Interesting Observations

[Afforess]

50% speed increase makes Afforess our

That's okay, I'm merely a monarch, but Zappara's the deity.

 

[civ_king]

That's okay, I'm merely a monarch, but Zappara's the deity.

I thought you are a Deity but Zappara is Sid!

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

18 civs, huge map How many cities can you build before there is no room for more expansion, and you need to go for blood?

You find that a little crowded?
Usually my settings :
Standard : 15 starting civ
Large : 20 stating civ
Huge : 25 stating civ

Civ would not be fun without tensions...

 

[mussbu]

You find that a little crowded?
Usually my settings :
Standard : 15 starting civ
Large : 20 stating civ
Huge : 25 stating civ

Civ would not be fun without tensions...

I may have to try the 15 on a Standard. But is there any room for Barbarian cities to emerge? (I guess there still would still be some...). I like the randomness of these possible additional civ's emerging.

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

I may have to try the 15 on a Standard. But is there any room for Barbarian cities to emerge? (I guess there still would still be some...). I like the randomness of these possible additional civ's emerging.

Yep. There are places for emergin civs from barbs.
The game is more dynamic, wars starts eariler, noone is safe.

 

[Flay]

Afforess ?
is your modmodpack ok with 2.81 ?

off course it is, (I need some fresh air . . .)

 

[civ_king]

You find that a little crowded?
Usually my settings :
Standard : 15 starting civ
Large : 20 stating civ
Huge : 25 stating civ

Civ would not be fun without tensions...

when I played BtS it was all about 18 civs, tiny Oasis

 

[szemek77]

You find that a little crowded?

And you don't?

Usually my settings :
Standard : 15 starting civ
Large : 20 stating civ
Huge : 25 stating civ

Civ would not be fun without tensions...

I always play giant. So - following your habits - I should put 30 civs on the map. In my current game, I took 10 civs on giant RoM_Earth_2 map, and after founding 7th city, I hardly see good spots for next settlements. But, I should hurry up anyway, since I can see my neighbours already All around.

I can agree that it is easier to counter 25 small states, than 5 huge empires. This makes the game more interesting I suppose. But I'm still worried about the game speed, even though Afforess's ND gave a great contribution in that field.

 

[civ_king]

also I like doing me +3 other civs on a gigantic map, with revolutions on of course so it can't lock up like that

 

[CMKMStephens]

I play on a Giant or Gigantic with me and 3-4 other civs, with Barb mod on so usually resulting in about 25 civs in the end.

 

[szemek77]

I play on a Giant or Gigantic with me and 3-4 other civs, with Barb mod on so usually resulting in about 25 civs in the end.

This seems to be an interesting idea

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

And you don't?
I always play giant. So - following your habits - I should put 30 civs on the map. In my current game, I took 10 civs on giant RoM_Earth_2 map, and after founding 7th city, I hardly see good spots for next settlements. But, I should hurry up anyway, since I can see my neighbours already All around.

I can agree that it is easier to counter 25 small states, than 5 huge empires. This makes the game more interesting I suppose. But I'm still worried about the game speed, even though Afforess's ND gave a great contribution in that field.

Nope, I don't. I use start anywhere option ( I'm always use Perfectword.).
Usually there are 2-4 big empire with vassals. BUT smaller ones work together. The AI works quite well in this area. With more civs diplomacy is become more important.
Never tried giant and gigantic. On huge map the game ended with 41 civ (in endgame one turn lasts about 3-4 minute.)
Maybe you are slow in expansion... And there is no such as "good spots for next settlements". Everything is good.

 

[civ_king]

This seems to be an interesting idea

yeah, I end up with ~48, but none of them come from me so I pick up steam, also with that many and a a city on 24/7/365 missionary duty I wind up with many Allies and the AP bwahaha

 

[szemek77]

Nope, I don't.

OK, we have different view on what "crowded" means

I use start anywhere option ( I'm always use Perfectword.).

Sorry for my ignorance, but is this a special feature of Perfectworld? I was convinced that no matter what map are you using, your starting position is choosing randomly, isn't it?

Usually there are 2-4 big empire with vassals. BUT smaller ones work together. The AI works quite well in this area. With more civs diplomacy is become more important.

I always "check" the "no vassal states" option, since I hate that idea. Attacking a vassal state triggers world war. If someone accosts my wards, I'm becoming engaged in wars, I don't want....

