Civilization Wars 2.34 (Ent16 Update)

[Quetra]

Link to map (or load code if it's on the public hosting bot) 3k5tu , or http://www.epicwar.com/maps/265998/
Slot layout if applicable (for example, if some slots need to be closed): N/A
Number of players until autostart: 6
Problems with map (like cheats and such), if any: No known cheats.
Why the map should be autohosted: A non gameplay update to the current map on Ent16, designed to make the game easier to learn.
Special notes:

Hello,

I'm Civiliznations, and I've been playing Civ Wars for many years now. RaptorXI gave me the unprotected map a while back to make new updates after I obtained permission from the original creators, who also gave me control of the map on Hiveworkshop. (Although, Raptor has since released the unprotected map for anyone to edit.)

I have created a version which follows on from 2.33. There are no gameplay changes whatsoever. What I did was fully update all the descriptions in the game. The previous descriptions were severly lacking in their effectiveness. Most unit spawns and technologies had long paragraphs relating to the history behind them, while failing to describe what they do properly.

For example, almost all technologies did not include what sea units they unlock in their description, and in order to learn about what units are effective and weak against, you have to click on the unit themselves to read the attack/armour types, which gives more complicated information than is necessary for new players. Plus, most do not do this.

It's not just bad for new players either. Some units have 'hidden' abilities, which are not described anywhere within the game. I would wager that the vast majority of players do not even know they exist. (For example, the fact that the Fusilier has a 15% damage reduction against Gunpowder units.) There is also information which is plain wrong; as an example, the elite chances described in the game do not correlate with the actual chances in the code.

I attempted to fix these problems in this overhaul. I removed the lore from all the descriptions,(If you are interested in reading them for the technologies, you can still do so ingame by looking at the technology path buildings on the cliff above middle lane) and I also provided brief descriptions of the general strengths and weaknesses of units. In addition I added information like research time for technlogies, and the next upgrade paths for buildings.

I hope you can consider uploading this version to the Ent16 bots. I think this update will help new players a lot, which will improve the quality of games for new players and old players alike. If any civ player wants to check the map ingame and verify that everything is correct, feel free to.

Footnote: I have also created later versions with gameplay changes which I would like to discuss with the community, and then perhaps get uploaded to the bot if there is interest. Would it be possible to add a Civilization Wars Development Thread under 'Map Development'?

[Noctosphere]

Personally, I approuve.
Sometime, game are ruined by noobs, if there is any way to prevent that, it's obviously a good idea

[RaptorXI]

You didn't have to mention that you have my permission just to get your project accelerated, everyone could update the open version of my own release. It's about the map and it's quality, not who about the "made by XYZ".

Are you serious this time? When you got the map for the first time you stopped at a beta.
But then again, what's this for example?

If any civ player wants to check the map ingame and verify that everything is correct, feel free to.

I don't want more bugs in the game than there are already. You can at least do a single test run to check if it loads.

Anyway, updates are better than no updates.
Tooltips and advanced unit descriptions with stats might help new players to find a way into the game, but the very most players were always there and know all this, so won't change too much. There were large discussions at the old forum and at this one, maybe you will spend the effort and read.

This would be my suggestion:
- fix all known bugs and the desync problem,
- improve all weak starting strategies aka noobshit,
- for a game on a competitive, professional level try to make the game as much balanced as possible.

Clear up the old stuff first before creating new things. Find people you can trust, look for the dialogue with the community, take advice from pros, listen to those who want the the best for the game, not for their themselves. If your aim is to make the game popular again, getting some attention on other websites like THW will surely help to grab new players.
I can replace the current 2.33 map with your release at the steam group but for future versions you should stop your show a bit.

[Quetra]

I don't want more bugs in the game than there are already. You can at least do a single test run to check if it loads.

That's not what I meant. I've tested it myself of course. I meant that players should check over the information I've written in the descriptions to make sure I didn't make any errors as to counters, etc.

Tooltips and advanced unit descriptions with stats might help new players to find a way into the game, but the very most players were always there and know all this, so won't change too much. There were large discussions at the old forum and at this one, maybe you will spend the effort and read.

That's not entirely true, I think a lot of people don't know some of the 'hidden' abilities in the game which aren't described anywhere.

I thought it was a good idea to propose this version first, since there is no gameplay changes. I already have a beta ready for the version after this. It is a revision of my old beta, with some other new things as well. I'd like to post the changelog in a thread for that version rather than here.

Clear up the old stuff first before creating new things. Find people you can trust, look for the dialogue with the community, take advice from pros, listen to those who want the the best for the game, not for their themselves. If your aim is to make the game popular again, getting some attention on other websites like THW will surely help to grab new players.
I can replace the current 2.33 map with your release at the steam group but for future versions you should stop your show a bit.

