Huge maps seem the word of the day

[TheDS]

Cities have a radius of 3 tiles, slow units move 2 hexes, archers can shoot 2 hexes away... sounds to me like maps will be much larger than in the past.

 

[Willowmound]

We can only dream...for now.

 

[Shiggs713]

yea, at least for those of us with mega gpu's!

 

[tom2050]

Doubt it... in fact, I can make a definite assumption that Huge maps are not the case at all.

1) it's already been said units will be very expensive, each unit will be precious. Therefore, there will be less units than in Civ games we have come to know.

2) Each unit takes up a tile... therefore unit's need to be limited to avoid unit spam. Civ does not work like PG does. PG has big maps and lots of units, Civ cannot act in that same manner.

3) Civ is not a pure wargame, so combat is not made primary emphasis, therefore less unit's is expected.

4) Huge maps would end up making huge tracts of land empty, because I seriously doubt they are going to reverse the current trend and go back to 512 city maps like in Civ 3. And it would become tedious and cumbersome moving units in a single file line across behemoth maps to take a heavily fortified city.

5) Game speed is a high point sales pitch... so map sizes around Civ 4 scale or smaller are probably more accurate.

6) Huge maps are not considered casual gameplay. Firaxsis has switched gears to aim the Civ franchise towards the money piles of the casual gamer.

Let's hope they don't hardcode this... and that the game can be modded to get rid of these horrid things. That includes 1 tile units.

Large maps do not fit in with everything else we know so far, including the promise of great graphics that can run on almost any system.

Tom

 

[Abremms]

the game may not be aimed at huge maps, but given the fanbase and the fact that fewer units means better PC performance, im sure they will include huge maps.

also, i think that on a big map with more resaurces people will probably have more units than you'd expect.

as far as trasnport, it SHOULD be difficult to move fight a war on the other side of the world. projecting that kind of power that far is a logistical nightmare.

 

[Shiggs713]

One of the great things about civ is that the map size, speed, and difficulty have a very wide array of combination's to suit anybody. I'm sure we'll have something at least as big as huge if not bigger. Besides, its not like they hardcode anything like that, civ4 mods were able to achieve maps twice as big as huge. Of course only people with mega pc's could play them.

 

[tom2050]

I'll bet that the huge map size is comparable to Civ 4's huge map size... serious doubt it will be bigger, since the combat system will not handle it. And number of cities will not handle it.

One of the biggest complaints Civ 4 vet's give is the stupid high number of cities in Civ 3... I like huge maps and large numbers of cities, but Civ 5 won't be it. Civ 4 lovers should be thrilled over tiny maps, tiny number of units, single tile units only, and smaller number of cities, no micromanagement.

Tom

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think they're going for larger maps again. They went the other way with civ4, but that game made a leap to 3d and had a lot of new features cramped in. The result was that it felt more compact and I for one felt it lost something. With larger maps there should be a greater sense of exploring and experiencing a world with different civs in contrast to the gamey feel civ4 had.

...and with larger maps, I mean the mapsize the game is ideal for, not the largest available and possibly unplayable map.

 

[tom2050]

I think they're going for larger maps again. They went the other way with civ4, but that game made a leap to 3d and had a lot of new features cramped in. The result was that it felt more compact and I for one felt it lost something. With larger maps there should be a greater sense of exploring and experiencing a world with different civs in contrast to the gamey feel civ4 had.

Explain how behemoth maps like in Civ 3 would work then? (which contain something like tens of thousands of tiles)

Without Increasing city numbers to half a thousand per map to avoid vast stretches of nothing.
While Having very expensive 1 tile only units. Not enough units to do much with here on a gargantuan 50000 tile map.

It doesn't make sense to even think the game is setup that way... not gonna happen.

They are not going in reverse of Civ 4... back to Civ 3. They are still going in the direction past Civ 4 into the realm of something semi-Civilization like.

Tom

 

[Shiggs713]

well think what you want and everybody else will think what they want, its not like it matters. You can keep pushing your opinion on everybody but that won't change what 2k gives us, either way.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Explain how behemoth maps like in Civ 3 would work then? (which contain something like tens of thousands of tiles)

Without Increasing city numbers to half a thousand per map to avoid vast stretches of nothing.
While Having very expensive 1 tile only units. Not enough units to do much with here on a gargantuan 50000 tile map.

It doesn't make sense to even think the game is setup that way... not gonna happen.

They are not going in reverse of Civ 4... back to Civ 3. They are still going in the direction past Civ 4 into the realm of something semi-Civilization like.

