Whats your favourite type of map to play on?

drew, I assume you're responding to alex here but let me attempt a rebuttal. The disconnect I see is that you equate a Pangea as the hardest map setting, but more than one continent is automatically easier. Whereas you can set up the game so that your starting continent is = Pangea, and you just double (or triple) that same landmass with more continents. Anything that can be hard about playing on a Pangea can be equally hard with several Pangea sized continents. For example, imagine playing that Deity K-Mod game you posted with a second landmass full of civs equal to the one you started on.
 
I have to disagree with your post drewisfat.

I've played very many 18 Civs games and I think you're underestimating how freaking difficult diplomacy in those games is. Everybody is someones worst enemy, everybody is in war with someone else, it's almost uncontrolleable and there almost never is a turn where one doesn't get a demand, beg, question to join war, etc.

Regarding different land-masses, that setting can do both, make the game easier and make the game harder. It's incredibly hard if 3 early religions get founded on your landmass and you're with warmongers while on the other continent, Mansa oracles Confucianism and starts the great love-fiest. It can however be also a lot easier when things go the other way round.

Imo many S&T players only play Standard / Normal / Pangaea / Fractal because they dislike the varieties that the game offers and always want to play the same kind of game and compare their skills towards others.

Your argumentation that more trade-partners are helpful also is a two-edged swords. Yes, the player has more possibilites to trade and therefor it gets easier, but the AIs also trade absolutely uncontrolleable. With 18 Civs there is nothing like "researching into the gap and getting 5 techs for 1" because one AI will always research a tech, there also is nothing like Oracle 1500 BC or Mids 1000 BC because 1 AI (again by chance) always starts on whatever wonder very early.

When I came to these forums people told me I weren't playing real Deity because I played Huge / Marathon and Standard / Normal would be so much more difficult. From my todays perspective I absolutely cannot agree with that point of view, it's right that single wars are more difficult on Standard / Normal because the units obsolete faster, but that's something one can adapt to by adjusting one's playstyle to i. e. mounted warfare, which is imo far easier then trying to control 18 raging AIs that in the best case have doubled or trippled diplo and war rolls. In the worst case, if playing normal speed, the map is simply larger making winning before 1200 AD simpy impossible.
 
@plastiqe: Playing the kmod deity game with an extra landmass of 7 ais would have been much harder (maybe impossibru) but that would have been purely because

- it takes longer to conquer 12 people than 6
- This would have completely thrown off the timing of the victories (conquest compared to space)
- It would have been impossible to win a conquest before many civs threatened space

- Given that conquest is easier for human than space the game would have been harder.

But I also assume I would adjust the game speed. I was already playing quick (Which is meant for small not standard) with an extra continent I should have given myself at least epic speed, where I think the game would have been winnable, and slightly easier.

@Seraiel

I'm not sure I understand what the difficulty with diplomacy is. Are you saying like 4 AIs declare war on you at once? or that it's just really hard to win a diplo victory.

Different landmasses does make the difficulty vary a lot more, I consider this a bad thing though. Thousands of years into the game I get to look at the other continent, and I see either a bunch of small backwards empires, or Justinian has 5 vassals. At least on pangaea I can monitor / control / interact with potential runaways.

Still I think being on smaller continents is a huge help. The average Monarch player I suspect could beat a deity early 1v1 on a tiny map (at least that's where I was when I tried it). If say, there's one more AI on the island it's not a big leap to think that with two nations under your control you'll eventually be able to beat up that one. And then you have a whole island, and the vast majority of the time you are much bigger than the AIs.

I don't get how my argument on #of ais is a double edge sword. There's still several techs the AI likes to get late, and if you beeline / bulb towards techs the odds aren't much worse for beating 50 ais to a tech than 6 ais. Also even if one AI gets the tech, it doesn't mean he's going to instantly trade it to everyone else in the first turn.

The wonders is an interesting point, but I think it helps the human overall. The oracle is never safe, so I get that with a bunch of AIs it may no longer be worth trying for it, but if one tries for them in the right situation the player should still have a good shot at other big wonders, like GW, mids, GLH, GLib.

But obviously most wonders are crud anyways. This is where I think having over a dozen AIs is a good thing. There's always the risk one AI will end up building all the wonders. While they might not be worth it for a human, for a cheat AI anything is worth building, and if they start piling up a lot of wonders their economy becomes more dangerous -- and if they go for a culture win it will be much faster. (playing on quick culture ais are a really serious problem ><)
Point is having a lot of AIs discourages one AI from getting a monopoly on all the stuff that is useless to you, but strong for the ai.


