Big maps are easier?

I always found on small maps it was very easy to take out a civ really early and then you start the game essentially with two homeworlds against everyone else's one.

Bigger maps with adundant everything involves more, and thus more opportunities to score points as you go.

1. Fast tech is preferred for an all factory approach because even though the AI can get even MORE techs, there are some techs that are just vital you need as soon as possible. How long does it take to research planetary invasion on very slow tech with an all factories approach? Answer: too long to ever let you be a threat 90% of the time. A good colony rush CAN overcome this disadvantage, but is really only available on the largest maps typically.

2. Yes, after I have won the game, to increase my score. However, going that high is not usually the most competitive approach because the increased cost doesn't offer enough increased performance in a min/maxed empire. However, many approaches can work - and if going higher up the manufacturing tech tree works for you, go for it.

3. You do get higher scores for playing with more planets. The most planets available are on gigantic/abundant maps. Because the metaverse penalizes you for every game submission, the best way to get a high score easily is with a few high scoring games. Personally I don't have the time or attention span to enjoy those very large games, so I stick with mostly smaller maps. My scores have suffered as a result - and that is a trade off you need to consider. Personally, I think fun is more important than score.

Also, I find the game to be more difficult on the smaller maps because with fewer resources if you make a mistake the consequences are magnified and harder to overcome. I like to make the game more difficult because it is the continuing challenge that keeps me coming back. Perhaps others find smaller maps easier, it just isn't my experience. If you can play an easier game with more potential for higher score AND avoid metaverse penalties... well that is pretty much the reasons the top players play this sort of setup.

Not, mind you, that the top players couldn't also rock the smaller maps. But, they wouldn't BE the top players if they played smaller maps because of how the metaverse works. It's kind of recursive that way.


Hope that helps,
- Wyndstar

Personally I don't always use an "all x" approach because I like variety and inventing new challenges for myself. That being said, even when I build a mix of buildings my sliders are almost always x/x/0 or 0/0/x... its just when I use a mix of buildings I "turn off" a lot of the tiles in my empire at any one time. I do indeed play this way as a function of the way the CURRENT economy works.

Looking at some of the "New Tech Tree" ideas and buildings the SD team has let us see I think they are doing a good job of mixing up "all-x" in the next expansion. Having buildings that can produce both tech and manufacturing points, for instance. It almost appears to me as if the new Thalans ALWAYS use an all-x strategy because of their buildings. Personally, I love that change, the Thalans have been my favorite race for a very long time.

If they change around the buildings and tech trees, all that has been written on these strategies is probably going to become mostly obsolete. That's a good thing - now you will need different strategies with different races - how fun!!!! (Lots of blathering love for how SD is changing the game here.... deleted for concission) Will the Iconians still suck? Will some races have such an industry advantage that all factories is the strategy you always use with them? Will some races (Torians) have an actual use for moral buildings?

The options are amazing. I can't wait to see if the changes live up to my minds eye of how all of this will effect meta-strategy. I have high hopes given SDs high quality track record. Good test playing will also help us give them good feedback on balancing.

Also - on my first post - I don't mean to suggest that top players don't also have fun on large maps. I don't have as much fun on large maps. To each their own. If you enjoy large maps more, play on large maps. If you enjoy smaller maps more, play them. Or put the generator on random. My overall point is I think playing for fun is better than playing for score. IF you want to play for score - Gig/all abundant/vf tech/suicidal games is the way to go.

- Wyndstar

I have always thought that even though it is very inefficient to have half factories and half research because of the broken economy, that just means you have more money in your treasurey because you aren't producing as much. Also, even though very inefficient, half labs and half factories on your planets does make you more flexible. I have tried the all labs approach and it can be very difficult to get up and running since you can never be above 25% in production. I am somewhat interested in the all factories approach and was wondering which strategy is more effective.

I'm not sure I follow how it works??

I have read on the wiki that at 33/33/33 then Labs are used only to a third of their potential. And factories only to 2/3rds if they are also building a ship. BUT, if you have a project underway and then you build a ship the project suddenly requires more time. So some of the output must have been redirected anyway?

And if I set my sliders to say x/x/0 I get zero research. But if I then focus my planet on research I get nice high research from the labs. But I though focus was supposed to convert social/military output to research. Clearly I am missing something. I am trying search for a good explanation, but if anyone knows where one is I would be grateful.

Hmm... I havn't had this problem. If I devote one tile to economy on each world, I can run at 100% the whole game and still make a pretty penny.

I've also found that focusing on production, I get nearly the same build speed as when I used a 50/50 approach. I'm usually just a turn or half turn behind my usual.

Oh yeah, I was getting the gang up on me and blitz thing by the top two AI empires....And I had no depth to retreat into. With just one, I could have gone the swapping a planet back and forth route, but two was just too much! The whole thing has a much more tactical feel; and it plays out as like a completely different game. I felt the suicidal bonuses where magnified even more, giving the AI more advantage than they do on the really large maps. I think the tiny VS gigantic map difficulty comparison might be significantly modified by the difficulty level. It might just be what I am used to though.

On a larger map, I would have just started swapping the border planets back and forth, slowly catching up techwise with planetary invasions. It was definitely a change, as I can pretty much knock down the AI on the larger maps at my leisure, but many of my optimizations don't work on a tiny map.

I should also say that I think very fast tech is much harder than very slow tech games. When I first went to gig games I was playing slow tech and worked it up incrementally to very fast. Wyndstar might be able to comment on whether he thinks this is true for small maps, having a lot more experience with them...

BTW I should add that it was fun to have the AI actually beat me.

Yup. It works because of an I believe unintended flaw of the galciv2 economy and the focus mechanic.

Also, with the way approval and population growth works, you would be a fool to keep your average approval rate at anything but 100%, 41%, or 21% depending on if you want your population to grow fast, grow at a normal rate, or not grow. Either adjust the tax rate to make not much money but grow twice as fast, make a crap load of money and grow at an average amount, or make even more money and cease population growth.


As great as this game is, there is plenty of room for improvement. Perhaps in galciv 3 we can get all of the factory and research out of our buildings at all times!!! What a concept!!!

I agree that larger is easier than smaller but it's by no means linear. By that I mean it's nowhere near that twice as big is twice as easy, it's far more subtle than that.

I think it's as much that larger is different from smaller and that ways of doing things in large games don't work as well in smaller games. This also works in the other direction as well, those that play small maps may find that it's not necessarily trivial to play a larger map.

However with this said I do think smaller is a bit harder than larger but nothing that's insurmountable. If you are a good player in large galaxies then you will be a good player in smaller galaxies (and vice versa) even though it may take a bit of time to get used to. I actually think it's more difficult to play good instead of evil than it is to play small over large.

Why all you do is pay attention to election week and raise your approval just for that one week!!!Apparently, if taxes are really low for one week, the citizens will forget the other weeks of the year of super high taxes!

The game's economy, espionage, influence, and morale systems all need some improvement.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think there is more than one way to crack this egg. I actually build quite a few factories with the all factories approach and run very fast tech. My goal here is to skip through techs to grab enough innate bonuses to float my economy. Basically running to the other extreme.



I think that is a really important point. What do you think is the effect of tech speed on difficulty? And do you think that it needs to be considered in the context of galaxy size as well, as I suspect?

I do suspect playing a tiny, sparse DA galaxy with 9 AI opponents on suicidal with very fast tech as a good, non-Altarian race is the hardest possible setting (assuming you disallow tech treaties/tech whoring, as Wyndstar has shown that, with all labs, is very effective!). Largely because there are very limited options for dealing with multiple AIs coming after you when you only have one or two planets...Of course, having said this, there may be some very narrow approaches (targeting specific techs, etc.) that turn this into a much easier game.

Usually on my planets I build a couple of factories to build projects faster. Then with those taken care of I build moral projects (so I can later raise taxes) (I usually have 100% on all of my planets) and banks. That way I make a lot of money so I can afford to buy projects and ships quickly and rapidly expand. With the remaining spaces I build labs.

I'm not all that good, but this strategy has worked on the levels I've played. Just thought I'd put in my comment is all...you don't have to listen to me.