Philosophical, Imperialistic, and Industrial are stronger when the map is smaller. Don't believe me? Take a look:


In Civ 4 you can specialize your cities. You can have a GP farm, a super science city, a super gold city (shrines and merchant specialists), military production cities, etc. Great people and great generals further add to specialization options.

Now I was just thinking the other day...map size actually affects the viability of certain strategies. Some strategies are very powerful in smaller maps and weaker in larger maps. What do I mean? Let's look at it:

A smaller map means you have less cities and less units. You have less population and less tiles. These things scale with map size. You also have less units. But what things do not scale with map size? Great people, including great generals, and things like national wonders. Now it's true that on a huge map through the course of the game you will get more great generals than on a small map (due to more battles between more units) but it doesn't scale. For example, on a small map, through the course of the game, you might fight 100 battles and get 4 ggs. On a huge map, you might fight 500 battles (5 times as many) and get 7 ggs (not even twice the amount). With more cities on a large map you may get a few more great people, but it won't scale. You can make a super GP farm city on a small map and get nearly as many great people as you would on a larger map. Also, no matter the map size, you only get one wall street, one oxford uni, etc.

So why do I care? Because it drastically effects gameplay (I think anyway, which is why I'm posting this because I want feedback).

On a small map you will have fewer cities but nearly as many great people. Having a super specialized science city is much more important. You can run a specialist economy and settle great scientists in your beuracratic capital, build an academy, and have a city that pumps out 300-800 beakers or so. If you only have 4 or 5 other cities, this super science city will most likely produce more than half your total beakers. You can also build a holy shrine in a city and settle great merchants there, and build the wall street. This city will produce a lot of gold for you, regardless of where you set the slider.
This is drastically changed by map size. On a small map it seems that creating super cities is the way to go. On a large map, however, these cities would quickly lose importance. When you have dozens of cities and are producing thousands of beakers per turn, your super science city just isn't that important anymore. What's more important for that map is having tons of cities and cottages.
So it seems to me that running lots of specialists and settling great people to specialize cities is stronger on a small map. Probably stronger than running a cottage economy. On a large map, however, the cottage economy seems to win out. So is the philo trait better on a small map and the fin trait better on a large map? I think so.
This also has other implications. To run a standard liberal/democracy economy, one has to run universal suff, free speech, emancipation, free market, free religion, and then cottage spam all their cities. On a large map this seems like the best option. However, if you're playing on a small map and getting most of your beakers from a super science city, you might find that running representation is the best way to get the most science output. Also, in that case, cottages wouldn't be as important and you'd be free to build other improvements in your cities, like hammer improvements, such as watermills and workshops. Thus (and I'm just speculating here) civics like state property might be more powerful. Also, bureucracy might be more powerful than running free speech. Not having to depend on cottages for commerce really frees up your options with the civics. Police state, vassalage, nationalism come to mind.

And what about the other thing I mentioned? Great generals...
Great generals will not scale with map size. You will have relatively more of them with a smaller map. That makes them much more powerful. Having 5 GGs when you have 35 units, for example, vs having 8 GGs and 300 units. In the latter example, there are so many units that the GGs become less relevant. In the former example, the GGs can really affect the outcome of the game. That is true if you turn them into warlords. It's also true if you settle them.
Think about it. If you had 60 cities, and 10 GGs...you could settle 1 GG in 1 out of 6 of your cities. But if you have 12 cities and 8 GGs...you could settle one in over half your cities. Or, you could pick 3 cities to be military production cities and settle 4 GGs each.
With a vast empire of 100 cities, and running the liberal/democratic civics, specializing cities becomes much less important. You'll have tons of cities that have decent production, and you'll be rush buying units. On the other hand, if you only have 10 cities, you'll specialize them so that some will be focusing only on commerce and some will focus on production. You might only have 3 or 4 production cities pumping out all your military units. In that situation the GG becomes much more important because he allows you to specialize military cities, by building military academies and settling.
So what does this mean? It means that GGs are more useful when the map size is smaller. So that would mean the imperialist trait is stronger on a smaller map size, weaker on a larger one. On the other hand, the aggressive trait is balanced to be of equal strength, regardless of map size.
In fact, most of the traits are of equal strength regardless of map size. It seems that imperialist and philosophical, however, are not. They are stronger on smaller maps. Another possibility is that industrial is also stronger on a smaller map. Some wonders effect your whole empire, while some only effect the city in which they are built. Think about it. The great library is more powerful on a small map.
Therefore it seems to me that the following traits are stronger on a smaller map:
-philosophical
-imperialist
-industrial

the other traits, financial, expansive, creative, charismatic, protective, aggressive, and organized are not effected by map size.

