What map size do you play and why?

[SirSaab]

I used to play Huge maps every game (since I'm blessed with a rig that avoids crashes late-game), but found I didn't have the commitment needed to explore the whole map, therefore losing out on natural wonder happiness bonuses, trade opportunities, and CS's.

I switched to Large for quite a while, but then found that I didn't like dealing with the inevitable runaway civ's on the other side of the map, and there was always way too much space between empires.

Since switching to Standard maps, the game seems much more balanced. I can explore the map in it's entirety, I usually find all the natural wonders... Other civ's are more accessible. It just feels better overall.

What's your experience?

 

[Civsassin]

I find that standard maps suite my needs:

- There is plenty of room to maneuver
- I've never seen the whole map settled
- I've had early warring games, mid game warring games, and peaceful games
- Random maps and civilizations settings provide enough variety

 

[Ankh]

Large/Epic Speed here, I find that huge maps slow down to much at the end for an enjoyable experience. Standard makes a decent game but ends to fast for my taste. I play it when I want a quick game though.

Large fits my game-style perfectly. It doesn't slow down to a crawl at the end and have a lot of exploration and often but not always enough room to build up. I play out almost every game to the victory screen as well.

 

[apocalypse105]

I usally go standard and higher i never go lower because Then every AI gets then land hungry and will denounce you and declare wor on eachother and you!!! And with everybody I mean everybody how smaller the map how rondam the AI is .

 

[Kevin J]

Standard. While I preferred huge maps in civ 4, standard in civ 5 feels much bigger than in 4 -- plus, my old computer can't really handle larger maps.

 

[Jaybe]

Large/Epic Speed here, I find that huge maps slow down to much at the end for an enjoyable experience. Standard makes a decent game but ends to fast for my taste. I play it when I want a quick game though.

Large fits my game-style perfectly. It doesn't slow down to a crawl at the end and have a lot of exploration and often but not always enough room to build up. I play out almost every game to the victory screen as well.

This mirrors my thoughts to a T; except that I have never wanted a quick game.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Used to do Huge, got bored with the lag. I'm trying Standard out now, moves much faster and less opponents is always nice.

 

[Randall Turner]

Played Huge/Marathon exclusively for the first "n" games, but my ATI card will get scroll crashes.

Got into twiddling stuff, stepped it down to Large/Marathon for the stability.

Just get bored with the standard size maps, not enough strategic movement for wargamy-ness.

 

[buchengshi]

I had been playing small maps, recenty stepping up to standard. I'd rather play on huge maps, but I (almost) always play marathon - and hate waiting more than a few seconds for each turn.

 

[ShaggyCan]

I've been playing small maps with 5 other civs and 5 city states. Usually you get one other civ and one city state right next to you and the rest are far enough away that you can expand pretty well in one direction, and having one competing border.

 

[Helmling]

Huge.
22 Civs.
28 CSs.

I'd crank both up into the hundreds if they'd let me. The world is huge, I want my Civ games to be as big as possible.

 

[Save_Ferris]

By the way, where's tiny? I find that smaller maps are better for multiplayer.

 

[Megalomano]

Standard maps do not lag as bad as huge maps in late game, and you have less pop ups to worry about.

 

[CMKMStephens]

Large/Epic Speed here, I find that huge maps slow down to much at the end for an enjoyable experience. Standard makes a decent game but ends to fast for my taste. I play it when I want a quick game though.

Large fits my game-style perfectly. It doesn't slow down to a crawl at the end and have a lot of exploration and often but not always enough room to build up. I play out almost every game to the victory screen as well.

Ditto for Large/Epic games.

Huge.
22 Civs.
28 CSs.

I'd crank both up into the hundreds if they'd let me. The world is huge, I want my Civ games to be as big as possible.

The bigger the bigger is my conception of what Civilization should be like - it's how I played Civ4. I'd love to play CiV like this, but the game seems specifically designed against it.

 

[AxelRhodd]

TINY almost every time... so cant vote

 

[BobDole]

Huge. My computer can handle it fine, and it feels epic, with lots of Civs and City States. Only two problems with it is that 1) the AI still isn't great as cross-continental invasions, especially with such great distances to cover, and 2) Domination victory can be kind of annoying/difficult, though if some other AI civs warmonger a lot it makes it easier.

 

[SpearMan153]

playing small at the moment due to system performance - would rather play standard

shouldn't there be a tiny map size in the poll?

 

[gozpel]

I want to play Large/Huge, but I've got the pixelation bug making tiles grey and later polkadot tiles.

Yep, so I play standard maps now, but even that makes my games pixelate in the late game.

I play on XP and have an new ATI-card that plays anything else. Other games, I mean, no probs at all.

 

[Mods]

I used to always play huge on Civ4, but the pretty graphics on civ5 make this impossible sadly
So I stick to standard

 

[ColinTH]

My pc can't handle too much action, through trial and error i seem to have worked out Small map but 9 opponents, pre patch it was tiny map and regular four opponents.