Do You Reduce the Number of Civ's or CS's in a Game?

[steveg700]

Probably the most frustrating thing for me in a game of civilization is how cramped the map loadout is. I bump into other civ's within the first 10 turns, and relationships get hostile quickly. There's no room to expand, and civ's are basically pushed into early (and perhaps constant) warfare if they want to expand into more than a couple of cities. I've started plenty of games full of optimism at the initial map loadout just tor resign in frustration by turn 50.

So, when I load a large or huge map, I start removing civ's. One, then two, then three....Doesn't seem to have as much impact I'd hope, really. Removing city-states would help more.

Has anyone found what they feel to be an ideal setup?

 

[beorn]

I don't know of a way to adjust the number of city-states, so I haven't added or subtracted those. fwiw, I find that sometimes on central sea maps, I end up with a lot of elbow room for growth.

However, I look at the mix and proximity of neighboring civs and city-states as the variation that makes the game fun to play repeatedly. Lots of room to grow... leads the game in one direction, while cramped quarter leads in another direction. And, truth be told, I have not found that an isolated start is necessarily easier.

But I am pretty sure that if you create a huge map and cut the competing civs by half, you will have lots of room, if that is what you enjoy.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

In Civ V I increased the # of civs to ramp up conflict. In cases where my civ harnessed city-states, I would increase them as well.

I don't find that this is necessary in Civ 6 since the wide game is preferred.

 

[steveg700]

However, I look at the mix and proximity of neighboring civs and city-states as the variation that makes the game fun to play repeatedly. Lots of room to grow... leads the game in one direction, while cramped quarter leads in another direction. And, truth be told, I have not found that an isolated start is necessarily easier.

Thing is, I'm not seeing the variation you speak of. If I'm on an archipelago map, then sure, I have a bit more breathing room (although I've been crowded even on those types of maps too).

An isolated start is easier if you're peaceful, because the AI is programmed not to like having neighbors. That is to say, even if they're content to stay small, they don't like the player going wider than them. It's just not terribly beneficial to have friendly neighbors, and the lack of diplomatic bonuses one can get for being a friendly neighbor reflect that.

 

[The Highwayman]

I play on large and huge maps predominantly and reduce the AI number to 7. Makes some difference occasionally but I'm still boxed in most of the time with the AI forward settling me and unnecessarily parking warriors on my tiles, bringing on the inevitable they "think you're a warmonger" line that's burned into my monitor.

 

[JosephC]

My first few games I thought it was going to be an issue being so cramped. But I really enjoy it now.

I see the early game as a squabble of tribes trying to make room for their growth. So if occasionally a civ or two, maybe a couple of city states have to go to get my core cities down so be it. The early game mechanics are designed for it: No warmongering penalties for capturing or razing cities, and first military units have no maintenance cost (Side note: Ancient era is great time to unlock your mercenaries boost).

I play on huge maps & marathon speed. I generally increase the number of civs by 2, making a total of 14. I believe the number of city states are random, but I find on huge maps I tend to get around 20-22.

One thing I've been experimenting with is selecting low sea level to increase the amount of land.

 

[FurballRocker]

I used to play huge maps in civ v (well all previous versions) and used to remove a couple of civs for a bit of breathing room so i had chance to build a decent military and wait to get DoW'd to avoid the crippling warmonger penalties from declaring war but i find the new slightly more cramped set up good in civ vi or at least suiting to the game with no warmonger penalties early on so you should be running over neighbours as early as possible and also some CS as all are not universally good.

Generally after settling i get a builder and then spam military and go straight to conquering my first few cities from unhelpful local CS's and a neighbour i don't see myself being friendly with or just my neighbour if i am in a corner with only one neighbour. This usually nets a few builders and with luck some settlers also.

Once i have wiped out my neighbour i then asses my other neighbours and the land i now have and then start pumping out settlers to back fill.
If i have an annoying other neighbour i usually run them over also but if i have a neighbour i can probably be friendly with (pretty easy with many if you exploit their traits) and enough land i then start focusing on building up what i have.

Even without conquering it is often reasonably easy to play peaceful if you don't have a grumpy civ on your border just by having a reasonable military as the AI is particularly tame even on high levels, as already mentioned playing to their traits and even forward settling can actually be a good thing as you get more good boy points for keeping a promise than you do bad boy points for settling near them so you can actually improve relations in the long term by forward settling.

 

[fodazd]

I play with a mod that increases the minimum distance between two starting locations from 9 tiles to 20 tiles, and then I remove usually 2 civs.

 

[shaglio]

I play on huge maps & marathon speed. I generally increase the number of civs by 2, making a total of 14. I believe the number of city states are random, but I find on huge maps I tend to get around 20-22.

