Preferred map size?

[geniemalin]

Tiny - I just don't have the time to play larger maps. Even at Tiny it'll still be a couple of weeks at least to finish a game.

If I decide to commit for the long haul I'd love to try a Huge map - although I'm not sure if I'd REX effectively given my tactics have all been developed on Tiny....

[:) Smiley]

A huge map is currently being tested. This map, Sandland, features a huge desert planet with some oasis of settlement scattered around. Basically, most of the map makes a bad city site (doesn't seem to stop the AI from plopping down some cities in places where they'll never grow beyond size 3 though).

[doubtsalmon2]

I voted for small, standard, and large. I usually play on standard or small though. While huge maps can be fun I don't have that much time to play civ. I can play at least twice as many games on standard maps than on huge maps in the same amount of time which lets me try different civs, map settings, and strategies which keeps things much more interesting. I usually never finish playing a huge map because I get bored half way through and quit even if I was winning.

[eris]

I like huge, myself. Long games with a truly epic feel. I never did try the extra-huge maps I have heard about on the forums, but I have been tempted.

Lately, I have been doing Large. It is nearly as detailed and interesting as Huge, but I can keep the number of civs down to 8 (what fits conveniently on the dipolmacy screen) and still have some interaction between civs instead of just REX until you need an Forbidden Palace to build anymore.

I find I have no "feel" for the distances on the smaller maps, especially Tiny. Am I far away enough to worry about corruption, or for a Forbiden Palace? I know you are supposed to use the mini map to help judge relative distances, but have yet to internalize that. What looks like "the other side of the world" is actually much less in move turns than I estimate. I am sure that someone who plays smaller maps could have the reverse opinion of the maps that I play. (However, Tiny is an interesting option. It is almost like a complicated chessboard more than a map in my perception. I can understand why it would work well in MP situations.)

[:) Smiley]

Here's a picture from the Sandland map.

[:) Smiley]

The AI's settlement strategy looks something like this.

[:) Smiley]

Sandland map v1.0, (Huge)

[Wittlich]

I usually gravitate towards Huge maps (I like having space).

[Cookie Monster]

Like other posters have mentioned here I use standard maps. The sole reason for me is processor performance, especially during the endgame. I'd like to play on larger maps but my processor would slow down significantly.

[Antrine]

Custom big huge (360 by 306) or 360 squared with 8 civs total each starting with 4 or 5 prebuilt cities and 15 settlers. Eight large empires slugging it out over epic time, starting 10,000 BC and crawling forward a few years per turn... By the second Age everyone has 35-50 cities. Then we settle down to a few alliances, trade and one long war...

[vmxa1]

Antrine you should post some screen shots of that monster.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by vmxa1
We can put down YS for huge.

and myself (usually)

[Cerbykins]

Almost always huge. Must have the points to make up for low difficulty

[Aqualung71]

Usually huge.....but I think I'll start moving down to large/standard for some quicker games. Huge map games take forever.

Do people generally think a larger map size produces a more difficult game at the same level?

[binyo66]

Huge. Large is taking long time to finish.