Hi all. I've been dilly-dallying with Warlords for a few weeks now (now that I've broken free of my Football Manager obsession ), but I'd like to now get down to business and do some serious Civving! To that end, my goal is to play (and win) with every leader once on Prince level. I'd gotten fairly comfortable with Prince level on Vanilla Civ4, and was starting to make the transition to Monarch, but since I'm not intimately familiar with all the gameplay differences (subtle and not-so-subtle) in Warlords, I figure I'd better stay on Prince for now. I also usually play on Epic speed, so I'll keep that the same, too. Now for the tricky part - where I need your suggestions - choosing a map to play on! I would like to pick one set-up (Continents/Fractal/Pangea, High/Medium/Low Sea Level, # of AI Civs, etc.) and stick with it for EACH game (just the set-up, though - not the actual map). The thing is, I'd like to pick an optimal set-up that provides a BALANCED opportunity for each given Civ, whether builder, warmonger, religious, GP-based, or whatever. That way, I could hopefully get some kind of sense of the real strengths and weaknesses of each Leader/Civ, without being unduly biased by having a strongly favorable/unfavorable set-up. For example, if I went with Custom Continents 1-Civ-per-Continent, I'd probably wind up thinking that Wang Kon or Mehmed II were the best, seeing as they'd be able to build in splendid isolation. Conversely, on a Pangea start, I'd probably think that Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan were tops. Basically, I'm looking for the most BALANCED playing field that doesn't advantage building versus fighting or spreading religion or popping GP's, because I'd like to try my hand at really playing different styles based on my chosen Leader/Civ, and don't want to get locked into a situation where I find myself, for example, going for the (boring) Space Race every time just because it's the most efficient path to victory. What do you guys think?