Playing a small map is the most enjoyable choice?

[Czacki]

Let's see...

1. Small map means that you won't end up with 50 cities or so. This means micromanagement, such as city positioning, decisions regarding improvements, etc will remain having a big impact on your game. On large or huge maps, there is so much space you can virtually settle tons and tons of cities. Even with many enemies, you will eventually conquer some. And end up with the same 50 cities again. When you have so many, it barely matters whether you have another one, whether you have workshops or towns... It's micromanagement that makes this game enjoyable. Later on you won't even notice if you lose like 5 cities unless you lose a capital or those cities that you settled in great places.
2. Resources more important, since there is less spots for them to pop up. On huge map, even if you don't have, say, iron on your grounds, it barely matters since there is 1 million iron veins on the map anyway.
3. Less tedious warfare. Waiting 30 turns before your army reaches the enemy? Yawn.
4. I found out myself that cities beyond 10 or so barely had any impact on my game anyway. Cities I was founding in late game had 1/10 commerce of the developed ones. Sure, with a lot gold/Universal suffrage you can build a new building each turn, but it still takes time for the city to grow, work tiles, get ALL the necessary buildings... If you're for hut economy, it takes ages for the huts to grow into towns,too. My oxford town can generate like 10 x the beakers all my modern-era or even pre-modern era towns COMBINED can.
5. Since the AI goes ape**** when attacked and starts settling in every possible direction, it lessens the time needed to search for those stupid 1 pop settlements the AI massproduces during war.

Sure, no more epic battles with 1 million units... but arguably, they aren't that fun. Unless you like 1 pop settlements razing over and over again because AI makes crazy amounts of settlers during war and spreads them in every possible direction... Also, once the main force (biggest, oldest towns + army) is down, arguably it doesn't matter whether there are 20 cities left to conquer or 5.

What do you think, what map size is optimal for max enjoyment throughout ALL game, not just the start?

 

[Ataxerxes]

For what you want, small maps are best. Large maps do get tedious, but some people like the epic scope.

I like Earth maps, and they are large. If I'm not playing a mod or an Earth map, I agree that a standard map is as large as I'll go.

 

[dzdydx]

I agree with OP. Plus larger maps usually takes a lot longer for the AI to play out their turns, which on my a crappy laptop is quite sucky.

However, I will play Rhye's and Fall for all its epicness.

 

[Paw]

I like Small maps because my computer never really seems to slow down on them, even in the late modern/future age.

However, I do miss the increased diplomacy options when theirs more AIs. One of the thing I love about playing Earth maps is with so many opponents, someone is always willing to trade. You can make some really impressive trades (by trading a monopoly tech to several AIs in one turn), which can be much harder to do when there's fewer AIs.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I love playing on small maps. I once played 18 civs on a duel pangea map. Major culture wars took place, with me being victorous! (I won a domination victory).

 

[Peregrine]

Answer to the thread's question; For ME, a small map is not the choice I make when playing. Apparently, it simply comes down to preferences. Most of the things mentioned as annoyances are things I prefer, even think mandatory. You're not wrong, nor am I right, however. Just that different game settings have appeal for different people.

For example;

After trying out many settings and many maps, I came to the conclusion that I enjoy the CIV game on huge maps and marathon setting. If I'm not spending 14-20 hours on a single game, it simply doesn't work for me. I don't manage to build much more than 8-10 cities initially, and I do heavily micromanage those cities. After a rush or early war (Classical or Medieval), I still micro the cities, even though there may be considerably more of them. I tend to think of this as Imperial Administration, and it's what I enjoy.

Even though the map is huge, I've found that unless I move fast, the AIs are quick to fill in the space. This wasn't so on chieftain, it began to improve on warlord, and with noble, they move very fast to grab as much land as possible.

No matter how large my empire is in any specific game, I pay close attention to lost cities and take them back rapidly.

Resources are a tricky thing. I've found myself having a very large empire w/25 cities (1 conquered AI empire and my own) and NO oil and NO coal. Owned 1/3 of a very large continent and yet . . . neither of these appeared in all that vast space. In fact, the games in which I've done very well were games where there was a good variety of resources available; some for use, some for trading, some for war materials.