Also, the following are stronger on a smaller map:
-city specialization
-great people
-specialists
-representation


So what does everyone else think?

Philosophical, Imperialistic, and Industrial are stronger when the map is smaller. Don't believe me? Take a look:


In Civ 4 you can specialize your cities. You can have a GP farm, a super science city, a super gold city (shrines and merchant specialists), military production cities, etc. Great people and great generals further add to specialization options.

Now I was just thinking the other day...map size actually affects the viability of certain strategies. Some strategies are very powerful in smaller maps and weaker in larger maps. What do I mean? Let's look at it:

A smaller map means you have less cities and less units. You have less population and less tiles. These things scale with map size. You also have less units. But what things do not scale with map size? Great people, including great generals, and things like national wonders. Now it's true that on a huge map through the course of the game you will get more great generals than on a small map (due to more battles between more units) but it doesn't scale. For example, on a small map, through the course of the game, you might fight 100 battles and get 4 ggs. On a huge map, you might fight 500 battles (5 times as many) and get 7 ggs (not even twice the amount). With more cities on a large map you may get a few more great people, but it won't scale. You can make a super GP farm city on a small map and get nearly as many great people as you would on a larger map. Also, no matter the map size, you only get one wall street, one oxford uni, etc.

So why do I care? Because it drastically effects gameplay (I think anyway, which is why I'm posting this because I want feedback).

On a small map you will have fewer cities but nearly as many great people. Having a super specialized science city is much more important. You can run a specialist economy and settle great scientists in your beuracratic capital, build an academy, and have a city that pumps out 300-800 beakers or so. If you only have 4 or 5 other cities, this super science city will most likely produce more than half your total beakers. You can also build a holy shrine in a city and settle great merchants there, and build the wall street. This city will produce a lot of gold for you, regardless of where you set the slider.
This is drastically changed by map size. On a small map it seems that creating super cities is the way to go. On a large map, however, these cities would quickly lose importance. When you have dozens of cities and are producing thousands of beakers per turn, your super science city just isn't that important anymore. What's more important for that map is having tons of cities and cottages.
So it seems to me that running lots of specialists and settling great people to specialize cities is stronger on a small map. Probably stronger than running a cottage economy. On a large map, however, the cottage economy seems to win out. So is the philo trait better on a small map and the fin trait better on a large map? I think so.
This also has other implications. To run a standard liberal/democracy economy, one has to run universal suff, free speech, emancipation, free market, free religion, and then cottage spam all their cities. On a large map this seems like the best option. However, if you're playing on a small map and getting most of your beakers from a super science city, you might find that running representation is the best way to get the most science output. Also, in that case, cottages wouldn't be as important and you'd be free to build other improvements in your cities, like hammer improvements, such as watermills and workshops. Thus (and I'm just speculating here) civics like state property might be more powerful. Also, bureucracy might be more powerful than running free speech. Not having to depend on cottages for commerce really frees up your options with the civics. Police state, vassalage, nationalism come to mind.

