Map sizes

[Matrix]

I'm always puzzled at what map size I should use for the GOTM. Having the same size every time isn't fun of course, but standard is by far the most appropriate. Larger makes it harder to finish the game within a month and smaller is less fun.

Do you share the opinion that the larger the map the more fun the game is (commonly)?

Anyway, I like to know what you think to be the best course of action.

Is huge ever possible? Is tiny ever acceptable?

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Well I voted for never tiny or huge. The only time I tried a huge map it took way too long to play, but that may not be a problem for others.

CB

 

[Sir Yelof]

I agree that the Huge maps are hard to play through the end, so I would never want a Huge. Large is hard enough to complete....

But the Tiny maps represent their own unique challenges. I tried a complete random-gen Tiny map once and ended up starting on an island of three squares. I immediately quit and restarted the game... but can you imagine how that might have played out?

I enjoy Small maps because I can play through them much quicker without getting into massive micro managing. I am even learning to appreciate the Tiny maps. I think you'd have to put certain restrictions on a Tiny map to make it a viable GotM, otherwise it's a quick domination/conquest exercise for the super-experienced. For instance: Raging Barbarians, at least Emperor level, something special about the starting position or the map...

--Yelof

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Sir Yelof, starting on an island of three squares, please do not give Matrix any ideas of this type.

I think tiny is OK!, but that was not an option.

CB

 

[ShredZ]

If you setup a gotm on a small map, perhaps turn off the conquest victory condition to give it more challenge?

 

[Neuro]

I personally like the larger maps. A Huge Map is not so daunting when it's got 15 other civs. Just don't play it on Emp level is all =)

16 civs makes for far more diplomacy. And it IS supposed to be a game of the MONTH, so longer games should be occassionally expected.

I personally would like to see at least one GotM as Huge, 16 Civs, Archipeligo, 60% Water, everything else normal, Monarch level.

 

[God]

I prefer standard-large maps.

Tiny is ridiculous. We get a whole month to play the game. I don't want to finish it in a day.

Large takes more time, and requires some effort put into it. And its not too big for most computers.

 

[punkbass2000]

standard, occasional tiny or huge. It's nice to play something different every once in a while.

 

[Sullla]

Originally posted by Matrix
Do you share the opinion that the larger the map the more fun the game is (commonly)?

I certainly don't think so; I dislike playing large maps because they just eat up too much time. I have never played a huge map and I don't plan to do so: how is spending an hour per turn fun? Some of you may be masochists, but I'm not. And I do play more than just the GOTM you know. I'm backed up enough on games as it is at the moment without needing a giant map to play.

I think we should stay with small, standard, and large maps, as tiny maps do finish too quickly for a month-long game and huge maps are ridiculous. Those of you who think small and standard maps finish too fast... well, you can go play in the Tournament game organized by Grey Fox. If the GOTM ever has a huge map, I'll just have to skip it.

 

[Neuro]

The problem with Huge maps taking so long is only a problem when you play with only 8 civs. When you play with all 16, your land area is not that much bigger than in a normal game. The only problem with Huge maps is that it's harder to do a Conquest or Culture victory.

 

[cracker]

I have not gotten back to attempting huge maps since V1.21 was released. With V1.17 and prior releases, huge maps were the closest thing to infinite crippled corruption and tedium that I have ever seen.

I would think that a GOTM on a huge map would need some sort of accelerator or modification to make it even practical in this lifetime. If "Tournament Scoring" were functional and in place, then it would be possible to record a score for the games after some conditions were met, but without having to spend 6 weeks playing out the game to a known result.

I would personally like to see some tiny and small game sets that have crafted maps to test specific game play conditions. This would mean that relying on randomly generated maps that have not had a QC inspection review would be out of the question.

Most people would need a couple of small map games to fill the time space of a standard game.

An example of a cool set of maps to make up a tiny map game set for the GOTM, would be to have a preset order of play for three tiny maps where the there are the same 5 civs on each of the maps. The terrain layout of the maps would be a secret, so you would not be sure of how things were arranged. The three maps could include:
1) an edited version of galley accessible separate starting land masses and islands (I would definately modify longbowmen or explorers to be a weak Marine on this map),
2) a chokepoint and rough terrain pangea with off continent bonus land masses.
3) an open pangea
4) a caravel accessible two major continent plus islands map.
5) a cram packed map with the same 5 base civs plus 3 or 4 more (talk about your get tough early or die scenario, yeeha!!)

Because naval warfare is so much of an after thought, I definately think the focus should hold GOTMs to very low water percentages.

More important than map size manipulation on large and huge maps would be some creative land mass manipulation. I personally would hate to see more large maps until we have explored some creative game challenge permutation on standard sized maps and smaller.

I also would vote for never, ever having Huge maps as a GOTM because the level of tedium and time commitment would border on the psychotic. Except for GOTM's I rarely ever play a game to completion using the standard rules, the outcome is almost always determined much earlier in the process.

 

[skaternate]

I am an avid civ fanatic and this is a game of the month and all, it it was a game of the week then I could understand tiny/small maps, but common I beat the GOM7 on diety in under 10 days. What fun would a small map be? The game would last most of us one night, then we are left with no sense of security. Without a GOM or the Tourney game going I don't even play civ any more, and having to wait a whole month after finishing a Game to play the next, this is uncomprehensible, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO TINY OR SMALL MAPS, I don't mind huge though!

 

[Jove]

I guess I don't really mind. So far the GOTM's have been challenging and interesting-it seems that maybe they're randomly generated, but screened. I complained about no Deity games, we got one, so I suppose now I should be willing to be flexible about Tiny maps, which I'm not really fond of. I'm more interested in playing maps that have been created by a CivFanatic than anything else. If it's tiny but interesting, OK. If they have the know-how to make a good game on a huge map, that's OK too. I also very much dig the mod-pack GOTM idea. Everybody already downloads the newest versions, so why not a mod-pack? It would throw a curveball to the players who have it all figured out with the standard rules and level the playing field by making everyone a 'newbie'. Or a scenario GOTM. I don't know what You paid for CivIII with NO scenarios-a good one would make a hell of a GOTM.