Map size and difficulty level

[King Younk]

Smaller maps are clearer easier than large ones. I jut won my second best game as Shaka, and almost won as Charlemagne on a standard map (HRE losing only because I misread the population on the statistics page, and assumed vassals would be included in the UN calculations. Oh well).

Anyway, I slayed w/ Shaka this game. I'm thinking of going for Immortal on Standard, though I cannot beat Emperor on Huge.

What special considerations does one need to make for a larger map size?

(This game wins on the next turn through Diplomation victory).

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

I played marathon speed WAY back when I first got the game back in 2005 or whenever it was that it came out, so I can't remember a lot about it anymore. I do know it makes the game much easier for the human. It's probably worth about a difficulty level on it's own. So a marathon emperor win is like a standard speed monarch win. You get WAY more time to abuse a tech advantage with your units.

As for bigger maps, they are definitely harder since you have to manage more diplomacy, and the chances of a runaway AI increase. However, I think epic speed, and to a lesser extent marathon, were intended to be used with the larger maps, so it probably evens out the difficulty. I don't know that you need any "special considerations" for a larger map. For many years, what you needed was a really good PC so your game wouldn't bog down in the middle ages.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

How the hell do you play so fast? You won a marathon game with 604 turns in 3 hours and 43 minutes? That's TMIT fast, and he played standard speed.

 

[dankok8]

^^ Agreed. Marathon makes the game easier for a human because when you unlock a key military tech and build an army you have a much longer window to attack and considering how much the AI sucks at war, it's a huge advantage. However, Huge makes it harder because diplomacy is more difficult with so many civs and chance of a runaway AI is higher. All in all, I still think Huge/Marathon is easier than Standard/Normal because after I conquer one or two AI, I become the runaway civ.

 

[King Younk]

How the hell do you play so fast? You won a marathon game with 604 turns in 3 hours and 43 minutes? That's TMIT fast, and he played standard speed.

Seeing that I knew that I would win through war, I just built specialist cities that would spit out units much of the time. I'm a quick thinker - I generally only play 3 minute games of chess too, and frequently win on time.

I knew that I would go for a conquest victory when I realize that I could wipe out 2 civilizations right off the bat and keep a large continent to myself. Ottomans were especially easy, since I was able to pinch off their expansion by building the city directly east of Ulundi, and not allowing for open borders. Then I just spammed Swords/Axemen/Impi and conquered him. Then Isabella.

Then I developed for a while and spread Buddhism for money and built wonders. It was a good game.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

Larger maps also differ in other respects:

• Barbarians tend to be a bigger problem, as there's more vacant land for them to spawn unless the map is very crowded. This can make REXing more difficult, make sure to fog bust at as many desired city locations as possible.
  
  
• When adjusting the sea level, lowering it does require adding several extra civs to keep the map from being too empty. From experience, going for low sea level warrants adding 3-4 more civs on top of the huge size's default of 11
  
  
• Buildings which have pre-requisites (ex. cathedrals and national wonders) require more of each pre-requisite building. National wonders require 10 pre-requisite buildings each and cathedrals require 4 temples of the matching religion
  
  
• Biomes occupy larger areas, which can make for some tedious-to-develop badlands (ex. huge jungles, deserts and tundra/ice)
  
  
• War logistics matter more, as covering the vast distances, even at slower game speeds (more turns per date), can be a decisive disadvantage

 

[Gumbolt]

High sea level, marathan settings and huts?.

Not sure how you discovered archery at 4000bc and wheel a few turns later without huts. Can't see it on the settings. 3 lots of iron is unusual too. I guess one could of appeared due to a mine?

If you have to cripple the AI land wise using high sea levels you are going to make the game so much easier. Once you take out the 2 nearest AI it's pretty much game over due to the settings. One didn't even have metal. The other restricted to 2 cities.

Marathan lowered difficulty by one level too.

Try playing pangea maps and not using such random maps.

Your second city is very late? So worker first, grow to size 3 whilst improving food and then build a settler? 2800bc or so? Your 400-500 years late.

 

[King Younk]

High sea level, marathan settings and huts?.

