Is the standard map too small?

[jjkrause84]

I'd read somewhere that Beach wants empires to be bigger than the 4 city wonders of Civ 5....but the maps I've seen still get very cluttered very quickly (largely due to the city states).

Should the maps be a little bit bigger to allow Civs to build more than 2-3 decent cities?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I never had a problem finding room for 6-8 cities on a standard sized map with 8 civs and 12 CSs. The problem was finding usefulness for anything past 3-4 cities.

I think more of the "map's too small" complaints come from the anti-1upt crowd.

 

[King Jason]

Maps seem bigger to me so far. Also, whether this is actually true or not, Drew in the BASTART let's play mentioned that the maps sizes are about 20% bigger in civ6 from civ5.

I think more of the "map's too small" complaints come from the anti-1upt crowd.

I think it's more of an empire size complaint. Then again, there seems to be a trend in this forum that any dissenting opinion on civ5 boils back to 1upt, but I can't really figure out why. 1upt is one of my favorite and long-awaited changes to the series... and I don't like civ5.

 

[jjkrause84]

I never had a problem finding room for 6-8 cities on a standard sized map with 8 civs and 12 CSs. The problem was finding usefulness for anything past 3-4 cities.

I think more of the "map's too small" complaints come from the anti-1upt crowd.

6-8 cities is nothing. That's a medium-sized empire at most compared to previous games.

Maps seem bigger to me so far. Also, whether this is actually true or not, Drew in the BASTART let's play mentioned that the maps sizes are about 20% bigger in civ6 from civ5.

I hadn't heard that the Civ 6 maps are bigger....let's hope so! On the Let's Plays I've watched so far no one seems to have more than one good city location after their capital. The rest are seriously marginal. I was hoping Civ 6 would return us to an era when empires really felt like empires, not small collections of city-states.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Maps seem bigger to me so far. Also, whether this is actually true or not, Drew in the BASTART let's play mentioned that the maps sizes are about 20% bigger in civ6 from civ5.

I don't think the actual map sizes are bigger (truthfully, there's no need if they have not increased the rings a city can work)

What I did hear is that there's 20% more landmass in each map script now.

I also am pretty sure it was confirmed that the maps haven't increased in actual physical size, just in landmass.

 

[Siptah]

Choosing a large or huge map and closing civ slots is an option if you want more room to settle larger empires. Despite no evidence I am sure it will be possible in VI again.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

6-8 cities is nothing. That's a medium-sized empire at most compared to previous games.

Sure, medium, average. Its what you could expect on any iteration of the game through peaceful expansion on the standard sized map with the default number of civs. One of the complaints about CiV was that there were often large areas of no man's land between empires that had no impetus to claim it. Map size wasn't what prevented large empires.

 

[Thormodr]

Bigger maps are definitely needed. Here's hoping that happens.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Sure, medium, average. Its what you could expect on any iteration of the game through peaceful expansion on the standard sized map with the default number of civs. One of the complaints about CiV was that there were often large areas of no man's land between empires that had no impetus to claim it. Map size wasn't what prevented large empires.

On any iteration? I oftentimes had over 50 cities in Civ II and III; sometimes closer to 100. Granted that I don't necessarily want that as a standard for Civ VI, since there's a lot more to do with the terrain surrounding the cities this time around. But imo, 6-8 cities should be a small empire, and fortunately the devs have stated as much (I can't recall which article or video it was, but it was stated at some point).

 

[Lucius_]

On any iteration? I oftentimes had over 50 cities in Civ II and III; sometimes closer to 100. Granted that I don't necessarily want that as a standard for Civ VI, since there's a lot more to do with the terrain surrounding the cities this time around. But imo, 6-8 cities should be a small empire, and fortunately the devs have stated as much (I can't recall which article or video it was, but it was stated at some point).

That was either ICS which I wouldn't really count or owning nearly the entire world with heavy domination. These maps have space for 50 cities easily if you can put a city every other tile, instead of 3 away from each other.

Yes I believe you are correct about the small empire statement. I'm very curious what optimal city placement will look like in Civ VI. With 5, I usually liked ~4-6 tile distances but that depended on where the strongest spot was. If 8 tile distance is a stronger city location than so be it. Whatever the optimal distances between cities, if there even is one, will have some effect on total number of cities.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I don't think the actual map sizes are bigger (truthfully, there's no need if they have not increased the rings a city can work)

What I did hear is that there's 20% more landmass in each map script now.

