The Ultimate Guide on Game Strategies on Huge Maps - your input-

[Mountain Sage]

Foreword:
As agreed with some of you, I started this new thread about ‘Huge maps’. The goal is to put together as many strategies/tips as possible . I will try then to prepare a more structured synopsis paper along following topics:
A. Playing on a Huge Map (settings, no. of Civs, specificities …)
B. Early Game Strategies (REX, Workers, P/FP, terrain and city improvements…)
C. Early Game Diplomacy
D. Early Game Military Strategies
E. Early Game Techs Research and Wonders
F. Later Game Strategies
G. Later Game Diplomacy
H. Later Game Military Strategies
I. Later Game Techs Research and Wonders
J. Military Strategies and Tactics (pangea, archipelago)
K. Specific Military Units (use of…)
L. Difficulty Levels (specificities of each)
M. Cultural, Diplomatic, Space Race and Military Win.

What is a Huge Map?

This sounds like a silly question, but at the bottom line, playing on a Huge map with 8 Civs means, in respect to a Standard 8 Civs map, that you have more land, therefore bigger empires, longer distances to travel, slower contacts (at the beginning at least).

But this is not the case if you play a Huge map with 16 Civs (you have only smaller empires, but still longer distances to travel and slower contacts).
Then, if you play a Standard map with only 4 Civs, you’ll have the same specificities as if you were playing on a Huge 8 Civs map, (bigger empires, longer distances to travel, slower contacts).

In other words, it’s the number of Civs which mostly makes the difference between the two playing styles (Standard/8 Civs and Huge/8 Civs) and not the size of the map.
Therefore, is it correct to postulate that, except for the total land mass:

Huge/8 Civs = Standard/4 Civs (and logically = Tiny/2 Civs)
Huge/16 Civs = Standard/8 Civs?

If this is acceptable, then somebody could very well play a Standard/4 Civs game and have (almost) the same ’thrills’ as if playing on a Huge map. I have to agree that not many people would like to play against 3 Civs only. But then some could give it a try and help us with their comments/tips etc.


Does the above make any sense? If no, critics, if yes, strategies and tips. I would appreciate if you could start your comments with the most appropriate letter, as to simplify things for me (but only on the final version, please!).

At the end, the wealth of information of the ‘Ultimate Guide to Huge Maps’ will depend only on you

[vmxa1]

I think you should pick a difficulty level to standardize on for the guide. The strat for Warlord is not the same as Deity.

[Catt]

Re: The Ultimate Guide on Game Strategies on Huge Maps - your input-

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
What is a Huge Map?

This sounds like a silly question, but at the bottom line, playing on a Huge map with 8 Civs means, in respect to a Standard 8 Civs map, that you have more land, therefore bigger empires, longer distances to travel, slower contacts (at the beginning at least).

But this is not the case if you play a Huge map with 16 Civs (you have only smaller empires, but still longer distances to travel and slower contacts).
Then, if you play a Standard map with only 4 Civs, you’ll have the same specificities as if you were playing on a Huge 8 Civs map, (bigger empires, longer distances to travel, slower contacts).

In other words, it’s the number of Civs which mostly makes the difference between the two playing styles (Standard/8 Civs and Huge/8 Civs) and not the size of the map.
Therefore, is it correct to postulate that, except for the total land mass:

Huge/8 Civs = Standard/4 Civs (and logically = Tiny/2 Civs)
Huge/16 Civs = Standard/8 Civs?

If this is acceptable, then somebody could very well play a Standard/4 Civs game and have (almost) the same ’thrills’ as if playing on a Huge map.

It's not quite so linear. Many game functions are modified by map size and by number of civs. As just one example -- technology trading: tech research costs are affected by both map size and number of civs that already know the tech; tech trade costs are affected by those 2 factors and the AI-AI trading rate (which allows AI to AI tech trades to occur at lower cost than it would in the AI to Human calculation). IN a map with 16 civs, a technology leader will generally have many potential buyers (all of whom have sufficient assets to make the purchase) whereas with less civs, sometimes only one or two civs will have sufficient assets -- thus further depressing the tech trading market by limiting diffusion of the knowledge.

Although a standard/4 civ game is perhaps closer in "feel" to a huge/8 civ game, there are still fundamental differences between map sizes, as well as fundamental differences between civ "crowding" or "spacing," whihc will make themselves known through playing.

Catt

[Mountain Sage]

vmxa1:

Good advice: I suggest to go for Monarch and have some extra tips for Emperor/Deity.

Catt: I fully agree with you. I was trying to involve as much people as possible, by having people who play only on standard maps contribute to this thread and be able to use these guidelines while still playing on standard maps.

