We will have one poll for each, but since they are so closely related, one discussion thread should be best. The choice we make for one of them will likely decide the other one to a great degree.

For map size we have the choice between: duel, tiny, small, standard, large, huge

For game speed we have the choice between: quick, standard, epic, marathon

Without getting too mathematical I would like to point out how the cost factors for game speeds work. There is a cost factor for units and a cost factor for everything else (cost of buldings, culture required for border expansion, tech costs, etc.).

They are as follows (units/everything else):

Quick: 80% / 66%
Standard: 100% / 100%
Epic: 125% / 150%
Marathon: 200% / 300%

This shows that the cost of units is relatively high compared to everything else on fast game speeds and low on the slow game speeds. This greatly influences the game and I believe we should take it into consideration.

Regarding mapsize we have to think of that there is a total of 5 teams. We probably dont wan't the extremes: huge, tiny or duel. And the mapsize should be somewhat proportional to the game speed (and vice versa), with the slow speeds being best for large maps and the quick speeds being best for small maps. If we make them unproportional we will have:
quick speed/large map - peaceniks paradise
slow speed/small map - warmongers heaven
... or that might be what we want, depending on our plans :mischief:

Thanks for the breakdown, Theoden.

I'll throw one example out there, to expound on your very good points.

If we truly want to be Saladin, again, just for the sake of example. We want some space for atleast five to seven cities (depending on resource locations and subsequent spacing). More than that will likely be too great a drain on our treasury (since we aren't organized or financial). [I'm ignoring state property and the like because it comes so late in the game]

With five other civs, we probably want to limit their territory max, so not a huge map, and maybe not even a large one. Tiny would be cool if we all wanted to try for a one-city challenge, but somehow I doubt that would ever fly....

More importantly, since we would be focusing on buildings and culture as much as possible, we would benefit from the skewed percentages of the "quick" time option.

IMHO, "quick" should be the time we should really go for anyway, regardless of the map size, because of the sheer monstrosity of this endeavor. The quick speed will make reaching a victory condition possible within a reasonable time as opposed to still playing this game a year or two from now. (can you imagine doing this on marathon?? I'll have grandchildren before we're done)

Hope this helps.

I would prefer to play on standard and standard. That way we don't get into the issues of relative cost bosuses and the like. Just play the way the game designers envisioned it. Should be fairly quick to play with adequate size for expansion of each civ and resource spacing.

I agree, Standard, Standard:goodjob:

Standerd. Great people generating is not enhanced on quick I dont think, and we would do better to be able to get our great people at more controlled intervals then quick.

For speed, I'd say standard so there aren't any skews.

For size, small would normally have 6 civs, right? So 5 would be just right. Putting 5 civs on a world sized for 8 (with a standard map) leaves a lot of space and potentially unbalances it in favor of a team with a lot of fast units.

Daveshack makes a good point. If it is just going to be 5 civs in the game with no comp civs then we should play on the appropriate size map.

You have to take into acount this map is NOT randomly generated. Giving Sirian more room to "innovate" is good. I don't beleive he will let it be Totally unbalanced