Favorite Map Choices?

[suedenim]

I'm trying to figure out what map selection makes for the most fun games in FFH. Erebus is great for flavor, but I wonder if it makes things a bit too easy for the human player (in particular, since you tend to have easily-defended impassable mountain range or map-edge borders.)

I usually like maps that encourage some naval activity in regular Civ IV, but FFH seems to lend itself more to land-heavy maps in both flavor and gameplay.

Any good "map recipe" suggestions?

 

[Korias]

Custom Continents With 2-4 Continents usually works well, Depending on map size and speed- I play Huge Marathon, so it works very well for me, but it should work fine on normal speeds. For smaller sizes, consider using Big and Small, as that tends to get a nice distribution.

 

[Senethro]

Inland Sea with Rocky Climate. Regular climate has too few hills.
Lakes. Pangaea.
An odd one I sometimes play is Toroidal Highlands. The map has 3 climate bands - Cold, Temperate, and patchy Tropical/Desert. At low peaks most of the land is good for settling in, but an interesting side effect is that Tundra patches beside deserts become a large inhospitable zone that barbarian empires can form in and survive for surprising lengths of time.

 

[apenpaap]

Erebus is really annoying with all those mountains. I usually play Tectonics. Sometimes Earth2 to see where Hyborem will spawn.

 

[Valkrionn]

Erebus Continent, all the way.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=308590

 

[WCH]

I used to always play Highlands/Seas/ridges, liked it because of the bottlenecks it produced. Much less artificial feeling than Erebus, but the same ability to predict from where an attack will come. I think this is the best map for No Settlers games, as you can shape your empire according to the mountain ranges and defend at bottlenecks, whereas if you don't have No Settlers on, you'll just fill it all up anyway and the bottlenecks will be irrelevant.

Lately I've been playing on Fractal, though... it's good because you don't know what to expect, and usually has interesting shaped land.

 

[WCH]

I used to always play Highlands/Seas/ridges, liked it because of the bottlenecks it produced. Much less artificial feeling than Erebus, but the same ability to predict from where an attack will come. I think this is the best map for No Settlers games, as you can shape your empire according to the mountain ranges and defend at bottlenecks, whereas if you don't have No Settlers on, you'll just fill it all up anyway and the bottlenecks will be irrelevant.

Lately I've been playing on Fractal, though... it's good because you don't know what to expect, and usually has interesting shaped land.

 

[Bulbhead]

Highlands standard (anything bigger will give you tons of Barbarians) or
Pangea large

 

[tharg]

I'm trying to figure out what map selection makes for the most fun games in FFH.

The AI can't understand the naval promotions so can not handle naval tactics. If you want the best out of the AI stick to one land mass games there a plenty to choose from.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I stick with pangea, with natural shorelines. There's lots of coves, peninsulas, maybe some choke points, and lots of interaction. The ai can get anywhere it needs, but naval forces will come in handy.

 

[Crusis]

Huh... I've always enjoyed Archipelago, High Seas, Temperate. I enjoy the initial isolation that exists after I leap on and destroy nearby neighbors.

 

[warhawk26]

Pangea, standard, pressed shore. Occasionally a large map.

 

[Marksman77]

Lately MontainCoast. Interesting maps and you're not as open too attack from all sides as on pangea, at least one flank of your empire will be mountains or ocean.
It does not wrap.

 

[CurseUppl]

I play huge tectonics with lakes (30% water). Lots of land area and mountain ranges with empty spaces in between that aren't settled (this is with 22 bots), which I find more realistic than other map modes.

 

[xalien]

I play huge tectonics with lakes (30% water). Lots of land area and mountain ranges with empty spaces in between that aren't settled (this is with 22 bots), which I find more realistic than other map modes.

That's my favourite setup too. The only downside of tectonic maps is the lack of rivers.

 

[CurseUppl]

Yeah, is a bit of a shame. Any chance this can be changed in future patches?

 

[xalien]

Here, I've found a solution presented by the script's author: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8315229&postcount=260

I've incresed their number by 2 and lenght by 3, looks much better now.

 

[CurseUppl]

Here, I've found a solution presented by the script's author: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8315229&postcount=260

I've incresed their number by 2 and lenght by 3, looks much better now.

Excellent. Thanks a lot!

 

[suedenim]

I stick with pangea, with natural shorelines. There's lots of coves, peninsulas, maybe some choke points, and lots of interaction. The ai can get anywhere it needs, but naval forces will come in handy.

This is a good one, trying a game with this setting now. I had thought all the Pangaea maps were basically "one big pizza-pie continent, but there are lots of interesting oddities.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I generally play Large Tectonics; 60% water; 19 civs