Besides, if you end up with 2-4 big empires with vassals, is no much difference, if you have started with 7-8 civs right from the start, don't you think? Eventually, you have to counter large and strong entities, anyway...

I agree that diplomacy becomes more important. But more complicated as well. I can imagine how the diplomatic "glance" table with attitude numbers looks like, if you have 30 civs. Just a paradise for accountants

Never tried giant and gigantic. On huge map the game ended with 41 civ (in endgame one turn lasts about 3-4 minute.)

And this in fact discourages me from playing with big numbers of civs.

Maybe you are slow in expansion...

Thank your for your nice word You probably know the phrase about Pole, Hungarian, nephews ("Lengyel, magyar, két jó barát, együtt harcol, s issza borát." So thank you again for public support

Jokes aside. Do I expand too slow? I don't know. I played couple of games, when I dominated the world, so now I want more difficulty. As for present game, I have 10 cities, while the best AI has 13 and the worst - 5. We all know, that you need to keep balance in your expansion. Recently I had a game when I got very (more than half of the width of giant map) long, but thin continent. I managed to build 20+ cities but at the cost of science rate between 20-40%. As a result, I was like a man in a cave, with astronomy discovered in 19th century (no joke).

I don't claim, I'm a player who eats AI on deity like a toast for breakfast. But I'm not bad either

And there is no such as "good spots for next settlements". Everything is good.

I don't agree.

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

OK, we have different view on what "crowded" means

Yep.

Sorry for my ignorance, but is this a special feature of Perfectworld? I was convinced that no matter what map are you using, your starting position is choosing randomly, isn't it?

Yep, the starting place is choosen randomly. But the map is not divided to an old word/new word with start anywhere, so there are enough space for civs.

I always "check" the "no vassal states" option, since I hate that idea. Attacking a vassal state triggers world war. If someone accosts my wards, I'm becoming engaged in wars, I don't want....

And that's the beauty of it. In late game you think twice before you go to war. It can create quite enjoyable cold wars.

Besides, if you end up with 2-4 big empires with vassals, is no much difference, if you have started with 7-8 civs right from the start, don't you think? Eventually, you have to counter large and strong entities, anyway...

But the emires are not homogenous but heterogenous : different leaders (and therefore different traits/UU/UB/personalities/strategies) forms one empire. Of corse mastery decides about peace/war, but in everything else every civ goes on theire ways.

I agree that diplomacy becomes more important. But more complicated as well. I can imagine how the diplomatic "glance" table with attitude numbers looks like, if you have 30 civs. Just a paradise for accountants

I'm rarely examine glances. The scoreboard is quite enough for that.

And this in fact discourages me from playing with big numbers of civs.

Yep, one game at this scale was wuite enough me too, I'm perfer standard. Maybe 1-2 years later with a new PC and the enhanced and optimized RoM/A new dawn I'm starting a gigantic game...

Thank your for your nice word You probably know the phrase about Pole, Hungarian, nephews ("Lengyel, magyar, két jó barát, együtt harcol, s issza borát." So thank you again for public support

You are welcome.

Jokes aside. Do I expand too slow? I don't know. I played couple of games, when I dominated the world, so now I want more difficulty. As for present game, I have 10 cities, while the best AI has 13 and the worst - 5. We all know, that you need to keep balance in your expansion. Recently I had a game when I got very (more than half of the width of giant map) long, but thin continent. I managed to build 20+ cities but at the cost of science rate between 20-40%. As a result, I was like a man in a cave, with astronomy discovered in 19th century (no joke).

Yep, I'm facing this too in half of my games. I'm always worried about overexpansion, but in the end always pays.

I don't claim, I'm a player who eats AI on deity like a toast for breakfast. But I'm not bad either

I the last half year I played games at monarch. Never tried higher, it's the level what gives me quite good challenge. I'm experienced that the starting place matters a LOT.

I don't agree.

Every unworked title is a loss in my dictionary...

 

[NBAfan]

Sorry for my ignorance, but is this a special feature of Perfectworld? I was convinced that no matter what map are you using, your starting position is choosing randomly, isn't it?

Prefect world has an option to leave the "new world" unpopulated.

 

[civ_king]

I expand way to slow, I have 9 cities to the next guy's 22 and the leaders 34