It keeps getting smaller

[dikwhit]

Ok i think enough is enough, im beginning to see a pattern here.

Civ 3 supposedly 21 civs then 16
fewer units than civ2
fewer techs than civ2
fewer governments than civ2

and now what??????? smaller maps?????? Can someone tell me what we need smaller maps for???? Were the bigger ones harder???? no Did my computer slow down??? not noticibly Did it crash my comp???? no SO can anybody give me a semivalid reason why??

p.s. cause firaxis said so aint a reason

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Originally posted by dikwhit

...and now what??????? smaller maps?????? Can someone tell me what we need smaller maps for????...Did my computer slow down??? not noticibly Did it crash my comp???? no SO can anybody give me a semivalid reason why??

Maybe you were an example of the exception, not the rule?
While my machine doesn't seem to suffer on the larger maps (Marla's is the lone exception, whew!), I know some that have terrible drags.
To be honest with you, I agree with the decision (not that my agreeing means squat, nor yours - in the big picture). If nothing else, it will allow most people to play the bigger maps - instead of some.
Isn't that the whole point?

 

[Thunderfall]

and now what??????? smaller maps?????? Can someone tell me what we need smaller maps for???? Were the bigger ones harder???? no Did my computer slow down??? not noticibly Did it crash my comp???? no SO can anybody give me a semivalid reason why??

We should just respect Firaxis's decisions on this. They know their game better than anyone and know the game's limitations.

 

[Allemand]

I would rather draw my own conclusion, and they haven't given a reason for the smaller maps. Why not just add an intermediate sized map, and leave the bigger ones for those who like them?

 

[dikwhit]

Thunderfall.. while i would like to trust firaxis they dont have the best track record thus far. Most of the probs they fix they create a new one for every two they fix. Civ 3 has turned into a better game in 6 months, but theres plenty of stuff they have to fix still. They just changed something that worked fine.As i see it, they just made the conquerization gambits warrior horseman swordsman a lot more viable on the big maps. JUst what i wanted ...... NOT

 

[Slverstar]

I also was sad to see they made the maps smaller. I understand the logic that they thought that games were too slow on many peoples computers, but it would have been cool, if perhaps they had also added say a "Gigantic" or "Monstorous" Size - a touch bigger then the old Huge even. Then everyone would be happy.

 

[Thunderfall]

The new huge map size is 160x160, right? Is that alot smaller than 180x180? I am not very good with maps. [never play on huge maps]

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
We should just respect Firaxis's decisions on this. They know their game better than anyone and know the game's limitations.

It just that it seems weird to reduce the size of the largest map when you already have smaller maps. I have never looked into this, and I am at working now so I can't just yet, but does Civ3 have a custom map size feature like Civ2? I don't think it does...and to get on the thread openers bandwagon...another feature that was in Civ2 that got lost in Civ3. Let me also put in a disclaimer that I still do like the game, it just doesn't have the same pull as Civ2 had, and I wish it did.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Nope, there's no customizing the map size, now that I think about it. Unless thru tinkering with the editor?

 

[dikwhit]

Well thunder you asked so i did the math. A 180x180 map has 32,400 squares.A 160x160 map has 25,600 squares. So yes, thats a huge difference, roughly 25% smaller. You dont play bigger maps so imagine tiny or small with the max # of civs(i dont know i dont play small maps exc GOTM + tournie) on a map one quarter smaller.16 civs on a huge map is great fun, but the tech tree is so fast in my games as it is. My last game had modern armor in 1540 on monarch level. Smaller maps for big # games give quicker contacts, earlier trading, earlier acceleration of the tech tree. Maybe the patch addresses this, dont know yet.
Should they make the 160x160 an option , sure why not. Sould they turn off a functioning size option..... no. If it aint broke, dont fix it

 

[warpstorm]

These are just default sizes. If you want huge maps to be 256x256, go into the editor and make it that way. It'll take 10 seconds of your time.

 

[Jersey Joe]

I have not tried this with version 1.21, but ...
I normally play on a 224x224 map. In the editor I just set map size and named the scenario. This also lets me play with modified rules without having to worry about being nonstandard when I play a SG or if I ever get around to playing a GOTM.

 

[warpstorm]

What JerseyJoe said works fine in 1.21

 

[dikwhit]

i was just annoyed simply because some of us are not exacty editor-savvy(read that me). That and HOF submissions are all at the previous map sizes. Will this affect the HOF anyone know???

 

[Selous]

it would be nice to hear why firaxis did this? ... im sure there is a good reason?

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Who the hell knows why they did it. It doesn't matter since its incredibly easy to fix in the editor. 180 X 180 is just big enough. But if my computer were faster 256 X 256 all the way.

 

[damunzy]

I was just commenting that it is weird to change somethign that no one seemed to be complaining about. I like the smaller maps myself because I don't like to wait for long periods of time for the next turn. Tiny with 16 Civs is extremely fun!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
I was just commenting that it is weird to change somethign that no one seemed to be complaining about. I like the smaller maps myself because I don't like to wait for long periods of time for the next turn. Tiny with 16 Civs is extremely fun!

There are plenty of threads about how slow the game is posted by people who play huge maps.

Using the editor is easy and intuitive. I rarely use it, except to increase the number of civs, but I think most players should be able to figure it out.

Yes! I too have had great fun with smaller maps and lots of civs. If you win this kind of game, you probably earned it.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Zachriel


There are plenty of threads about how slow the game is posted by people who play huge maps.

Right, but the fix for that was to play on a smaller map. The faster your computer the less time it takes to play. At least it is still modifable in the editor. That is all I ask for.

I don't agree with the editor being intuitive. It works a little weird but once you figure that out it is easy enough.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
The new huge map size is 160x160, right? Is that alot smaller than 180x180? I am not very good with maps. [never play on huge maps]

Im a HUGE map player and although i like civ3 and the new patch is good, the only bad thing is that they put the huge map smaller. 160x160 is VERY small compared to 180x180. Trust me, when i was playing in the 160X160 i couldnt believe that i had just a small space to make my empire because the rest of the capitals of the other civs were just like 10 tiles away from my capital. And im talking about a huge map.