# of opponents
- Thread starter Knowltok
- Start date
DragonHawk
Bored
More civs = more fun. There is nothing like playing huge 18 civs on continents or big-small maps. The era of exploration seems endless. Just make sure your computer can handle it.
not bigger map, same map, more opponents. I am thinking of starting to do this. The reason is that a standard map gives me 6 opponents...not really enough for my tastes. I'd like 10 or more. I could play a huge map but then I'd probably get dumped by my gf, lose my job and get kicked out of university. I simply don't have the time/patience for huge maps... I'm worried though that adding a significant # of opponents to the standard map size will throw off the balance and make the game wonky. Perhaps I could add 1 or 2.
I doubled the default number of AI players for each map size. Personally, I can't see how people play with so few AIs. Way too much area for expansion, few-to-none early wars, etc. Not to my tastes, anyway. I prefer having it close-and-crowded. Makes for a much more interesting early game, imo.
Bh
Bh
JBossch
King
for a long time i was adding 1-2 on small pangea and 2-3 on regular pangea and emperor difficulty. it really does make things interesting early on with a lot of early war and very dicey diplomacy. lately i have gone back to the default number of opponents though as i felt the extra ones really predetermined a lot of my strategy. for example, early rush is an absolute necessity and i was often forced to build a settler first just to get a good second city founded before the ai. i agree, being really far from everybody sucks but i have found that by using the high sea level option, land masses are a little smaller and everybody is a bit more crammed together. possibly a good middle ground.
PimpyMicPimp
Regrets His Username.
It definitly makes politics more interesting. I don't have much experience other than Earth maps, but Europe becomes a very compitive place. My last game on an Earth map I saw many AIs killed by other AIs, Ghandi didn't even make it to the >1000 BCs!
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
I most often customize number of opponents after what kind of map I set up. Sometime I aim for two continents and then I'll typically add one civ for 8 total on a standard map, if I go for three continents I typically go for 9 civs etc.
I quite often play on the Earth map with 18 civs and raging barbs. Despite the barbs all of Eurasia usually ends up covered in cities and most of Africa, N. America and Australia. Only S. America has much empty space. Really encourages you to make the most of your territory.
Roland Johansen
Deity
I personally think that adding civilizations to a map beyond the standard number of civilizations makes the game a bit easier especially on the higher difficulty levels.
On the higher difficulty levels, city maintenance often starts to become a problem when you try to claim your section of the world. If your section of the world is a bit smaller because you play with more opponents, then you won't run into the problem of city maintenance. You can wait until after the development of economic technologies before getting a larger share of the world. If there are less civilizations on the map, then you'll have to settle a larger area before the economic technologies have been developed because if you won't, then the AI will claim that area. And it's hard to battle AI civilizations which are significantly large than you. The AI doesn't have these high city maintenance cost, so it won't have such problems claiming a larger area.
If you can get to double the size of an average empire in this game, then you are doing very well. At the start of the game there are still some maintenance reasons stopping you from expanding, but after the development of some economic technologies, size=power. And if there are more opponents on the map, then it's easier to become double the size of the average opponent. You have to capture less cities to become double the size of an average opponent.
Warfare and diplomacy become more important with larger number of opponents and these are areas in which the human player will always beat an AI player. There are no AI bonuses in these areas.
All of that said, I do think it's more fun to play against a larger number of opponents. It does make the world more interesting. I can't see myself ever playing a game against something like 3 or 4 opponents. It wouldn't feel as if 'the world was alive'. So I usually play on huge maps where there are still a decent number of opponents with the standard setting for number of opponents. However, expanding to become equally large as your opponents is economically challenging on these maps (on the highest difficulty levels).
On the higher difficulty levels, city maintenance often starts to become a problem when you try to claim your section of the world. If your section of the world is a bit smaller because you play with more opponents, then you won't run into the problem of city maintenance. You can wait until after the development of economic technologies before getting a larger share of the world. If there are less civilizations on the map, then you'll have to settle a larger area before the economic technologies have been developed because if you won't, then the AI will claim that area. And it's hard to battle AI civilizations which are significantly large than you. The AI doesn't have these high city maintenance cost, so it won't have such problems claiming a larger area.
If you can get to double the size of an average empire in this game, then you are doing very well. At the start of the game there are still some maintenance reasons stopping you from expanding, but after the development of some economic technologies, size=power. And if there are more opponents on the map, then it's easier to become double the size of the average opponent. You have to capture less cities to become double the size of an average opponent.
Warfare and diplomacy become more important with larger number of opponents and these are areas in which the human player will always beat an AI player. There are no AI bonuses in these areas.
