This is how I feel. I'm playing with 13 civs on Huge at the moment and it's not an accident or an oversight - it's intentional. I hate being forward settled and having to constantly war with other civs. I find that on recent betas it happens often enough already. I also have much more fun playing wide than tall. I'm happy for other people to play whatever settings they want. As others have noted, increasing the number of civs already has other side-effects, like making religions harder to found and wonders harder to build. It's up to each player where they feel the balance between these lies. On the other hand, civs that benefit from city-states are probably going to like having so many city-states in total (and it makes the associated buildings stronger), and there's no doubt that Brazil's UU gives more total yields on larger maps. Not to mention that having more trade partners affects the importance of diplomacy, and having more land to conquer affects domination games. Balance is imporant, but sometimes different map sizes just play differently. We can adjust for one aspect, but we need to be careful with how it affects the other aspects as well. With regards to tech... I'm not sure that we are correctly understanding the proposed changes. Would be great to have Gazebo clarify the intended effect. Otherwise it feels we may just be arguing in circles.