Do you play with "tiny map?" Any tips?

[sboog]

I seems drawn to tiny maps, lots of water, and archipelago. (I like short games and less enemies, that's one reason why.)

But I can't expand before I bump into someone else's civ. And it is too soon for galleys to explore other islands.

If you play tiny maps, I wish you would share your strategy for winning.

I also play with a wet, warm climate at 3 billion years (because I love the mountains and roughness.) Am I shooting myself in the foot by choosing this setup?

I haven't won yet, but I love this map and playing.

sboog

[Sava]

Build in between the areas that their culture has not filled in yet. If you really want a good time, edit a map and put 16 civs on tiny, its hilarious!!

[Tuberski]

Seems you would have to be ultra-aggresive on tiny maps......

[Sava]

OH YEAH BABY!!! ITS ON NOWWW!!!

[kimmygibler]

The best way to win is to build one settler as soon as possible and settle him somewhere next to your city. build barracks in both cities and build up an army. Start attacking your neighbors one at a time. I like tiny maps.

[dr. blackclove]

In Civ I, I regularly won the highest level even when fooling around.

In Civ II, I was often the guy who got the fastest win on Deity level in some really, really hard scenarios.

In Civ III, I usually win on Warlord. But that's only because I practiced. A lot. Civ III is a much, much harder game. I concur with others that being aggressive early counts. I typically blitz my way to swordsmen even if I'm a "peaceful" civilization.

My biggest win was 5500 points with the Zulus on a tiny map with one opponent I conquered the world with impis. Other than that, my next highest score is around 2000-something and it was a culture win.

Start position matters a LOT. If I start near fresh water (lakes or rivers) and have some cows or wheat, I usually do OK. If I start in the hills near ocean and tundra, I usually lose big. Since I know some people can win under those conditions, I am obviously not yet a great Civ III player. Even under the best of conditions, though, I sometimes still lose. I got my butt kicked as the French on Regent level, despite having gotten pretty far. A huge army of swordsmen suddenly appeared from England and took over my iron mine... it was all downhill from there.

I have lost games even very recently. My Regent-level Greeks got destroyed by Rome before we had built our fifth city. They marched in with legions and wiped out all my defenses without slowing. I admit I had some bad luck in battles, but it was pretty amazing. Their advance was truly inexorable.

[star mouse]

For the map settings on the tiny map, Warm, Wet and 5 Billion is good because this maximises the amount of good land available. (Jungles can be cleared later). 3 Billion creates a lot of mountains. Because cities cannot be built on mountains and mountains produce no food, this reduces the number of potential city sites.

[Nostromo]

Never tried tiny maps. I wonder, how long is a typical game on such a map?

[Galerion]

12- 15 hours for me. I like tiny, because of the shorter playing time. I also like it becuse you don't have so many cities, and each city feels really important. Every city you win, or loose counts. I find it more exiting and involving that way.

[Adagio]

Tiny maps? Never tried that...with less than 15 enemies...

[sboog]

I'm playing a tiny map now, 3 billion years old,archipelago, warm, wet, and 80% water. There was room for only one city where I started (as two enemy cities are encroaching.)

So I have been "island hopping" from one tiny little island to the next.

I have no idea how this will turn out as I always get the message "Our treasury is running dangerously low."

It is about 90 BC. Have several things researched and gotten improvements plus every spot has a road, but my city is cramped.

sboog

[Dinner]

If you want to win on a small map the best way is to build nothing but a barracks and military units. Then kill everyone else.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Galerion
12- 15 hours for me. I like tiny, because of the shorter playing time. I also like it becuse you don't have so many cities, and each city feels really important. Every city you win, or loose counts. I find it more exiting and involving that way.

I was under the impression that games played on tiny maps were significantly shorter than games played on standard maps. So there is no way of winning a game in under 2-3 hours?

[sboog]

I was hoping it would be a 2 or 3 hour game. It was disheartening to hear from some of you that it would take 14 hours.

Small maps are hard. No space.

I think I will not try archipelago again with 80% water. Too many little tiny islands. And I mean tiny.

Maybe I need a map with more land.

sboog

[star mouse]

I'm thinking of using these map settings for my first Tiny game: Pangea, 60% or 70% water, warm, wet, 5 billion years, using my own mod file that's full of little tweaks.

But there's one tweak missing from my mod file - small maps still have the default number of opponents (three or four). Maybe I should increase this to 16, and play a game of CIV3 as if I was playing Red Alert - kill everyone else to win.

Muhahaha ....