I know personally the main reason I play on pangaea is I'm slow. I lack the ability to rush in cIV, I gotta go OCD and make minor unnecessary adjustments, so for me having 30 cities is a very obnoxious task. I play pangaea because I want as much of a challenge I can get while avoiding tedious microing.
 
@ drewisfat:

Yes, with 18 Civs it's very common that you declare war on one AI and that AI bribes everybody that's possible onto you (for something like Meditation of course, because with you being in war with somebody, your power-rating is already so crippled that bribes against you are cheap like nothing, and the slower the game speed, the cheaper the bribes get on top) , and because it's just 18 Civs, there's no chance to ensure to be 100% because having like 5 different neighbours is normal, and one of them always doesn't like the 4 others so you can't cheer up to him or you'd piss of the others.

That's something the developers simply didn't think through at all when making Huge Marathon and allow 18 Civs, it's just way too much to be controlled by the player because of all of the stupid AI behaviour, like them asking you to join their war when you're already in a war, like them begging and demanding techs that are still monopoly, 18 Civs are 3 times as many as 6, and Marathon is 3 times as many turns as Normal, and of course they didn't scale those features at all, meaning that you'll simply get 9 times the demands, begs, wars, whatever AI rolls, and that on top of getting 3 times the stupid AI behaviour that happens on normal.

When going to war on normal, it's usually possible to get peace-treaties from everybody but 1 AI and be safe, and that 1 AI is np in most cases because it's no neighbour, but if that 1 AI are 3 or 4 AIs, that cannot be ensured, and getting backstabbed is always something that can break or at least greatly change the outcome of a game.

Regarding techs: It's right that AI tends to get certain techs late, but again, 3 times as many AIs means that 1 will pick it by chance, and 18 AIs in general means that 1. Mansa is in the game like 70% and 2. that AI has 2 friends by chance due to religion, shared favourite Civic or whatever, and like that, the techs go around. Holding a monopoly is possible (though everybody will come and ask for it because of the non-scaling issue) but you, the AI after you + his 2 friends are alredy 2x%+, and there are enough AIs that trade a tech at that value, trading it to 2 further AIs again, and 3 turns later all AIs got that tech.
In my latest writeup I libbed Rifling at 700 AD (10 AIs) , a chance like that doesn't even exist on Huge / Marathon / 18 Civs because Lib simply goes at 300 BC. What you write about beating 6 or 50 AIs is not true, because with 50 AIs, one just gets strong by chance. It's the same mechanics that work against the player, 1 AI dows, the AI that got dowed bribes 5 against that AI, those AIs again bribe randomly towards the others, instant world-war, and 1-2 AIs are "unlucky" and get eaten because they get doubled or trippled, creating a super-AI that's a real challenge and that wouldn't exist in a controlleable setting like 6 Civs.

Regarding Wonders: 18 Civs means wonders go always at the same times because one AI will build it at the earliest possible moment. That means SH goes 2800 BC, GW goes 2400 BC, Oracle 2000 BC already means missing it in 50% of the cases and by 2000 BC, GLH and Mids are often already gone too. 1800 BC Oracle and GLH + 1600 BC Mids are the latest dates I've seen, and you know that 2000 BC Mids is almost impossible to beat, also, 6 Civs standard map offers to conquer whatever wonder one wants because it's near, 18 Civs Huge map means that a wonder can be so far away that one won't be able to reach it before it's obsolete.

I'd just encourage you to try to not get OCD and play a round of Huge / Marathon / 18 Civs by chance to see what I ment. I'm still sure that a player like you will have np with those settings and I'm sure you'd have your fun with the lower unit-costs and the greater time-frames to attack, but you'll notice that it's not at all easier like the settings you're used to and that you'll have to adapt. I wouldn't wonder if your first games would all fail because AIs would fist you by the mechanicsm I've mentioned (like 5 AIs getting bribed onto you 2000 BC for a tech like meditation) and I wouldn't wonder if you'd enrage (and maybe quit) once AIs start bugging you and you cannot make things work out like you're used to.

At last: Bulbing on Huge maps is totally crippled, and:

I'm thinking about playing another High-Score-game with Incans once I've played a good Espionage-victory for the current Gauntlet, because I wanna get into that mess I described again, because, what's also true:

There is something that makes 18 Civs easier, and that's simply the greater amount of chances offered, and the better the player, the more he / she can make out of those chances. Funny thing about that is that it's the new players which adore the huge 18 Civs games (and enrage and fail) while it's the experienced players (who'd have the power to make their way through them) who stick to the smaller games for whatever reasons.
 
