180x180 map: Too much large for a 16 civs game?

[Adagio]

29 cities are not that much, but by 58 cities then we're talking

Yeehaa, can't wait to get the game and play on the really huge maps

[Roman]

Originally posted by ADG
29 cities are not that much, but by 58 cities then we're talking

Yeehaa, can't wait to get the game and play on the really huge maps

Well, you can now have large undeveloped areas and neutral zones.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Roman
Well, you can now have large undeveloped areas and neutral zones.

Yeah...imagine how large the desserts or seas will be

oh yeah, and try to play on that map with 2 enemies...the whole world will then be undeveloped until far into the game

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by jadlakha
Normally I only play with a tiny few major well developed cities(I hate ICS). But the extra space makes things more fun because now I can have a large empire with lots of well developed major cities. I only hope the movement points are increased by alot cause I dont want it to take forever to explore and settle the world.

I agree.
Large maps will be fine with me so long as the strategy of more cities=better is less effective. I dont like keeping track of 30-40 cities, though it ought to be easier this time around.

[Roman]

You see, people, you don't have to play such large maps. I for one am happy I will have the option.

[Andrew_Jay]

I'd probably just play English on the huge world maps and 16 civs. That way I don't have to worry too bad about expanding, I just stick to my little island.

Yeah, I'm just lazy sometimes when it comes to expanding and managing an empire

[Lorizael]

21 tiles per city? But what about culture, that will make cities much larger and you will have to space them out. Combine that with the fact that not all terrain is usable, and I think it evens out.

You also have to remember that population was very inacurate in Civ 3. More cities means higher population. Also, with the new, wonderful AI Governors it might not be so difficult to manage all those cities anymore.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Lorizael
21 tiles per city? But what about culture, that will make cities much larger and you will have to space them out. Combine that with the fact that not all terrain is usable, and I think it evens out.

You also have to remember that population was very inacurate in Civ 3. More cities means higher population. Also, with the new, wonderful AI Governors it might not be so difficult to manage all those cities anymore.

All very good points.

[Roman]

Re: Re: civ2 map size?

Originally posted by El hidalgo
The largest possible map was 100x100. The "large" map was, I believe, 75x120. So it's a huge difference.

This is simply not true. The largest map size in Civ 2 was 32768 tiles, with no dimension greater than 250 tiles.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Lorizael
21 tiles per city? But what about culture, that will make cities much larger and you will have to space them out. Combine that with the fact that not all terrain is usable, and I think it evens out.

While culture does make ur cities take up more space, in this case its Good for them to overlap!! The population can only work the full 21 squares in a city, but the cultural border is 'the territory you claim to own', meaning the Indians cant go and plonk a city down in the middle of your empire.

Its true that not all terrain will be suitable (initially ) to settling, but i didnt count any cities as being near the ocean, when in reality about 40% or more would be. So I think it balances out.
But we wont know until we actually try a 256 x 256 game