whats up with map sizes?

[timdraco]

Is it just me or is the maps kinda small and the pickings kinda slim for maps?

[Rhapsody]

Standard isn't that different from previous games. Distant lands take their space. I suppose it could be slightly bigger but then they'd probably need to adjust rough seas damage, trade route distances and a lot of other mechanics based on exploration.

They'll likely release greater map sizes at some point, then you can simply reduce the number of players in the game. But overall I feel like standard (and small in multiplayer) is just right. Greater map sizes were not that stable or smooth to play in terms of speed in Civ VI in my experience.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

I think the issue with Civ 7 is less the map sizes and more the way so much stuff now clutters the map.

You can't harvest bonus resources, nor build or settle over them. That removes a surprising number of tiles from you doing much of anything with... all you can do is improve them.

Then, there's the map generation itself. I like that the default map settings now create more little mountain ranges, lakes, and other map features. This is better than Civ 6 which basically just made mountain ranges that divided continents and then placed few other mountain tiles at all. But at the same time, there's always a feature every few tiles now it seems, limiting both movement and placement of settlements.

But the big issue is that EVERYTHING now is unpacked from the central tile of a city. Want to build pretty much anything at all? Well, pretty much everything goes outside the city and is capped at 2 to a tile. Unlike Civ 6, where I could have a library, university, lab all in a science district for a total of four things packed together (the district itself had adjacency and some benefit to making), here I can only pack two things together.

The issue isn't map size at all... it's how much more stuff you have to build or move across a map that is about the same size as Civ 6's equivalent map size.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

You can't harvest bonus resources, nor build or settle over them. That removes a surprising number of tiles from you doing much of anything with... all you can do is improve them.

Then again, most of the housing impediments from VI are gone, and building of districts is much more free. It's actually surprising how easy it is to develop prosperous cities in spite of those limitations regarding resources, and for towns it doesn't even really matter if they are not using their land area perfectly well. Hub Towns are great in late game.

[Lëgënd]

For the gameplay, map sizes don't seem too bad. I wish there was a map between small and standard. Small is a little too cramped, but standard seems to big at times unless you go over your settlement cap.

[Bricicles]

Modders are already on it, YnAMP has a great Cont++ script and massive size thats really fun if you like big, slow games.

[Fatbill]

Maps are no bigger than standard, so fewer system resources are used, and thus, the game can play better on Steamdeck, Switch, or consoles.

That will not stop Fixaris from selling more/bigger maps as DLCs later, however.

[Oaks]

Ice only played the default "small" so far, but I've found it pretty fun. Everyone's borders are touching (heh heh) so there is a lot of anger and wars. It's a nice change from Civ 6 when wars seemed a lot more rare.

[keviinb]

Originally posted by Fatbill:

Maps are no bigger than standard, so fewer system resources are used, and thus, the game can play better on Steamdeck, Switch, or consoles.

That will not stop Fixaris from selling more/bigger maps as DLCs later, however.

This , also map size's cannot be above standard as there is not enough mini "Civs" currently in the game.
Once they begin to pump out more skins they will be able to sell bigger map sizes .

Big problemo thou will be lack of variety as the forced age transition and hard re-set limits the type of map allowed

[DadouXIII]

I like it when there is very little time before border conflict starts!
But anyway, the devs said the bigger maps are coming.

[Jolly]

The designers have decided how you play and have decided that a game that only exists because of PC will now have console/mobile priority. Inferior devices can't handle bigger maps so you no longer need them.

[timdraco]

It seems like this game comes up a bit short compared to 5 and 6. I know they need to make money, but i miss the days where the dlc paywall wasnt so bad. adding features as a dlc that should have been in the game on day 1 is kinda skummy.

[Bobs]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Standard isn't that different from previous games. Distant lands take their space. I suppose it could be slightly bigger but then they'd probably need to adjust rough seas damage, trade route distances and a lot of other mechanics based on exploration.

They'll likely release greater map sizes at some point, then you can simply reduce the number of players in the game. But overall I feel like standard (and small in multiplayer) is just right. Greater map sizes were not that stable or smooth to play in terms of speed in Civ VI in my experience.

I had zero problems with huge maps in Civ 6. They were awesome.

It's ridiculous to have the entire map settled half way into the game. I feel cramped.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Bobs:

I feel cramped.

Then reduce the number of players present in the game, the option already exists. That issue has nothing to do with map sizes.

[azmundai]

Originally posted by Jolly:

The designers have decided how you play and have decided that a game that only exists because of PC will now have console/mobile priority. Inferior devices can't handle bigger maps so you no longer need them.

"Do you guys not have phones?"

[red-ketchup]

my biggest concern is the size of the maps. i was used to play the most x-large one in civ 6