I think we should have a little bit more standard land maps. Kinda only have high plains and arkansas that are really standard atm. At least, in the tournement map pool.
And at least 1 high res map! It's fine if not all maps are balanced, but something is wrong if all of the exceptions lean towards aggressive styles.
I think we should have a little bit more standard land maps. Kinda only have high plains and arkansas that are really standard atm. At least, in the tournement map pool.
And at least 1 high res map! It''s fine if not all maps are balanced, but something is wrong if all of the exceptions lean towards aggressive styles.
don''t Arkansas and high Plains count as high resource maps? At least hunt wise both maps have 3 hunts that you can have on top of your tc by age 2 with relative ease.
calmyourtits wrote:And at least 1 high res map! Its fine if not all maps are balanced, but something is wrong if all of the exceptions lean towards aggressive styles.
dont Arkansas and high Plains count as high resource maps?
Not in the current pool. The first versions of Kamchatka had more hunts than the final version iirc, so that may have been a good one. And FP Great plains has high res although that map overdid it slightly.
But I wouldn't mind seeing a map with as much res or slightly less as FP GP and a different design. Map control is still important there for the record, it just becomes important slightly later in the game which makes a different set of builds viable. And again, this theoretical new map shouldn't be the average, it should be an exception but imo it should exist in the pool.
The first version of kamchtka had 9 animals per herd, the current one has 7. 9x3= 27 caribous in tc is like 21 bisons. Plus the goats and the starting hunt. It just was way too much. Arkansas is a high res map actually. 6 turkeys and 9x2 deers, plus 3 berries. Also 2 mines just like every map. High plains is also high resources with bison+deer herd in tc. Also 2 starting mines and a granted 3rd mine.
In general, high resource maps: -arizona, arkansas, high plains, hudson bay, kamchatka, manchuria, pampas sierras
As long as there are at least 3 berries relatively low hunt is not too bad. What really kills matchups are maps without berries. One backherd or unlucky hunt spawn and you can basically resign. (Isn't for example that small map where musket played French vs BS japan designed like that.) This type of map just eliminates certain civs.
An all berry map would be quality. Don't even need to clump up the bushes, just have them in ones dotted everywhere on the map. Would be really interesting to see how civs play out on this style of map.
I think we should have a little bit more standard land maps. Kinda only have high plains and arkansas that are really standard atm. At least, in the tournement map pool.
And at least 1 high res map! It''s fine if not all maps are balanced, but something is wrong if all of the exceptions lean towards aggressive styles.
garja wrote:The first version of kamchtka had 9 animals per herd, the current one has 7. 9x3= 27 caribous in tc is like 21 bisons. Plus the goats and the starting hunt. It just was way too much. Arkansas is a high res map actually. 6 turkeys and 9x2 deers, plus 3 berries. Also 2 mines just like every map. High plains is also high resources with bison+deer herd in tc. Also 2 starting mines and a granted 3rd mine.
In general, high resource maps: -arizona, arkansas, high plains, hudson bay, kamchatka, manchuria, pampas sierras
Indonesia and Baja california have fair resources especially considering the water.
The point is that the maps listed under "high resource maps" above are much more average from a balance perspective than those listed under "low resource maps": In general the extremes are significantly skewed towards the lower end.
Exactly. That''s my entire point' it''s the opinion of for example goodspeed and myself that such is the case, to one degree or another. That''s what we''re trying to say. I''m glad you see that now.
calmyourtits wrote:High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable
Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.
but the more res their are, the bigger chance most early game strategy gets somewhat discarded and people start playing it more like treaty 10.
I think some maps might slightly overdo it tbh. 1 decent starting hunt, a good and relatively large second one and a third one a bit out of range is best imo. 2 or even three hunts that could be herded to your base is just too much to me.
IMO its better to have 1 hunt close to your tc, second hunt to for herding and a third one for which you and your opponent should be fighting for. ') ( No sarcasm)
krichk wrote: For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge thebritish
This pool says that Garja has made an amazing set of maps. There is something for everyone (except the 9 people who voted for siberia. Im guessing thats just zutazuta though! ). I love every map in the garja map pool for the most part. High plains is the only one I do not really get excited about.
h2o wrote:This pool says that Garja has made an amazing set of maps. There is something for everyone (except the 9 people who voted for siberia. Im guessing thats just zutazuta though! ). I love every map in the garja map pool for the most part. High plains is the only one I do not really get excited about.
i dont get it why people love cascade range though :3 what civ can one play there other than india ?