How much harder is Civ3 when on a medium to huge map?

[SsS]

How much harder is Civ3 when on a medium to huge map?

I have been playing on small maps and can beet them on the Diety level. I tried a huge map but the time it took between turns drove me nuts so I retired the game.

On small maps turns take (between the time you hit enter and the AI finishes) about 1 to 40 seconds. On the huge map it was taking about 5 minutes between turns.

Is it my PC that is causeing this long duration or is it typical on any machine?

How much better/harder/richer is the game on larger maps?

Thanks,

 

[LLXerxes]

Welcome to CFC, SsS

(My 500th post! )

I hve lage time duration on C3C all the time.
As for the harder/easier question, uhh...

 

[Sparrow3]

My machine runs at about 1.4 gig and I have about a two minute delay right now in the Industrial age on a huge map. Primarily I think because of all the processes XP is running in the background. So the delay is probably caused by the PC and depends on the CPU speed.

as for you other question (better/harder/richer?). I don't think it is a question of harder, really; it is more a question of longer. On a tiny or small map the game probably runs a couple of hours to a day. Large and huge map games take weeks to complete. On huge maps both you and the AI have more time to develope before war; but the game is not really any harder. As for better/richer, I like time to build my Civ to greatness.

 

[Gainy]

I don't think it is a question of harder, really; it is more a question of longer

I disagree
My Deity HOF game did not require much effort at all, it was surprisingly easy. I played it on a Tiny map, and just rushed the AI - although I stopped for peace for a while to build up forces. There was next to no micromanagement, the only problem I faced was the overwhelming culture of the AI.

When I play Deity games on a Standard map size, I find them much more demanding (all be it I haven't tried one for a long time). You have to worry about Micromanagement, tech trading, culture flipping (to a greater extent), and because the AI get a bonus each time they build a city, it makes it easier for them on a larger map -- more cities.
I couldn't describe how vast the change in difficulty is, and whether it is harder on Huge maps, but I found it pretty darned easy on the Tiny Deity map (compared with my previous Standard attempts)

Edit: Regarding speed: I have a P4 2.4Ghz, 1Gb of RAM machine, and on Standard maps I experience pretty much no delay. Although I haven't played in the Industrial ages since I upgraded it...

 

[zurichuk]

may go down to personal playing style then because i find the larger the map the easier the level seems (mind you i've never tried rushing yet but my trading is quite competent and more AI help that )

 

[Dell19]

I find larger maps tend to be harder as you are more likely to be surrounded by AI who may end up expanding into areas which you thought would be yours. On a smaller map its often easier to block AI expansion...

 

[llebsirhc]

Personally, I like playing huge maps and as the game goes on, it tends to take longer between turns. I guess that's a trade-off you have to deal with. I usually play monarch/most aggressive with max civs. I agree with Dell19 that the AI often surrounds you on bigger maps and that can cause the game to be "harder" at times.

 

[collin_stp]

I usually switch between standard and large maps, and find that large maps are slightly more difficult, but I wouldn't say too much. I have only done tiny a couple of times, and actually found it to be a big challenge, but that is probably my playing style. Having said all of that, I still find the larger maps more fun.

 

[Dell19]

Perhaps it depends on the civ that you play with as well. If you have an early UU then on a smaller map it may be easier since you can quickly establish yourself as the largest empire by taking out a neighbour whilst on a larger map there is the risk that an AI civ will also become just as large or become powerful and be unreachable. Whilst a quick growth civ that is also stronger later on may be better on a large map where you can establish yourself early on and then take out a string of neighbours.

 

[Hirachi Dinavo]

I play mostly on huge maps. The map size affects how the game turns out. On a tiny map, you can have early wars with an AI easily. On huge an early war is hard because it takes so long to get forces to the AI cities.

 

[Longasc]

I can't really answer that question, I really only play scenarios and HUGE maps. Timing and distance are of greater importance, 2-movement units are very important in the beginning, roads are very important to defend a large empire on a huge map. A two frontier war is much more demanding. But you can also afford more losses, as you will have more cities and area.