The warfare that some see as tedious, I see as engrossing. Pre-engineering movement can be all too slow, but w/engineering and roads, things can move very fast, and railroads absolutely facilitate continental or strategic movements. I can only speak from experience, but I've founded cities during the early industrial period (1900s) which peaked after a short time with larger populations than cities I founded 2000 years earlier. My formula is to select a foundation that has good agricultural land and farm it all, microing to keep the farm tiles working through the first 2 or 3 dozen turns. You are right about the cottages, but the US civic accelerates growth of these and it appears in the late game.

It's stopped being a shock when I discover that an AI has a stack of 50-90 units in a border city (or it attacks w/said stack) but the combat, for me, is never boring. Planning is a key element prior to army-vs-army battles. I keep discovering nuances with every game played. TMIT is on target when stating that siege initiative is key, but there's more to it--promotions/tactical selection is important too.

My own experiences with large vs. small maps and short vs. long games is that there is less room for error w/small/short, supporting a more formulaic approach to victory. Fortunately, CIV is such a complex game that formulas have only a limited viability, no matter the map size/game speed. Best advice I've ever seen on these boards was a distinctly non-formula suggestion; "play the map." Specific tactics work, and specific strategies work, but not on every map, and not all the time. (I play now on Prince/huge/marathon)

 

[6K Man]

I like large maps. On small maps, the exploration/meet-n-greet phase is over too soon. Plus, they don't have the 'epic feel' that large maps have.

 

[babar]

I like a small map with a couple of extra AIs. Big and Small is good for this I find, because the extra AIs allow about the right amount of peaceful expansion for my tastes. Seems like a similar amount of land to a standard Pangaea, but brings navies into play more often.
My ideal map is a standard size horseshoe shaped Pangaea though. The inner sea means you need a navy, and it plays out more realistically than any other map i think. I wish I knew how to generate them every time.

 

[Czacki]

Thanks for answers. I also love the part when you are alone and can grab some land before you meet your enemies, which is impossible on small maps when you meet enemies very fast. But, large maps are simply very tedious for me. I prefer not to have too many cities because the more cities I have, the less is the impact a well-governed city has on my performance. If you have 20 cities, it doesn't really matter whether one of them has 20 or 30 commerce output. If you have 4 cities, it is a considerable difference.

Ofc as far as I understand nobody FORCES me to build 50 cities on huge/marathon... still, the AI tends to grab a lot of land and get strong from sheer number of cities. I would eventually get outperformed by a civ spamming crappy AI cities, I guess. I never liked exceeding 10 cities, since I like specialization and that's more or less what I need.

 

[Camikaze]

Large maps provide the most enjoyment for me. When playing casually, I don't like the crowded feel of a small map, and having more room to move allows for more strategic variation. I just don't get into small games nearly as much as I get into large games.

 

[Lead Paint]

Personally I never play on anything larger than a standard map. If I feel like mixing it up a bit, I turn on an extra AI or two. Micromanagement feels too much like work.

 

[s.bernbaum]

I enjoy the large maps. My computer can't handle huge, so I nearly always play on large and marathon. I like the micro management and feeling of immersion in a "real" world with many other leaders to interact with. My favorite games usually run around 30 plus hours of actual playing time. One persons tedium is another's nirvana!

 

[plasmacannon]

Since, I play multiplayer on a LAN, 2 humans vs. 6-8 AIs, medium maps work well for my friend an I.
A suggestion for the OP, you can get a similar feel to small maps, if you choose Medium map, and high water level.
This way, you get the benefits of a larger map (city maintenance to capitol costs, for example), while, still not having too much land.

 

[The7Sins]

I play exclusively on Huge maps. Makes the scope of the game that much more massive and feel like I'm playing on a real alternate earth.
Also its nice to make the Barbs actually become a challenge.

 

[PreLynMax]

I like large maps. On small maps, the exploration/meet-n-greet phase is over too soon. Plus, they don't have the 'epic feel' that large maps have.

^^This is why choose larger maps over smaller ones. I only played ONE SINGLE GAME on a Small map, just to try it, but it looses its epic feel like you are a small fry in a big world like Huge maps do.

