Charles 22
King
For some of you out there, you play pangea like I did, because it is the largest map. I have however discovered that this is not true. I always play with low tide to have more land, but this week I tried playing continents with two of them on the map. I'm playing with what I thought was the ideal amount of civs for pangea, being 9 total, and it seems there is actually more landmass with 2 continents.
Now maybe I had a very fortunate spot to start with (havimg not played continents in Civ4 I don't know), but it's infantry time now and I can still expand 3-4 more cities without crowding anybody (probably around 10 total cities at the moment).
Now that the shores have been determined, looking at the whole map it does appear that the land mass is actually greater. The only catch to this different mapping is that probably half of your cities will end up having some pretty good amount of shores, which isn't that true with pangea. That of course will likely mean more naval battles if that is irritating for you.
It also appears to me that I would have to drop in at least 2 more civs to get something approaching the sort of other civ city consistency I saw regularly with a 9 civ pangea, so the additional space doesn't seem to be a mirage.
One last thing, if anyone would like to comment on greater land mass elsewhere, please do, but in my own case I would find any comments on multiple continents (over 2) of most interest since I haven't tried those yet. It seems when I first bought civ4 that I tried the 2 continent game and it seemed quite small compared to pangea (but then again I think the maps were all around smaller - at least the games were shorter). I can't say that I expect 'more' than two continents will see a greater land mass still, but who knows?
Now maybe I had a very fortunate spot to start with (havimg not played continents in Civ4 I don't know), but it's infantry time now and I can still expand 3-4 more cities without crowding anybody (probably around 10 total cities at the moment).
Now that the shores have been determined, looking at the whole map it does appear that the land mass is actually greater. The only catch to this different mapping is that probably half of your cities will end up having some pretty good amount of shores, which isn't that true with pangea. That of course will likely mean more naval battles if that is irritating for you.
It also appears to me that I would have to drop in at least 2 more civs to get something approaching the sort of other civ city consistency I saw regularly with a 9 civ pangea, so the additional space doesn't seem to be a mirage.
One last thing, if anyone would like to comment on greater land mass elsewhere, please do, but in my own case I would find any comments on multiple continents (over 2) of most interest since I haven't tried those yet. It seems when I first bought civ4 that I tried the 2 continent game and it seemed quite small compared to pangea (but then again I think the maps were all around smaller - at least the games were shorter). I can't say that I expect 'more' than two continents will see a greater land mass still, but who knows?