Survuval of the... (Luckiest?)

[Magnus]

My new favorite style of playing is to have 16 civs on the standard (medium) map, with me getting a random civ to play. This puts severe pressure on all the civs to carve out their empires, and will see many many wars as the dominant civs push out the lesser ones, eventually reducing the number of players in the game. I think this is a more 'realistic' approach as there is definitely more wars and short tempers as the battle for land and resources (and wonders!) is great.

The first time I tried this I was given Babylon to play - I was able to get 4 cities in an 'X' pattern around my capital and that was it, and as soon as I got Writing and established an embassy with my nearest neighbor, the Iroquois, they immediately asked for an alliance agaisnt the Persians, who were clobbering them! I asked for three techs in payment and promptly went to war. After 20 turns of fending off Persian archers (thankfully this was before Immortals), everybody made peace, but the Iroquois were not long for this world, reduced to three scattered cities and a lost capital. My culture gave me 4 more cities so I entered the Middle Ages with 9, which isn't bad considering the pressure of this type of set-up. (game is still ongoing).

I think cramming so many civs into a smaller area just makes for a more exciting game, there really is NO time to sit on your laurels, you have to be ready to fight from the beginning.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Yeah, the more the merrier as they say I've done that on several occasions and it always results in some great early gameplay as opposed to the isolationist behaviors I'd be using otherwise.

What's great is that there are so many alliances/MP's/ROP's that the diplo screen just becomes an absolute mess thus resulting in the big ww1 scenario - "You touch them and the world goes up in smoke" I love it.

 

[narmox]

sounds interesting.. I should try that in my next game

 

[eyrei]

How exactly do you go about doing this in the editor. I should like to try it, too.

 

[Magnus]

Open 'civ3mod' in your Civ3 folder.

go to the drop down menu on the right and select 'world sizes'

there will be another drop down where you select what world size you wish to alter - I altered 'Standard'

under Standard, it will say the number of civs is 8, just adjust it up to 16, (I also adjusted ditance between civs down to 8 from 12 just to get them a little closer).

Save your changes, and then when you start a new Standard map game, you will see all 16 civs available to play.

 

[eyrei]

Thanks. I think I know what I am doing after work today.

 

[Zachriel]

Great post, Magnus. I never play with the editor, so I didn't think of adjusting the number of civs. I tried playing huge map with max civs, but couldn't handle the lag between turns.

It definitely makes for an exciting game. Plus you'll have none of that perfectionist worrying about where to place your cities. If you survive, most of your cities will be ethnically diverse.

 

[markv]

That sounds like a great idea. I'll try it in a week or so after I finish my current game.

Just a questions, though. I've tried the 16 player game on a Huge map, and found it too slow. How does game speed on a Huge map with 16 players compare with a Standard map and 16 players and with 8 players?

 

[Magnus]

Well, the smaller the map, the less stuff there will be to admister, so I think that it is irrelevant how many civs there are, each civ will just have less to do.

Also, by Modern Times, a few civs would naturally pass into extinction, leaving the world looking similar to the regular game, however those surviving civs certainly EARNED the right to be there.

I don't know if I am sick enough to try it on a Tiny map.... maybe I am.

 

[moomin]

Originally posted by Magnus
I don't know if I am sick enough to try it on a Tiny map.... maybe I am.

16 Civs on a tiny map is a hoot. Fast, furious, competitive, addicting. No corruption worries. I don't play any other games any more, and the way Firaxis is silent 'bout coming gameplay changes in patches I don't recon I will.

And to think I used to be a huge map affectionado.

 

[moomin]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Kefka]

Sounds like a hoot I love those entangled alliances!
on my current game one aztec nation declared war on me for not giving in to a huge demand (I think it was like two tecs and 100 gold for nothing) and I got the entire world turned on them!
I asked one nation for an alliance against them and they asked another and then they asked another and soon the Aztec nation was reduced to ashes and I never even put a unit in their country nor they mine

 

[Kev]

All well and good to have others fight your wars, but another great aspect about a crammed map is that territory is such a premium. While others are at war, one civ or another is usually going to end up with more territory as they take over cities. Now, one of your rivals may have doubled their territory and increased their power base a great deal. It almost makes it necessary to at least be a small part of wars - and it can make scavenging weakened cities a nice art form.

In a recent game, I was able to get the Persians and the Babylonians to fight. They were my two closest rivals and far enough away that I could concentrate on other things. I felt that the two upper tier civs would fall behind by being in a protracted war, but the next time I really looked, the Persians has all but crushed the Babylonians - taking some valuable wonders, cities and resources. All of a sudden the Persians surpassed me in many categories and I had to spend the rest of the game preparing to deal with them.

With all of this game's difficulties, gameplay like this can make up for just about anything.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Magnus
I don't know if I am sick enough to try it on a Tiny map.... maybe I am.

Fantastic on a tiny map. The games are usually faster. If you are in a losing position, you're going to find out sooner, rather than play for three hours before the boom falls. None of my "perfectionist" instincts get in the way of the "reality" of the game situation. No second guessing yourself, like blitz chess.

The only thing I don't like is the diplomacy table doesn't handle 16 civs (without a lot of clicking).

 

[Magnus]

Do you wonder where all the cattle, wheat and game went to in this type of game? I think because 16 civs requires 16 of each luxury resource, something had to go - I haven't seen any of the bonus resources yet besides a dwindled number of whales and fish! :fish:

 

[Zachriel]

Thanks for the tip, Magnus.

I just started a game with 16 civs on a standard map. Only founded three cities before my area of the map was full. The Japanese started a war, so I conquered them with sword. Just founded the Egyptian Republic with 10 towns and I'm on my way into the Middle Ages with a good start.

 

[Magnus]

Zachriel,

What civ are you playing? My recent game is as Rome and I just built the Iron Works (c.1600 AD) - that's the first time I ever got that small wonder! The Americans and Indians are gone and the Persians are down to one city, so my diplomacy is becoming a little easier. I think this one will be my first shot at Diplomatic Victory, as oddly enough, every civ who is foolish enough to declare war on me just won't be around for the vote...

 

[Candian.Gloworm]

i should of read this first before I posted mine but I did the tine map with 16 civs, VERY VERY exciting.
Anyone else try this