Enough With the Large Maps

[St Leo]

General Observations:
-Large map scenarios are hard to make. A 200x200 map requires 4x more cities than a 100x100 map.
-Ditto for terrain improvements, unit placement, etc.
-The AI cannot handle waging war over large distances.
-The AI stops being aggressive once it grows to a certain predetermined size and has to be given free units via events.
-On a smaller map, one can create a greater concentration of interesting events while keeping the overall number the same.
-Large maps take too long to play. I don't know about the average civer, but I tend to give up if there's no end in sight.
-AFAIK, PBEM games take forever anyway. I am yet to participate in one, but that seems one of the primary target demographics these days.

So I ask you all to stop the madness and focus on developing small, cozy scenarios.

[HisMajestyBOB]

As long as they're good, I'm fine with 'em!

[Exile]

I had a similar conversation in the Civfanatics forum with IIRC, Kobayashi. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll state my position again.

I make my scenarios for myself. Not necessarily for anyone else. If others like 'em . . . great. If not, that's fine too. The complaints you've levelled at the large scenarios are, IMHO, simply a matter of personal taste and preference. Nothing more.

"Hard to make." I don't mind making large scenarios. It is what I prefer and I have the time to waste.

"The AI cannot handle waging war over long distances." True enough. Generally speaking, the AI cannot handle making war . . . period. What's new about this statement? Scenarios that I put together always have the option of multiplay or PBEM, and, as AOW has amply demonstrated, they work in that context.

"The AI stops being aggressive . . ." Since when is the AI ever competent in any respect . . . unless it's set on the higher difficulty settings.

"On a smaller map . . . " I don't prefer small maps and few cities. That kind of scenario isn't really interesting to me.

"PBEM games take forever . . ." Yep, they sure do. I don't play in them either, but that doesn't mean that I don't think they are a valid way to play the game. I'm also not targeting any "demographic." I'm creating scenarios that please ME.

"Stop the madness . . . " I disagree, and state once again; It's a matter of personal preference. I enjoy huge, sprawling scenarios where administration takes as big a role as conquest and expansion.

And, judging from the current spate of PBEM games ongoing out there, I'm not alone.

(Btw, Leo, I like you so don't read this as a flame. I'm only responding to defend the kind of scenario that I like to play. Nothing more. Your preferences are just as valid as my own, AFAIAC).

[Soundwave]

I'd jsut like to say, the only thing is, if you play them in PBEM, they're stupid....

1: takes hell long
2: you cant post the save, coz its too BIG~!

-SW

[winterfritz]

Originally posted by Exile
I make my scenarios for myself. Not necessarily for anyone else. If others like 'em . . . great. If not, that's fine too.

Very true. If you don't actually want to play the scenario you're working on, why bother making it?

I enjoy huge, sprawling scenarios where administration takes as big a role as conquest and expansion.

I think its also a matter of what kind of events you want to simulate in the scenario. There is definetely a place for 'small and cozy' scenarios; Justinian the Great is an excellent example. But if you were doing a scenario about, oh I dunno, lets say the Late Roman Empire ( ) that was designed to be played as Rome, then you would probably want put it on a huge map with lots of cities that all have to be micro-managed, to simulate the administrative difficulties the Empire was going through.

Scenarios that I put together always have the option of multiplay or PBEM, and, as AOW has amply demonstrated, they work in that context.

Hell yes