I don't catch your meaning with the show part. But, I have begun testing 3v3 games already, played about 5 matches today, and got some feedback. When there is a thread up, I will direct people there to discuss, ending it with a poll once there is sufficient discussion as to whether people would like the version to be uploaded.

It's not necessary to update the steam group with my version just yet. I made an announcement on the steam group simply to alert people that I'm creating some betas, it's the only one I will need to make.

Are you serious this time? When you got the map for the first time you stopped at a beta.

I was always serious about making a new version, which is why I made betas so quickly. The problem last time was I was not serious enough about getting sufficient tests and feedback, which is a much harder task. This time I have resolved to do that.

[RaptorXI]

I already have a beta ready for the version after this. It is a revision of my old beta, with some other new things as well.

Talking about the 2.34 map right now, not the next beta. I would also like to ask why you didn't contact @X.G.Death3 and ask for the open version of his map since this is the latest official release?

EDIT: Talked to XG and you got his approve.

[MedSci]

improve all weak starting strategies

Yes, pros never build Towers, Granaries or fast Pottery. And all upgrade into Savage.

[Kenderfail]

I believe I have read through every description now.

I think that the new descriptions provide more game knowledge and would be more helpful for new players than the existing ones.

A few things: most technology seems to only list the units they are the only required technology for.

The info for Invulnerable has a typo saying upgrade to desroyer.

Lighthouse has a typo in its description for spawn.
Rifleman is misspelled in the description for sharpshooters.
More shipyards should include details of what they land.
If I remember correctly, machinery says it is required for riflemen, but I may have misread that and will check again.

Also, an unusual bug occurred during the test game for reading descriptions. While as a side lane with 0/9 build limit used you are unable to build at middle lane and it warns you about negative income. This is likely just an existing civ bug and unrelated to any change. Overall, I definitely think the improved descriptions help.

[Quetra]

Also, an unusual bug occurred during the test game for reading descriptions. While as a side lane with 0/9 build limit used you are unable to build at middle lane and it warns you about negative income.

Been a known bug for a while. Not sure how to fix it but I'll take a look for 2.35.

I'll take a look at all those text issues and fix them.

More shipyards should include details of what they land.

Great idea! I'll do that.

Edit: Updated the map with the suggested changes.

A few things: most technology seems to only list the units they are the only required technology for.

That was a conscious decision, as I thought it would be too confusing to add units which require multiple technologies.

Yes, pros never build Towers, Granaries or fast Pottery. And all upgrade into Savage.

I have changes for Savages in the next version. Early towering of mid is a strategy employed sometimes though, and since the game is more about lane control, it's not a problem that towering is not 'viable' early. Granaries become necessary later, but it's never going to be a good strategy early on because 9 camps is optimal for the beginning, and mid control negates the need for investing significant amounts of gold in granaries.

[RaptorXI]

Early towering of mid is a strategy employed sometimes though, and since the game is more about lane control, it's not a problem that towering is not 'viable' early. Granaries become necessary later, but it's never going to be a good strategy early on because 9 camps is optimal for the beginning, and mid control negates the need for investing significant amounts of gold in granaries.

I am missing some reflection about statements like this. Civilization Wars is not just take a lane, tech and market. I continued the map once because i love the game, playing in a team against an enemy, (fun) modes, the terrain, technology description, unit models,rushing and counter-rushing, details, everything.
There should be no optimal builds, it's just just boring. The variety of options to chose of makes the game interesting for me, not determined winning strategies. There may be certain game mechanics and on the other side no-goes, but it's no reason to keep everything as it was only because it was always like that. And as a mapper, it's your job to take care and work on it.

If stuff like towers suck anyway, why bother improving them a bit? Or remove them completely? Anyway, thanks for the patch. I replaced your map with the old one at the Steam Group.

[Quetra]

There should be no optimal builds, it's just just boring. The variety of options to chose of makes the game interesting for me, not determined winning strategies. There may be certain game mechanics and on the other side no-goes, but it's no reason to keep everything as it was only because it was always like that. And as a mapper, it's your job to take care and work on it.

There will always be 'meta' in games like this, using 'optimal builds'. My aim is to create as many of them as possible, so that there are diverse choices you make while playing, like you said. And I agree with you totally about not keeping things the same because 'thats how they've always been.'

[aRt)Y]

@Civiliznations Hi,

has the map been tested? Or do you think everything works fine given no "game changes" have been made?

Regarding the sub-forum, please send a pm to hazardous and me, thanks.

[Quetra]

@art)Y

Yes, the map has been tested, and everything works fine. It'll play exactly like 2.33.

I will send a PM about that, thanks!

[aRt)Y]

I guess we can update then.

@Hazardous

[HazarDous]

Updated.