Why play earth maps?

[cain3456]

Not earthlikes, not terran maps, but actual maps of the actual Earth, with Asia, Europe, etc. What is the point? Part of my Civ experience is discovering new lands, seeing what's in the next tile. This is part of my boredom with the endgame, with the map being revealed.
I just don't understand the popularity of Earth maps, and Rhye's and Fall. Yes, I will let you straitjacket me into playing how you think I should play this civ instead of how I want to play. I don't think so.

[Choggy]

I agree with the sentiment regarding how earth maps take away from the exploration part, I also find them quite boring in so much as they always play out the same way (even earth-like maps are too predictable for my liking) however Rhye's and Fall is designed to mimic the history of the growth and decline of civs throughout our history (hence the name) and as such works really well. It's a bit like playing Risk on steroids imo.

You could always try fractal maps...

[bhavv]

Exploration is my second least favorite part of Civ games after barbs. Earth maps provide a sense of realism and some people also like that.

Pangeas and Fractals really arent any more unpredictable than an Earth map anyway, you still dont know what lies beyond your starting location.

[lymond]

I don't play them often, but they are good for role-playing. Rhys on the other hand is really a different type of game with its own challenges and unique victories. Really quite fun - I've played it many times.

[salty mud]

I don't mind Earth maps because I like to adapt to changing conditions and see what I can make of the situation. I like seeing the AI's empires rise and fall too on an Earth map. Usually though I play a different map mode.

[Rusty Edge]

I dearly love exploration.

I also enjoy setting up a historical situation and either trying to change the outcome entirely, or just try to outperform a famous leader. Sometimes it's just fun to try to make your hometown the greatest city on the planet, even if it's really only a village.

Right now I'm playing the Napoleonic Conquest in Civ III.

[traius]

Play the earth map as one of the new world civs. The colony maintenance alone will make it hard to conquer everyone on the asia-africa-europe super-continent. American civs play out VERY differently from anyone starting on the super continent.

[i_imperator]

Because i love to be able to attempt a replica of history and own everyone as rome and mongolia!
I do like earth maps, they may not be entirely 100% balanced but they are fun. Hell one of my favourite games was the earth challenge that was around this time last year.

[Matty R]

I'm not interested in Earth maps either. I also love the exploration and randomness.

The Continents & Islands map-script almost-always produces very interesting maps at medium sea-level.

[Lone Wolf]

Yes, I will let you straitjacket me into playing how you think I should play this civ instead of how I want to play. I don't think so.

Going against that straitjacket can be fun. "I will conquer all Europe as Portugal, no matter what the game will throw in front of me".

What is the point? Part of my Civ experience is discovering new lands, seeing what's in the next tile. This is part of my boredom with the endgame, with the map being revealed.

It's still only a part of Civ experience, that obviously matters less to some people. However, even RFC has a random aspect - I find it quite fun seeing the world evolve differently every time - in one game I've played as England, and saw a mighty Roman Empire in Europe surviving 'till Modern Age, when I've finally managed to defeat it, in my Aztec game I've conquered the USA (part of another RFC charm - change history!), but the mighty European power of Germany won the space race. I've seen a mighty RFC Russia annex all Warsaw Pact territories, I've seen it being divided between Germany and Turkey. Surely, that variance is worth at least something?

[Ataxerxes]

Originally Posted by i_imperator

Because i love to be able to attempt a replica of history and own everyone as rome and mongolia!
I do like earth maps, they may not be entirely 100% balanced but they are fun. Hell one of my favourite games was the earth challenge that was around this time last year.

This is the way I always felt. The map isn't balanced but it's the feel of conquering the world or an empire you'd like that civilization to have taken. It has more of a role-playing feel. Admittedly in most cases I actually favor RFC. Anyone who really likes earth maps should give it a try. Admittedly there's often even less exploration in RFC (although ships move a lot faster).

The people who really like exploration and the unknown won't enjoy earth maps. Since I like the building of an empire that feels more like Earth I prefer earth maps.

[strijder20]

Originally Posted by i_imperator

Hell one of my favourite games was the earth challenge that was around this time last year.

I got my highest score ever on that challenge
I prefer realism over discovery.

[Lone Wolf]

Admittedly, if we're not talking about RFC, Civ on Earth map isn't that realistic.

[Mehaha123]

I play earth maps the most of any maps there are.

I understand how you feel the exploation aspect is cut down, however, you never know exactly what the AI's have done a few tiles away (even more so in rfc).

