Why are the maps so small?

Nah, I ain't doing any modding or anything. I suffered through the punishment that was Beyond Earth. Maps smaller than Civ5 in it.

So I made maps bigger, then suddenly bugs become rare sight.

Therefore, the simple thing for me to do is to ignore Firaxis until they get their act together. I only play on huge and bigger.

With Scenarios as the exception because they are scenarios! Otherwise I ain't paying 60+ dollars for something I don't want. That sixty dollars is better off being spent on something else that makes me happy not sad.

 

As an always huge player, I'm very disappointed.

 

Seems that Civ6 needs a YUUUGE map size.

 

Thought the same thing

 

Wow really? I find the map sizes to be enormous. I only play on Standard, never bigger, and Standard in Civ VI has three huge continents whereas Standard in Civ V only really had two.

 

The fact that Huge civ6 map is size of civ5 Large is... terrible.

1) Anybody has idea why?
2) Anybody has idea if this can be easily modded?

 

Holy moley, that explains a lot!

I no longer feel terrible for removing 2 AIs on my Huge games. Add to that the extra tiles that districts and wonders occupy, and no wonder the space feels cramped as all hell.

 

Jumped from playing civ 4 to civ 6 and I can honestly say maps and AI are going backwards.. can't really say what civ 5 was like.. I've owned it from day one but I have 263 hours played.. didn't matter what I done I couldn't get into it.

I read all the hype about cities being unstacked a smarter AI etc.. Great! or so I thought, cities are better but smaller map sizes make it messy by the end game you cant see the map.. just to much going on in the limited space of Civ6 "huge" (tiny) maps, as for the AI.. lol, kongo told me he wasn't happy I wasn't spreading my religion less than a minute after I had spread to his only city.

 

Hm, I'm playing on a large map with 5 or 6 other Civs on my island and I have 12 cities without taking over any. The other Civs have 4-8 cities. Didn't really have an issue with not enough land.

You can always lower sea levels if you think there's too much water?

 

Yeah, if you note the post we're discussing, it's large and huge maps that have shrunk. Not your standard map.

 

http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ynamp-yet-not-another-map-pack.601406/

 

It's disturbing to see the performance issues with those somewhat bigger (but still relatively small) map sizes.
I guess we got the answer why the developers increased the smaller map sizes, but decreased Large and Huge.
It's vexing, really, given that performance was one of the main reasons for the graphical style.

 

I'm pretty annoyed right now. With only a moderate increase to map size the game often fails to load and moreover its using 1.6-1.9 gigs of my dedicated graphics ram from my g-card. Meanwhile, its barely using under 3 gigs of my normal ram. I'm running 192 to 120 as the map size and the game is freaking out. This is a 64-bit game for <snip> sake. How is the performance so bad?

Moderator Action: Please help keep the forums friendly family. Profanity removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Well as someone who founded 8 cities in my first standard sized game, and then built 3 more in the new world I am not sure what the OP is talking about. When I played on a large map I had room for over a dozen cities. How far are yous pacing yours apart 10 spaces?

I have been more like 4-8, so most tiles get built eventually.

 

Isn't that exactly the point? I'd expect a dozen or so cities on a small to medium map. But then, I come from Civilization IV.

 

I have been playing Civ a long time. I don't recall any versions where you were regularly founding over a dozen cities without conflict. I mean the maps are slightly smaller, but it is hardly some giant change. The game has much bigger issues.

 

I play on tiny maps against 4-6 opponents and maps are quite big for my gameplay

 

I am playing an inland sea map on standard size and there is lots of open space. I'd really be surprised if someone played it on large or huge and complain about not having enough room.

 

Firaxis made the map sizes more proportional with the default number of civs. (See the Tiles/Civ column and also how they measure up, percent-wise, to Standard.)



In Civ 5, the Huge size was huuuuge. The default 12 Civs was not even close to enough (to fill the map in a standard manner), there was 64% extra space for each civ. That's why those sizes had different rules which allowed for more expansion. Perhaps Firaxis wanted to stick to simple increments of +2 with Large and Huge as users increased map size. Perhaps (more importantly) it also had to do with the luxury distribution system and the original limited pool. Also, there were probably only 18 civs at launch, so each game would be against the same civs on Huge, because if Firaxis wanted to match Standard better, Huge would have a default of 18-20 civs.

I haven't even dug through Civ 6 yet (I promised myself I wouldn't start that yet and I would just learn and enjoy the game as it is, haha), but I wouldn't be surprised if the two largest map sizes now play under the same "rules". If so, then it's better design, in my opinion. I may even try out Large or Huge now because of this, if I ever want to play against a bit more civs at a time. I wasn't a fan of their implementation in Civ 5.

EDIT: Image wasn't working.

 

One of the first mods created was the YNAMP map pack which offers three new map sizes: enormous, giant, and ludicrous. The run pretty well on high end machines, though there is an odd problem that the barbarians' turn takes forever when there are barbarian units in visual range. Probably has something to do with the barbarian AI decision-making process.