 |
| |
|
|
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 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
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 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
|
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
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. |
You must have misread what I wrote...
I think commercial is arguably the BEST trait on a huge map. I love the commercial trait!
The reason France, Carthage and England are missing from my analysis isn't that I dislike them necessarily... I am playing one civ at a time, to win on a huge map as each one. I just haven't gotten around to England, Carthage and France yet. I'm saving what I feel may be the best for last!
quote:
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.
|
I'd have to agree with this, but as someone pointed out, with 16 civs on a huge map, you have less space than with 8 on a standard map, and the militaristic civ is VERY handy in this case. I'm playing a "come up from behind" game as the Vikings right now, and I'm surrounded with enemies whose cities I want, one of which might soon be building the Sistine Chapel. But I'm not going to quit, because the militaristic trait gives me a good shot at taking this city, especially if the Germans or Celts DON'T build it.
quote:
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. |
I would have to disagree. Perhaps scientific isn't as key as religious, but the culture benefit alone makes these traits strong contenders, as they allow you to grow early on the game, a pretty crucial time, IMO.
Once again, bear in mind that I have not played as over half of the civs in C3 and PTW (that is, to completion). As I play complete games with these civs, I will post my opinion, and I welcome any counterpoints.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ubergeek
|
 |
St. Paul, MN USA
Feb 2000
time: 23:26
|
|
One thing I would point out is that "empire-wide" wonders like Cistine's, Bach's, Adam Smith, Hoover, etc. seem to have a magnified impact in a Huge game. To have something that pays for every marketplace, bank, stock exchange and commercial dock in an empire of 60 cities is a GIGANTIC advantage. Doing whatever is necessary to get to those techs and wonders first is, IMO, much more important than on a standard game.
The other thing to point out is that, with enemy civs so much bigger, wars tend to take a longer time to build up to, fight, and wind down from. This means WW becomes more of a factor (in my experience) and therefore Republic and Demoncracy are less suited for fighting Total War than on smaller maps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
|
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ubergeek
The other thing to point out is that, with enemy civs so much bigger, wars tend to take a longer time to build up to, fight, and wind down from. This means WW becomes more of a factor (in my experience) and therefore Republic and Demoncracy are less suited for fighting Total War than on smaller maps. |
I would tend to agree with that.
Say you face an enemy on a certain number of fronts. On any, you can mass troops to take out the cities on that front in one turn. But on a larger map, you're much more likely to have to face cities BEYOND that front... not to mention if you letter settlers "slip through" and found weird cities in the middle of nowhere in the mid-early game... and who doesn't? You're likely to have more of those on a huge map than on smaller ones, where land is more limited, and you must divert troops to face those cities, lest they launch small forces to screw up your infrastructure or genuinely threaten you.
Hence, monarchy is much more preferrable. A republic would works best if you can wipe out enemies in one or two turns. If you can't, then stick with Monarchy...
...I still think Democracy is the finest government form by the industrial era, though. No communism for me. I hate slaughtering people, though it's certainly useful for some things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
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. |
SR, I'm gonna disagree with you a bit here, but I concede right off the bat that you play Huge maps more than I do, so I could be off-base. Ok, disclaimer aside...
Gaining a monopoly is harder, yes. But that cuts both ways. With 15 AIs out there, some of whom will be much, much weaker than others, I think it actually could be easier to work trades by keeping the weak, poor civs up to date in tech in exchange for their luxuries/resources.
In AU207 (my only Huge map experience), I was able to work trades with France, India and Arabia at different stages in the game that netted me luxuries in exchance for tech that the "Big Dog" AI, Korea, already had.
Similiarly, when I first discovered the overseas civs, I had fallen behind on the "northern" branch of the medieval tech tree, but was slightly ahead in the "south." I traded metallurgy for at least 4 techs, and a bunch of gold, because I could sell it to several different civs, thereby marching my way up the northern branch (instead of selling it to just one or two civs and being hamstrung by the inability to get more than one tech at a time because of the prerequisites).