NOT MANY REPLIES YET!!!
IS THIS THREAD ALREADY DEAD???

P.S. You can also post some links, I'll do the patching.

[ZargonX]

It's not quite so linear. Many game functions are modified by map size and by number of civs. As just one example -- technology trading: tech research costs are affected by both map size and number of civs that already know the tech; tech trade costs are affected by those 2 factors and the AI-AI trading rate (which allows AI to AI tech trades to occur at lower cost than it would in the AI to Human calculation). IN a map with 16 civs, a technology leader will generally have many potential buyers (all of whom have sufficient assets to make the purchase) whereas with less civs, sometimes only one or two civs will have sufficient assets -- thus further depressing the tech trading market by limiting diffusion of the knowledge.

I think the difference in tech trading is one of the most interesting things about a huge map. I'm currently playing a game with 24 civs on Marla's World Map, and there is no such thing as a tech leader in the world. With so many civs trading and researching, getting techs is far to cheap to really fall behind. What does become a problem is resource availability, which I think is great. Nothing quite like invading south Pacific islands for some much needed rubber...

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
NOT MANY REPLIES YET!!!
IS THIS THREAD ALREADY DEAD???

P.S. You can also post some links, I'll do the patching.

I hope not, but it will take a lot of time to get ready for posting strat.I mean you can not play your first game on Huge and then expect to giv advice. I know it can be done, but once is not much in the way testing.
So even if players are wiling to do it, they will need a lot of time to play out those games.
Bump it once a week for a while and se what happens.

[Mountain Sage]

vmxa1,

As usual, good advice.
In these Internet times, I 'expect' everybody to have everything ready all the times and have it posted even before it was asked.

A little patience and humility wouldn't hurt the Mountain Sage , thanks for the reminder.

[RGBVideo]

Bump, to get more stuff in. Alas, I cannot submit anything into here, since I can't play big maps with my crappy PC.

[Theseus]

Playing AU207, I am perfecting the art of posting during the HUGE delays.

I am having a lot of fun with a huge map game... it's very time consuming though... not just the slowness, but the number of civs to deal with.

Unequal distribution of starting conditions and resource availability result in a much wider array of winners and losers... the human player's challenge is to influence geopolitics in such a way as to limit the success of the leading AI civs. Which can be a lot of work, but rewarding.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Theseus
Playing AU207, I am perfecting the art of posting during the HUGE delays.

Which can be a lot of work, but rewarding.

I always have a good SF/Fantasy book on my desk during the HUGE delays.

Rewarding, yes, but why and not ?

[Theseus]

That was a reference to Machiavellian mischief on a large world stage.

[Harovan]

Actually, the map size makes not the difference in gameplay. It's the number of civs, that makes games on huge maps different. Good diplomacy is much more important. You don't want 10 or more AI civs to gang up against you. The likelihood to get good resource or luxury deals also sinks drastically, because the landmasses are bigger and it's harder to gain a monopoly.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hey!

Since I love Huge Maps, I thought I'd post a few findings from my attempts to win as each civ. Bear in mind that I play on regent level, continents, ALWAYS. (someday I'll move up to Monarch, Emperor, Deity, but I'll probably always stick with "Earth"-like conditions, and max # of civs).

Here's what I've gleaned from playing the following civs. I'll start with the best, end with the worst, and leave out those I haven't tried yet.

China, A+ Arguably the best civ in the game for a huge map. We all know "the virtues of being industrious," and for those of you who don't know the virtues of amassing 12+ riders to annex other civs as soon as you get Chivalry, I recommend you learn. These riders can be unstoppable. They trigger the GA at just the right time (to get Sun Tzu's, Sistine, Leo's, JS Bachs... hereafter reffered to as the "Big 4"). During your GA, build the Big 4 and whatever else you need, and more riders. With their 3 movement rate, they'll put you in a position to double or triple the size of your empire. Your industrious workers will handle the rest. By the time your GA ends, you ought to be unstoppable!

One exception: if you are stuck on an island, unless you want a challenge, quit and start again! Here your riders will not help you much.

Ottomans, A After China, probably my favorite, and for the same reason. They are industrious, with the added benefit of scientific, which can give your early REXing a boost when you slay your citizens building libraries to keep your culture up to par. I wish their UU came at the same time as the Chinese riders, but c'est la vie... they still completely kick ass if you have wars to wage by the industrial era... and the chances are, unless you really cleaned up with your knights, you do!

Iroquois, A- It's always a risk playing as an expansionist Civ, but assuming you start on the biggest continent, your Mounted Warriors can trigger you a GA at a great time (late ancient/early med. age) and do a lot of conquering to put you in a good position to dominate in the middle ages.

