I have noticed that a lot of people, talking about game situations here in the forums, often throw out some game setting information where they mention cramming 2-3 times as many AIs as standard for the map size - things like 18 AIs on a small map or 20 AIs on a standard.

Now, I wouldn't criticize anyone for how they play with settings to make a game they enjoy, but I it seems to me that once you hit Noble/Prince difficulty that adding Civs above standard makes the game easier on balance - and packing them in starts to become shooting fish in a barrel.
(Maybe Deity would be exponentially harder since there the AI starts with an extra settler, right?)

I know there are added challenges from more AIs - obviously more competition for wonders and beelines, plus more complicated diplomacy and the biggest one - tighter competition for quality early expansion.

But, you would gain a massive advantages because it adds huge value to strategies only humans actively employ - early rushing/warmongering to take out enemy capitals. Not only would taking out opposing Civs bestow advantages in giving the 'lebensraum' for your Civ to REX more than everyone else, it also provides the highest-quality city locations coming from their capitals, and the added city quality is much more important when the other Civs are packed in and unable to expand. Not to mention that the likelihood of having ripe rushing pickings nearby are significantly higher the more you pack them in.

Not to mention the bonuses humans gain when the other Civs are far more likely to war, and religious continental hegemony is unlikely (allowing more diplomatic manipulation). Since the human will always have big advantages over the AI in warring, it tilts all its advantages to the human, do you agree? Or am I missing something here?

I think adding AIs makes the game easier because it magnifies the "AIs suck at war" factor by a ton. Since the AI is so poor at strategic warring, then it stands to reason that the human player will be able to take better advantage of the expansion limitations and pick and choose his "REX by the Sword" targets with a much higher efficiency.

AIs are at their best when left alone with large expanses of land to settle and build. You get AI's like Sitting Bull, Mansa, Zara, etc on big unpopulated continents, they become late-game nightmares. But if you limit their ability to expand by adding more and more AIs, they cannot make the adjustment and end up being stupid about how they handle their "quest" for more land.

Generally more AIs -> easier for the human, imo.

-More trading/tech whoring opportunities
-Since everyone's initial land grab is smaller there is less of a difference between your maintenance (@ Emp+) and the "Noble" handicapped AI.
-Warring is easier because there are more targets, and less war weariness is incurred eliminating a Civ.
-Inter AI conflict is more likely -> more backstabbing/bribing opportunities.

Others have different opinions, however.

I find it depends a little on the map size. For standard size games yes the default is the prefect amount. With the large/huge size options there can really be too much room with just the standard # of civs, especially on some map types. On a huge/hemispheres with the preset # of AI's would end up with 20 city's before reaching another civs cultural boarders. That really messes up the game. For huge I would recommend around 14 AI's.

However a few map types like medium & small are smaller. You really need to get a feel for it.

and yes more civs = easier.

I don't think anybody plays 18 civs on a standard map regularly. I've played a few games like that (it's even better on a duel map) just for fun. It's a change of pace from regular games. But Civ is just a game, regular games get boring sometimes, so who cares? It's all about having fun.

I usually add a few civs to the game. (I play on Standard size maps). To me it just feels really empty when there are less than eight rivals.
Also, it definitely does make it easier if only because of the increased trading opportunities

The worst thing about playing with 18 civs is the diplomacy gets a bit complicated now and then..doing it on a standard map seems like an exercise in masochism.

The worst thing about playing with 18 civs is the diplomacy gets a bit complicated now and then..doing it on a standard map seems like an exercise in masochism.

That's why you practice pointy stick diplomacy. That, or only trade with 1 religion and completely ignore the other side.

On a huge/hemispheres with the preset # of AI's would end up with 20 city's before reaching another civs cultural borders.


I agree on large/huge maps, I started trying to play those maps after playing mostly small/standard for a long time and I can't get used to how far apart starting positions are with the standard # of AIs.

For huge I would recommend around 14 AI's.

really? that not alot at all, in fact that really few... i usually play on standard maps with 10 civs, and it really doesnt feel like a lot. there is still space to get 4-5 cities up.

i dont find it harder or easier with more civs (i used to play with 6-7 civs on a standard map) i just find it more boring with fewer civs. i really quite like the europe scenario of everyone being crammed in and fighting for space.

I agree on large/huge maps, I started trying to play those maps after playing mostly small/standard for a long time and I can't get used to how far apart starting positions are with the standard # of AIs.


Indeed. On a large map with the default number of players (9), war is usually out of the question until the maceman era since you'll have room to build around 10-14 cities before touching another civ's cultural borders. I also notice that AIs seem to tech slower and wonders are built much later (pyramids in 500AD kind of thing) with the default number of players, but add one or two more AIs and this doesn't seem to be a problem. Anyone know why?

I usually add one more AI on large maps now. Space for about 5-8 cities, and tech speed and wonder building seems to be about right.

Large maps used to be fine with the default number of players, but they must have changed something in one of the Warlords patches since I've had to add extra AIs since then to avoid the problems described above.

That's why you practice pointy stick diplomacy. That, or only trade with 1 religion and completely ignore the other side.

I agree with this. Pick a side and smack the other side down. Once you've killed 2-3 civs the game is yours, as just by doing so you're invariably the largest civ on the map already and will be for the rest of the game most likely.

I remember that i started out playing warlords huge maps 18 civs immortal on epic speed. It's much easier than standard normal. You've got first class trade routes and you're constantly researching 100% trading things like lit and drama around. You have to build some military but basically only watch your neighbours carefully with diplo. Also you have more options diplomatically to bribe and also more choice which civ(s) to attack.

i agree with the op. while it sounds interesting the actual play is a few civs get bumped off, and your at where you should have been a long time ago except now you have captured workers.
tried adding just one civ extra to standard fractal and the result was the same.