I also am pretty sure it was confirmed that the maps haven't increased in actual physical size, just in landmass.

I'm fairly certain they said the maps themselves were larger...I'll have to track down the video that was in.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

On any iteration? I oftentimes had over 50 cities in Civ II and III; sometimes closer to 100. Granted that I don't necessarily want that as a standard for Civ VI, since there's a lot more to do with the terrain surrounding the cities this time around. But imo, 6-8 cities should be a small empire, and fortunately the devs have stated as much (I can't recall which article or video it was, but it was stated at some point).

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.

 

[Ryika]

It would not make sense to have big maps in games that are meant to demonstrate the early game. How boring would it be if the people who get to play the game didn't run into people until shortly before the demo is over?

So I highly doubt whether those maps represent what we get in the actual game.

 

[Acken]

The maps on the preview seemed to have a lot of room similar to the NQMapmod. Very few mountains clusters and rather wide areas with a lot of bonus ressources. Also base terrain gives a lot of extra yields with forest hills and jungle all giving bonus yields. This increase the potential candidate for good city spots.

If it truly is similar to that map script I wouldn't be worried. Also map scripts will be customizable so a bit of tweaking will be possible.

If you truly want a ton of room to fit 15cities you can always play Large with 8 civs.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

It would not make sense to have big maps in games that are meant to demonstrate the early game. How boring would it be if the people who get to play the game didn't run into people until shortly before the demo is over?

So I highly doubt whether those maps represent what we get in the actual game.

Didn't they come right out and say the map size was "small"? Trying to remember if it was BAStart or Quill18 that might have said it.

 

[Fourmi1]

Well on this point, I hope that we will still be able to choose the number of city states, resources density, etc... (so hopefully we have still map options)

However, I noticed in the demo (which I assume to be "standard map") a surprisingly strong density of resources (mostly bonus resources, 'cause we're still looking for iron ), which will give more land interest almost everywhere (plus wonders that are now extremely depending on land specificity)

I usually settled 8 cities and conquered between 1 and 5 in my 'peaceful' CiV games (when I was not surrounded by CS)

 

[Krajzen]

I didn't like how the optimal number of cities in late civ5 was ~4, all empires felt small.

On the other hand, mentions of others how in preivous games empires had few dozens of cities terrify me, I'd hate such micromanagment of so many cities.

I hope civ6 will hit some numbers between those two extremes, so I'll aim at for example ~8 main cities + some "resource colonies" or "strategic fortresses".

Fortunately lack of goddamn global happiness (I didn't hate that when I played civ5 but from the perspective of time I think this system was stupid on many levels) and tall policies vs wide policies mess will make settling new cities far more enjoyable process.

 

[Silverdawn]

Well on this point, I hope that we will still be able to choose the number of city states, resources density, etc... (so hopefully we have still map options)

However, I noticed in the demo (which I assume to be "standard map") a surprisingly strong density of resources (mostly bonus resources, 'cause we're still looking for iron ), which will give more land interest almost everywhere (plus wonders that are now extremely depending on land specificity)

I usually settled 8 cities and conquered between 1 and 5 in my 'peaceful' CiV games (when I was not surrounded by CS)

These demos from Europe have the starting menu and they are at Standard. The first one shows it was the only choice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f92o34LEGw (@ 3:44)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NETRAsAwU1Y (@ 0:06)

Also note that Marbozir indicated that strategic resources were much more scarce than would be expected in the final game. The developers had confirmed to him they were still working on those at the time.

 

[Magil]

I think most of the players of the preview build were still in a Civ V mindset, they didn't rex nearly as much as I would've attempted to. Most of them had plenty of empty space to use, it looked like. Seems like the map won't fill up very quickly on prince.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I didn't like how the optimal number of cities in late civ5 was ~4, all empires felt small.

On the other hand, mentions of others how in preivous games empires had few dozens of cities terrify me, I'd hate such micromanagment of so many cities.

I hope civ6 will hit some numbers between those two extremes, so I'll aim at for example ~8 main cities + some "resource colonies" or "strategic fortresses".

Fortunately lack of goddamn global happiness (I didn't hate that when I played civ5 but from the perspective of time I think this system was stupid on many levels) and tall policies vs wide policies mess will make settling new cities far more enjoyable process.

I feel the same way. I don't mind an "ideal" number but I just don't want the balancing mechanics to punish settling for resources, colonizing new land masses or expanding through war.