Tom

Cities will cover more terrain than before and units will cover greater distances per turn than before. There won't be as many units, but they also are exclusive in a single tile, so you're armies will be more spread out.

And, it's what the ideal size of map that's important, and hopefully that will be larger than in civ4. Do you believe that's unlikely?

 

[tom2050]

Cities will cover more terrain than before and units will cover greater distances per turn than before. There won't be as many units, but they also are exclusive in a single tile, so you're armies will be more spread out.

And, it's what the ideal size of map that's important, and hopefully that will be larger than in civ4. Do you believe that's unlikely?

Thank you.. that is my point. The ideal map size will be Civ 4 huge proportions most likely. Anything vastly larger like a Civ 3 huge map (which dwarfed Civ 4 huge) would mean... even if your cities cover more area with their borders, that still equals vast amounts of empty terrain. Some or all units move 2 hexes, they can travel the empty tracts of land quicker. If Civ 4 players want half a thousand cities again, great... but this is also something I doubt they will do, after all the Civ 4 praise for getting rid of them.

There is no point to do that, just to have a bigger map for no reason. Hoping for something that doesn't fit with what they tell us doesn't make it make any more sense.

Tom

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Thank you.. that is my point. The ideal map size will be Civ 4 huge proportions most likely. Anything vastly larger like a Civ 3 huge map (which dwarfed Civ 4 huge) would mean... even if your cities cover more area with their borders, that still equals vast amounts of empty terrain. Some or all units move 2 hexes, they can travel the empty tracts of land quicker. If Civ 4 players want half a thousand cities again, great... but this is also something I doubt they will do, after all the Civ 4 praise for getting rid of them.

There is no point to do that, just to have a bigger map for no reason. Hoping for something that doesn't fit with what they tell us doesn't make it make any more sense.

Tom

Why wouldn't there be a reason?! There's more room for battles and making use of new tactics. You have to have more room for resources if they're used up when building units. There's a greater sense of exploration, even if the units move faster on flat ground they still may not see that far or be able to cross all terrain, etc.
There can be larger oceans separating the civs... the world doesn't have to be explored around 1 AD.

I think you're too focused on the earlier iterations of civ and their features to see the possibilities of the new features and concepts here.

 

[tom2050]

Why wouldn't there be a reason?! There's more room for battles and making use of new tactics. You have to have more room for resources if they're used up when building units. There's a greater sense of exploration, even if the units move faster on flat ground they still may not see that far or be able to cross all terrain, etc.
There can be larger oceans separating the civs... the world doesn't have to be explored around 1 AD.

I think you're too focused on the earlier iterations of civ and their features to see the possibilities of the new features and concepts here.

You really don't need an extra 30,000 (thirty thousand) tiles to do combat with the 30 units you will own. That helps neither strategically or tactically.

Do you really want to explore 30,000 tiles that you know you can never settle or do anything in?

Do you want your workers to have to build a road for 1500 tiles to the middle of nothingness in order to get a resource?

Small numbers of units = very high possibility of low city counts. Even at a reasonable city count level, cities take up 36 tiles that can be worked. They may be further apart, but in the screenshots, someone mentioned the cities were only 3 tiles apart, so this is not necessarily the case.

I'm focused on realizing the information they are releasing. Nothing else. It's a 2 + 2 = 4 thing here.

Tom

 

[Earthling]

I suspect they've done the opposite; crippling functions that scale up to larger maps/purposefully simplifying/making the game smaller. Which annoys me if it's the case but it looks like so; and that model is apparently going to be popular enough/sell anyway much like CivRev. I never really got people who complained too much about civ IV being "small" compared to civ III (I play civ IV huge anyway and feel that's about right; you end and the AI end up with the same to more usable cities/units etc... due to no random "corruption" brokenness) but civ V does seem to be going noticeably and grossly overboard.

 

[moscaverde]

"Do you really want to explore 30,000 tiles that you know you can never settle or do anything in?"

YES!! Our world have ~200 nations.

 

[panama 1984]

I've never played a Civ game or scenario that WASN'T on the largest map setting. I want to roleplay as a leader of a great nation, not as some guy with a couple cities vs another guy with a couple cities

 

[thecolorblue]

Just posting here so I can sign my post like Tom, because my name isn't right to the left of my post or anything.

thecolorblue

Moderator Action: trolling - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[V. Soma]

Are we sure of slow units having two move-pints in civ5?

What if only in combat they have two ACTION points...?

 

[Auncien]

In my opnion...

1) They can't make the map too large. Make it as big as the engine will allow.
2) They can't put too many different civs on the map. I want the world to feel crowded.

Larger maps and more civilizations = more realism and more interesting gameplay for me.