Why is Inland Sea so big?

[Art Morte]

Some of the maps can feel too small, especially when the AI gets extra settlers. But in comparison, an average Inland Sea map is huge for eight players. I don't know are there other map types like this, haven't tried Archipelago or TSL maps. In Civ 5 the Highlands map was also enormous - even at standard size - for some reason.

Does anyone know why Inland Sea is so big?

 

[Japper007]

IIRC the tile dimensions are the exact same, but Inland Sea has more land area, the "sea" itself is often just 5-10 accross and there are vast tracts of backlands to fill. The inland sea also has less chance of you being wedged into a corner or placed on one continent with lots of civs (and an empty continent somewhere in the fog) which makes the map "feel" small. It's one of the better map types in the base game IMHO, a balanced distribution of civs/land types without the perfect symmetry of the "balanced" scripts.

 

[bonafide11]

Does the map wrap around? In Civ IV, I hated maps that wouldn't wrap around and you'd get to the edge and have no where to go. Not sure if they make maps like that still as I mostly have just been playing Continents and Pangaea.

 

[Mrmyx22]

Does the map wrap around? In Civ IV, I hated maps that wouldn't wrap around and you'd get to the edge and have no where to go. Not sure if they make maps like that still as I mostly have just been playing Continents and Pangaea.

No it doesn't wrap. And you can get wedged into a corner. Part of the challenge.

 

[bonafide11]

No it doesn't wrap. And you can get wedged into a corner. Part of the challenge.

Thanks. Never understood why they made maps like that. Kills the immersion of the experience for me to walk to the edge of the map and learn I can't walk any further for no apparent reason than the map doesn't go around.

 

[Siptah]

While I like to play inland sea (I go shuffle usually), I would actually prefer it if it had less tundra and snow. I feel like I'm fighting way more (and longer) against barbarians on this map than on other types. I also notice more bugs on inland sea than on other maps: for example I often 'lose' units because they don't turn up in the auto cycling any more (without being fortified or sleeping) and there have been these invisible rivers - I don't know if they still exist.

 

[Art Morte]

IIRC the tile dimensions are the exact same, but Inland Sea has more land area, the "sea" itself is often just 5-10 accross and there are vast tracts of backlands to fill. The inland sea also has less chance of you being wedged into a corner or placed on one continent with lots of civs (and an empty continent somewhere in the fog) which makes the map "feel" small. It's one of the better map types in the base game IMHO, a balanced distribution of civs/land types without the perfect symmetry of the "balanced" scripts.

Okay, that's a good point about dimensions, maybe they are the same... But there's too much land, imo. The other week I started as the center-and-south civ and I had to quit out of boredom when I had settled 20 tiles east and west without being close to sharing any border with other civs. I could have literally kept on just settling cities into the later eras without any proximity to my neighbours.

While I like to play inland sea (I go shuffle usually), I would actually prefer it if it had less tundra and snow.

That's a great point. There are unnecessary amounts of tundra and snow in that map. On the other hand, there's too much good land as it is, if the tundra and snow lands were well-habitable, it might just add to the over-sized problem.

I just think the map should be smaller, that's all. It's no fun when you have zero challenge in settling new cities in good spots.

 

[Siptah]

Okay, that's a good point about dimensions, maybe they are the same... But there's too much land, imo. The other week I started as the center-and-south civ and I had to quit out of boredom when I had settled 20 tiles east and west without being close to sharing any border with other civs. I could have literally kept on just settling cities into the later eras without any proximity to my neighbours.



That's a great point. There are unnecessary amounts of tundra and snow in that map. On the other hand, there's too much good land as it is, if the tundra and snow lands were well-habitable, it might just add to the over-sized problem.

I just think the map should be smaller, that's all. It's no fun when you have zero challenge in settling new cities in good spots.

Not that I'm one of them, but a lot of people used to (and still do I think) complain that there isn't enough space to settle and too much competition for good land. Inland Sea gives you a chance to settle a vast land without having to check for loyalty issues at every spot or if you inflict some negative relation points with neighbors for settling close. Maybe this map would be ideal for those people... However, I have a feeling that lots of the people that complain about the close starts and not enough room are playing either TSL or continents, where these things occur the most.

I'm still waiting for a map with lots of land but limited good spots like Highlands or Sandstorm from civ V. I really do wish for a nice map pack. I think both could be great in civ VI - close mountain valleys without much space for districts or a big belt of desert filled with barbarians going through the map... It's different when it's in the middle and not on edges like the tundra in Inland Sea.

 

[kaspergm]

Okay, that's a good point about dimensions, maybe they are the same... But there's too much land, imo. The other week I started as the center-and-south civ and I had to quit out of boredom when I had settled 20 tiles east and west without being close to sharing any border with other civs. I could have literally kept on just settling cities into the later eras without any proximity to my neighbours.

For whatever reason, the starting locations on Inland Sea maps are really weird. I've played it a couple of times, and almost all the times it there will be clusters of civs towards one corner and then one or two civs starting completely isolated with huge swaths of land accessible to them. One time I played it, I started in the north-western corner, and literally all the other civs started on the southern or eastern side of the lake, meaning I basically had the entire western side AND the entire northern side to myself. That was really weird. I think I was into the Medieval or Renaissance era before I even encountered another civ, because the distance between us was so huge.

 

[Turrdy]

if i had to guess i'd say on most maps (continents, pangea, and so on) there are about 60-80% water tiles (depends on your settings) and on inland sea about 20-30%. of course it feels bigger because there are more land tiles to be on.

 

[Zaarin]

While I like to play inland sea (I go shuffle usually), I would actually prefer it if it had less tundra and snow. I feel like I'm fighting way more (and longer) against barbarians on this map than on other types. I also notice more bugs on inland sea than on other maps: for example I often 'lose' units because they don't turn up in the auto cycling any more (without being fortified or sleeping) and there have been these invisible rivers - I don't know if they still exist.

The rivers were...invisible? That explains why my last Inland Sea game had no rivers.

 

[Siptah]

The rivers were...invisible? That explains why my last Inland Sea game had no rivers.

You can see them in the settler lens though, where unexpected fresh water occurs.

 

[Zaarin]

You can see them in the settler lens though, where unexpected fresh water occurs.

Hmm, I think in my game there were literally no rivers, because all my cities that game were settled along lakes, coast, oases, or mountains + aqueducts.

 

[Guandao]

Inland Sea seems to be bugged for me, since the Civs aren't always distributed equally on all sides. One side can be crammed with numerous Civs while the other side has like two.

 

[Zaarin]

Inland Sea seems to be bugged for me, since the Civs aren't always distributed equally on all sides. One side can be crammed with numerous Civs while the other side has like two.

I actually rather like it, though I've seen both strange scenarios where civs are crammed close together and a more even distribution. I once saw Alexander crammed between Shaka, Genghis, and Mvemba, which made my day.

 

[Art Morte]

My experience is that the civs are rather evenly positioned: one in each eight directions. However, the two who are central and bottom and central and top have usually enormous space to their sides; because the map is wider than it's tall.

It's a great map if you just want plenty of space to settle - even with loyalty restrictions - but depending on your start it can actually be too much space, leading to almost no danger at all.

 

[Mrmyx22]

Of course it does not wrap. That is to make it realistic. The world is flat.

 

[Turrdy]

Of course it does not wrap. That is to make it realistic. The world is flat.