Question for players of "Large/Huge" maps.

First, this isn't about which playstyle is better, who is right or wrong, etc. This thread has nothing to do with that and I'd appreciate discussion free of it here.

I'm a standard player, and I just want to know what motivates a good portion of players to play on Large/Huge maps. The reason I'd like to know is because I've been developing an extensive new map script in my spare time and I've reached a certain concept now that I can handle in different ways. Depending on the type and volume of answers I receive, I "may" change this current concept and take it in a different direction. I don't want to say anything else, because I don't want it to affect everyone's preferences they currently perceive.

- - - - - - - - - -

With the above poll, please choose the one topic which motivates you most of all. You may agree with many of them, but choose only the one that is the most influential. (Also, try not to "view poll results" before voting. )

- - - - - - - - - -

Also, if you'd like to reply to this thread and simply rank each topic from most influential to least influential, that would be even more helpful! Just simply list the corresponding letters, left-to-right or top-to-bottom.

- - - - - - - - - -

This information would also be helpful: If you primarily play on Large maps over Huge, is this due to your computer hardware and/or the game's performance? If performance was better, would you increase the size to Huge?

- - - - - - - - - -

If you'd like to provide any other details, please feel free to do so!

Large or Huge?

Typical amount of civs/cs you enable (especially if it's above the default numbers)?

Typical map type?

Sea level?

Game Speed?

Luxury Setting?

etc...

- - - - - - - - - -

Thank you.

I tend to play Huge, 18 civs/22 city states, usually Small Continents, Standard Speed with Abundant resources. I prefer to really feel part of a big world - a feeling I don't tend to get with only 8-12 civs or so. Taking the time to explore, having many little spots to settle on, that appeals to me much more then anything else.

A, B and D really. I play on Standard and Epic speeds. I like to explore and hard to explore a huge map in a timely fashion without going Epic speed.

Mainly I like to settle a lot of cities and avoid wars for a while. I also enjoy more civs to interact with but the main thing is I can't stand entering the modern era with 4-5 cities. I want a sprawling empire or it just doesn't feel like civ.

A, C, and D. I always play Epic/Large because it feels more... um, epic.

I like having lots more civs to compete against. With more competitors, it gets more hectic towards the later parts of the game, and I like that a lot.

(Wanted to post this on Steam, but couldn't) Regarding your Optimized World Sizes mod: I suggest to reduce the width and height of the Small, Normal, and Large mapsizes by 2x2 each (Small: 68x42, Normal: 84x52, Large: 104x64). This still complies with the mod's goals, but brings the area sizes closer to that of the unmodded game (in particular, Standard is only +5% instead of +12%).

lockstep said:

(Wanted to post this on Steam, but couldn't) Regarding your Optimized World Sizes mod: I suggest to reduce the width and height of the Small, Normal, and Large mapsizes by 2x2 each (Small: 68x42, Normal: 84x52, Large: 104x64). This still complies with the mod's goals, but brings the area sizes closer to that of the unmodded game (in particular, Standard is only +5% instead of +12%).

Click to expand...

As always, very nice suggestions.

That mod is quite old, and my latest when I was using all six map sizes was this one:



And this is some other data for those:



With those sizes, a higher land percentage, and adding +2 civs / +4 cs to each, it keeps the cities per civ fairly close to the original values without getting too far off. (Plus, I'm a little biased towards Standard size, and favored going with a slightly bigger map.)

The data in the second spreadsheet is very rough. For example, it doesn't account for coastal cities which could only use up half the land for their workable tiles (or even worse, island cities). But, at the same time, it doesn't exclude mountain tiles and such on land, or count less fertile tiles as less. This concept is the reason why pangea usually has higher land percentages than continents, and continents is higher than small continents, because they have less coastlines for potential cities.

I used 25 tiles to represent the workable tiles of each city when placed at average distance from each other. My "ninja star" city shape diagram shows how this number would work out in a perfect world as they share tiles:



Your numbers work quite well too, and perhaps I'll update that mod to them if you like -- I'll credit you, if so. Since, the mod should favor the default game and not a mod that increases the civ totals.

Though, all those newer sizes I had above are, once again, old news and I totally revamped things. I don't want to reveal too much of it yet, but, it's what made me create this thread and the unsuccessful poll that not too many cared about, haha (Though, I don't blame them; I didn't explain things much).

Basically, I'm planning on less than six map sizes now (honestly, are six different sizes really needed? A great majority play either Standard or Huge, next would probably be Large, with small percentages playing Duel, Tiny, and Small). They now all scale extremely well as the number of civs increase alongside the map size. But, most importantly, their densities are all the same as well: as in, the cities per civ. Though, because of this, the largest new map size is less than Huge (Huge is just way too big). But, that largest size also has a lot more civs than Huge's 12.

I'm creating this because, for me (and I'm probably going to mess up my poll results now):

Huge is less desirable because of its immense size.

Its immense size stresses the game since it's only a 32 bit application.

I prefer standard speed games, and Huge would be a bit out of scale with the speed.

Huge favors more cities per civ: there's much more room to expand and the happiness penalty, social policy penalty, tech penalty etc. are smaller to reflect that. I don't like having to manage more cities just because everything is bigger, and I also prefer the original, whole number happiness penalty and such.

I also prefer to stick to the intended density of maps and what the game is primarily balanced around.

- - - - - - - -

So, what if we took everything about the Standard map size and just inflated it a bit? Bigger map, lots more civs, same penalties for expanding, same concepts around the intended initial empire size, etc. That's one of the latest things I was working on with the script and why I created the thread to see what folks like most about playing on larger maps.