And what about the other thing I mentioned? Great generals...
Great generals will not scale with map size. You will have relatively more of them with a smaller map. That makes them much more powerful. Having 5 GGs when you have 35 units, for example, vs having 8 GGs and 300 units. In the latter example, there are so many units that the GGs become less relevant. In the former example, the GGs can really affect the outcome of the game. That is true if you turn them into warlords. It's also true if you settle them.
Think about it. If you had 60 cities, and 10 GGs...you could settle 1 GG in 1 out of 6 of your cities. But if you have 12 cities and 8 GGs...you could settle one in over half your cities. Or, you could pick 3 cities to be military production cities and settle 4 GGs each.
With a vast empire of 100 cities, and running the liberal/democratic civics, specializing cities becomes much less important. You'll have tons of cities that have decent production, and you'll be rush buying units. On the other hand, if you only have 10 cities, you'll specialize them so that some will be focusing only on commerce and some will focus on production. You might only have 3 or 4 production cities pumping out all your military units. In that situation the GG becomes much more important because he allows you to specialize military cities, by building military academies and settling.
So what does this mean? It means that GGs are more useful when the map size is smaller. So that would mean the imperialist trait is stronger on a smaller map size, weaker on a larger one. On the other hand, the aggressive trait is balanced to be of equal strength, regardless of map size.
In fact, most of the traits are of equal strength regardless of map size. It seems that imperialist and philosophical, however, are not. They are stronger on smaller maps. Another possibility is that industrial is also stronger on a smaller map. Some wonders effect your whole empire, while some only effect the city in which they are built. Think about it. The great library is more powerful on a small map.
Therefore it seems to me that the following traits are stronger on a smaller map:
-philosophical
-imperialist
-industrial

the other traits, financial, expansive, creative, charismatic, protective, aggressive, and organized are not effected by map size.

Also, the following are stronger on a smaller map:
-city specialization
-great people
-specialists
-representation


So what does everyone else think?

Protective grows in value the smaller the map is. On large/huge maps, you'll have some breathing room, but the odds on smaller maps are that somebody's going to end up uncomfortably close to you and that you'll be waging a war simply for control of the military resource located directly between your two capitals; not to mention the drastically shorter distances make all of your cities more vulnerable. On larger maps, Protective starts to lose some of its shine.

Organized goes up in value as map size increases. On small maps, -50% civic maintenance and cheap courthouses have a negligible effect.

I can see the point about organized. Although the civic costs (per city) do increase as the map gets smaller, it doesn't scale proportionately. Therefore you are right - organized is more powerful on larger maps. About protective though...I'm not quite convinced it's more powerful on smaller maps. Protective is proportionately as strong on a large map. The battles might come later, but there are more of them. Protective is a per unit bonus...so it should scale proportionately.

So that's interesting. On a small map, Suleiman would be overpowered compared to Mehmed...but not necessarily so on a large map.

I agree with your theory in principle. Great people can be more important relatively on a small map. This is partly because the number of GPPs needed for successive GPs is scaled by the civ and not per city or per tile. Similarly for GGPs the cost of a GG increases at the level of a civ and so Imperialistic is better on a small map. In the case of Industrial there is only one instance of a world wonder per game so on a smaller map there are less civs to compete for wonders so Indusrial is relatively more important than other traits if you decide to build the wonders.


So map size will affect these aspects of your overall game strategy. How will game speed affect it? is there a similar affect from playing at marathon speed versus normal versus quick? Economic traits such as Philosophical and Financial seem to be fairly neutral with game speed. But military traits like Aggressive and Protective benefit from the cheaper units on marathon and the relatively quicker movement and healing. So if you adopt a military based strategy (conquest or domination) then slower game speeds benefit military traits.

I'm not surprised by either conclusion. ;) I would expect there to be significant changes in game play and the relative strength of traits (and also other things like some civics and wonders) with map size and game speed. I would also expect significant changes with map type, my strategy on an archipelago map is radically different from that on a pangea map.

smaller maps are easier to win with. Since the dawn of Civ, attacking early and taking workers and/or a city, favors the human in every way. Small map= easier victory regardless of the various factors- of which there are many.

I agree (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7346294#post7346294) with Industrious and Philosophical.

But the GG bonus is not the main strength of Imperialistic. The real bonus is -33% settler cost, which makes it a big-map trait.

But the GG bonus is not the main strength of Imperialistic. The real bonus is -33% settler cost, which makes it a big-map trait.

Actually, on smaller maps that bonus may be the difference between settling a city at all. You can run out of options for city placement really fast if you aren't hurrying.

You can make up whatever scenario you want. Maybe that one city had 7 resources and blocked off a large section of the continent.

But it doesn't change the fact that Imperialistic is a big-map trait in general.

