 |
|  |
 |
|
quinns
|
|
quote: Originally posted by yoda
I think we should vote on the "extra river" for the comp2 map. Personally, I don't mind if is not added as the game becomes significantly easier with the extra river. Also, Quinns map (comp3) has some errors in it. Blue has an extra 3 hex river with a forest hex and the beach is not quite right. If we do end up using this map with the extra river, could JBYTHEWAY make the adjustments as the "official map creator"?
yoda |
Oops! Yes, J-Bytheway, you do it. I was too careless. In fact, we can leave the comp2 map/scenario exactly as is, with one settler, no extra river. After Yoda's test, I think that would probably work out fine for everyone...
Over 30 cities by 1300 B.C. and Democracy without using the rush-buy-switch!! Wow! Yoda has shown me that I MUST practice very much before playing him! I got 40 cities with the same map by 400 B.C., BUT THAT WAS 900 YEARS LATER. I think I had about 30 cities by 1000 B.C.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
quinns
|
|
J-Bytheway -- First, again, thanks for all the work on the map. The more I see it the more depth it unveils.
I believe there is an error on the COMP2 map that may prove to be quite significant during play, however. Look at the southern large lake with the single tile island in the center. It is surrounded by four PEARL goods. I believe you meant for this large lake island to be surrounded by CRAB goods to match the southern small lake island that is surrounded by CRAB. The northern lake islands are surrounded by all PEARLS, so in conformance with your altering the type of good, I would have thought the southern lake islands would be surrounded by all CRABS. I think that these islands will be huge trade centers, but the dissymmetry will cause the north to be in a better monopoly position. You will see what I mean if you look at the large and small lakes for both northern and southern positions.
Last edited by quinns on 24-05-2002 at 19:10
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yoda
|
 |
PG, BC, Canada
Nov 2000 time: 21:13
|
|
quote: Originally posted by J Bytheway
Attached is an updated version, fixing the bug noted by quinns and also another scenario which is the same thing with some goods removed. There are now no quadruples and fewer triples. Both tested on hotseat for a few turns. |
I have tested the new map. I think it will work just fine. Congratulations to jbytheway! Removing the river and the extra goods slows things down and even in modern age, science moves fast but not too fast (depending on how a person plays it of course).
One more BIG problem I see. Pollution! With all that lush production ground, any game that goes to nukes (and most should go there at least), I suspect we will have major pollution problems. Floods, wasted land, etc... Is this really what we want to see for the "end game" of the tournament games? I strongly suggest turning pollution off. I played out to 1250ad and found that even with basically a single player (second player had 2 cities...), pollution disaster was only a matter of 70 turns away (I was building recycling plants). I was just getting to nukes at that point. Double the pollution for two players and you are going to have a disaster in Modern Age.
I don't know if any of you have played out games into disasters, I have. The flood isn't too bad, but the radiation problems (every few turns) basically turns 70% of the land black. And, it isn't evenly distributed. In other words, one person can get unlucky and get knocked off the growth curve simply because of luck, not skill.
yoda
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yoda
|
 |
PG, BC, Canada
Nov 2000 time: 21:13
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Swissy
I thought everyone wanted a test under the toughest settings. That is why there was such a demand for 1 settler and 100 gold. If you want a real test, leave pollution on. The contest is to see who the best player is, not who can generate the most production. If you have no pirating and no pollution these games will turn into production fests. |
Problem is, if one player were to control his pollution problem, but the other doesn't... BOTH get nuked by the disasters. The effects hit the planet, not the player. Therefore, it ends up being whoever can produce the most before their ground gets destroyed. So, either way it's a production fest. I don't mind playing with pollution on, but the point I'm trying to make is what type of end game do we want to have? Players struggling to survive on a black rock or players using their skills to win either by the space race or by military conquest? If we could somehow eliminate the disasters but leave pollution in play, that would be the best possible result. Anyone who suggests that you can play through a series of disasters obviously hasn't played with them yet!
yoda
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|