[SPOILERS] PBEM 10 Lurker THREAD

[Emperor K]

Ok so here are the screenshots of the map. I am unable to add iron or horses for some reason. If there is any one that know how to help in that regard please let me know.

[Emperor K]

Let me know what you guys think.

[Woden]

Each resource has certain tile requirements. It can be a pain as I don't think the requirements are listed anywhere. I believe Iron can't be next to water (lakes or rivers) and horses have to be on grassland. Not sure if there are other requirements but those 2 jump out at me.

[Emperor K]

OK I will take a look.

[Cornflakes]

From the screenshots, you are in the game, not the world builder. You cannot make any changes in game, only in the map editor. If you rolled that map in game I don’t know if there is any way to keep it and get it loaded in world builder unless you can somehow find the map seed. I always start by rolling the map in the world builder.

[Emperor K]

let me get you some world builder shots, forgot you can't see the resources. I made it in world builder, I wanted to make sure my city state fixes worked, and just took those shots. Will get you some better ones.

[Emperor K]

OK hopefully this helps, added some iron and horses (thanks woden)

Greeks starting area

Kongo starting area

Aztec starting area

Egypt starting area

[Emperor K]

I got a pretty good grasp of things, except rivers. My thoughts were maybe a flood plains area for egypt. Not sure what else to change, looks like everyone has access to iron / horses and niter, at least 1 source pretty close. Multiple sources are a farther away.

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Let me see, trying to do a better job of this than I did with PBEM9's map - I think I'm getting better at knowing what to look for.

Easiest first check was that every player has a nearby natural wonder for the Astrology inspiration. That looks good, there's Crater Lake for Greece, Tsingy for Kongo & Aztecs, and the Pantanal for Egypt. Everyone's pretty equal here. 

Next check, has everyone got nearby city-states? Yes, this looks right - Kongo SHOULD be first to #3, given the location of his starting warrior, and everyone else has a backline city-state. Kongo might be a little unlucky here, but I don't think it's too major - they might only get #3, while most of the others should get at least 2 first-to bonuses. 
I'd say Greece and Egypt are clearly better here, then the Aztecs, and then Kongo is worst off.

Third check, has everyone got strategic resources? Well, Kongo has 2 horses and iron at the capital, they're fine. Greece has only 1 sem-distant horse, but lots of iron. Aztecs have only one horse and iron nearby, and both will require settling marginal cities. Otherwise there's nothing for miles. Egypt has one easy horse, but only the one, and the iron will be a little bit of a challenge. They're not as bad off as the Aztecs, but still not ideal. 
Kongo is clearly better here, then Greece, then the Egyptians, then the Aztecs.

Fourth check, luxuries. Egypt has access to 4 easily - mining gypsum (yay), plantation citrus (yay!), plantation incense (eh), and camp furs (bleh), plus some pearls later. Aztecs have access to the same 4 (and pearls), plus some dyes and marble, but they have to settle awkward cities to get 'em. They don't have a lot of duplicates, but with their civ ability I think they're in just the right place. Kongo has access to a LOT of dyes (plantations, lame) and then some slightly distant truffles (camps, bah) and marble (a quarry, okay), and one source of jade (yay, a mine!). Not as well-off as the Aztecs, slightly worse than Egypt since they mostly ahve the faith-boosting dyes and not the growth-boosting citrus (and Egypt has incense anyway). Greece has access to LOTS of jade and marble, good for culture-generating mines, and has a bit of dyes and truffles, too. I think it's okay that they ahve access to a limited variety, since they have a disproportionate amount of good improvements for 'em. 

Overal, I rate the Aztecs as in the best spot, then Greece, then Egypt, and Kongo last. 

Fifth check, access to freshwater. This looks good - everyone has access to lots of broad river valleys, lakes, or both. The Aztecs are a minor concern here - their freshwater is in the tundra, mostly taken by a city-state, mostly in a desert, or mostly over mountains and contested by another player (Kongo). They'll probably capture the nearby city-states, so they won't be too cramped, and that will open up another valley to them, so this isn't a big deal.

Sixth check, bonus resources and tile yields around the capital. 

Egypt: 2 first-ring 4-yield tiles, some stone and wheat. No animals for the Horseback Riding bonus. No floodplains. : Lots of hills and forests for chopping in further rings. Probably the best capital. 
Greece: 2 first-ring 4-yield tiles, but nothing much beyond that. Lots of desert hills, lots of mountains, really nearby tundra. What would happen if we moved them out of the mountains and either east or west into one of those river valleys? Just spitballing here. Still probably the second-best start.
Kongo: 1 4-yield tile, but lots of first-ring desert!    A few food resources, some stone, but not many hills. The spot upriver seems much better, but we could always let Kongo settle that themselves. Not sure if these guys are better or worse off than the Aztecs. 
Aztec: NO 4-yield tiles in the first ring, lots of wheat, very few nearby hills. Moving them over towards those forested hills would give them probably the best capital site, with 4 4-yield tiles in 1st or 2nd rings, 4 sources of wheat, and some sheep. No luxuries or strategics at the capital site itself if it were moved. 

So overall, I think Egypt is in the best shape, with good luxuries, a solid capital location, access to strategic resources, tons of settling sites, and lots of nearby city-states. The Aztecs have the best luxuries, but a terrible strategic resource situation. Their settling is also cramped unless they capture their nearest city-state, and a somewhat gimped capital will slow them. Kongo's in an okay spot. They have a mediocre capital, mediocre chances at city-states, and mediocre luxuries, but they have great potential for expansion and unparalleled access to strategic resources to defend themselves. I think they're okay. Greece is also okay-  not the best at anything, not the worst. 

So, what does this mean for balance? Eh, I'm not sure. If we could add strategics for Aztecs, I think they'd be fine, and I think it would all balance out. Other posible changes would be modifying some of Kongo's dyes to be more useful luxuries, or moving the Greeks out of their mountain-heavy capital.

[Emperor K]

I did some minor edits, trying to keep each area a little unique. Also they wanted standard world age, so I have been removing a hill each time I placed one. I did add a couple to the Aztec start.

Egypt Area

Added a few more floodplains to the area. Iron and horses will have to be settled towards.

Aztec area

Attempted to make the area a little more desirable without going over board.

Kongo area

Added some hills and removed some desert.

Greece area

Did not change any thing. Both greece and aztec have lots of mountains. So greece may have a good first city there expansion options are a bit tougher. It is highly unlikely that greece will get an iron in the second city, unless he grabs BW first.

Kongo as mentioned has lots of land, so hindering the first city a bit doesn't seem unfair. 

Egypt, really wanted them to get lots of floodplains, but not sure how much editing you guys think should be done. 

I probably changed about 20 tiles prior to the first posting. Some mountains and deserts were horrible, effectively forcing aztecs to go for egypt. DOes this map look better?