere.
-Also: SPI, AGG, PHI are all useful for this type of game
So it's difficult to figure out what we're going to ditch here. I think it's probably best to figure out what we want out of the north, and then figure out how to complement it best with the south. The most appealing options at first glance seem to be:
A) Pacal of Inca in the north. Great pure builder, EXP Inca lets us pop borders, and the Quechas are C1 so it's nice for those early warrior-warrior and choking altercations (those matter more than you'd think).
B) Willem of somebody (traits that mesh with Carthage + has a decent early defense UU). As I said - we'll be doing funder + techer, so cheap libraries to the techer is really appealing. CRE in the south feels wasteful since we don't want the southern guy to build libraries at all. This makes IND slightly less attractive.
C) Huayna of somebody. At first glance I'd like this with EXP/CHM (Washington) Carthage in the south (I could be convinced of a different leader) and Huayna builds Henge.
Ok, that got a little long. Would love to hear some input on this. My gut feeling is that we want Willem in the north and we want to skip IND, fwiw.
FWIW, I don't think Sian and thestick have really dueled at all, which is surprisingly different from a normal PBEM. Harassing the other guy is much more useful than normal, and I think that's something we should exploit as I don't think they'll be quite ready for it. Zero-sum warfare is fun.
1. Email thread? Share!
2. Techs are shared in a teamer, so you're basically picking for 4 techs. Opens your options somewhat, you can put either civ in either slot.
3. Wines aren't Calendar, man!
If only you and me and dead people know hex, then only deaf people know hex.
The email thread isn't that interesting. We only exchanged a few emails, and we hadn't seen the starts yet so we were just sort of throwing darts. Here's the whole thing:
scooter Wrote:We can setup a thread now if we'd like. Next couple days I'm not going to be at a computer that often though, so I figured I'd send you guys an email since I get that on my phone and it's much easier for me to chime in thoughts that way. So my understanding is India is banned, all else are fair game. We can't have duplicates between our two leaders, but we can duplicate something the other team took I think. I'm not positive on that, posted real quick to ask. Here's the snake order:
Snake:
1. Sian
2. TT
3. Thestick
4, 5. Merooter
6 Thestick
7 TT
8 Sian
So we are behind them twice. I think we have two good options here for how to pick strategically:
1)
-One economy machine - Pacal of Inca or something
-One fighter - some mix of Agg, Chm, Rome, Byz, etc. Alternatively, Ragnar could be nice - still Agg but an option to snipe wonders
2) Pick best economic traits possible to match with a couple defensive civs and make them come at us when we out-expand them with better traits. Maybe something like Lizzie + Sury. Pair that with maybe Mali and Zulu or something vaguely along those lines (maybe not Zulu, but something like that).
I think both options are valid. The other option is two fighters or two rush civs and just go all-out, but that's an all-in move that means this game is over in a couple weeks no matter win or lose, and I figure betting a whole PBEM on a rush is probably not wanted. Plus if the map ends up being a tad roomier than expected, that's trouble. Ok, there's my start at things. Thoughts?
Twinkletoes Wrote:I think both options are worth considering but I would avoid Lizzie and keep Fin & Philo separate if we need them.
So maybe Ragnar of Rome? (Fin Agg) & Lincoln (Phi / Cha)/ Suleiman (Phi/Imp) of Mali to have some form of aggression trait with economy mixed in.
I do really like Ragnar of Rome as a priority tbh as I think that it will be wise for an early advantage/deterrent for early conflict but we have Fin to keep economy going if we need it.
But I could easily be moved to make the Philo leader as someone like Pericles/Peter/Gandhi if we wanted to go full SE. I think Imp could be useful though to make early land claims and defend them with Skirms and Praets.
TT
scooter Wrote:One note - Commodore said we can have duplicate traits of the other team but not leaders.
Anyways thinking some more, I'm sort of inclined to totally skip Phi. A thought - we prob want a techer and funder so we don't have to build both multiplier buildings. An option then is to pair cre with fin for cheap libraries for the techer. Then combine that with whatever for the second guy - exp/ind/agg/etc
Twinkletoes Wrote:Well here's another idea that might work-
Genghis of Rome - Agg/Imp - works on fighting and providing settlers
and
Pacal of Mali - Fin/Exp - works on building up economy and workers plus can defend itself with Skirms if needed?
Not sure but might be an idea
TT
scooter Wrote:That could work. I do think passing up on cre AND inca would be a mistake though - no easy border popping.
Merovech Wrote:Are we sure we want to grab a leader with a military trait? It would be beneficial in the early game, sure, and probably necessary if we grab Rome because of the great synergy, but I think I'd prefer something like Pacal + Pericles or Willem + Peter instead. I've never played a team game, so I might be missing how great the synergy in building most of our Settlers through Imp, but I'd rather grab two leaders that can tech and expand than devote a whole trait to military, especially if we can grab some nice early UUs/UBs. Organized could be good, but I expect it not to be worth as much as Fin, Cre, Exp, or Phi.
One other thing to keep in mind, which I'm not sure if you guys are taking into account: Not doubling up on starting techs. Combining Rome and Maile, for example, gives us Mining + the Wheel + Fishing as starting techs. Not horrible, by any means, but probably delays us from BW and possibly Pottery by a little bit as we will probably need to tech for food besides fish. Sure, we'll research pretty fast, even with the tech cost boost, until we start getting hit by the (assumedly) high maintenance costs, but getting starting techs as opposed to 3 or 2 can be a huge gain. Personally, I think we have to grab Inca if its available (from a pure starting tech perspective, a nice civ to pair it with could be Mali), since Quechas will be very nice until axes start popping up and still remain as cheap mp after then and terraces and wonderful, but other civ combinations that I think would work great are:
Egypt + Aztec: War Chariot and Sac Altars, which are amazing in whip-heavy games and high maintenance games, like I expect this to be. Agri/Wheel makes up for and actually synergizes with the Aztecs' normally horrible starting techs of Hunting/Myst, plus we might be able to do fun things with jaguar warriors, and the Egypt UU might be situationally useful.
Sumeria + Aztec: As above, replace War Chariots with Ziggurats, although I'm not a fan of non-RB mod Vultures
China + Byzantium: Cataphracts supported by cho-ko-nus. Oh, yeah. China's Mining/Agri also makes up for Byz's horrible starting techs, actually synergizing to give us a fairly nice Agri + The Wheel + Mining + Mysticism. More vulnerable in the early game than the above options.
That's all we really exchanged before the starts got posted.
![[Image: Civ4ScreenShot0280.JPG]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28594063/Maps/Civ4ScreenShot0280.JPG)
![[Image: Civ4ScreenShot0281.JPG]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28594063/Maps/Civ4ScreenShot0281.JPG)