The nasty thing is that in the industrial age mass battles will occur - real mass battles, due to the sheer number of producing cities.

 

[Immortal]

Huge maps are my favourite, since I enjoy large scale, slow moving wars with lots of territory changing, especially on multiple front wars with multiple factions. Every turn the leader board changed.

 

[Tomoyo]

Generally, it is easier to build on larger maps because there are more trading partners. On smaller maps it is very common to have one single runaway AI. (or human)

 

[Masquerouge]

I play only on huge maps. Thinks to remember when you play on huge maps :
1. you will NEVER get Iron Works. Or you'd better be off buying a lottery ticket.
2. domination and conquest games can become really really tedious. Taking 50+ size 20 cities is... well, a game in the game.
3. The map is a lot bigger but the units have the same movement points as in a tiny map. Meaning... Railroad ! Railroad ! Large-scale offensives are, well rather small-scale ones before the industrial era. And forget about quick naval warfare. Getting round the globe takes 80 days of RL (at least).
4. G. Wonders that produces units are much less efficient on a huge map. By the time that ancient cav actually comes to the enemy's border, he will be in the modern era.

So to summarize, Huge maps are a builder's dream and a warmonger's nightmare, unless you're a masochistic warmonger

 

[Ramius75]

I play only on huge maps. Thinks to remember when you play on huge maps :
1. you will NEVER get Iron Works. Or you'd better be off buying a lottery ticket.
2. domination and conquest games can become really really tedious. Taking 50+ size 20 cities is... well, a game in the game.
3. The map is a lot bigger but the units have the same movement points as in a tiny map. Meaning... Railroad ! Railroad ! Large-scale offensives are, well rather small-scale ones before the industrial era. And forget about quick naval warfare. Getting round the globe takes 80 days of RL (at least).
4. G. Wonders that produces units are much less efficient on a huge map. By the time that ancient cav actually comes to the enemy's border, he will be in the modern era.

So to summarize, Huge maps are a builder's dream and a warmonger's nightmare, unless you're a masochistic warmonger

I got Iron work on both my Huge map game. For my present game, i had to raze 3 cities to build 1. Enemies Cities of coz.

Ramius

 

[Aggie]

Generally, it is easier to build on larger maps because there are more trading partners. On smaller maps it is very common to have one single runaway AI. (or human)

Exactly my point of view. Imho huge maps are easier than small maps because of the fact that there are always backward civs to trade with. This allows you to stay in the tech race. This mainly goes for diety or higher by the way. One should be able to outresearch the AI on emperor and less, making smaller maps easier, because you will win domination/conquest with a lot less effort.

The world shape is also important here. I find huge archipelago maps easier, because you will be able to make contact with the world before the AI does. Especially as seafaring.

 

[BassDude726]

It depends on the configuration of the map rather than the size when trying to say how difficult a map is. Personally I find the more water on a huge map, the better. Naval units have higher movement rates so it's easier to move forces over water rather than marching them over land.

 

[Masquerouge]

It depends on the configuration of the map rather than the size when trying to say how difficult a map is. Personally I find the more water on a huge map, the better. Naval units have higher movement rates so it's easier to move forces over water rather than marching them over land.

True, but the logistical planning necessary for a large-scale sea invasion is IMHO as tedious as a full land war on huge landmass, especially now there's the "move all units of the same type" command.
Note that I find both are great to play

 

[Tomoyo]

It depends on the configuration of the map rather than the size when trying to say how difficult a map is. Personally I find the more water on a huge map, the better. Naval units have higher movement rates so it's easier to move forces over water rather than marching them over land.

But naval units don't have roads or rails... They can't take cities and are expensive. The other thing about archipelago maps is that the AI is hopeless in warfare.

 

[BassDude726]

This is true, but most of my wars are fought before railroads.

Anyway, naval transportation is only good when you have good sea routes. I only use it if I have a direct route to the continent/island, I hate any transport that takes more than 5 or 6 turns.