I would agree with the NE wonders that give unscaled benefits like the NE. 100% extra production of troops when the city is only productin 10% of your troops is negligeble. However, wallstreet gives a scaled benefit, especially considering coorperations. Also, building the national wonders in different cities start to play a factor, you'll build your national park in a location with 10+ forests on a large map and maybe take a loaction with only 5 on a small one.

On traits and strategies I would comment; they get less important on a big map, like UU's get less important with shorter games. There is however, still a benefit to following the strategy, someone using them will still outperform someone who isn't, the margin will just be smaller on larger maps. On top of that, most national wonders are important early on; getting your GP earlier is a benefit far greater than then benefit of getting 2 or 3 extra in the long run.

Threads merged.

You can make up whatever scenario you want. Maybe that one city had 7 resources and blocked off a large section of the continent.

But it doesn't change the fact that Imperialistic is a big-map trait in general.

What I was saying is that it is also a small map trait for an entirely different reason.

Huh?

1) Industrious = help in getting wonders
2) Certain wonders give a bonus to each city in a civ
3) Larger maps = more cities = more bonuses

Therefore the value of those Wonders go up when the map size increase.

Therefore the value of any help getting those Wonders go up as the map size increase.

Therefore the value of Industrious go up as the map size increase.

People are confusing density (more AIs) with map size for those close border trait situations.

Huh?

1) Industrious = help in getting wonders
2) Certain wonders give a bonus to each city in a civ
3) Larger maps = more cities = more bonuses

Therefore the value of those Wonders go up when the map size increase.

Therefore the value of any help getting those Wonders go up as the map size increase.

Therefore the value of Industrious go up as the map size increase.

Often getting a wonder means getting the tech first, not having a 50% bonus on it.

I DO like cheap national wonders and forges, and the occasional helpful wonder, but not enough to make the trait great. If you *really* want mids or something IND will help, but the per city wonders come @ theology, sailing/masonry (only useful on some maps, but it can be good when used well), paper, and DR (the latter two are pushing the IND vs early benefit a bit). Later wonders like SoL/3 gorges/etc are available with more production modifiers/cities around and/or a higher likelihood of having the resource, meaning that getting the tech first is much more important than IND.

So unless you're playing a map where you are hell bent on GLH or apostolic palace, this whole per-city argument is a little iffy.

Most of these traits don't change a great deal in utility from size to size, just marginally. It is nice indeed to 2 pop whip IMP settlers though.

The GG bonus is not the main strength of industrial? Come on. Give me a choice of more GGs OR cheaper settlers, and I'll pick the GGs. You can rex, and then I'll take your cities.
Anyway, someone pointed out that small maps are easier. I agree, and this annoys me. I like a challenge, but if a game takes too long I'll abandon it. I need a game that I can finish realistically in a few days, so large maps are out of the question. I always play a standard map size. I enjoy the game more when it is scaled down somewhat, but maybe that's just it. Maybe the computer has an advantage on larger maps simply because the human can't bother to micromanage on said maps.

Protective grows in value the smaller the map is. On large/huge maps, you'll have some breathing room, but the odds on smaller maps are that somebody's going to end up uncomfortably close to you and that you'll be waging a war simply for control of the military resource located directly between your two capitals; not to mention the drastically shorter distances make all of your cities more vulnerable. On larger maps, Protective starts to lose some of its shine.

I don't know if I really agree with this. I think Protective has its value when you can't easily get access to horses or copper earlier in the game. It allows you to create a decent anti-barb unit and hope that you can survive until Iron Working and snag iron (or hope you have an isolated start). It's also useful when taking over other civs, as you can generate fairly decent city defending units when you take a city without a barracks and independent of your civics.

The GG bonus is not the main strength of industrial? Come on. Give me a choice of more GGs OR cheaper settlers, and I'll pick the GGs. You can rex, and then I'll take your cities.
hey
you're wrong

Actually I found more cities when I have a peaceful strategy. When I have a more warlike strategy I tend to settle less cities myself as I need the time/hammers for unit production and I know the AI will settle at least some good locations that I'll take to be mine

Actually I found more cities when I have a peaceful strategy. When I have a more warlike strategy I tend to settle less cities myself as I need the time/hammers for unit production and I know the AI will settle at least some good locations that I'll take to be mine

Which takes more effort?

