More civs = easier game?

MarshalN · December 11, 2001, 11:52

It seems to be my experience now, as a player who prefers to play on large and huge maps, that it's actually easier with more civs. The AIs don't grow as quickly, and they don't have the luxury to block off large chunks of land (most of which you will never be able to get to because it's on the other continent or just too far away). In some of my games previously, I'd be on the smaller continent (which does make a huge difference sometimes -- the large and the small can mean double the size). With 7 or 8 AI civs, a lot of times you see Civs with 50-60 cities, easily, because the AI just kinda take over the whole map. With more civs, it seems the AI restrict each other more and the pace actually becomes more reasonable and less dependent on luck (i.e. where you start and how big the island is). Also, where you start in terms of terrain (near jungle, or a large grassland area, etc) will make less of a difference because the AI will be less likely to dominate huge chunks of prime land.

Any thoughts?

mr.buddylee · December 11, 2001, 12:25

I like playing with the largest number of civs possible. My latest game was on a normal map with 16 civs. (I used the editor).

You're right, it seems a little bit easier because the A.I. is much more limited. Its also interesting when world wars break out. Nothing better than starting the war with 15 opponents and ending it 80 turns later with 9 and gaining about 20 cities in the process...

Gotta love it.

Allemand · December 11, 2001, 14:46

I've just been playing on huge maps with 8 civs. In my next game, I'll try it with 16.

What about the turns? Do they take more time with all the civs playing?

pchang · December 11, 2001, 14:50

Also, higher barbarian levels make the game easier too. Since Barbarians have only 2 HP, you almost always beat them and can get quick unit promotions that way.

Ineffablebob · December 11, 2001, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by pchang
Also, higher barbarian levels make the game easier too. Since Barbarians have only 2 HP, you almost always beat them and can get quick unit promotions that way.

That's a good idea. I'll have to try that to see if I can finally get my first army. I've gotten a grand total of one leader in 4 games (2 of which were playing militaristic civs), and that leader was killed before my turn came around.

mr.buddylee · December 11, 2001, 16:15

Turns with that many civs used to take a while (1 minute or so), but since this patch, I haven't had to wait nearly as long for turns to take place. I run the game on my laptop PIII 667 w/128MB Ram.

With 16 civs on your map, you also have to keep track of all the MPP that get signed. Keep a close eye and make sure that your pitiful neighbor doesn't have a MPP with another person, that has a MPP with 2 other people, etc.

I really wish I could have taken a screenshot of my most recent deplomacy screen. There were MPP lines all over the place. I never signed one just because I didn't know who the heck I would end up defending.

pchang · December 11, 2001, 16:17

Barbarians will only promote your troops to elite. I have only gotten leader when my elite troops won battles against the AIs, never against the barbarians. Still, more elite troops will give you better odds at getting a leader.

Allemand · December 11, 2001, 20:38

It appears that a militaristic civ, like the Germans, will get more leaders during the game. They also get more warriors and see more barbarians when they tip the huts.

dissent · December 11, 2001, 23:09

Obviously with more Civs you will generate more revenue by Tech selling, if you go that route.

cassembler · December 12, 2001, 01:22

I play tiny/ small maps w/ 16 civs and yes, it DOES seem like the AI stays in check better. In fact, I don't have the problem of the AI trying to settle my unclaimed lands NEAR as much...

MarshalN · December 12, 2001, 01:56

Which I doubt if the original intent of having more civs.... intuitively, you'd think with more civs it's tougher, but it seems like it gets quite a bit eaiser with 16 civs. I sometimes have a hard time playing against 6-8, but with 15-16, they're all much more managable.

Sirian · December 12, 2001, 08:39

Hey Marshall. Long time no see. Good to spot a familiar name. Of course, I'm not the least bit surprised to run into you here.

I'm preferring games on standard size maps. I found huge maps to be easier in themselves, as well as more civs being easier. I imagine there's a limit, though, to that curve. Like... 8 to 10 is hard, but less than 6 opponents on a huge map probably gets easier, as past the optimal city count, expanding AI's will actually hurt their total progress. Only thing they'll get out of more cities is more whipping fodder and troop support for communism. But if they go communist, they're doomed anyway, unless they were way out in front of you.

I'll have to try another large map with the new patch, see how that goes. I'll bet you're itching for a multiplayer version.

- Sirian

DK36 · December 12, 2001, 08:49

I ussually like to pit tremendous empires against each other and play huge world on 5 civs. I like to be comfortable and make sure I get a big chunk of cities out and secure a lot of land. I don't fight a whole lot so this method fits me well. However, you guys do bring up interesting points which would call for a very fun game. Perhaps my next one will be huge pangea with 16 civs.