Don't miss your window of opportunity with the MWs! Use them when you're about to build, say, the HG, or the GL, and expand, expand, expand. When feudalism comes into play, the MWs loose a lot of oomph (although I use them up until Nationalism).

Mongols, B This really depends on your location, and your early scouting. It's a real bummer not having cheaper temples or libraries, but if you can secure your early position, the keshik is a good unit to conquer with, trigger your GA and acquire the big 4.

Greeks, B+ Any civ with the commercial trait stands to profit on a huge map. Frankly, any civ without the commercial traits won't do as well as one with it on a huge map. After a certain point, conquest is no longer that profitable (except to aquire resources or wonders, obviously) unless you can keep corruption down.

The Greeks can do that - and they can defend themselves quite well in the ancient age, without irritating upgrading until Gunpowder.

If the clever player can trigger an attack on his/herself as the medival age is beginning, the Greeks can be in a position to truly dominate.

Of course, the destiny of any mediterranean power depends upon how well the Carthaginians are doing. THE CARTHAGINIANS MUST BE CHECKED AT ALL COSTS!!! On a huge map, a Carthage that isn't crippled is just too powerful - and agressive - to deal with!

Romans, C Other players might disagree with me, but I find the Romans one of the worst choices for a huge map. Sure, if you rock early on, later in the game you can build a truly massive empire. But rocking early on could be difficult. The Carthaginians alone are bad enough, but your Legionaries aren't going to do much damage against NMs -OR- Hoplites. Your best bet is to cripple EARLY... destroy Utica, Elephantine, etc... REX like crazy, and get into a war during the early medival era. At this point, use 1 Legionary to trigger your GA, and besides that, forget the damn things!

If you can overcome the early hurdle, and "box in" your potentially well-defended neighbors, then you can move on in a meaningful way. It took me forever to win as the Romans, but when I finally did, it was my largest empire to date.

Spanish, B Also a tough civ to get started as, though not as hard as the Romans. Surrounded by generally 3 expansionists, and potentially more, the Spanish are likely to fall behind in the tech race unless they send out plenty of warriors, get good terrain and do a lot of trading. That, and the lack of a good UU to trigger a GA, hold the Spanish back somewhat.

Other than that, however, a great civ to play as. The commercial trait allows for a great empire, and the religious trait makes it easy to quickly subdue conquered cities.

Vikings, C-Unless you're a master technician, skip the vikings. Sure, you can get a whole continent to yourself after wiping out the opposition, but then you'll be left behind in the science race, likely. On a large continent, you better be ready to conquer. Over REXing will leave you exposed to numerous enemies, and if you're near the Celts (and they have iron), forget it!

Even if you're crafty enough to come up from behind and conquer wonders that your more-likely-than-not more-advanced-than-you neighbors have built with horsemen or swordsmen, you'll most likely achieve only a slight edge. The Berserkir comes too late to trigger a GA in time to get the big 4, and even then, as awesome as it is, you can only fit 2 in a galley! The expansionist trait can rock, but then again, with the English and Russians around most of the time, it can also prove a waste.

Of course, the joy is in the challenge I suppose.

The other civs I haven't played a whole game as, except for the Aztecs, whom I love. But I have only played them on "vanilla" Civ3, not PTW, so I wouldn't want to judge them here.

WHEW! Long winded post!

But it's meant to generate comments and contreversy and bring this thread to life. So come on, BRING IT!

[Mountain Sage]

YS,

Playing on Huge maps, I would respectfully add the FRENCH.
This for builders. (Of course, when you get 300+gold/turn you can have a nice army too
Check my posts on AU207, you'll see...

I have the distinct impression you are going the same was as Arrian's

[Harovan]

I definitely disagree with Yahweh, too. On huge maps (may be except archipelagos, but they have their own rules anyway), Commercial is definitely an awesome trait. You can settle/conquer gigantic empires and suffer remarkable less corruption than the others. Expansionist is also a very useful trait, along with Industrious. The former is the better, the larger your landmass is and the less civs are on it. The latter is the better, the younger the map is (in terms of 3,4,5 bill years). This puts Civs like France, Carthage and England ahead. These civs are completely missing in your analysis.

Militaristic is a mediocre trait on huge maps, especially when the map is undercrowded (less than, say, 12 civs). This vastly increases the distance between the different theaters of warfare and makes the usage of troops less efficient.

Religious and Scientific are still good traits, but hardly reach the importance of the top 3. Scientific is additionally hampered by the presence of many civs. This means increased research cooperation and tech whoring, which leads to a general devaluation of techs as a whole. There's just too many ways to keep up even without or with low research.