early thoughts: map size

[Phenian]

so the size of the map equals difficulty? Bigger maps are harder while smaller gets easier?

[timlagor]

In general that is so.

[The Grand Mugwump]

In general, yes. Usually when aiming for a victory which is based off a % of the world's population. There are a couple fringe cases where a bigger map is actually easier.

-When the chosen one is on the opposite side of a max size world, they will not try to redeem rulers because the rulers are outside of their detection range.

-Any victory which relies on a certain number of something like population consumed for Mammon or insanity will actually become easier on larger maps. It is almost impossible to get an insanity victory while outpacing shadow on smaller maps simply because there are not enough valid targets to get enough victory points from insanity.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3115931532

[R. N. Gesus]

Map size adds to both game length and the amount of heroes playing whack-a-mole with you.

More heroes is usually very bad for you, and only rarely a benefit for Cordyceps and finding big houses for call of the deep.

The turn timer is extremely generous for small maps, but it truly becomes relevant on a big map. A long game also has to deal with more turns of fighting a strong alliance, high world panic, and your agent profile and menace going up.

Adding to game length, can however make slow payoffs more relevant. Third level magic, vampires, and deep ones, are some of the slowest payoffs in the game, and you might have one agent spend the entire game setting up for them, while the rest win the game before the 200+ turn setup pays off.

Small maps give shadow victories extremely fast. Unless you're playing a very destruction focused god or strategy, or Ophanim, you're pretty much guaranteed an enshadowed win by turn 350, as nearly every strategy will also want to spread shadow.