Huge maps and palaces

[Pocus]

Another suggestion: in huge maps, you have big trouble fighting the cost incurred to cities because of distance to palace. You can have up to three palaces in the game, but this should either be calibrated to the size of the map, or have one of these buildable indefinitively, this solution being simpler to implement (just remove the number limitation).

 

[CuteKills]

I maybe wrong, bur doesn't the factor for distance change on bigger map sizes?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you're playing a huge map, you have more AI civs in the map with you, so empire size should remain fairly constant across map sizes.

 

[Silverkiss]

And even if you do conquer a lot of land, maintenance is there to be a problem... If you take out all the things that make the game harder, it's no fun anymore =x

 

[Pocus]

right, but if you play on a medium map, you still get the right to have 3 palaces, and maintenance is not a problem. On a huge map, when you start to take over significant portions of the world, you won't have enough with 3 palaces.
But Cutekills has a good point, maintenance is calibrated to the size of the map somehow.

 

[R0GERSHRUBBER]

At least The Order has some additional appeal in this situation. I often find it to be the least appealing religion (in terms of game mechanics).

I once suggested having the number of national units scale with map size. On a smaller map, 3 Heavy Crossbowman and 3 Shield Walls might cover all of your cities, but they won't even come close on a large empire with a Huge map. You also may have more wars and more fronts to defend with other units.