Larger maps in civ4

[Loppan Torkel]

I know you can create larger maps than "huge" already, but as it is now there might be problems because the gameplay is not balanced for it or it gets too slow.

Most people seem to play larger maps - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=58111&page=2&pp=20 - and it would be a step towards more realism and give more alternatives for winning the game without reaching total worldomination each time. With new concepts like religion and civics, and increased focus on diplomacy and espionage, there should be ways to keep it interesting without constant warring.

So maybe it's obvious that Fireaxis will increase the mapsizes and balance the gameplay for it, but who knows?! it's a designdecision so a poll won't hurt..

The question:
Should Fireaxis put a greater focus at really epic games, with options for mapsizes larger than "huge"? - A Civ that is fun to play at gigantic maps...

 

[Flintlock]

I don't think that something like that would even be possible, since the loading times would become too long. To get the loading times down, you'd proabably have to sacrafice too much gameplay.

I voted yes, assuming Firaxis (no 'e') can get maps that size realistically playable (in regards to loading times)

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think loading times will be cut due to the 3d engine they're using, unless they screw it up.

And thx for pointing Firaxis out, never thought about it...

 

[baoren]

I'd like it very much, but still now, with maps smaller 256x256 it's easy to arrive to the maximum number of cities without covering all the map. larger maps need more cities, and also now the game is so slow!!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Loadingtimes probably will be a big issue, especially since the AI needs to be improved. A smarter AI in a more complex and larger world doesn't sound too easy. I guess the 3d engine won't solve everything.

 

[Dida]

I am happy with the current map size. In fact, I only play on regular sized map. On a gigantic map, you will end up with so many cities, it's impossible to manage.

 

[Moss]

No, it would make the game last forever...although I guess it wouldn't hurt to have it as an option. I would never use it though.

 

[Zeekater]

I would
Larger maps would be cool, if the CPU time stays normal

 

[croxis]

What causes the long cpu time is the number of units and cities the computer has to control on a larger map. More room = more cities = more units. Not only would the AI have to be smarter, but would also have to think faster. I'm thinking that the 3D engine wont improve load times that drasticly, but then again it depends on how things are implimented. I'm sure Civ IV will still be tile based.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that larger maps could work, without a huge increase in loading times, but ONLY if they make wholesale changes to the way in which exploration and expansion are conducted!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Bluetooth]

I think it’s a good idea if they also change the winning conditions from domination to being the dominating Great Power of the World. On a very large map I think it’s possible for two or three Great Powers to evolve over time and the struggle to be No 1 could lead to a long and interesting game.

As you can’t conquer any of the other Great Powers (not before nuclear weapons are available anyway) I think diplomacy could be a more interesting part of the game. If they introduce satellite states and / or colonies as a new game concept it would reduce micro management to a minimum.

Long loading times could be a problem of course.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

There have been some good ideas to changes in both exploration and expansion:

1. A way to end the snowball effect of huge empires - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104621 .

2. How to Make Expansion Harder - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104225 .

3. Exploration - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89343
and Returning to port after exploration - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103637

Were there any specific changes you were thinking about Aussie?

@Bluetooth: I agree, diplomacy and espionage would hopefully play a greater role than now.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Another feature that might be interesting would be to increase the number of turns in the game, to fit the mapsize. Is it possible already?

 

[Flintlock]

Another feature that might be interesting would be to increase the number of turns in the game, to fit the mapsize. Is it possible already?

Yup, that's possible. When you set up a new game, hit 'game limits' and then you can change the turns in the game there.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would liek to see larger maps, but importantly I would most like to see the rate of expansion slowed down, with the indroduction of barbarian civs (as has been discussed so many times on this forum) as to make the civ world more realistic. As it is currently, the civs which expand the quickest and grab the most land are the ones who are the ones who dominates games.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually Loppan, those ideas are EXACTLY what I had in mind! As you could probably see from those threads, I am a strong advocate for the possibility of minor nations existing in what would otherwise be empty areas of the map (though how many-if any-should be a decision made in the start up screen, a la 'Birth of the Federation') I also have long advocated having explorers and ships return to a city or fort/colony/outpost before blackened portions of the map are revealed, and that operational ranges of non-exploratory units should be severely hampered until this happens! All of thes WILL limit early game expansion-whilst at the same time FINALLY making the Expansionist trait worthwhile ! The inherent instability of overly large empires will also do a great deal to restrict rampant player/AI expansion in the middle to late game as well!
The importance of these factors was recently highlighted for me when I played the 'Age of Discovery' scenario in Conquests. In that game, myself and the other European nations had successfully colonized the North American continent by around 1565!!!! Yet, in reality, only the East and West coasts were colonized as late as the 18th century!!! The historical reasons for this are those which would be successfuly addressed if the above ideas were implemented in Civ4-such as the lack of knowledge of the American interior hampering inward expansion and the existence of numerous, well-established minor civs, who needed to be 'dealt with' before the land could be claimed by colonists of European decent.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.