If I had to rank each answer, for me, it would be:

A) I prefer to interact and trade with many more civs over the standard number.

More civs are great! More diplomacy, more trade opportunities, more drama! But, not at the cost of changing the intended empire size and densities, the penalties for expanding, dramatically increasing map size, and such.

(This was the answer I was hoping many would choose, but doubted it.)

The next ones may rank #2, 3, and 4, but if they were on a graph and placed at a height relative to their significance to me, they would be far below choice A.

D) I prefer much larger maps to explore and be a smaller part of.

I LOVE exploring, especially at the start of games and then once I get caravels. I also like being a smaller part of the world, civ count wise. But, there's a limit, and I don't like map sizes getting too big.

(This was the answer I expected to be the most popular, simply because of the "bigger is better!" philosophy. This was to see how many may dislike the idea of the largest map size being smaller than the existing Huge.)

B) I prefer to expand and manage many more non-puppet cities over the standard number.

I don't like managing a ton of cities, and prefer to focus on a lesser core number; especially earlier in the game.

(This was the answer I expected to be the least popular. This was to see how many may dislike the idea of standard-sized empires on larger maps, instead of expanding out much more.)

C) I prefer slower game speeds and I believe a larger map is more balanced around this.

I only play standard speed and can't play on the other ones. Mostly because I don't like to make such a great commitment to each game. I like to challenge myself, so when things start going downhill, I have no problem throwing in the towel, retiring, and starting a new game. Same thing goes when a new patch is released or something. However, if I was playing on Marathon, and spent weeks on a game, I wouldn't feel the same way!

Also, Marathon favors military production more, relative to the other things it lengthens (as in, it lengthens it less). I personally rather not do that in a game which enforces 1UPT.

Again, that's just me. To others, this is exactly their cup of tea.

(I don't believe this answer had much to do with the new script when I created the poll, but I included it since it's a very possible answer. Some players swear by Epic or Marathon and it's what they care about most, and bigger maps help support those speeds better.)

Barathor said:

Your numbers work quite well too, and perhaps I'll update that mod to them if you like -- I'll credit you, if so. Since, the mod should favor the default game and not a mod that increases the civ totals.

Click to expand...

I'd really appreciate an update of your mod -- crediting me isn't that important.

I play on standard usually because the game gets really long at the end when I put in lots of civs, but playing a game with 22 civs really improves the diplomatic aspect of the game I think. You get less warmonger penalties for civs that are further away from you, and I like that there are little pockets formed that are important to you, and that aren't. The world is simply too big for everyone to hate you or even care about you, and it's kind of fun seeing genocide being committed halfway around the world and saying "hey, want to trade lux for lux? I like peace, but I can't stop you, so whatever".

These large maps also really improve the feel of the world congress. It does make diplomats less powerful, which is unfortunate, but each vote feels like a real vote, and getting all the city states doesn't allow you to do anything you want ever in the congress. I really like the idea of being the world congress superpower, but still not having the votes to pass my religion or ideology (or having to fight to get these votes) as the world one if not enough civs are going to support me.

Barathor said:

Huge favors more cities per civ: there's much more room to expand and the happiness penalty, social policy penalty, tech penalty etc. are smaller to reflect that. I don't like having to manage more cities just because everything is bigger, and I also prefer the original, whole number happiness penalty and such.

[...]

So, what if we took everything about the Standard map size and just inflated it a bit? Bigger map, lots more civs, same penalties for expanding, same concepts around the intended initial empire size, etc. That's one of the latest things I was working on [...]

Click to expand...

That's a very interesting idea -- hopefully, you'll be ready to reveal more (numbers!) in the near future. I'm part of your target audience - interested in more civs to interact with, but not in more cities to manage.

Nevertheless, please also update the original "Optimized Map Sizes" mod.

I answered (A) but I will admit that I have dropped back to standard size as the turn times were just too long for me.

C, D, B, A.

For me even the Epic speed is too fast. So I have to choose a bigger map to not lose my interest during the game. I usually play Large/Marathon/Shuffle with extra 2 or 3 civs and minus 2 or 4 citiy states. I use Large because I like exploring a lot but my computer can't handle well Huge maps. I also like surpises, so I choose Shuffle. The extra civs are for increasing difficulty and the less city states means more space and less cheap diplomatic victory nonsense.

My problem is that I am bored with the game (only domination remained interesting), and the Marathon was always a bit slow for me, which forced me to abandon the game. Wish there were a speed option between Epic and Marathon speed.

Barathor: When updating the mod, please set the "Affects Saved Games" flag to false.

My usual settings are huge, 18 civs/30 CSs, Continents Plus, King, everything else is standard/default (though sometimes I like complete kills). My chief reason for this is so that wars between two strong sides can occur, much like the World Wars. Though this happens less than I'd prefer, (I wish there could be military alliances between multiple civs, not just the weak defensive pacts we have now) it's fun to see which two-four civs will rise above all else and become a major world power,and how diplomacy between those factions will play out.

I play huge maps with standard speed.

The bigger the better.

Because, the more land you allow the world to have the more interesting land formations can occur.

Like how everyone want a coastal fortress but it never happens.
However, I got to have a fortress act as coastal fortress cuz I pissed off the world by wiping out the china and I got dogpiled during the age of sail but they couldn't quite push their way through the fortress situated on well located island with my ships blocking the straits.

Many a sailing ships was sent to davy jones there.

And I like exploring, and I like it when the world looks awesome, Once had a map that it looked like it came out of Tera Online. Huge sundered line diagonally across the middle. xD