Premade map D variant setup suggestion

[TomKy]

Now, the beta is out for a few weeks by now, I want to suggest a new set of premade maps which are intended to be as balanced as possible. I mentioned this in bugreports at this post: Suggesting new set of premade maps (D) during Alpha development. You can upvote there if you like this suggestion. (Edited: The images and links should be correct now, current latest map edits is v1.4 and some are still v1.2 and v1.3)

TI4 at BGA has A, B and C presets for maps for faster start setup, especially in turnbased games. A is the one from the rulebook. B and C are different variants created by the developer for varied setup, which in some cases does have unbalanced slices and is good enough for casual play, but for competetive play perhaps no the most balanced ones. You can also check out the Pre-made map discussion - at bugreports for some inputs during alpha test.

For future Arena support, I suggest a more balanced premade slices since a bad starting slice is not good for competetive play which has more balanced slices. These D variants I suggest here does in general also give easy access to mecatol. Each faction should have somewhat equal access to tech skips, resources and influence and no bad starting slices which should be fine for arena play and make as fair start as possible, which I don't feel its the case with current premade maps.


Version 1.4 - Premade map D variants for different player counts.
3 players (keeganw.github.io)


4 players (keeganw.github.io)


4 players with hyperlanes (keeganw.github.io)


5 players (keeganw.github.io)


5 players with hyperlanes (keeganw.github.io)


6 players (keeganw.github.io)


v1.0 - v1.2 -- v1.3
Latest Images of Suggested Maps at different player counts v1.4

These maps are just suggestions for a new row of a premade maps variants. For images of current A, B and C premade maps Look here in this thread

(You can also choose a setup to draft the tiles at setup, but this post is about adding another set of balanced premade setup with a premade map for faster setup, not a discussion about Player Build Map setup)

I decided to put it here since feedback might be nice and these premade map suggestion may be subject for changes.

[GTSchemer]

Feedback from other players would be good here, so I can eventually pass these maps to the publisher to see if they approve the final versions.

[lonnsjo-tommy]

Hi, I think they look really good overall.
My feedback would be to try and balance 4 and 5 without hyperlane a bit more. A few of the starting areas are a bit unbalanced, now i cant really see teh total resources on the adjecent to starting so it might be balanced. Maby add a few empty hexes?

[TomKy]

In the base game, there are no more hexes to be added in 4p setup, and only 1 tile is left out in 5p setup so not much empty spaces.

However I may look over and reajust if needed, there are some differences in the resources and influences in the player slices so I can readjust them. I will do a math and perhaps do a better balance in the 4 and 5p games.

Hi, I think they look really good overall.
My feedback would be to try and balance 4 and 5 without hyperlane a bit more. A few of the starting areas are a bit unbalanced, now i cant really see teh total resources on the adjecent to starting so it might be balanced. Maby add a few empty hexes?

Edit: Due to your feedback I have checked over the maps you mention and slightly updated the 4p map, and 5p map to make the resource/influence balance slightly better. 4p hyperlane map I have moved the alpha and beta wormholes to not being adjecent to the other wormholes as I overlooked that in the first version.

[tarongot]

My proposition of changes to 4 player's map, no hyperlines:

https://keeganw.github.io/ti4/?settings ... 43,35,42,0

Changes are minor :
1. Switching places of hex 22 with 24
2. Switching places of hex 29 with 32

That way all 4 players have mixed planet's types in theirs "slices", and player on "left" has no access to 2 planets for green tech.
Before that, player on "right" and player on "left" had easy access to 4 planets of ( (accordingly)) hazardous and industrial, while players "top" and "bottom" had mixed types of 2-3 each. Resource/culture values are similar after both changes.

I leave it for your consideration.

[TomKy]

My proposition of changes to 4 player's map, no hyperlines:

https://keeganw.github.io/ti4/?settings ... 43,35,42,0

Changes are minor :
1. Switching places of hex 22 with 24
2. Switching places of hex 29 with 32

That way all 4 players have mixed planet's types in theirs "slices", and player on "left" has no access to 2 planets for green tech.
Before that, player on "right" and player on "left" had easy access to 4 planets of ( (accordingly)) hazardous and industrial, while players "top" and "bottom" had mixed types of 2-3 each. Resource/culture values are similar after both changes.

I leave it for your consideration.

Yeah forgot to check that a player got 2 green tech skips, I will for sure swap tarmann for another tech planet in the center. Thanks for noticing that.

