If you were to say that a certain speed and or map size is the most well balanced, like it looked like that's the optimal combination that the developers worked on, what would you say it was based on how well balanced things look to you? I've only played Normal/Fractal/Standard but I have nothing to compare it to.
What Speed \ Map Size is best balanced?
- Thread starter greggbert
- Start date
I have been playing normal speed on duel maps with 6 AI opponents.
This may sound weird, but it rocks!
I love CIV, but normally the game just takes way, way too long to play.
On the duel size map I can finish a whole game in a weekend. I think the smaller game is just great. Fewer cities and fewer units means more tough decisions. Each choice made matters more because it has a relatively larger impact on the empire as a whole. And, when I finally get to modern warfare late in the game I am not totally burned out by having to move two hundred units each turn.
There are three main detractions from gameplay to this setting:
1) Map exploration is over before you can get a second scout built.
2) Barbarians never appear (there's quickly no unclaimed space left.)
3) The (relative) cost of building Wonders become huge.
When your army is 20-30 units 300 hammers for a Wonder is no big deal. When your whole army is 8 units, 300 hammers is a major commitment.
But, I sort of like #3. It's part of the whole idea that with smaller maps each decision you make has a relatively bigger impact.
All in all, losing the early barbarians is a more than even trade off for actually being able to finish some modern wars.
This may sound weird, but it rocks!
I love CIV, but normally the game just takes way, way too long to play.
On the duel size map I can finish a whole game in a weekend. I think the smaller game is just great. Fewer cities and fewer units means more tough decisions. Each choice made matters more because it has a relatively larger impact on the empire as a whole. And, when I finally get to modern warfare late in the game I am not totally burned out by having to move two hundred units each turn.
There are three main detractions from gameplay to this setting:
1) Map exploration is over before you can get a second scout built.
2) Barbarians never appear (there's quickly no unclaimed space left.)
3) The (relative) cost of building Wonders become huge.
When your army is 20-30 units 300 hammers for a Wonder is no big deal. When your whole army is 8 units, 300 hammers is a major commitment.
But, I sort of like #3. It's part of the whole idea that with smaller maps each decision you make has a relatively bigger impact.
All in all, losing the early barbarians is a more than even trade off for actually being able to finish some modern wars.
Underdawg
King
I think it really depends on the computer Civ IV is being played on. If on Epic Game speed on a map size such as Standard, I could go through the ancient and classical era in about 10-20 minutes, which is super super fast, or at least to me.
The longest Civ IV games I've ever played are probably well under 25 hours in total for a single one, and most of my games are probably only 12 or so hours for the longer ones.
I kind of miss the 50 Hour Epic Games of Civ 3.... they were so.... epic.
Marathon huge 18 civs is the way to go. So many more interactions occur, that it feels like a real world with a real history, one in which many civilizations never see 2050, and not all of that is because of the player. Super powers emerge, Empires rise and fall into tiny nations, It is just more fun for me.
Huge, marathon, hemispheres for me. My games may go for 50-60 hours. But I ponder & am no FPS or RTS player, and anything much less than that and I feel unfulfilled.
What is "most balanced?" Whatever floats your boat -- whatever YOU prefer!
What is "most balanced?" Whatever floats your boat -- whatever YOU prefer!
Rockstone
Chieftain
Hmmm... never made a connection between size and speed. With size, make sure you have enough opponents. I generally play at huge either with the default number of opponents (in custom game at least 10). For speed, I generally play epic. But since I like exporing so much, I've recently tuned down to normal. That game is still running and I like it a lot. This way I'm not lingering in the modern age too much. Though if you want war, the extra turns in epic of marathon might really be helpful.
So I agree with Jaybe, whatever you prefer.
So I agree with Jaybe, whatever you prefer.
Marathon - Many advantages for me to mention now. It may be considered almost a diferent GAME for what i can asses.
Huge with many civilizations - You need a really powerfull machine to run this size with as much as 18 civs (some of them have it.. )
Huge with many civilizations - You need a really powerfull machine to run this size with as much as 18 civs (some of them have it.. )
Underdawg
King
Well technically yes, because tactically the human is better than the AI (ie. warring) but for Huge maps, epic brings the phenomenon of "We left with bows but arrived as infantry!". I just don't think Epic speed is very viable on Huge maps. Plus Epic speed goes by (at least on my computer) FAST, I could probably finish it in a few odd hours or so.
But yeah Huge Marathon 15-18AI maps are good for me.
LilPinoyBoy
Chieftain
Someone tell me why I can't choose how many Civilizations I play with 
. I mostly play with 6-7, somewhere to those numbers. I usually play with the most civilizations I can play with, but I can't find no option where to choose how many civilizations I can play with
PM me or reply to this thread please.
. I mostly play with 6-7, somewhere to those numbers. I usually play with the most civilizations I can play with, but I can't find no option where to choose how many civilizations I can play with PM me or reply to this thread please.
