Hi all,
it's been a while since I played Civ5. I'm trying to get into it, but I've forgotten a bunch of stuff.
The biggest thing I'm curious about is what kind of map people choose to play. I used to really love continents with low sea level and legendary start.
One thing I clearly remember is how badly the AI did with water transport, however. So I would usually end up going with Pangaea, or small continents. Is the AI still like this?
Otherwise, what're your favorite map starting conditions?
Yes, the AI is still pretty poor at naval assaults unless they're navel civs like Songhai, the Dans, the Ottomans, or the English. Then they spam units in the water like crazy at higher levels of difficulty. Hopefully once the newest expansion kicks in the AI will be more adept at such combat mechanics..
Personally, I like Pangaea or continents. I don't mess with the amount of resources, sea level, etc., and standard speed is my preferred speed.
Visions of a whole civ of a housemate of mine from my undergrad days... disturbing.Originally Posted by arkm4
Lol I had the same thing only with a former coworker, scary.
I kind of flip flop around on maps. Naval combat may be lacking on continents maps but there's been plenty of times where I've gotten to the second continent and found civs bigger an badder than me. I'd never allow that on a Pangaea. So some of my toughest military campaigns have been on continents maps.
Interestingly, I love the map of Europe, especially with true start locations. I don't know why that is, but Europe maps have always been the most fun for me in all the different versions of Civ. With G&K adding the Netherlands, Celtia, Sweden, and Austria, as well as a host of new City States, Europe stands to be even more awesome!
Archipelago is nice for a game where everyone stays the hell away from me.
Four Corners makes for a good variation on Pangaea for military games.
But in general I play Small Continents.
I am a big fan of the oval map. Always presents a challenge if you are the civ that ends up in the center...
Thanks for the responses, all.
I'm very curious about the map types I haven't played, like Oval, or Four Corners. I tried Inland Sea once, but that wasn't a "true world" map. Basically, once you hit the left or right of the map, it was a dead end, rather than circumnavigating the globe. Also tried the world where the whole world was one landmass, and there were only small seas and large lakes.
I like Small Continents mostly because in the beginning, you usually get a bit of breathing room to set up your first few cities. The low sea level then allows easy transport between landmasses, so that kinda gets rid of most of the AI's aquaphobia. The AI - or you - only have to travel a few hexes to get to a new continent. It seemed like back in Civ4, where they had the transport ships, the AI did a better job at transporting troops. I remember even a few notable invasions straight from their transport.
Small Continents: Varied and interesting to explore. Continents can be a bit predictable. Also, with coastal water connections, it doesn't restrict contact with almost half the civs on the map until you can traverse ocean, like Continents. If civs are taking-up space in my world (and processing power and memory too, lol), I want to interact with them as soon as I can if I put in the time to explore!
Low Sea-Level: Fattens up all the masses so they’re not so snaky and thin. Plus, land is just more interesting and fun to play on than water; so why not have a little more of it if it doesn't hurt the naval aspect of the game? It also allows you to squeeze-in more civs if you like (I like +2 Civs and +4 CS on standard sized maps). Plus, when wars ensue, it's nice to have wider expanses of land in areas instead of chokes everywhere with the one-unit-per-tile rule.
Wet Rainfall: Wet because I like lots of forests and jungles (even marshes for the sake of variety). Plus, I feel jungles are too rare under normal settings. An ancient start game feels more "ancient". Plus, it gives my workers more things to do and more options. It also makes explorers a little more valuable since regular units will get slowed down more often amongst the hills and trees. It also makes deserts a little friendlier. (Also, in case anybody is wondering or worried, no, Wet doesn't affect desert generation, plains, or any other terrains, just features. It only directly alters the amount of forests, jungles, marshes, and oases. http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...97#post1478497)
I also like to disable start biases for a more random start with particular civs. I don’t really mind how historically inaccurate it is at all, like Egypt in the tundra for example, since there are plenty of other inaccurate and unrealistic things in the game. It’s more of a what-if game to me that uses the world’s history as merely a context. (Which is why I don’t understand the appeal towards real world maps and starts, outside of scenarios.)
I'd use Abundant resources as well, but I dislike the strategic resource totals it produces. For example, iron nodes of 9? Ugh... I think that's just too much; there’s no real need to seek out more. A small army via one tile. Once GAK is out and I'm playing again I'm going to mod the strategic resource numbers for major/small nodes and lessen them a bit. Strategic resources aside, Abundant resources just makes the maps more fun to play on for me, personally. Plus, more powerful tiles makes things happen faster in the game (growth, wealth, production, research, etc.) and adds to the excitement a bit since the very beginning of the game has a very slow pace until it gets its momentum going.
I'll probably also mod the sea-levels and slightly lessen them more for even fatter land masses in Small Continents, among a few other tweaks.
I also used to use Raging Barbs, but I don't anymore because I think they do more harm to the AI's than the little bit more of entertainment the pests provide me (yeah, the AI gets nice bonuses against them in combat, but I'm referring more to how they deal with them and how they don't protect their improvements and civilians well).
Okay, break time is over; back to wreaking havoc on Hell with my barbarian.
Anybody try the Great Plains map, or other types we haven't heard of before?
I have, those maps like great plains, lakes and highlands can be interesting although I wish you could circumnavigate in them. That hard border to the east and west can mean some really long treks for your troops if your main cities happen to be on one side or the other. It's nice to have the room to expand and the luxuries are a little more mixed up so its easier to get more variety than on continents type maps. Domination games can get long and tedious though because the AI builds more cities. Out of the three I liked lakes with the bodies of water set to small seas. It brings it a little navy but still mainly a land game. Id still say I prefer Pangaea or small continents though.
I generally prefer Continents Plus - it strings out the meeting of CS, and gives a real advantage to being the first to explore the seas.
Try Lake maps with the Aztecs. Lots of fun.
The Med map doesn't work well, as some of the defined starting locations are rubbish.
I also find that the Med map being on Large is a bit much. I feel like I have built 115 cities before I even touch another Civs borders ad maybe have built 6 before I have even met another.
Anybody know some details about the map features?
Specifically, I'm curious about what planet age does. From what I've seen, 3 billion years old means more mountains and hills, while 5 billion means less mountains?
That is what it has looked like to me as well. The earlier the age the more mountainous and also the less large continuous bodies of water (but a few very large bodies).
Map Settings
Last edited by jpbar81; 05-18-2012 at 07:50 PM.
Says URL not found.
Sorry; fixed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote