Some opinions rose to slightly change the map.

This is in order to make the map a little less tight to play. Secondly to balance Agriculture. Not for major changes.

I created this topic for any ideas on this.

It's very easy to say all poplimits should be increased by two and all large areas ahould be split in two, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I think the map is nearly finished, but a few errors should be fixed.

The reason for this topic is to collect data for problems or ideas on changes.

The changes on the map are easily tested in my opinion like this:




This way you can quickly see the problems.

Players might be assigned more than one civilization if you can't get people together.


Phase 9 can also be: shuffle the commodities and clamities of the appropriate stack number and have players just draw the normal way, and then shuffle all drawn cards together (except the NT) and give each player the cards they held and then resolve calamities

Step one:

add the new volcanoes:

The new locations now are:

Mt. Damavand
Media / Hecatompylos
Parthia

Mt. Erta Ale
Danokil / Barbaria
Nubia

Dach-I-Navar
Gandhara / Kuhwat
Kushan

West volcanos did not change:

Mt. Vesusvius
Neapolis / Campania
Rome

Mt. Etna
Milazzo / Syracuse
Rome

Mt. Thera
Thera
Minoa


Here's a map image based on the old map. (so you cannot see the changed borders like mentioned above, but you CAN see the right locations).

I don't know for sure if this is right option, but as we were discussing this subject we came to the 'strange' map part where two '0' areas border the map edge, also the areas are quite large.

Maybe splitting this singel area in two could change a bit. leaving the pop limit '0' still leaves you with the first subject, so, it could become '1' and '1'.

Maybe a rule change instead of a map change.

Right now it isn't allowed to build a wilderness city on a '0' area.

Is it good to allow players to do so, maybe at 13 or 14 tokens? or doesn't this make sense.

This rule would also provide some more room, though it can be kinda unrealistic historically. or am I wrong?

The reason you can't is both historical and because it would be very easy to build wilderness cities an a number of larger 0 areas because of how many areas they border.

Hi, and happy new year to everybody

I think that one of the best quality of Civiliz is that is a "simple" game. I mean, few basic rules but a lot of strategic chooises.

If the 0 areas are a problem, i think that one possible solution is to divide the areas in smaller tokens areas, so there are few border to other areas and is more difficult to build wilderness city in it (so without change the number of tokens that needs to make a W.city); even if you in the new rules want to permit to build city in a 0 area.

You can change them in a 1 areas, but doing so there are other changes to considerate:
1- more space for civiliz near the edge of the board.
2- players'll build very often city in a new "1" border area, there are eaisly made (because they are a lot of confinant region) and really strategic site, they can make a strong border for enemy civilization.

Sorry again for my english and thanks a lot for your great job.

How about using Agriculture to improve a 0-area to a 1-area
which could be used to build a city with 12 token?

This would also enlarge the map as the map-border-players are
able to build a few cities more than right now.

In fact this really makes sense.

Whenever you hold Agriculture, you may read the '0' as '1'. THis way you should be abled to build a wilderness city in it.

I do agree that without this, a '0' should not give you the chance for a city in the normal way.

On the other side it also increases the importance of Agriculture,
something we wanted to decrease actually in another discussion line.

That is true.

I'm not for changing this rule no matter what, but mentioned this as idea. I also thought of maybe having this 0-city require 13 or 14 tokens. But indeed, the simple basic rules make this game a great game.

This is something I always try to keep in mind.

Let's put this optional rule on the sideline for any future adjustments.

What about having cities placed on a 0-area must be supported by three tokens rather than two? (and four tokens instead of three when the holder has Cultural Ascendancy.)
This makes pop0-cities possible, but less popular (you also could get the city on a pop-1 area with the same effect) and Agriculture is not a prerequisite for building cities on a pop0-area.
There also is another problem with Agriculture as prerequisite: Should the city remain when it is converted (by a calamity or a special ability) by a player not holding Agriculture?

For if we are changing small things on the map, me is sent some statistics about the map by Gerard (as an aid for the A.S.T. discussion), and I set some results of his research about the east map and the west map:
Number of areas: 147(West) + 153(East)
Population: 242(West) + 247(East)
City sites: 57(West) + 52(East)
Flood areas: 5(W) + 8(E) without -, 6(W) + 10(E) with white - and 3(W) + 1(E) with black city sites. Total is 14(West) + 19(East).
Volcano Areas: 2(W) + 4(E) without - and 3(W) + 2(E) with (white) city sites. Total is 5(West) + 6(East).
Yes, in theory all players can put his nine cities on population 1 areas and support them with 18 tokens, so all players can hold nine cities without any player having Agriculture, but in practice there are not that much population 1 areas (but 8 cities of which one on a pop-2 area for each player is possible.)

If these statistics are right, I propose that those changes makes the differences more equal.
We can move the volcano on the east without city sites to its right position in the middle of an area, and put a city site on that area.
We can split Phoenicia and Syria into three population 2 areas, two on the west map associated with Assyria.
We can shrink the flood plain from Babylon, because Babylon is not so good anymore.
We can put some additional city sites on areas associated with Indus, to make it really an "East-Egypt."
And seen from this view, I also agree with the proposed map changes earlier on this topic.

I don't think this is the right option. It makes it a little more complex every round. When you require more tokens to build only (which is easier cause 0's border more areas) you have a one time penalty and don;t have to be bothered by it anymore. Once it's annexed it remains a city like any other by all means. Only building it required more (tokens and or agriculture)

There's no diference either in annexing a regural wilderness city currently.

Once it's reduced the new player is not abled to buld it again.

Playtest MerlokDD jnuary 3rd:



To me this seems in line with adjusting the map to increase room.

I think in general, we should consider to change something to make the games shorter.

No group will play over 13 hours on a single day, so this should be the maximum, not the average. Otherwise the game misses target.

I think creating some more room, to allow players having more cities does reduce need for conflict bu also creates a little more wealth, which indirectly result in more purchases on the higher cards. Which in return both brings in more fun and make players meet the AST requirements.