I don't see how five ais bribed on you with meditation (while I've never seen anything that bad) is more likely with 18civs than pangeae, where you always have several neighbors.... Unless you're talking like 18 civ Pangea :p

Your point on wonders always going as early as possible is hyperbole inconsistent with the rest of your paragraph :p. but I get your point and oracle is a riskier wonder, but the other wonders don't dramatically change in risk. If you're building GW or mids I assume you'd have stone and targeting it early, you should never lose those. Deep lib pops may not be as possible, but if you were in such a strong position than winning was probably guaranteed anyway.

Also are you saying bulbing is worse on Mara?

I really don't see how the extra risk from more AIs to broker techs could possibly outweighs the existence of being able to trade techs to them to begin with.
 
You have to read again drewisfat. It's really very simple.

Slower game-speed and earlier time: Cheaper bribes (also for the AI) .
More AIs: More AIs that AI can bribe onto you for the same tech.
More AIs: Wonders go earlier.
High-difficulty: No ensurence to get a wonder thx to xx% bonuses.
Bigger map: Relatively smaller bulb value (1 GS is 2/3's of Education on tiny while barely 1/2 on Huge) .

The last point I don't understand. More AIs means more trade-options, that's something good, however, slower game-speeds means more turns for AI to trade = worse tech-situation if you're behind.
 
I'm reading it as 18+ civ's makes things easier (and I could be wrong in my interpretation of this), which I don't entirely agree with.

Yes, TT with 18+ civ's is easier because you can shop around. Especially if your playing at epic + speeds. However, Diplo becomes a major factor with those 18+ civ's in order to get the TT's you want. Additionally, on Huge + maps, it takes awhile to get a spy to the civ in question if your trying to steal a tech as opposed to TT for it.
 
Seraiel said:
You have to read again drewisfat. It's really very simple.
Click to expand...

And you have to learn to not give off condescending/arrogant tones in your posts :p

Simplifying the argument to one liners is the opposite direction of a good discussion, I just expanded those arguments to look at the effects in more detail and now you've just pretended i spoke garbly- or something.

1. "More AIs" - For most of the relevant early game (Which you mention with meditation) there are not "more ais to bribe" on a continents-like maps with 18 civs than pangaea since on pangaea you always have 7 people on the continent. While how many neighbors you could have would of course vary on the land script / luck, unless you're doing a pangaea map or something similar with the 18 AIs, you're probably on average going to have as many or fewer neighbors starting out.

2. If you consider the good early wonders: GW, Oracle, TGL, GLib, mids the only wonder that is significantly more difficult to get is the oracle.
- If you're going GW, you probably have stone in BFC, targeting it early, pretty darn hard to lose.
- Mids, combined with stone and chops, again hard to lose.
- TGL, while the AI is often close behind with TGL it doesn't spike into ridiculously random early dates (like the oracle). This is because the AI would have to have a coastal city, start with fishing, happen to tech sailing early, happen to build lighthouse early, and then happen to build the great light house early. With a targeted approach on TGL (like when you are in some coastal tundraball) it's a pretty sure thing.
- GLib, if you're going it you're probably also teching aesthetics/lit early (Which the ai avoids) and probably have marble. Again shouldn't lose.

I will admit it can make some late game wonders like Taj/Kremlin significantly harder to get. But there's also pluses from having a lot of AIs building wonders, like:
- As I already mentioned the AIs are more likely to spread out the wonders among them, rather than have one AI win all the wonders.
- With more AIs the finish dates are more consistent, so you can get fail gold more predictably and earlier. (Imo this actually outweighs the fact that you have less time to build them).

3. The diplomacy game definitely gets slanted with different game speeds, but there are positives and negatives to this, which I think you agreed with earlier.

4. I imagine the bulb scaling was the developer attempt to compensate for bigger maps = bigger empires = stronger economies / more GP. It may not be perfect, but also realize that bulbs are slightly stronger on slower game speeds (For the reason all "rush techniques" are) and this counters some of the negative of them being worth a smaller % of a tech.

5. I know the settings help the AI in tech brokering, but I believe the existence of an extra dozen AIs to trade with popping up in the middle of the game more than outweighs this. After all some AIs are going to hate each other, some are going to out tech each other, and by beelining smart techs there's still a good chance to get monopoly or near monopoly techs.


* Bonus point that a different thread reminded me of that GREATLY reduces the difficulty of large, non-pangaea maps: The pillage resource / leech GPT from the AI trick. It's rarely worth it on small pangaea maps, but on large continents maps, it can mean hundreds of gpt to you, allowing you to both run at 100% research forever and cripple the selected AIs' economies.
 