I need to think and analyze about the other stuff you mentioned and may also apply that change based on your input. Forcing a player to not have 4 of same type in their slice is also interesting so I may follow up on that. I will update it in the next week when I'm home from vacation.

If there is any other inputs on the other premade maps, I will also check and perhaps make changes and update those as well.

[tarongot]

Proposition of a minor change for 5 players map with hyperlines: changing beta and alpha tunnels with each other. That gives player near supernova 1 more resource, rest stays same, same planet type, same structure of map.

https://keeganw.github.io/ti4/?settings ... 36,0,45,26

[TomKy]

I've looked over recent feedback made modification according to your feedback, tarongot.

I've also added 1 more anomaly to the 5p hyperlane map in addition, but still keeping the 5 planet per slice + Quann which is contested equidistant on that map. Also made a minor adjustments to 6p map, removing 2 single tech skip planets and replaced those vefut/saudor (2/2).

[EuroGamez]

My question is, how are these balanced? Only in the resources/influece?

Cause looking at the 3 player map, only the bottom player has a decent shots at 4 planets of the same type for example.

Maps also need ot be balanced with objectives in mind. The best is usually to give each player, e.g. in a 3 player ap, one gets access to 3 easy cultural with 1 equidistant cultural. and then same for Hazardous and Industrial for the other players.

Also Effective resources and total resources are not the same thign. Also number of planets matter a lot more for objectives than just what they produce. Also access to a 3/x planet for potential SD is more important then getting a bunch of 2/2s.

Here s an example / attempt at a balancesd 3p map with why i'd prefer it over the one in the post avobe:

https://keeganw.github.io/ti4/?settings ... -1,24,0,33

All slices (counting the 6 most adjacent have a minimum of 4 resources or incluce), all slices have 3 of one planet type with a 4th avaialable 3 spaces away. Each slice has one open and one semi-open side, Uperovas protecting you in 3p is waaaaay to good! Each slice has 7 planets in their slice. They all have the possiblity to tget 3 tech planets though it is highly unlikely without negotiation.
Is it perfect, no, is it better than the A,B,C maps? Yes! =D

What d I base this on? I've played over 100 games on TI4 since it came out (most IRL) and consumed most TI4 strategy content and discussion

[TomKy]

My question is, how are these balanced? Only in the resources/influece?

Cause looking at the 3 player map, only the bottom player has a decent shots at 4 planets of the same type for example.

Maps also need ot be balanced with objectives in mind. The best is usually to give each player, e.g. in a 3 player ap, one gets access to 3 easy cultural with 1 equidistant cultural. and then same for Hazardous and Industrial for the other players.

Also Effective resources and total resources are not the same thign. Also number of planets matter a lot more for objectives than just what they produce. Also access to a 3/x planet for potential SD is more important then getting a bunch of 2/2s.

Here s an example / attempt at a balancesd 3p map with why i'd prefer it over the one in the post avobe:

https://keeganw.github.io/ti4/?settings ... -1,24,0,33

All slices (counting the 6 most adjacent have a minimum of 4 resources or incluce), all slices have 3 of one planet type with a 4th avaialable 3 spaces away. Each slice has one open and one semi-open side, Uperovas protecting you in 3p is waaaaay to good! Each slice has 7 planets in their slice. They all have the possiblity to tget 3 tech planets though it is highly unlikely without negotiation.
Is it perfect, no, is it better than the A,B,C maps? Yes! =D

What d I base this on? I've played over 100 games on TI4 since it came out (most IRL) and consumed most TI4 strategy content and discussion

Image on imgur
3 player (v1.41) at keeganw github


Your suggestion is completely different remade map, so I wont do that. However I consider to change the map so it still fits the style of the 3p map above and the 4p map, but decided to make empty spaces around mecatol, while balancing the map with objectives in mind as you suggested, so I moved some planets.

I moved the planets to avoid any players getting easy 4 same planet objectives from their starting planets, while keeping the map about the same style and keeping the equidistant maps as contested maps which may allow players to score objectives outside their closest planets.

Planets that are 3 spaces away in 3p D variant I do not consider part of any players starting slice (Abyz/Fria, Bereg/Lirtha, Thibah; similar as in 4p D variant), but contested planets which adds spice to the game and strongest planets are harder to reach as the reason of the placement of anomalies.


I post this image here before putting it in the first post, as I maybe do adjustments to the other maps.