How do we feel about the "standard" size map?

[StargazingDog]

I have finished a couple games on small and I'm thinking I will go standard next time. I don't necessarily need a larger map, but I have always enjoyed having more Civs in the game. It makes diplomacy more interesting. Have you tried standard size? What did you think?

 

[moondog385]

Standard is much better than small, but more options are still needed.

 

[Disgustipated]

I usually like larger maps, but small has been okay for me so far. But what about map types? There is no description for things like terra incognita. I wasn't a big fan of continents, but I liked continents plus.

Ha, I say the maps are okay, but in m current start they start me with no fresh water. I really wish this game had the restart button.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've played only on Standard so far, and it feels about right: generally 5 Civs in the 'Old World', 3 in the Distant Lands half of the map. If you mandate less than 8 Civs, the game removes them from the Distant Lands first, it seems.

I hope they come up with larger map sizes once they've added a few more Civs in the progression. 2 more larger sizes with, say, 10 and 12 default numbers of Civs (eventually I'd love a map big enough for 16 Civs, but that will probably have to wait for about 6 more DLCs full of new Civs and leaders), and an option to put all the Civs on one continent/hemisphere so that the Distant Lands are entirely IPs - a real "New World" or Terra option, so to speak

 

[Evolena]

I'm playing on a Small one, on low difficulty. I've eliminated an opponent, the 2 others have 5 Settlements in total, me 10 (so that would be ~4 Settlement per faction), and there's still a lot of place (like, at least a third of the continent). It feels large (at this difficulty because the AI have not managed to expand a lot).

 

[Seek]

Very much looking forward to larger maps. By mid-exploration the tiny oceans and city scaling make it just feel like a couple islands in the Mediterranean.

 

[Seek]

If you mandate less than 8 Civs, the game removes them from the Distant Lands first, it seems.

Really dislike this, I would like fewer civs in the homelands while still having a couple in DL, and there’s no way to do this afaict.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Really dislike this, I would like fewer civs in the homelands while still having a couple in DL, and there’s no way to do this afaict.

One subject that has not, to my knowledge, received enough attention is what Options the game needs to really allow the maximum of multiple plays and types of games.

That includes more options for Civs and terrain, types of climate, biome, and configuration of the terrain/maps.

We should, for example, have the option of starting with a Distant Lands entirely occupied by IPs - all Hostile to keep it interesting and possibly with the option of 'converting;' them to friendly turned off for IPs in Distant Lands.

And we should definitely have the option of specifying Home and Distant hemispheres separately: Continents in Homeland, maybe Tropical Archipelago in Distant Lands for those who want to play Race To The Spice Islands. OR a plains/desert Distant Lands Continent full of IPs all spawning cavalry forces - and welcome to Lakotaland with your puny Swordsmen.

We should have the option of specifying how many and which Civs are in Home and Distant continents, with which Leaders - so gamers can recreate the Spanish Conquests in the New World, or a Fantasy of Mayan Conquest of Rome.

We should have the option of starting on a Tropical map in which Tundra and desert are minimized, or the opposite, or (almost) any combination: if you thought you had played every Victory with Mayans or Mauryans, try them in the Arctic for a change, or Catherine in the Tropics in all three Ages.

And if we ever get a TSL game/map in Civ VII, that should include the possibility of IPs also being in their 'historical' start locations and even later ones spawning in/near their TSL.

Just thoughts that have already crawled through my brain in my first plays . . .

 

[aelf]

It's large enough for me.

 

[LightningFst]

Made an account just to leave feedback on this thread/topic. I really like Civ7, however my main gameplay loop is multiplayer with 3-4+ people. On standard size the map is absolutely claustrophobic - we are constantly running into space issues and have barely enough room for the first 4-5 settlements when we include AI Civs. We desperately need a larger map for our play group.

 

[Tanel]

The Standard maps size is quite decent although I would certainly like a larger one when they add more civs to the game.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

For the maximum amount of Civs that can be ingame i find Standard to be enough. I think there is a mod to enable the bigger map options that are disabled from Firaxis, because there are not enough Civs or maybe for stability or whatever other reason. It will come in the unmoded/unchanged game sometime in the future since the option is there and is only disabled for some reason.

 

[StargazingDog]

I just finished antiquity age in my first standard size game. Initially, I felt there was too much open space. However, I think this was just a quirk of me also selecting fractal (been choosing continents plus until now).

It honestly doesn't feel any different from small at this point. I just have more civs to deal with, which is fine for me as Machiavelli. It does feel more interesting with conflicts and such. Influence seems more valuable. I did seem to find more independent powers than usual. Again, some of this may be from fractal. I'm not sure.

I'll likely play standard for every game from now on.