- Settle land yourself at the cost of hammers into the settler and some worker turns

- Invest tons of hammers into troops, kill enemy troops paying outside of border upkeep, and likely still using up worker turns

I'd take option 1, unless the returns on option 2 are HUGE (you now own the entire continent yourself, wall something off, or are killing someone who is going to DOW you soon anyway are some examples). Once you settle your land, if you tech properly there will be a nice window to WRECK the AI cities, and the end result for MOST (not all) games is that doing peaceful expansion/teching to a dominant unit leaves you with same # of cities and a better tech position.

Of course, if you don't have much room to settle......................

@TMIT on a huge map @ marathon speed the Great Wall is the King amongst Kings for early wonders. Barbarians swarms appear around 2000BC. And when I say swarms that is exactly what I mean. I know you get your biggest thrill from building ooodles of units. and barbs train those units for you. But you need like 3-4 extra units per city to protect your improvements. They cost a chunk of gold per turn. And on marathon whip anger lasts a long long time. 30 turns. And unit costs are only doubled rather than tripled so building them is the way to go.
In general I agree that indusrious loses some strength on larger maps. The number of cities in an empire increases which means the percentage of cities building a wonder decreases. So fewer cities are benefiting from the industrious trait.
As for World Wonders that affect every city their effectiveness is the same on all map sizes. Besides The Great Wall and The Mids, The Spiral Minet is a huge game changer. If the political climate is stable enough for me to commit to a religion then Divine Right is definately in my plans. By the time I hit Communism for State Property most of my cities have a temple and a courthouse. As well as a grocer and marketplace for health and happiness. With State Property that essentially eliminates city costs altogether. Distance costs goes poof from the civic. # of cities caps at 6 halved by the courthouse and paid for by the 2gpt from the temple with 50% modifiers from grocer and market.

On rough barb maps you either fogbust or build the wall (which is easier depends on terrain and how close the AIs are/how fast you're boxed in). Still if you're building the wall it usually implies you actually have room which kind of supports my point that you're better of settling peacefully at first if they're not right on top of you.

@TMIT: yes I have calculated the costs before of settling versus assaulting. You are wrong that settling is always better. There comes a point after which focusing on military units is the better option. Keep in mind that in the early game each new city you found is a major drain on your economy for a long time. I didnt' say anything like I only build 1 city and then attack. Sometimes I build 2 (other than capital), sometimes I build 3 or 4, and then I attack. I would argue that for a militaristic strategy you should not settle all the available land before attacking. Civ 4 is different from Civ 3 in that settling all the available land right away really slows you down in the beginning. So what I'm saying is sometimes I will build 3 cities and then take out a neighbour. After that I have lots of land to expand. The other thing is I also have a bunch of promoted units which can then go and kill another neighbour.
However, you should keep in mind that I'm only describing an early military strategy, I certainly don't do that in every game. If I'm playing as the Romans, or Greeks, or Celts or something, then I'll attack really fast. If I'm playing as the Dutch or the English, however, I will probably settle all available land long before I attack anyone.

It's not bad if you can block someone off or entirely control the continent. If you can do neither, rushing one AI when *not* boxed in will make you somewhat bigger (settling 8-12 cities on emperor is pretty realistic on many maps) along with 1-2 other AIs who get much bigger than normal at little expense to them. These AIs don't pay much in maintenance and now get to take advantage of land they'd have not had otherwise. IMO this is a bad thing and can easily be avoided by blocking and/or settling what's available, then preparing to quickly/easily take more.

Of course that's going to vary game to game, and obviously smearing all AIs on your continent (even if it's just 1) will open up more land than any other option, but if we're talking the opportunity to let others expand peacefully while you go to war...probably not good.

Rare is an axe rush or anything else along those lines hammer-efficient relative to peaceful settling. Sure, new cities "cost money/slow you down", but realistically even 8 cities isn't going to kill you early. Also, if you CAN get 8 cities peacefully (or more), you probably have the basis to prepare a fast, deadly war later anyway.

Yes, obviously prats and such are an exception, especially on slower speed. Quechas too. Speaking generally though, such as your typical non-roman IMP, not so much - I'll take peaceful settling any day - and I am a BIG warmonger!