A bit more love for Huge Lakes here (lakes has only got one mention so far) with 18 or so civs. High sea level for some good choke points, of course. Stops the AIs squandering resources on navies they can't handle for one thing...
 
I've been rocking fractals lately, though I do have a soft spot for 14-15 civs on a large Earth2 map.


Also, I'm just going to be another voice for 18 civs/huge is actually easier, If only because you have 18 capital locations instead of the default 11/12. Since you'll also be closer, you can grab a capital or two in your first rush. On default, you've probably going to have to go 10-20 tiles to send an invasion. Of course, if you play that on marathon you've got a shot, but if you play on normal speed setting then you might as well forget it.
 
I like complexity and often use espionage so I find that maps are more interesting if they involve significant amounts of water (Continents and islands). That means more of the research tree is relevant and more diplomatic and strategic options are available. Not everything is solved by military might or diplomatic trickery. Games are longer and for me more fulfilling. Naval invasions are fun, especially working out how to attack a well defended opponent.

Pangea maps are boring by comparison and usually hinge on getting one critical military technology and exploiting that. Once enough land is gained the game is essentially over.
 
I like Pangaea but have recently started continents maps as well. That is mainly because I like a lot of war though.
 
UncleJJ said:
I like complexity and often use espionage so I find that maps are more interesting if they involve significant amounts of water (Continents and islands). That means more of the research tree is relevant and more diplomatic and strategic options are available. Not everything is solved by military might or diplomatic trickery. Games are longer and for me more fulfilling. Naval invasions are fun, especially working out how to attack a well defended opponent.

Pangea maps are boring by comparison and usually hinge on getting one critical military technology and exploiting that. Once enough land is gained the game is essentially over.
Click to expand...
I agree with wise UncleJJ.

*****************************************************************************

Since I've only mentioned it once on this page in passing; K-Mod AI teaches the AI to do naval invasions. Not saying it's perfect, but it's way, way better than BTS navies or other comparable AI mods. Because it's a mod you can play it with any settings on any type of map but it really shines with Continents (or Hemispheres which I prefer).
 
It's the free cake. I sense a conspiracy :D
 
Yeah plastiqe rly loves kmod :P If you look at the last 5 turns from my kmod writeup though you notice the AI is completely and utterly incompetent in naval warfare/defense in that game. I don't blame kmod for this, as I've made this observation in BTS too. On pangaea maps the AI rly underplays navies, even if its land is very watery and open to a naval invasion. I feel almost dishonest attacking computers with nukes by the sea, because you literally don't need and shouldn't build a single destroyer/carrier/battleship, just subs and transports. The protocol the computer uses to have all destroyers hold position over oil rigs is really, really, really dumb.
 
drewisfat said:
Yeah plastiqe rly loves kmod :P If you look at the last 5 turns from my kmod writeup though you notice the AI is completely and utterly incompetent in naval warfare/defense in that game. I don't blame kmod for this, as I've made this observation in BTS too. On pangaea maps the AI rly underplays navies, even if its land is very watery and open to a naval invasion. I feel almost dishonest attacking computers with nukes by the sea, because you literally don't need and shouldn't build a single destroyer/carrier/battleship, just subs and transports. The protocol the computer uses to have all destroyers hold position over oil rigs is really, really, really dumb.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not so strong on easymode Pangaea's. : P
What K-Mod AI does excel at compared to BTS is crossing bodies of water to attack when there is no avenue by land. Marigoldran did a "deity" always war game where he was unprepared for K-Mod AI navies and was using worldbuilder to delete Incan naval stacks, lest he'd have lost the Atlantic seaboard of Europe.

The main K-Mod difference is that the AI knows how to gather it's units in a coastal city and launch a force with sufficient strength to take cities.

The other issue you raise is about sneak attacks. Smart players can set up their troops so that the AI has no chance, be it with Nukes or Mounted units or just camping in a neighbours territory. I wish it were more difficult to do surprise attacks and backstabs in Civ IV, like a big diplomatic penalty after the Renaissance. Maybe Karadoc will put it in the next version.

MensPulchra said:
is it me or you like propaganda? noyt the first time i saw you talking about k-mod mod.
Click to expand...
I'm a master. You should give K-Mod a try, you might really like it. : )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Tool -CIV4 MAP Shifter
Replies
0
Views
337
onkelm
O
H
Рerception of units on the map
Replies
8
Views
1K
ArchGhost
ArchGhost
mastrude
How to set my monitors up
Replies
0
Views
295
mastrude
mastrude
T
AI League 2.0
Replies
14
Views
667
Fippy
Fippy
T
Raging Barbarians setting: impact on AI Survivor
Replies
6
Views
1K
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
Back
Top Bottom