Not sure how you discovered archery at 4000bc and wheel a few turns later without huts. Can't see it on the settings. 3 lots of iron is unusual too. I guess one could of appeared due to a mine?

If you have to cripple the AI land wise using high sea levels you are going to make the game so much easier. Once you take out the 2 nearest AI it's pretty much game over due to the settings. One didn't even have metal. The other restricted to 2 cities.

Marathan lowered difficulty by one level too.

Try playing pangea maps and not using such random maps.

Your second city is very late? So worker first, grow to size 3 whilst improving food and then build a settler? 2800bc or so? Your 400-500 years late.

I play most everything random except map size. I did have some good luck with huts and all though.

 

[King Younk]

Charlemagne is underrated, I think. Starting off with Archer and building GW if possible opens up some possibilities. Right now I'm 4 techs behind Napoleon (but catching up). He is the master of the other hemisphere, I intend to soon be the undisputed master of this one. And since GK is such a dipshit, how could he stop me? lol

Anyway, any thoughts? I think this game has gone pretty well. I had a bit of luck by being able to settle on stone and thus research Masonry first.

 

[King Younk]

Well, Napoleon came after me when I went into revoultion. I've had my hemisphere sewn up for a bit, but he sucker punched me. How would you try to win from here?

 

[Gumbolt]

You keep posting games where you are 6-7 techs behind the AI. You were more than 4 techs behind Napolean. He has other techs deeper in the tech tree you can't yet trade. He was in war mode on first save you posted and you were pretty much the only target.

You are lucky Napolean only has 1 naval port or this could of been much worse. His fleet is tiny. Looks like Shaka may have infantry. Napolean likely has artilery. Guessing he will go space soon.

Overall until you start posting game before 1500ad you will not really improve your game. This is almost a futile process in terms of advice.

Whilst you have a lot of cities your failing to make a large empire work for you. Ever tried workshops and police state? Your workers are all on sleep mode.

You should be ahead of the AI in tech at 1500ad on emperor.

Why is it most of your games start on a stone tile? Hmmm.

 

[dankok8]

Everything Gumbolt said. Also just looking at the screenshot you're building too many buildings.

 

[5tephen]

Why on earth would you research masonry first irrespective of stone/marble? Food first unless very good reason not to.

 

[King Younk]

Why on earth would you research masonry first irrespective of stone/marble? Food first unless very good reason not to.

Because Charlemagne is settler first anyway.

 

[Fish Man]

Because Charlemagne is settler first anyway.

It's like @sampsa said, this has got to be some next-level trolling.

 

[5tephen]

Because Charlemagne is settler first anyway.

Surely he's triple scout and one warrior first for a classic scout rush. DOW on nearest neighbour let them suicide on your scouts and mop up with warrior for easy win?

 

[Zavior]

Because Charlemagne is settler first anyway.

I'm confused, I thought it was archer first to great wall..

 

[King Younk]

Ahh, waddayall know? Can anyone win this position as Charlemagne?

This wasn't a bad game. I made a few mistakes, but the fact that I have half the world on emperor proves I've progressed. I'm not going to wait for people to comment on every turn, lol. I have been winning a lot, almost including two very close games with Charlemagne.

 

[King Younk]

Everything Gumbolt said. Also just looking at the screenshot you're building too many buildings.

What kind of buildings am I building wrong? How specialized should a city get? What should be the ratio of military to food to commerce? I remember there should be an average of 2 food per tile, or more for specialists.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

Most buildings aren't worth the ROI. Granary is the best building in the game. You'll also want some libraries and barracks. After that, it's a crapshoot. Unless you know early on that you're going for space, then you're usually better off just building wealth when not building units. Bug/Bat mod really helps to see this, since it will tell you what a courthouse nets you in commerce per turn, for instance. Often, you'll see it'll be like 1.5 commerce. But you're pulling in 8 commerce from just building wealth. Things like that. Markets, grocers, etc are crap unless it's a shrine city. And Shrine cities are vastly overrated unless you happen to capture one that the AI has already put the work into by spreading the religion everywhere.