I wish the maps were a bit bigger, though.

 

[dzdydx]

When I play larger maps with more AIs, it's annoying that every turn you'll have at least 1 AI asking for either tribute/war against their enemy/stop trading with their enemy/adopt civics/adopt religion. It gets tedious and really hurts my chances of keeping the AIs happy, as I like having at least 1 preferably a few good friends in any game. (I know about the usual tricks, aka use civics/religions the AIs like, beg 10 gold so you won't be asked to declare war etc. It's just easier for me to not deal with demands constantly)

 

[Yxklyx]

I usually play standard size maps but it still takes me 12 hours to finish a game on normal speed. Can't fathom some of you fast players. I end up with 20 cities or so.

While we're on the topic how different are the different world sizes in number of tiles, etc...

 

[dhaniell]

Well, it depends on how many opponents you play against. Small maps are too ...eh...small for me, since I like the epic scope of a huge world with many civs. I like having wars with units that wont go obsolete when I've reached the shore. I like exploring and that ends early in the BC on small maps while on larger the whole world wont show itself until the AD. I figure 50 cities was an exaggeration? Because I play modded maps larger than the universe () itself with 34+ civs and have never got past 12 cities I think. Im no warmongerer though most of the time.

 

[Czacki]

Ok, most of you guys are right: epic feel is definitively not there for small maps.

However, large maps + warfare = horrible. At least for me.

In addition to AI going ape**** with the settling new cities during war, it feels.. redundant. If I cracked a few big cities and the defending army, it barely matters anymore whether the enemy has another 20 towns. It just delays the inevitable, the AI WILL lose. It only prolongs my search for those stupid settlements. Argh, if only there was a "no settlers during war" option...

Even worse, Once you're killing the enemy, it's not just him that settles like mad: the neighbours will immediately throw a flood of settlers at the land "cleansed" from the AI being in war with you and it's another +5 cities to destroy during a next war, assuming you're going for domination or conquest...

I like slower speeds not to have my units obsolete before reaching the enemy, tho. It's ridiculous that by the time I get army and reach my enemy, he already jumps to the higher tier of defending units, making my army highly inefficient...

I would probably enjoy it more if there was an upper limit for the number of cities, or penalties following a recursive formula, making more than 10 cities REALLY a pain for your pocket. Again, once I reach 20-30 cities, it doesn't matter one bit - globally wise -whether my 31th is put in a good place or is it just a filler-garbage town. 10 matters when we're talking about values of 50-60, but when total commerce exceeds 1000, it no longer matters whether you get that extra 10 commerce or not - or at least, it cannot be noticed as well as in early stages.

And the game is fun mostly in early stages, when your decisions matter a lot. Later it gets pretty tedious, and on larger maps (imho) totally boring. I nearly never finish those games, once the whole continent is mine and enemies can't do a damn thing (or the enemy is too big on another continent and upcoming war would be a eternity of "destroying a few towns-getting kicked out of his motherland eventually-arriving there again to destroy what he has rebuilt in settling-spree-rinse repeat".

RoM: AnD which I tried lately is really not balanced too well (too easy and too easy to abuse the system unless you turn out a lot of new features but not all can be turned off) but at least it got one thing right: with so many buildings, "new" towns tend to suck REALLY long with so many things missing & so much time needed to complete the necessary pack of commercemakers/productionmakers/whatever the town specialization requires. Later on it's perfectly ok not to bother with new towns, since they won't catch up with your old ones anytime soon and actually don't matter much.

All in all, in most games I'm for quality over quantity. And in Civ 4 it doesn't really matter that much whether you have one well planned town, in a great place, or three average cities. Sadly. (after the necessary specialized cities like GPP farm, oxford town and such have been already placed). Actually, much like in combat, it's better to have three average towns over one great, just like it's better to have three 0 exp macemen over one powerful veteran maceman.

 

[MarcoPollo]

I agree here with the feeling that that small maps are the most enjoyable. 5 or six players makes for some good fun. If it gets bigger, it can get tedious. I too enjoy the beginning 150 turns as they happen quickly and make the most difference.