For me the best part of the maps are that each civ is different to play. The point of the map isn't to be fair. It's not, but that's what makes it fun. You have to do different things to suceed with different empire. To master them all is a great challange. You can stratagise much better if you know where your starting from. That's the fun of it. In a normal game all of the nations are ABOUT equally spaced and no mateer who you are or where you are you have to do the same old thing to win. That's what I find boring.

[skyclad]

Playing regular civ on the earth map is boring, since there is no exploration and you know the land and neighbours etc, but rhyes is awesome!

[GA econ FTW]

As somewhat indicated by others, part of playing any "historical simulation", whether it be something as broad as civilization or as narrowly focused as the Battle of Waterloo, is the feeling of "how would my decisions (with enough foreknowledge) have affected things differently compared to actual history?" "Would Rome never have fallen under my rule?" etc.

RFC (even though I've never played it) is for even bigger purists than those who love earth maps. The mod is designed to force some events and civilizations into existence close to history, but Earth maps (with civilizations in starting points as best can be done with the present resources at hand) or in Earth 1000AD, to me, brings a happy middle ground to both make me wonder at historical similarities, make me eager to learn more about various civilizations and history and some of the absurdities of it when I watch the AIs do stuff (hmmm...why DIDN'T Spain just try to settle Siberia? seems they would be more influential TODAY if Salamanca was where Irkutsk is today....) and also appreciate some of the things that DID get tweaked fairly close to reality. (Hmmm...Japan didn't get off that island....ever....until maybe they would be lucky enough to tech gunpowder...then look out)

Even for those who like things way more random, I can appreciate how civilizations that didn't do so well IRL can become powerhouses in the game when given better random terrain. (On earth, in Chile, Huayna Capac never is a score dominator, but I've heard rumors and legends that he's the guy to contend with if not bothered and given good terrain as an AI, and for those who compete very agressively, they claim the Capac/Incan mix is the greatest out there when helmed by a human)
In the end, I would claim if you like reading Science Fiction of the "alternate history variety" (I recommend the works of Harry Turtledove to start...the "what if the south won the civil war, what if the moslem wars had pushed past El Cid in spain and Paris was a sleepy moslem town...by 2100 AD...stuff like that) then you would get a kick out of playing civ on fairly true-to-form earth maps.

If, as some have argued, there is more thrill of exploration. If your credo is like Bill Shatner's " To explore .....Strange new worlds, to seek out ....new life.... new civilizations, to bodly go....then declare on them, raze their crappy cities and maybe vassalize them if I can't find their one redoubt on some 1-tile island somewhere" then indeed, fresh maps are for you

[Lone Wolf]

(hmmm...why DIDN'T Spain just try to settle Siberia? seems they would be more influential TODAY if Salamanca was where Irkutsk is today....)

Russia is in the way

[vktj]

Personally, I don't care for the earth maps or, for that matter, any scenario that doesn't allow random maps. I like Cephalo's "Perfect World" map myself, and indeed spent the last month fixing some of Perfect World's bugs and adding some parameters to it, and the last two days listing which mods the map script does and does not work with (http://samiam.org/Civ4/Compatibility.html).

The first reason is replayability: Playing the same map over and over gets old fast.

The second reason is having a more accurate historical experience: Playing an Earth map does not mimic the real-world experience people of history had; they did not know that the Americas were over the ocean and didn't even know any of the landforms in the "antipodes" or even if there were people who lived there.

This is why I will only play "Perfect World" maps; the geography is remarkably realistic and I get the experience men in the medieval ages and before had while they were developing their civilization. And no two games are the same to boot.

Just my humble opinion.

- Sam (I also like playing fantasy games more than a lot of Civ players; I am also a huge fan of the Heroes of Might and Magic franchise)

[Lone Wolf]

Playing an Earth map does not mimic the real-world experience people of history had; they did not know that the Americas were over the ocean and didn't even know any of the landforms in the "antipodes" or even if there were people who lived there.

That's a gain in realism, but the fact that you're not playing on actual Earth is a loss in realism. America is really the only big culprit here. With other nations, you know they exist, but you don't know anything else about them 'till you discover them, which is relatively realistic - the Romans, for instance, had a vague knowledge about China, Greek geographers knew about the Malaysian Peninsula's existence. When you discover China in RFC, you may find it conquered by the Mongols, or a local superpower - which can substitute somewhat for the lack of exploration aspect.

Some aspects of RFC, however, are quite frustrating. Its stability is not a well designed mechanism, IMO.

[gps]

^^ I would like to add that the difference between knowing there's a landmass and notion there must be one is not that big. If you're - for example - playing continents you can be pretty sure that there is a landmass - and you also know roughly where it must be and how many Civs it carries. So big surprise when your Caravels finally make it there.