No random maps in MP?

Franses · July 11, 2002, 18:09

I bought CIV3 especially for MP. It takes a bit longer than I expected but finaly it is on the horizon now so I start thinking about the implications.

One of the things I wonder about is how you all feel about whether it will still be fun to play random maps. The reason for this is that in SP it is not so hard to win a game if, for example, you find that there is no coal in your empire. You just look where the sources of coal are and you go for the one that is easiest to get. Against the AI you generally succeed to take this coal source quickly. But how will that be against a human opponent? I suppose that in case of players of about equal strength it will be very hard, and generally impossible to get to any coal source not in your own empire.

And what does that mean? Well, it means you have invested several hours in a game, which was exciting up to this point but which is impossible to win simply because you do not have access to coal. Is that fun?

I once destroyed a great, great CTP game by being able to build nukes a bit earlier than my opponent and using a couple of them. What was a great game suddenly ended in two turns. I regretted this so much that I never played another game without agreeing with my opponents that we would not build nukes.

IMO this is the case also with resources in CIV3. No specific resource available? Your game ends here. You won't have a chance.

The only way I can see this can be avoided is to use known maps that assure that, if of equal strength, players will have access to all the strategic resources. Unfortunately this means no more world exploration which is a shame.

Any thoughts on this issue?

Inverse Icarus · July 11, 2002, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Franses
And what does that mean? Well, it means you have invested several hours in a game, which was exciting up to this point but which is impossible to win simply because you do not have access to coal. Is that fun?

yes, it makes the game so much more interesting. forget coal, lets talk oil (bombers, tanks, etc). imagine not having any oil, or having one player control ALL of the oil. they probably wont trade you oil for any reasonable price, why would they give you the power to destroy them?

basically, it will lead to wars for resources between human opponents, a melee of never seen intensity, involving more strategies in one battle than all your civ games against the AI combined. Strategic Pillaging. Razing Cities. Colonies. They'll all be so useful in MP.

and in the mod me and my friends are goign to play (you can only settler grassland, plains, floodplains, and hills) the large deserts and tundra (oil) are uninhabitable, and will be a large network of colonies, with no culture borders for 20 tiles

Inverse Icarus · July 11, 2002, 18:53

the game will move fairly slowly in MP, and most likely people will acquire techs around the same time. so by the time someone starts BUILDING tanks, you'll start your attacks and hopefull acquire some oil.

Franses · July 12, 2002, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
the game will move fairly slowly in MP, and most likely people will acquire techs around the same time. so by the time someone starts BUILDING tanks, you'll start your attacks and hopefull acquire some oil.

I see you are optimistic about it. Good.

For oil that may be possible because it is visible quite some time before you build tanks. In the case of coal however you will have to attack a civ that has more gold and more production available shortly after the resource becomes visible (I generally have lots of workers ready to rail my empire when steam power is detected). I do not believe a player of comparable strength will be able to take my coal resource away from me in those circumstances.

Franses · July 12, 2002, 02:42

By the way, I like your idea of having much more inhabitable tiles.

Inverse Icarus · July 12, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Franses
By the way, I like your idea of having much more inhabitable tiles.

apparently firaxis does too, as their allowing that modification in the next patch, so me and some of my buddies (some of them still dont have civ3 yet) can get used to playing with vast uncolonized lands.

firaxis said that the AI doesnt settle lands you disallow, but they didnt say if it affected their colonization patterns, or if they could "cope" with it. like, i'm still not sure if i'd see a settler wandering a large desert for a place to settle.

Franses · July 12, 2002, 14:27

I expect the AI to be able to handle it because there already is a terrain type that does not allow settling.

Unless of course the code runs like "If mountains then". Neeaayh, suppose not.

Quasar1011 · July 13, 2002, 13:47

If you like maps with lots of resources, check out my "MAPS: the Star Series" post in the files area. The first several maps I made had plenty of resources. Later maps had fewer resources, since that seemed to be what experienced players wanted. This map will pretty much force civs to fight over resources, or struggle along without them, since there are rarely enough to trade- unless a civ becomes big enough. For instance, I am now play-testing my "Markab" map, which has a max of 4 of some of the strategic resources. Fortunately for me, 3 of the 4 known oil fields are within my borders, but I cannot build tanks just yet since I just discovered refining. Let's see how this one ends! I will post "Markab" soon...

Franses · July 13, 2002, 15:13

OK, Quasar, I feel that that is the way to go. What I do with my maps is to place the resources such that in principle the player(s) have access to all kinds but they have to make an effort for it. If the other player(s) outsmart you they have the possibility to claim all resources available of a certain kind.