Is the standard map too small?

It should be fine. Vic is correct that a standard map you could easily fit in 6-8 cities. Not all of those cities would have luxuries and such, but that is besides the point; there was enough room to get a solid 6-8 cities.

If Civ 6 is ~20% larger, that should ease up the greater demand on tile improvement mechanics.

As for what "ideal number" is good, I don't much care. All I care about is that it is always beneficial enough to settle cities so the map gets filled up. Having huge swaths of land go unsettled was never much fun.
 
Way to read only part of the post. I said through peaceful expansion. 50-100 cities on a standard map was only possible with heavy domination in the other games and honestly pointless in III and wasteful in IV.

I'll restate my point as clearly and succinctly as humanly possible: Map size was not what forced people to build small empires in V, penalties were.
Sorry; I somehow missed the part about peaceful expansion. Still though, a dozen cities or so were usually possible even with no warfare. (Also, as I often played on larger than Standard sized maps, my experience might've biased my post a little bit. I made it in a hurry and didn't think that much about it.)

I disagree about more cities being useless in Civ III. If you used Communism as a government, you could obtain 66 % commerce and production in every city, regardless of their location. I often colonized empty continents in the mid-game like this; while a Democracy was more efficient on the home continent, colonies would be useless in it due to corruption, which is why I favored Communism (as well as for roleplay reasons -- all hail the Great Leader of the Supreme World Revolution! :D).

In Civ IV it was very expensive to maintain a large empire of your own cities, iirc. 50 might be near the absolute limit of a maintainable amount of cities.
 
Ed confirmed that, due to the new city-unstacking-mechanism, maps will be 20-30% bigger!

Where? When? I was sure they said they wouldn't change it when they first announced the game.
 
Given the early game restrictions on road building and new movement rules for hills and rivers etc, then I think Standard maps might "feel" somewhat bigger even if they aren't.
 
Can someone specify if they mean the actual X and Y sizes or just the landmass type?

Because I swear we've seen conflicting reports. One that claimed that the habitale area is just increased (so less oceans) and that the map size has stayed the same.
 
Where? When? I was sure they said they wouldn't change it when they first announced the game.

They said that it didn't need to be changed. An interviewer asked if due to unstacking the cities that meant maps needed to be bigger and Ed said that wasn't necessarily the case.

Doesn't mean they didn't change map sizes or script bigger landmasses anyway.
 
To me, considering city sizes, the map size looks very inadequate. Cities should not be able to cover most of you land in the Middle Ages; that is just un-immersive. I think we need maps a few be a few times the size of the Civ 5 ones.
 
To me, considering city sizes, the map size looks very inadequate. Cities should not be able to cover most of you land in the Middle Ages; that is just un-immersive. I think we need maps a few be a few times the size of the Civ 5 ones.

In what videos have cities covered most of the land in the middle ages? In marbozir's video, one who expanded and covered more of the tech tree than others, there are still immense blank spaces same as in civ5 and he made it into the renaissance era past turn 100. By comparison, Quill 18 and BAstarts videos were still in the middle ages past turn 100 and had the same issue. Hardly any of their cities had occupied 3rd ring hexes without gold influence.
 
Where? When? I was sure they said they wouldn't change it when they first announced the game.

Unfortunately I am well aware the fact that I am just another dude claiming sonething on the internet. Without a propper quote, this is worth exactly nothing! :(

All I can say is, that it was mentioned in one of the thousand interviews I saw after the 3rd of August (here we go... now the random guy is exaggerating ridiculously; another internet phenomena! :D ).
Anyway, in the interview I don't remember exactly, the numbers were mentioned and cought my interest, hence I am sure at least of them! ... I think.

Alas! Just believe me! ;)
 
Unfortunately I am well aware the fact that I am just another dude claiming sonething on the internet. Without a propper quote, this is worth exactly nothing! :(

All I can say is, that it was mentioned in one of the thousand interviews I saw after the 3rd of August (here we go... now the random guy is exaggerating ridiculously; another internet phenomena! :D ).
Anyway, in the interview I don't remember exactly, the numbers were mentioned and cought my interest, hence I am sure at least of them! ... I think.

Alas! Just believe me! ;)

No, I am totally fine with believing you. I am just some other person making some other claim lol

I wasn't trying to demand absolute proof, that was more of a "huh? WHAT?! OMG" type thing
 
OF COURSE the standard map size is too small! I only play HUGE continent maps (though I'll probably play at least my 1st civ6 game on standard). :D
 
1upt is one of my favorite and long-awaited changes to the series... and I don't like civ5.
Amen.

Stack combat was awful. 1UPT is better. Small stacks would (probably) be even better. Civ5 is still a terrible game, regardless.
 
Does any of the gameplay videos have enough of the map revealed, so that the minimap is in it's final scale? If so, map size could be calculated by comparing the number of hexes visible on screen vs. number of pixels in the white trapezoid on the minimap. This would give us hexes per minimap pixels. Then measure the width and height of the whole minimap in pixels.
 
Top Bottom