Big maps in CIV (V)?

[Wolle68]

In Civ 5 the upkeep of roads are expensive, so it is useful that basic units have 2 point for moving

I have nothing against 2 movement points or bigger city radii. I just think they should come with bigger maps, that's all.

 

[hclass]

Taking into account that city radious is bigger in Civ5, I think I will be happy if I can have ... say 80 cities (or more) when I win with "Conquer" victory.

I will wait until someone confirm with me that Civ5 's huge map is desgined to easily hold that number of cities before I buy it.

However, reading through this thread, I got a bad feeling, may be from Civ5 onwards, Civ is no more my game.

I think Firaxis should pay more and employ better programmers. It is ridiculous that, since Civ3, they have never created any ver of Civ which did well in display... there were so many unpleasent incidents that Civ has bug with this graphic card or that vidoe drivers and so on.

Btw, it won't be a suprise to me if say in the first two weeks after the initial release, everyone who rush buying Civ5 find:
"Those with nVidia Card ver XXXX and earlier will not be able to reload a Civ5 game (it crashes), those with ATI card will be safe"

 

[timtofly]

In Civ 5 the upkeep of roads are expensive, so it is useful that basic units have 2 point for moving

The upkeep of roads will not be expensive. The "spamming" of roads will be expensive. If your roads are used correctly, you will not have to worry about the upkeep. In the past roads represented income, and having a road on every city square was beneficial. Now roads are use to link cities as trade routes and help troop movement.

 

[Disgustipated]

I like big maps. I'm currently playing a game (kind of stalled atm due to lack of time) in civ4. ROM mod. Gigantic earth map. This puppy is every big. I can't imagine anyone needing anything bigger than this. Yes my comp can run it. It takes a minute or two between turns (although with no war it isn't too bad). The biggest problem with this game is I won the game by the middle ages due to my empire size. And it's a matter of hitting end turn until I actually win. Kind of boring once you get out ahead.

Now if civ5 could make the AI competitive in the modern age and beyond, gigantic maps that take days to play would be sweet.

It may be asking too much to be able to build more than 4 cities on the main Japanese isles. 4 isn't bad. If you are Japan, you should try to snag Korea.

 

[Tigernose]

Yeah, like starting as the English on the normal Earth Map would mean having one city on the whole of Britain, London, and it literally covered the whole island, meaning you need to research sailing to get to make more cities! It's stupid, and there is way too little space to find resources, with Germany being right around the corner hogging Europe already.

Now Civ 4 can't handle big maps (yet games like GTA and WoW can handle maps tons of times bigger) and Civ 5 has got even better graphics meaning less memory left - how will we handle any bigger? Really needs some insight into it because bigger maps for me means so much more depth.

Also, finding and colonising the New World in a normal Continents games on Civilization isn't really much of a problem as it's tiny and you're going to be the one to cover it with like 3 cities max if you discover it first.

 

[King Jason]

Technical specifications are not the problem, at least I hope that won't be so, there's no reason it should be with the new game.

The problem, is that the game may not be designed at all to function well on huge maps. Civ5 seems likely to introduce huge amounts of micromanagement of armies and tiles in cities and so on, that just becomes painful on large scales. The AI might not understand how to cope at all, and many game mechanics - barbarians or buildings or wonders or whatever, may not scale to huge maps.

The clear answer is that civ5 will be designed to work on smaller maps, probably a little smaller than the average from civ4. We can hope it scales up well, but no guarantees...

civ 4 came across the same way before release, seemingly designed in terms of smaller maps and smaller empires, especially due to city specialization. In fact, civ4 came across, in terms of empire size and spread, very much how CivRev IS; an average of 10 cities, if that. That's why the national wonder requirement didn't get much higher than 7 or 8...

That doesn't mean that's what occured when the players got their hands on it. They went big, they went massive, and Civ functioned accordingly.

More micromanagement doesn't mean the game doesn't scale well... it's a natural requisite of play bigger games of any time. Micro will always increase as you up the scale of the map... the only way combat gets more tedious is if the player found it tedious to begin with.

Either way, I don't think what you've said is the "clear" answer at all. We won't know until we get our hands on it... and as with civ4, we could be pleasantly surprised about a lot of things. I say this as someone who was initially worried that civ4 catered to smaller empires and less of the huge sprawl that earlier games allowed. Obviously, I was proven wrong.

 

[Schuesseled]

recently read about map sizes i think huge was 12 civs and 24 city states, thats pretty big right?