Which map size is the most balanced?

What is the most balanced map size?


  • Total voters
    61
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,705
So I was wondering what was you're opinion on wich map sized is the most balanced of all the sizes?

Imagine you have a computer wich can handle any size ( So computer problems or speed problems don't count)

What I mean with balance in wich map is the diplomacy the best and the resource placment , city state , strategies with techs policies

I personally found small the best size because it balance the early social policies a lot better honor becomes more usefull , And the warmonger penalty does make more sence on this map ..And you can't get tons of gold by trading luxuries away over and over, Olso wonders become more valuable where at standard you allways ignore them because most of the time you do'nt get them
 
A lot depends also on the speed...

There is a vast difference to playing fast on a huge map, and playing marathon on a duel map!

However, Standard speed AND map size is what the game is optimised to...
 
I always play on the biggest map possible, random type, ancient start with 13 Civs and 27 CSs (40 votes total for the Diplo vic)
 
I like standard epic the most, but standard standard is the most optimized... I also really like small standard.
 
in 95% of my games i take large or Huge. It feels alot more "Real" when u have tons of land to explore.
 
Standard is the most balanced, certainly.

Just try to play on huge with Ethiopia (tall) and the Maya (wide) and notice the massive difference. Larger maps give each person more land on which to build, besides having more civs, and smaller maps tend the other direction as well.

Standard is fair to everyone.

That being said, I like bigger maps. Even though it's not totally fair to tall civs, they can do fine under the circumstances (it's not as unbalancing for the AI as for the human, it seems), it leads to a much more complex political situation, though it's still not too hard to get on everyone's good side and decide who is going to die next, one by one.
 
i prefer having extra ai's added to whichever map, with a preference for small. i find the ai more aggressive when they are crowded together and there's less settler-spam obsession early game (which I find the most tedious portion of this game). I love being able to plop down three cities then get on with the game, where on a larger map I feel I have to keep building building building cities to have a chance of keeping up with AI production, as the AI tends to build cities literally -everywhere-. Have a one tile patch of tundra 3 tiles away from your worst city in the north? Don't worry, the AI will sail a settler over there and build a city, even if the only tiles they can work are a few ocean tiles amongst the ice and snow.
 
i prefer having extra ai's added to whichever map, with a preference for small. i find the ai more aggressive when they are crowded together and there's less settler-spam obsession early game (which I find the most tedious portion of this game). I love being able to plop down three cities then get on with the game, where on a larger map I feel I have to keep building building building cities to have a chance of keeping up with AI production, as the AI tends to build cities literally -everywhere-. Have a one tile patch of tundra 3 tiles away from your worst city in the north? Don't worry, the AI will sail a settler over there and build a city, even if the only tiles they can work are a few ocean tiles amongst the ice and snow.

I agree, it seems to make for a more interesting and tense game, and it also makes it less tedious to conquer a civilization when they don't have 50 cities.
 
Top Bottom