How many civs do you usually play against?

[vmxa1]

The more cities the longer it takes to calculate and trade route issue. The big maps allow for more civs to last longer and have more units.

[chequita guevara]

Huge map, 31 civs. I find I really like having 31 civs, though it makes diplomacy a pain in the arse, and usually means you're at war for a long time, with people half way around the globe with no way of getting at you.

[vmxa1]

The dip screens needs a serious reworking to handle 31 civs.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by vmxa1
The more cities the longer it takes to calculate and trade route issue. The big maps allow for more civs to last longer and have more units.

You said it brother! The worst of it is building 100 airports in your cities when it takes 3 minutes or so for the game engine to calculate each trade route (hope you have a good book to read) and in the late game turn when at war (400 units to move can take upwards of an hour to play). Still IMO its the best way to play, it gives me the most enjoyment and allows me to flesh out my games more (and planning my wars gives me something to do at work )

P.S. To make my games even longer I play bloodlust games (Conquest only enabled)

[MqsTout]

I like to play with 31 civs (on a huge map), I find it more fun myself. I do wish, though, that the AI would war with each other more. I find myself playing on easier difficulties 'just for fun', and the AI is way too peaceful. I miss watching AIs war with each other as I would see in Civ2. Even with 'AI Aggression' turned up, the AI civs rarely fight and there's never really much of an opposing empire. There just gets to be a saturated, peaceful world, outside of me.

(Off topic: Much as I like Civ3, I still think Civ2 was more 'fun': the diplomacy/war played better -- aka, it happened, -- and ESPIONAGE. It's hard to turn one's back on culture, though.)

[SirOsis]

31 civs on a huge map will definately be slow.

I ususually play standard or small maps with 6-8 players.

[The Mad Monk]

31 flavors on a max size map (362x362).

Turn length? Of course they're long -- how do you think I'd get my chores done otherwise?

[ZEE]

.

[Brundlefly]

I have made a new rule - to only play on standard with 8civs or large with 11 civs.

I used to play huge all of the time with max # civs, sometimes with the 31-civ edit. I felt this was the only way to get the best challenge from the game. While that may be true, I found that I cannot play that way. You see, I am a micromanager. I have to check with every civ in diplomacy after every turn to see if there is a deal to be made. I refuse to use the city governor or use worker automation. So, by the time late middle ages/ early industrial comes around, the game becomes quite tedious and I always lose interest. For these reasons, I have never had a game go to modern age and I have never finished a game. I am finding that a standard map and 8 civ opponents provides plenty of challenge and the game moves faster. Hopefully now I can see some of those cool modern age military units that I've seen people write about.

[pauli]

i have to say, my 31 civ, huge map game isn't slow (except when i'm at war, and i take a week before finishing my turn ). it's significantly faster than the 24civ demo game i tested out a while back.

[eris]

I play with 8 civs, including myself. Why? Because it is how many fit conveniently on the Diplomacy screen. I find the Diplomacy screen to be the biggest GUI challenge to playing the game instead of fighting the interface. (Stack movement comes in second. My braindead generals are always misinterpreting my orders, doing what I said instead of what I meant.) I have changed my preferred game size to large to accomodate the lower number of civs. Huge just didn't work as well as I liked in terms of civ interaction. Large with 8 civs provides interaction yet gives everybody a chance to REX signficanly. It thereby lets us all have a chance to actually have one or two resources in our territory. Usually.