Gotm15-Russia - Map Size Feedback Thread

The purpose of this thread is to collect player feedback and compile poll results on the general size and landmass size issues of the Gotm15-Russia map.

In the past we have only used the 3 exact water ratios in the out-of-the-box random map generator these settings gave us maps that were either 83% water, 73% water or 63% water.

This map was generated to give us 57% water on a standard sized map box and that gave us more land area in the game than we have seen on any other standard size map in the history of the GOTM. The percent water change does not sound like a lot of change until you look at the percent land that it gives players to work with. Out of the box maps would have maximum of 37% land while this map had 43% land which was a 15% increase. Effectively the land area in this map was the same as if we had used settings for a larger map with just a lot more water.

Every GOTM map may not contain this much landmass, but expanding the range slightly may continue to offer us with new play opportunities if the player community finds these to be of value.

Our original poll results on this issue were nominally split with a considerable number of players strongly against allowing maps of this type. Based on this test experience in Gotm15, we would like to solicit comments and again ask your input as to whether this type of map should be considered as an option for some future GOTM games.

We want to know how you felt the mapsize made the game feel and how it may have affected your play. You may post information about Gotm15-Russia freely in this thread without concerns for spoiler issues.

Cracker

I'm afraid the statement "continents - 57% water" did not strike me as indicating that this was not the standard "continent" land to water map type. So I can't in all honesty say it affected my play deliberately, since I was unaware of the subtlety.

However I suspect that the over-large continets did allow a very "Continetal" strategy - my Russian navy was one land-locked caravel - built to kill a couple of annoying babrbarian galleys - one ironclad - built basically for the hell of it, and to go wandering around the world on a sightseeing tour - and a land-locked nuclear sub, built for the hell of it and as a "safe haven" for a tac nuke in the event of unforeseen CFs.

You might argue that the "no navy" strategy permitted by the map was very Russian!

edit - voted after all

I really liked the map and would like to see different ratios in the future. I did affect my gameplay since I didn't realise beforehand it would be that much more land. I really had difficulty finishing the game in time. (In fact, I didn't manage to finish it the way I wanted, in the end I just launched the spaceship to be able to submit in time )

Next time I'll study the % more closely!

I voted in a similar way in the old poll, and GOTM 15 confirmed my opinion: I think non-standard maps do add to the interest of the game.

I would also be in favour of more "extreme" conditions, but that should be done with some caution...

Non standard maps are fine with me. It mkaes playing interesting.
What I would like is, that the maps are somewhat smaller for quicker gameplay.
I had no chance to finish GOTM15, so I only submitted the qsc with timeline.
I hope I can finish GOTM16 with all the tournament games coming up as well.

Ronald

Well I'm probably in a minority on this one. I am all in favour of different land styles and %. BUT I dont want you to tell us anything about it.

For me, exploration should be exactly that. Its more fun finding things out for myself. By all means indicate that the map is 'non-standard, then leave it at that.

Strategy should follow from knowledge. Why give the game away. Its like breaking your own spoiler rules!

Changing startegy as you find out more about the world you are in is all part of the enjoyment of the game.

The less you tell us, and the more you customise, the better as far as I'm concerned. Its what makes each game unique.

I agree with col - the less we know about the world the better. I say give it a try once and see what people think. Tell us map size and nothing more.

--MidniteWatchman

I'm always going to vote for added flexibility in how the GOTM maps are designed. If you want a vanilla Civ3 experience you can use a computer-generated map playing on your own... if you want to really tackle a challenge concurrently with the Civ3 gaming community, play GOTM!

BoB

I "third" Col and MidniteWatchman's suggestion. With the odd starts we've had in the past that have changed play strategy from what you should expect from the map description, *cough*GOTM14*cough* people should be observant enough to pick up on it.

The only situation I would not like to see would be maps where you can't reach any of the AIs without Navigation, or have a shot at sending suicide galleys across to make contact if you don't get the Great Lighthouse. IMO, we had quite enough of that in the Tournament games.

I prefer smaller maps, so it's hard for me to say. Larger maps get boring after a while (usually around the beginning of the AD's).

I think a leapfrog game (lots of island reachable with Galleys) would be fun

I guess unless the map is small or tiny, I would prefer less landmass because it makes the game go more quickly.

I thought it was a great idea, and it sure affected my gameplay (although not in a good way ). I wasn't taking the extra landmass into account after I conquered China, and set up a city to build my FP near Beijing. It was only after I got further into the game, and I think after the first spoiler thread, that I realized how big my continent was, and that my FP was probably too close. But hey, that's part of strategy. I had all the maps, I 'knew' what the continent looked like, but I didn't 'realize' or have a feel for how big it was, there is a BIG difference.

I liked the game. Like Col, I am not sure it is necessary to declare this is an unusual map. Part of the fun of the game is pushing away the fog and seeing what type of a world we are playing on.

On a similar idea. it may be fun to have world one size smaller than standard occassionally.

== PF

This reply focuses only on map sizes.

I prefer to play on small maps (any layout). I always felt Civ games became almost uncontrollable about 2/3rds in due to the number of cities you had to manage. Letting the computer control my cities (or units) feels as though I'm not playing.

This is why they added the governors and automation, which imo are a crutch for a semi-broken game design. The addition of corruption also seems like an attempt to force people to play with fewer cities.

I suppose it's a personal preference. Since I dislike letting the AI control anything, I much rather play on small maps and control every aspect of my empire. Doing this on a large maps would take ~6 months to play.

*edit*
As far as GOTM goes, variety is good. Some small, some large, some water, some not, etc...

All that forest made you able to build libraries/courthouses in all those corrupt cities much faster and cheaper.

I liked the change and as pointed out above I would prefer not to know too much. that is the fun of exploring. I was casught of gaurd at the size of the continent and initialy built too few cities in my initial expansion. If I had known about the suize I would have built differently. That is one of the things that made the map fun, "Not knowing". It is also much more realistic. How much fun would it have been for the old exploreres to have a map of where they were going.

I liked it. Also, liked that it was standard so it took less time to play than the huge ones I'm used to. I'd like to see small maps, too.

I am also in favor of the ideas of playing on smaller maps more often, and of having some that are lots of water and islands. Large maps and micromanagement get old quick.

Master the Intricacies, Rather than Experiencing the Excesses.

It looks like I am the in the minority who didn't like 57% water. It boils down to one issue - the larger the map, the longer to play. If I didn't get an unexpected snow day off, I would have been pushing it to finish the game in time.

I vote for new and different things every month. Some of them I won't like but some will be great. How will any of us ever know if we just play the standard game?

I liked the forest. I just trucked on through it - thought it would never end - and when I finally got to the other side, there was good old Germany. I discovered them well before they would have discovered me. And I beat up on them early in the game, taking 2 of their cities in tribute and building a city right next to their iron supply, which was then my iron supply. When it came time to eliminate them, they were no problem.

Now I never would have had those forests in a regular game. Maybe in the next game there will be no forests. I like the idea of not knowing.