All of that said, I do think it's more fun to play against a larger number of opponents. It does make the world more interesting. I can't see myself ever playing a game against something like 3 or 4 opponents. It wouldn't feel as if 'the world was alive'. So I usually play on huge maps where there are still a decent number of opponents with the standard setting for number of opponents. However, expanding to become equally large as your opponents is economically challenging on these maps (on the highest difficulty levels).
I agree that more opponents = more fun.
I almost always set water levels to low, and add a couple of civs. Doing things that way lets me add more opponents without messing with the default game balance, intended amount of land per civ, and such.
I almost always set water levels to low, and add a couple of civs. Doing things that way lets me add more opponents without messing with the default game balance, intended amount of land per civ, and such.
OctavianFlu
Emperor
I like to play small maps with 8 opponents w/ aggressive AI, or if you feel up for the challenge go small maps with 8 opponents w/ always war. If you are on a pangea map it can be quite messy.
I too find that the games tend to turn out easier than usual. To the reasons already mentioned by RolandJ, I'd add:
1) Huge AI civs are rare.
2) More opportunities for tech-trading and selling.
3) More opportunities for stirring up trouble between AIs.
4) More opportunities for quick and easy wars of conquest.
Note, however, that points 2-4 are all opportunities rather than inherent benefits to the player, and so make the game easier only if you have sufficient skill (and patience - checking the diplomatic options can get very tedious) to take advantage.
So for players who have trouble beating Noble (or lower), doubling the # of civs could well make the game much harder, particularly as you're much more likely to get boxed in early.
I'd also add that, on some maps, these games can produce nigh-on impossible starts where you're totally isolated on a pathetic scrap of land, while the AI civs trade through the tech-tree at a blistering pace.
Being 10+ techs behind by the time you meet the AI, whilst having only three cities and a very limited hammer supply =
1) Huge AI civs are rare.
2) More opportunities for tech-trading and selling.
3) More opportunities for stirring up trouble between AIs.
4) More opportunities for quick and easy wars of conquest.
Note, however, that points 2-4 are all opportunities rather than inherent benefits to the player, and so make the game easier only if you have sufficient skill (and patience - checking the diplomatic options can get very tedious) to take advantage.
So for players who have trouble beating Noble (or lower), doubling the # of civs could well make the game much harder, particularly as you're much more likely to get boxed in early.
I'd also add that, on some maps, these games can produce nigh-on impossible starts where you're totally isolated on a pathetic scrap of land, while the AI civs trade through the tech-tree at a blistering pace.
Being 10+ techs behind by the time you meet the AI, whilst having only three cities and a very limited hammer supply =
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
more opponents can be more fun, but also easier imo, especially if you play with a strong early rushing civ (e.g., incas/zulu/etc.)
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
One thing I often do when I increase the number of opponents is to play with the no vassals option. In my experience vassals is one of the weaknesses of the AI, as it will often accept capitulation when it would be much better of annihilating their enemy. Instead they halt their expansion and gets negative diplo modifiers with other civs.
It can be great fun to conquer your continent only to find out that Shaka has done the same with his and then fight it out in a colossal world war.
It can be great fun to conquer your continent only to find out that Shaka has done the same with his and then fight it out in a colossal world war.
Bleys
Deity
I have found I prefer continent to pangaea or sea maps, but the standard number of 6 AI + player generates 2-5 splits too often, so I started adding 1 civ, for a total of 8 players on 2 continents. This usually splits 4-4, sometimes 5-3, and rarely 6-2. Even in the one or two games I have seen 6-2 splits, the 2 were on the smaller continent.
I do this because I have so much less trouble with barbs when there are more civs to occupy the available land. I only have access to vanilla, and barbs can really ruin the fun of the game. I dont mind them settling cities and coming once in a while and such, but when I see Axemen before I have even met another civ, thats just not fun.
I do this because I have so much less trouble with barbs when there are more civs to occupy the available land. I only have access to vanilla, and barbs can really ruin the fun of the game. I dont mind them settling cities and coming once in a while and such, but when I see Axemen before I have even met another civ, thats just not fun.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
i hated this in vanilla/warlords. i always wished there had been an option where you could assign the # of civs per continent. drove me crazy.
in bts i play the new hemispheres maps which gives MUCH better distributions and it is generally 3/4 or 4/3 every game, which is waaay better. i've been thinking about bumping up the # of ais by 1 though so that it might come out 4/4 on a semi-regular basis, which i consider to be ideal.
Bleys
Deity
I actually just got a 7 to 1 split in Custom Continents, LOL, it was more like Pangaea, with poor Kubla Khan relegated to the frozen artic tundra.
Kinda sucked, because I just ripped through all the civ like a normal Pangaea start, but oh well.
Kinda sucked, because I just ripped through all the civ like a normal Pangaea start, but oh well.
