[spoilers] Pindicator Steals the Mapmakers Naming Theme

[Krill]

The answer is third ring workable tiles in cities and a larger minimum city distance.

[greenline]

Large minimum city distance seems like it would restrict the production needed for large armies - which wouldn't necessarily be bad on its own, except that the swingy RNG Civ 4 uses would make it easy for small sized battles to go badly and not let large numbers cancel out bad probabilities. (The RNG factor alone is what makes early game warfare with a handful of units feel especially punishing compared to Civ 6)

[pindicator]

Except I'm talking about the middle ages / rennaissance eras where small numbers of units are not an issue.

Krill, I'm not sure working third ring tiles would be palatable as a mod change. I get that it's meant to solve the decreased overall production of units from having fewer cities, but I think there still is some space to have maps that nudge players towards this behavior. Though if we could ... I think I'd want to gate working the third ring behind some kind of tech. Maybe Engineering since that is the tech that shrinks the size of the map with 3-move roads. I think movement compared to map & empire size in the early ages is in a good spot.

Civ6 is actually awful in this regard. Having 4- and 5- move land units really moves the problem earlier than it is in Civ4 ... I get that they are balancing around a 2-movememt melee unit, but it still makes the world feel smaller with less room. It's been some time since I played a civ 6 game, however, so perhaps my memory is wildly off

[aetryn]

Except I'm talking about the middle ages / rennaissance eras where small numbers of units are not an issue.

Krill, I'm not sure working third ring tiles would be palatable as a mod change.  I get that it's meant to solve the decreased overall production of units from having fewer cities, but I think there still is some space to have maps that nudge players towards this behavior. Though if we could ... I think I'd want to gate working the third ring behind some kind of tech. Maybe Engineering since that is the tech that shrinks the size of the map with 3-move roads. I think movement compared to map & empire size in the early ages is in a good spot.

Civ6 is actually awful in this regard. Having 4- and 5- move land units really moves the problem earlier than it is in Civ4 ... I get that they are balancing around a 2-movememt melee unit, but it still makes the world feel smaller with less room. It's been some time since I played a civ 6 game, however, so perhaps my memory is wildly off

Though Civ 6 does substitute some complexity with positioning unit types that wouldn't make sense in Civ 4, so even if there's less room for strategic manouver, there's more room for tactical play and maybe that compensates? Also, it's pretty much a requirement to have larger move distances if you're going to have minimal UPT, so that the second rank can get into the battle.

[pindicator]

Exactly.  Which means Civ6 should have cities even farther apart.  They dont' go far enough in that regard.

As for this game:




Can lurkers ask scooter if he is really trying to defend or if he's just so jaded against Thoth that he's letting Commodore take all his stuff for free?  Because it really looks like the second one is happening.  And it really makes me want to quit playing.

So somebody needs to assure me that I shouldn't be posting in the tech thread right now asking WTF is going on.

[Mjmd]

Play on.

What is the plan for lib?

[pindicator]

Oh, I was just looking at timing. I switched back to saving gold with Gunpowder.

I kind of want to go for Physics. Just because it would be fun to check that off the bucket list. But I think I need one more GP to pull that off and no idea how to get one soon. So maybe I just tech Gunpowder and then see.

Or maybe I tech Economics and get it that way?

[pindicator]

Economics in 4.

Thoth wants to fight Commodore together in 12 turns (probably when he gets Astro). I didn't respond at first, but then I decided it's probably the best way to play it out. So I sent a confirmation back.

[Qgqqqqq]

Somehow missed the movement discussion. This is an issue FFH2 has in spades, as every unit can take two moves and most get three, galleys start at four moves etc. It is really hard to balance making fun meals around.

[scooter]

Though I'm not sure how someone can have 1k more soldier points unless they built a warrior and haven't settled their second city by now. But everyone settled their capital t0 and their second city t1.

Oh, I know this one! Because it bothered me too until I figured it out. The Viking UB gives soldier points.

The very next turn I found something disappointing: Yuri showed up from the north.




If the barbarian cities are the halfway point between civs I would find that very disappointing. I'm not a fan of putting "prizes" at the halfway point between two civs on maps to create artificial races. The land grab is the race already; you don't need to make the reward more swingy. Also, it makes me think this map is quite small which would favor players that went for civs with immediate benefits. Mongolia & Scandinavia get a lot scarier, for instances. At least it's a tech combination to my north.

Generally agree with this sentiment a lot, both at the time and in the present.

I feel there's something insightful to say here:




Or maybe I'm just being a jerk?

I'll be honest, after the first time you refused OB with me, it took me a solid 3 more turns to remember you were Protective.

We have Scooter with the early rush to Bureaucracy and then focusing on whipping settlers from his capital.  I really did love how he just chose to ate the anarchy turns in order to get to his preferred setup - I think we are a little too scared of anarchy here when sometimes strategy demands that you should be in a different setup.

I felt like I was doing something "wrong" eating all that Anarchy, but it really felt like it was beginning to pay for itself fairly well right up until the double gank happened. I counted up the number of resources I was losing in a turn of anarchy, and compared to Bureau it caught up pretty quickly. It helped too that I had a hard time keeping up with worker improvements, so those "nothing" turns let my workers catch up a little bit. I don't know for sure if it was the best play, but I do generally agree Anarchy is over-avoided. It's also somewhat nice to let your first Golden Age be at the best possible time for you rather than have to fit it around a Civic swap.

038

The big news happened after I played my turn, as Scooter somehow didn't see the obvious coming and managed to get boated by Thoth - so I presume.  I know he was tangling with Commodore a bit, and then lost a city to Commodore.  Then Thoth actually boatmurdered (yes, it's a real term) scooter's capital.  So no turn tonight as scooter collects his thoughts.

We've all been there before.

The tough thing was I actually did see the obvious coming all the way. I was moving units to cover it off, and the city would have been fully defended the next turn combined with a Trireme to block the path. He came 1T too early for me. In other words, lost to turn order. Or maybe all that Anarchy.

3. This map was heavily biased against any civilization with immediate benefits. I could have picked Egypt and faired better with a War Chariot rush. Or Zulu and Impi rushed. There was no indication we would be put on a map where any civilization without immediate benefits was fucked.
4. Look at all the angles you have to defend! Boats can come along through the middle, by the edges, by the outer edge, or land units down the middle. You cannot defend everything in such a close capacity - and so once again the rushers and aggressive civ choices win out. 3 of us lost the game in the picking phase and didn't even realize it.

I think you're right about your land slice being the worst, but yeah this quote here was my main issue. I think the map would work well enough for Ancient, but it just doesn't really for Medieval unless it's clearly delineated as a "tight" map. Also, your frustrations here are a good example of why people get crankier over balance on "balanced" maps than they do on intentionally imbalanced maps. Imbalance just feels worse on "balanced" maps than imbalanced maps.


(Still reading, though some comments may have to wait for post-game, we'll see.)