Does anyone else feel Continents is more challenging than Pangea?

[Leathaface]

I feel with Continents you have less free space to expand and so you're squeezed a bit more. Whereas on Pangea there is a chance you could build 8+ cities without much fuss.

 

[CPWimmer]

I had to think about this a bit. But in the end I decided "No":

While I strongly prefer playing on Continents since oceanic exploration had a large impact on how world history evolved. It has it's pros and cons in terms of being "more challenging". I agree with your expansion comment in terms of Continents being tighter. However given the AI's general inability to deal with Navies - there is an argument to be made that Continents maps handicap the AI more then the Human player, making it easier. In addition, I have never seen the AI come close to a Religious victory on anything other then Pangea. Usually each continent ends up with it's own major religion which can't be overcome by an outside force.

 

[gfeier]

I generally play on huge maps and I prefer Continents because you don't usually have to worry about a religious victory by the AI.

 

[PendragonWRB]

The problem I tend to face on Continents is that an AI can runaway on a remote continent. That and the constrained land, but that is more a factor of the map generation. Sometimes you have tons of space, other times you get a bunch of AIs right on top of you.

Yes naval is powerful and the AI cannot use it well, air is worse but that isn't affected by map type. I would say Pangea is simpler as you can ignore naval development altogether and you have more land to work with, but I only play continents.

 

[Jabarto]

The problem I tend to face on Continents is that an AI can runaway on a remote continent.

Came here to post this, along with the fact that it's easier to wage war when you're all in the same landmass. This has been true probably since Civ 3, maybe even earlier.

 

[LuckyAC]

Never played Pangea but, yes, it would be trivially easier because you can just snowball a conquest victory from the start. Having to embark and explore really slows things down

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Came here to post this, along with the fact that it's easier to wage war when you're all in the same landmass. This has been true probably since Civ 3, maybe even earlier.

Transports sucked in every game they existed. I'd rather lose to a runaway AI on another continent and deal with that hassle.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Continents are supposed to be harder.

 

[General Tso]

One nice thing about continents: If an AI player declares war on you and they are on another continent then you can pretty much ignore them. With the small exception of things like your settlers and archeologists that are at sea or on their continent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Cramped maps favor the player.

Only "harder" thing about continents is that you have to go over to the other one unless you're playing for a "peaceful" VC which is a logistics complication. In principle a runaway could be more threatening (this was the case in civ 4) but in civ 6 terms continents make religious wins less likely and the AI can be suppressed at sea easily enough, turning coast into meat grinder territory.

 

[PendragonWRB]

Cultural runaways is the biggest threat that I tend to see. I am often forced into an invasion to prevent one. With the tech boosts they are also often ahead of me so my military has to wait until I catch up enough. On one giant continent you could march on a threat much sooner.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Honestly, I just want the "Terra" map type back.

 

[Gorbles]

Pangaea is inherently easier because you can mostly ignore naval technologies, civics and construction efforts. The flipside is you lose out on a couple of decent Wonders (mainly the Venetian Arsenal) but that's about it. Any setup which reduces the number of viable choices makes the game less challenging, assuming all players are similarly (in)convenienced. It's also easier to wage war on Pangaea maps, which in general will always favour the player over an AI routines. By contrast, they excel at being left alone and developing a little empire for themselves (see also the impact of removing Barbarians on AI player effectiveness at times).

 

[Cerilis]

But what about fractal?

 

[The_Quasar]

I like fractal maps because of their unpredictability. However, you can get poor ones as well as great ones. You never know what to expect, which I think is better than continents and pangea, which are reasonably consistent.

 

[PendragonWRB]

Other than by definition, I have not found the continent maps very consistent. Sometimes you have tons of land to yourself, sometimes you are surrounded. You may get an island to yourself or share with three others. Sometimes the land is covered in mountains making for far less usable land. Sometimes the continents are huge, sometimes small.

Once I have played all the civs I will probably give fractal a try to mix it up and also go with random civ.

 

[miked1991]

I usually go for Continents and Pangaea kind of takes away an entire aspect of the game (navy), and I enjoy having a whole new round of exploration once I reach caravels. I wish the continents map script wouldn't always give you two equally sized continents though, why don't I ever get 3 or 4, maybe with one larger one and a civ isolated somewhere? The islands scripts are give you too many islands and are annoyingly snaky.

 

[UWHabs]

I find each map has its good and bad, especially if you choose it (not counting if you chose shuffle)

If I'm playing pangaea, then I know I can ignore my navy entirely (or almost entirely). That removes a whole part of the game to worry about, so it can make other parts easier. However, everyone is on the same landmass, so especially the larger the landmass gets, the harder sometimes it can be to manage it all.
Continents is nice because I can basically ignore half the world until the middle of the game. That can be nice, although if you end up with a couple **** opponents on your continent, you might end up with no friends and nobody to trade with. At least when you've met everyone the odds of at least one person accepting your excess luxury goes up. But, as mentioned, the AI navy is pathetic, so it's also much easier.

Otherwise, I think it depends more on your specific spot on the landmass. I've played either map where I'm starting 12 tiles away from an AI with no space to grow, and I've had cases where I can section off a space for 8+ cities without an AI getting in my way (except if I'm too slow to expand). That makes more difference than the specific map type you choose.

 

[joncnunn]

Pangaea can be more dangerous in early game (entirely due to the possibility of an inland start that's surrounded) ; on almost all continents they'll be at least one direction that's safe from attack.
But provided you survive to mid game, it's easier because you can easily DOW whichever AI is most threatening your chance to win while on continents the biggest threat is probably from the other landmass.

Note that none of this has changed significantly from any previous of civilization.

As to neglecting your navy on Pangaea, while you can do it; if you have some coastal cities, it's really to your advantage to build a few naval ships along the ranged attack line to bombard the AI's coastal cities considering how poorly the AI defends itself from them.

 

[Futumch]

I think the luxuries are scrambled a bit better in continent maps. For instance,continent A might have Jade, continent B has Diamonds, but those luxuries are not repeated anywhere else. That provides a bit of an incentive to explore, and makes those couple of GPs who can duplicate a luxury really worthwhile.

I find continents more challenging, but not by much of a margin.