Does everyone play the full game?

[cain3456]

Playing the full 19 (21 w/ the summonings) player game is fun, but sure takes a long time to load. I'm wondering if anyone plays smaller games and how they determine a balanced lineup. All the same alignment? (Sounds boring) Mutual antagonists? (Like the two elven factions, etc.)

 

[Breunor]

I usually play on 'normal' maps which is about 7 players.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[cain3456]

ok, but are the 7 completely randomized, or do you select a particular opponent?

 

[Doug Piranha]

In my typical game, I'll put extra AIs on a small size map that generates extra land (tectonics lakes or highlands). This avoids long load and AI play times, as you noted. Most times, I'll pick my opponents: Sabathiel, Beeri Bawl, Thessa, Falamar, and Jonas Endain. Since I usually play as Flauros, that gives two each of good, neutral, and evil.

The problem with these small games is that eliminating one opponent generally means the game is effectively over.

 

[Nor'easter]

I typically play Huge Tectonics maps: if I'm playing an Earthlike (70% water) map, then I'll have a total of 11 civs. Sometimes I'll play 60% water, in which case I'll have 12 civs.

And I always play all random civs.

A few times I did try playing with all 19 starting civs, usually on a Standard or Large map with only 30% water. As you noted, though, the game really slows down mid- to late game and you end up with all kinds of unexplained CtDs or WoC hangs. So I reverted back to 11-12 civs.

 

[Tielby]

My experience is similar to Nor'easter's. Nowadays I usually go with Erebus Continents and low sea level (to give the naval-stupid AI (sans Tholal's modmod) a fighting chance), but only use the default number of civs and always random. Since I always play, and have always played, on huge maps, that's 12 civs, as I recall.

Like you, back in the day I used to play with all 19 civs, and it did slow down terribly in the late game. But in comparison, the games I play now, with fewer civs, are just as fun and I don't find it necessary to carefully choose which civs. When controlled by the AI, evil and good don't make a huge difference. They still go to war with each other eventually. The AI doesn't roleplay.

My 2 groszy (Polish cents).

 

[CyberForte]

Lately I've taken to MountainCoast. It's been much less likely to cause a MAF than erebuscontinents or worldoferebus for me, although I do wish that selecting "continents" over "pangea" seemed to do something. At the same time, since I normally play RifE, multiple continents would probably just get absurdly barb infested, even though I play with No Lairs anymore. As far as size, I usually play standard or large--nothing over that, because even large tends to rack up mafs really easily mid to late game. I play with randoms, but I tend to use RifE's restrict random civs option to prevent several. Most notably, the lizardmen civs, which I find overpowered with their auto climateform to nasty jungles, the chislev which I find flavorless, and a few others which just don't do much for me in terms of flavor.

On the whole, I think balance is in how you handle things. For example, two recent games started with all civs annoyed at me. One of them, I was playing Risen Emperor and I never did anything to really make friends, counting on a strong military and culture to keep me safe, but I ended up instead having pretty much everyone attack me.

On the other hand, the other game was as Flauros, and as I went along I took care to create a bloc of allies using the undercouncil, tech trades, and strong military/expansion/selectively building people's favirite wonders. This time I was able to create a strong front of allies, at the expense of making a more solid bloc of enemies too. But when I finally did get dogpiled (I had finally acted to attack someone, since no one had dared attack me, but they peacevassaled to Sabathiel/Basium, and then Thessa who hated me joined in) I had allies to bring against them, and strong enough military that I suffered no significant losses.

So, while it's possible to have unbalanced setups, I ultimately think that the balance between sides in a given game is what you make of it, and there aren't really any situations where it's impossible to create a somewhat balanced set of alliances through play, even if doing so may at times be difficult.

 

[JonathanStrange]

When I play - and I rarely do any more - it's usually with a normal sized map with about six races on Deity level. I like playing the "good" or "neutral" races, so I often choose Elohim or Ljosalfars and ally with one other like-minded race against the evil/neutral remaining races. So it's usually 2 vs. 4, although the bad guys often fight each others. I've no special rules that I follow except that if the Dark Elves are around, I'll cross oceans and deserts to strike them. One of the reasons I choose the Ljosalfars is that they're so dull and unthreatening, that I feel I have to help them out be leading them. It makes things more interesting for me.