What size world is the most fun for you?

[Parmenion]

If (according to the poll) the max and min world sizes are 160x160 and 60x60, then how come there are other world sizes available? The Rise of Rome is listed as 140x140 (I think), whereas Marla's world map is 365x365 or something similar. Is it possible to alter world size using mods?



Oh, yeah, I vote for Huge.

 

[RegentMan]

Small and standard. Accasionly a large map is also fun to play.

 

[RegentMan]

Originally posted by Parmenion
If (according to the poll) the max and min world sizes are 160x160 and 60x60, then how come there are other world sizes available? The Rise of Rome is listed as 140x140 (I think), whereas Marla's world map is 365x365 or something similar. Is it possible to alter world size using mods?

Yup, in the editor you can go from 16x16 to pretty high.

 

[Ebitdadada]

I play from between 70*70 to 90*90 not sure what that is, with from 14 to 31 civs. I don't like building settlers forever. I do like having alot of civilizations.

 

[Parmenion]

If the maximum number of cities is hardcoded at 512, then the larger worlds will not be able to support enough cities to completely cover the map.
I'm playing on my ownmod which uses the 'Rise of Rome' map (140x140) and I currently have around 30 or so cities. According to the maximum city limit I am nearly at my quota if each civ has the average number of cities - 512 divided by 16 (no. of civs) = 32 cities each.
Of course, I intend to have a lot more than my fair share, but even if I own 1/16th of the map surface, 32 cities isn't enough to cover that area. This is even with optimum spacing used.

Thus there will definitely be large areas of the map that will never be settled - that's arse!

My vote goes for any map that can be completely covered with cities - so no Huge maps then.

 

[Dogmeat]

Small maps or Large maps with lots and lots of civs.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I ussualy only play on a generated scenario map that is no smaller 250 by 250 with 25-30 civs. The Biggest I ever played as 390 by 390.

 

[dafunk]

small, i try to play games on large and huge, but i usually get too bored and quit when the turns start taking ten minutes

 

[Revolutionary]

in the epic game I play with Huge maps with max (16) civs

but if I play a mod/scenario or earth map that is huge I play with all 31 civs or what ever the max # is for that specific map

 

[Fanatica]

The bigger the better. I like 240x240.
The only limitation for me is computer time drag. (need more ram)

 

[redstoner]

I generally play on a standard pangea map. My most common goal is to destroy the other civs as quickly as possible. Standard pangea size makes it possible to do without have to learn magnetism since we're all on the same landmass.

Occasionally I like to play a huge map with all of the CIVs so I can have one of those really long, drawn out games where I try to conquer everybody eventually. Don't have much time to play those anymore, so I prefer the smaller, quicker games.

 

[Free Enterprise]

In theory huge with 16 civs is the best combination. The only problem is that when you have too many units to move per turn it starts to cease to be interesting. That would be a bonus for large maps. More civilizations is definitely better though which is a problem for large and helpful for huge. Large scale events are more interesting. The power balance is more equal on huge perhaps because even if you defeat one enemy the power divergence is not so great.

So either large or huge is the best in my opinion. I decided to vote for large because a large map remains interesting almost until the end whereas huge map starts very interesting and begins to decline early on (relatively speaking).