I agree with you that diplomacy is very important, and that you most definitely do NOT want a pile-on of 10 AIs.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
One topic that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the coastal impact. First, an obvious point; cities by the sea nearly always produce the most commerce.
With a huge map, getting that commerce for tech means that archipelago (60% water if you're aquaphobic) gives the quickest tech potential - and also slows down the AI-AI tech whoring a little bit. However, it also means that you have to do most of the early tech research yourself...
It's what I nearly always go for on a huge map, although I won't bother playing if I can't build more than 8 cities on my start location. I tried it once, and by the time I had galleys, the AI was researching Steam Power!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
athorpel
|
 |
Ozarks
Nov 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
I play huge maps exclusively. What I have found is this.
First, Luxuries.
Luxuries come in bunches on map editor generated maps. Groups of a single type of luxury concentrated in relatively small areas. I've been playing other games lately so bear with my faulty memory. It seems that the width on these groups of luxs is maybe 10 squares, a 10x10 area of map squares with a single luxury type covering 6 to 10 of those squares. I might be stating the obvious here, but I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread.
In other words it is very probable that most civs will get monopolies very early. Sometimes they will get a monopoly on more than one luxury. This makes it profitable to keep weak civs around longer than you would otherwise as long as they don't share a border with your empire. I will mention proxy wars later.
I have also noticed that certain luxuries will be on one continent but not on the other. I play continent maps. No more than three large landmasses. The luxuries will be split between the continental landmasses. This forces everybody to trade for what they want. Now remember I am talking about randomly generated maps. Oh yea, I usually play with the maximum number of oppenents. It gets whittled down to 10 or so pretty quickly anyway.
From what I have said previously it should be plain, diplomacy is crucial. You must think long term on a huge map. Build those relationships. Be honorable, never actively make them hate you, let the game play do that for you. Sooner or later you will have something they don't have and they will slowly become annoyed.
I spend a lot of time on diplomacy. I try to trade something at least every other turn with almost every civ. It is a chore but it lets you notice trends in AI behavior and attitude. I initiate the formation of alliances with groups of civs that for obvious reasons should be allied. Geography dictates a lot of my choices. I also choose the alliance members based on what resources they control and on the natural affinities of the civs involved, I think I am referring to ethnic affinity. If one or more civs are becoming a problem I have the mostly surefire way of controlling the situation, wars by proxy. They are my tool of choice for keeping the AI occupied while I prepare my own offensive.
The thing that I try to accomplish is this, plan an outcome early. Start the diplomatic efforts early. Have a goal in mind when dealing with any other civ. I am talking about 100 to 300 turns into the future. Everything you do should be geared toward the decided upon goal for that civ. Whether that goal is to use that enemy civ as a tool to keep a resource out of some other civs hands, or to destroy that civ completely. Don't just make plans for yourself, plan what you want to accomplish with the other civs as well. Bend them to your will. It can be done. I'm sorry if I am stating the obvious here. I think I am describing another aspect of the process of gaining Ultimate Power.
Sidenote:
Espionage is your friend. You have lots of opponents. You must find out what they are up to. Plants spys, keep trying. Get a spy in every oppenents capital.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
|
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
Athorpel, I disagree with you on a few points:
a. It seems MORE likely that you will not achieve a monolopy of a given luxury on a huge map until you control the entire continent. Playing as the Japanese currently, I have crushed the French, Chinese, Spanish and Koreans, and taken half of Mongolia and Germany, but with India intact and Germany and Mongolia still alive, I don't have a monopoly on luxuries. I'm close, but I've still got to rule the whole damn continent (two, actually, if you count the two haves on one side of a classic ithsmus). This seems to be the typical case. But you don't always need a monopoly to trade successfully.
b. Planting spys can often backfire. Make sure you give a 4 turn breather window before attempting to plant another spy. Too many failed attempts and you're at war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2003 16:35
, thanks for the reminder. 
? 
|