I play on the default Small map and I always have 9 CSs. I just assumed that it was 1.5*(# of civs) as opposed to Civ 5's 2*(# of civs). But if there are 12 civs on a Huge map, then my formula would only give 18 CSs. So my formula would be incorrect. Although if you're bumping it up by 2 civs to 14, and the CS formula is accounting for that, then my formula would be 21 CSs. So maybe I might be right after all.

 

[Underseer]

I play on the default Small map and I always have 9 CSs. I just assumed that it was 1.5*(# of civs) as opposed to Civ 5's 2*(# of civs). But if there are 12 civs on a Huge map, then my formula would only give 18 CSs. So my formula would be incorrect. Although if you're bumping it up by 2 civs to 14, and the CS formula is accounting for that, then my formula would be 21 CSs. So maybe I might be right after all.

Aren't the huge maps in 6 smaller than the huge maps in 5?

 

[need my speed]

Aren't the huge maps in 6 smaller than the huge maps in 5?

Yes.

 

[kaspergm]

I haven't done it yet, but I feel like I might start cutting the number of civs by 1. I feel in most games, I start almost on top of at least one, if not two, other civs, which is rather frustrating. This is even on large pangaea maps. However, sometimes there will be huge swaths of land with no civs on them, so it seems as much like a problem with the map scripts as a problem with the map size. In Civ5, the map scripts would divide the map into roughly equal size regions and put one civ in each region. It feels like this is no longer the case in Civ6.

 

[Disgustipated]

I actually add one extra AI. I know it gives me the advantage for early conquest, but otherwise it seems to take ages finding another Civ.

My current game I just barely started on Earth map (standard size of course) I kept the default civs, but I should have added one. I still haven't found another Civ (I seem to have started in Europe) and I haven't found a city state either. Good news is I have room to expand peacefully, so no early conquest this game.

In civ5 I kept the default Civs, but reduced city states to 10 or 11 on a standard sized map. City states too often got in the way of my country's borders, and made it hard to have a contiguous empire.

 

[JosephC]

I play on the default Small map and I always have 9 CSs. I just assumed that it was 1.5*(# of civs) as opposed to Civ 5's 2*(# of civs). But if there are 12 civs on a Huge map, then my formula would only give 18 CSs. So my formula would be incorrect. Although if you're bumping it up by 2 civs to 14, and the CS formula is accounting for that, then my formula would be 21 CSs. So maybe I might be right after all.

Interesting, you might be right. Some of my games I might have counted after they had been razed/captured. Appears there is also a minimum number of city states (0), and a maximum depending on map size.

From: MapSizes.xml

Map Size: Max City States | Default City States
Dual: 6 | 3
Tiny: 10 | 6
Small: 14 | 9
Large: 22 | 15
Huge: 24 | 18

 

[whyidie]

I reduced Civs on occasion in 5. In 6 I haven't had the desire yet.

I play standard size maps, usually shuffle. One thing I have found in my games is that at least 1 Civ gets an awful roll each game. I have had and have seen some absolutely awful starts.

Overall I usually find that I have space for at least 4 good cities or 6 cramped cities on each roll.

Some games have been wide open and other games war is the only option for expansion. I'm getting good variety with shuffle maps.

 

[Abraxis]

I increase them, and usually set water level to high. With the default setting there is too much diversity in the amount of starting space players get. Some people start with a ton of land, others start right next to a bunch of city states and civs. If you make the map denser, everyone falls into the later category. If anyone wants to expand they have to fight for it, no free rides for anybody, and no worrying about some jerk on the other side of the world running away with the game because he didn't have any competition.

Also, I think they AI preforms better when there are threats all over the place. There is a nice balance in the early game between conquering and building. Each has its own draw backs if you focus too hard on it to the exclusion of the other. Being able to expand without conquering though, that is just having your cake and eating it too, and putting that down to nothing but luck of the draw is kind of bullfeathers.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Actually, I feel it's somewhat empty. Sometimes my closest neighbour is 12+ tiles away from my capital, separated by a mountain range. I feel there's a lot of space around, and I get overwhelmed by the amount of Settlers I have to churn.

But then, I often rush my neighbours. Dead neighbours can't make Settlers and cities to help me fill in the space.

 

[need my speed]

Sometimes my closest neighbour is 12+ tiles away from my capital,

That, to me, is extremely nearby... How far the Civilization games have fallen, from 'empire' to 'feudal kingdom' builder.

 

[kampori]

I play on huge maps. I reduce number of civs to 4-5. I still bump into 3-4/4-5 civs within 20 turns. Only once in 59 games have I ever stated on my own continent all alone.

This game is obsessed with putting you close to other civs. And I absolutely hate it. Kind of the reason I haven't played in a month.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

That, to me, is extremely nearby... How far the Civilization games have fallen, from 'empire' to 'feudal kingdom' builder.

That's the nearest city, not the capital. Usually without fresh water by 1 tile. And a mountain range or a bunch of rainforest hills to overcome. I have to wait 10+ turns for them just to reach it, let alone capture it, and then reach the capital.