Originally posted by Ray K
Here are the originally "Optimal Cities" limits for the map sizes (Tiny/Small/STandard/Large/Huge):
8/12/16/24/32
Assuming that the "Standard" map is the optimal setting, here are the balanced numbers for "Optimal Cities":
12/14/16/21/26
You can see that there is a big difference for the Tiny map. Going from 8 to 12 is a 50% improvement. That is the setting I will be playing on. I wonder how many players on Large and Huge maps will be lowering their settings to make corruption as difficult as on the Standard map?
Here are the originally "Optimal Cities" limits for the map sizes (Tiny/Small/STandard/Large/Huge):
8/12/16/24/32
Assuming that the "Standard" map is the optimal setting, here are the balanced numbers for "Optimal Cities":
12/14/16/21/26
You can see that there is a big difference for the Tiny map. Going from 8 to 12 is a 50% improvement. That is the setting I will be playing on. I wonder how many players on Large and Huge maps will be lowering their settings to make corruption as difficult as on the Standard map?
It is my belief that the numbers are skewed to reflect the very smallness and largeness of the respectable map sizes. For instance, on a Huge map it would take a naval unit much, much longer to circle the world while on a tiny map it would probably take only take a matter of turns. To balance this I imagine that the numbers need to be skewed in order to reflect the relative size of the map. Allowing only a few cities on a tiny map means that your enemies capital is less likely to be within striking distance of your entire army. Giving players more cities on a Huge map increases the likelyhood of you being within striking distance of at least your enemies border cities.
While the math that has been done is interesting it fails to consider the that amount of land worked per city and that amound of movement points per units remains unchanged. If one is to truly scale the game down these things must be considered.
Comment