Are huge maps too huge?

[dtolman]

I almost gave up on playing civ 3, till I came to the realization that the reason I wasn't having much fun was because huge maps are just basically tedious - your guarenteed to end up with dozens of cities to control, and hundreds upon hundreds of units... I've switched to medium/large maps, and I'm having a lot more fun dealing with the smaller maps.

so - Does anyone have any tips for taking the tedium out of the huge maps?

About the only plus I can think of for them is that tech advances seem to come quicker, and if you like to explore their's more to see...

 

[Bulboséb]

I think huge maps are really useful for playing in real maps!
It's not fun when you move two or three times a warrior and you are yet at the other side of Europa (like the map's world of Civ II)...
It'll be useful for scenarii... ) Imagine the cold war on a huge map with twenty or thirty civilizations! It'll be wonderful! )))

 

[Creepster]

Huge maps are fun, but you have to be ready for a long game. The tech race is faster on huge maps, but the real fun is all of the units the AI's can build up to use against you. I find that the wars in the latter ages are a lot more interesting. You tend to have to deal with stacks of infantry 25 or more deep.

I only wish the AI was a liitle more creative in its approach to using all of those units. It is almost tto easy in getting them to kill themselves.

 

[philippe]

I would like to have even bigger maps.Im thinking of 500*500
Really giant maps where you not come against a opponent in 20 turns

 

[GhengisFarb]

Originally posted by philippe
I would like to have even bigger maps.Im thinking of 500*500
Really giant maps where you not come against a opponent in 20 turns

I want bigger maps, too. They ratio of city to territory seems to small. For America, the city of Denver takes up the equivilent land area of 8 states.

 

[Dearmad]

I don't like 'em. I play on the medium size almost all the time.

 

[dtolman]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb


I want bigger maps, too. They ratio of city to territory seems to small. For America, the city of Denver takes up the equivilent land area of 8 states.

But if the map was that size, you would end up with the entire US covered with a city every 4-5 squares. If they have maps that big, they'll need to scale up the city control radius's to match... And put limits on the number of units you can have on a square. I don't think it would be realistic to have a stack of 1000 infantry on one square at that point...

And movement for that matter - infantry would take the whole game to move across eur-asia...

 

[Level]

I like huge maps they do take a long time I would like larger maps but you would need more movment points.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Huge maps used to be bigger before v1.21f (25% bigger?). Huge maps are not for everybody. Huge maps do require alot more time and are for people who like to devote more time into one game and play with more civs, usually.

 

[Richard III]

I've always found large maps with 12 to be a nice compromise; it tends to produce variety without the same scale of micromanagement.

 

[sumthinelse]

I don't know yet. My game on a huge map is only about 1000 BC so far, so I haven't gotten to the slow part. But since I already play so slowly, it might not bother me.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I tend to play on Huge (v1.21f) maps with 10-12 civs. I'm certainly not experiencing any surplus of territory ...

I tend to find standard maps claustrophobic ... never even tried the small ones.

 

[Pembroke]

You should give the smaller maps a try, because they might surprise you. I created once a hand-made Isolation-style 1 civ / 1 island map, but with the twist that it was Tiny, about 90% water, with max nbr of civs, and a single island contained only 1 type of the strategic resources (same with luxuries). Now, this gives intercontinental trade and overseas colonies a Meaning...

(Note: The AI is not that good in this style of play so you might want to increase your normal difficulty level by one dot and maybe even give the AI civs some free starting units so that they can get their civs going...)

 

[johnpaulcain]

Im playing my first civ3 game on a huge map; im at about 1950AD and im getting very bored of waiting so long between turns. I think a medium sized map is in order for the next game.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
I tend to play on Huge (v1.21f) maps with 10-12 civs. I'm certainly not experiencing any surplus of territory ...

I tend to find standard maps claustrophobic ... never even tried the small ones.

You should try the small ones. Just to a change in prespective...
It's a completelly diferent game...

 

[Sodak]

I've played on huge maps, but not finished a game. After 1000ad, I 'played' by spending 15 minutes micromanaging, then a half hour reading while the AI took its turns. I like having more civs, but the endgame would take an eternity...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, I don't say I won't ever tried the small maps, but I know I hated them in Civ2 and SMAC. Perhaps I'll try a small GOTM game.

 

[Azale]

My first and second civ3 games were on huge maps.It was okay,but after I tried the standard and large size maps,I had more fun.I enjoyed wars more with the standard and large maps:rocket2: