No TP Maps

Anyone else miss no TP maps being in the map pool?
I liked that some civs are stronger and weaker depending on TPs. It seems bad for strategy diversification to only have TP maps…
On a side note, part of me wishes on the name/score display it wouldn’t show whether your enemy has built a TP or not, until it’s been scouted of course.
What do you think?

1 Like

Trade monopoly, I suppose you forgot about it.

I don’t know, sometimes the TP is very important to define a victory or a defeat. I’ve beaten players way better than me, just because we were on a map with no TP and they were at a disadvantage.
At the same time, there are civilizations like Spain, Ottomans and Germans that are ultimately dominating since that change.

2 Likes

If the priests could generate experience, the need for TP would not be so essential.

There could be a card that makes priests cheaper and generates experience garrisoned in churches (if they think it would be broken to have these qualities by default).

The card might look like this:

Priests are 50% cheaper and generate 0.20 experience per second. + A free priest, or + a church cart.
Priests limited to 5 and do not occupy population. (This is by default)

Nearly outdated stuff that could be useful. (Potential improvements)

2 Likes

I believe, with all the sources of exp out there today, there is no need to add more sources of experience.

5 Likes

I also liked that there were a couple of no tp maps and how it forced different strategies but then again I don’t generally play very tp dependent civs and maybe it’s harder for balance.

I’ve thought about that as well and I think it could be interesting. Would be a huge buff to native strats and stagecoach strats though.

You can still trade monopoly with nat tps and I could be wrong but I think you can take all the nat tps in the non tp maps that used to be in the map pool.

Perhaps the churches could stop generating experience by themselves and give this role to the priests.

No tp maps lead to less diversification of strategies. If it turns out that tp reliant civs are too strong, that’s a balance issue that will be investigated. The ranked map pool must be more consistent from map to map (hence “standard”) to eliminate a variable. Ideally every civ should have viable option(s) on each and every map in the standard set, and this just isn’t the case when it comes to no tp maps.

I also apply this logic to maps that have too many tps (depending on the layout), which can lead to some of these same tp reliant civs (i.e. Otto) overperforming on certain maps.

10 Likes

You can still trade monopoly with nat tps and I could be wrong but I think you can take all the nat tps in the non tp maps that used to be in the map pool.

I’m aware of that, but regardless, it would be extremely unbalanced not alertting the players of TPs taken. Be it by Route trading posts or Native trading posts (because of Trade Monopoly).
If it weren’t a thing I’d agree 100% with you that NTPs shouldn’t alert the players.

1 Like

Ah my apologies I misunderstood what part of the original post you were responding to. That’s a good point.

2 Likes

Chill :smiling_face:

I’ve always thought that NTPs shouldn’t be accounted for Trade Monopoly anyway. Many of them are behind/close to the players’ base, as they should have been in the first place, so it’s meaningless trying to keep all of them, because the enemy would have to attack your base anyway.

RTPs in othe other hand cut a fair and open part of the map that is always open to dispute. Furthermore, they are much more vulnerable since enemies can’t turtle around all of them.

I just want them to remove the maps with crabat.

1 Like

Port players in shambles