I am a little curious about what the right scaling around map size should be. Not even stuff like unit speed, but like, if I'm playing on a tiny map, I probably should have a lower settlement limit, a lower requirement for resources and wonders to complete those tiers, and so on, right?
Of course, on the flipside, if you have a larger map with more civs, you have more competition for the same fixed pool of wonders, so it becomes harder to actually get those numbers.
I disagree, smaller map has less players, so the total settlements available is the same.
The only thing that should be affected by map size are
1. unit movement (this is already adjusted by gamespeed…small/large maps should be played on fast/slow speeds)
2. Anything from other “players” (resources from trade routes, bonuses from CS, bonuses from diplomacy, risks from War, Wonder competition) is more on a large map
#2 is partially compensated for through influence…to do almost** anything with another player/IP
**First Trade Route to a civ being an exception that might be important…they might need to not allow you to make any trade routes without spending influence (or maybe you can propose your first 1-3 for free but not 1 per other civ)
**Wonder competition being another…but right now there are 10 generic Wonders in antiquity….so 20 total in base game…this increases with DLC since each Antiquity civ will add an Antiquity Wonder, but right now
5 to 2.5 wonders/player depending on map size.
With Wonders there is more than just the competition since there is the production cost, which gets refunded if you lose the competition….But I could see a need for more Wonders before larger maps are opened up/are well balanced.
**The last I can think of is commander exp this is more a game speed issue which means that faster speeds should require less EXP for each level.
