As large as possible within reason, of course.  Sucks royally that I'm generally limited to medium sized maps due to crashing problems.

I usually also go for medium. Partly because of the memory issue (and the game get's rather slow after a few hundred turns on large maps) and partly because I kinda get lost with large maps and Dozens of conquered cities (still didn't find out if or how you can raze them like you were used to in the beginning).

FYI, You can raze now at any time - it was removed from the tech tree.

I'm stuck on playing with small maps because I'm stuck on playing on a system that techinically doesn't meet the game's minimum system requirements. (3/4 G RAM only).  I'd LOVE to play on large maps, the larger the better, that way I can throw more kingdoms/empires in.

.

I agree with Kadrium about the comparison to HoMM not being too useful, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that we have a serious city spam problem even though the largest maps still feel cramped to many of us.

Given the low probability of a major re-work to the city-building UI, the best suggestion I've seen lately is radical but intriguing: one faction, one city, with supporting mini-settlements at resource nodes. That would yield lower UI overhead to everyone regardless of preferred map size. (Apologies to whoever thought of that, can't find the old thread quickly, should have given karma and it would be easier to find...)

This should only be an option that can be chosen not the norm. I perfer 'city spam' myself and would not care to play a system as you described but would not be opposed to have this as an option to be chosen upon starting a new game.

As stated before, the bigger the better imo BUT!!! along with being bigger, each kingdom/empire starts out further away from each other.  I like bigger due to longer more involved games, but a key element (no pun intended hehehe) is being able to really build up your own before setting out to conquer others.

A map can be huge but if I run into 3 other factions on turn 10 the bigger map only seems to lessen the game experience imo.

Sorry for Off Topic, but how do you do that?

double click on the town, then press the button 'raze' goodbye town

harpo

Large is fine doesn't has to be HUGE though... I go for epic or long games and like to take my time... small never, medium occasionally

I like to play on the largest map size because on the smaller ones I feel like I reach critical mass before getting half-way through any of the tech trees. (I play on Challenging/Hard World/AI with 8+ opponents )  Larger maps also offer more opportunities to hit adventure locations.

The BIGGEST MOTHER FUCKIN MAP there is.

I don't play that often, but prefer small to tiny: less end-game tedium (E:WoM bogs down late game), less micromanagement; the early and beginning phases of the game appear more interesting and contain surprises, the later stages of the game are lacking in these to me, and I get more of what I am trying to look for in small maps.

Dear friends, what the hell we are interested in the size of the maps when we have a game that is water everywhere, please do developers bother to create a decent game instead of wasting time with stupid questions.

 Dear Asadex,

We get it, you hate the game, you have nothing constructive to add and you're controlled by this spiteful need to make the devs feel horrible, despite the fact that they're doing more than most gaming companies would. Elemental would have been long-buried and still buggy if Ubi or EA were in control. 

 Also, "we're not your friends, buddy."

Then,
Dear your name, only your friends' friends, etc.
     First of all I say is not true that I hate this game, in that case I would not waste time writing on this forum, so already you're wrong, and secondly I remind you that the forums exist for people to express their opinions and sometimes These opinions may be different from yours, even and especially in the latter case it is my duty to express my opinion and it is your duty to respect, therefore, once again you were wrong.
Third, if you mean constructive criticism that I have to give advice on how to run a game that does not work, I'm sorry but you're wrong for the third time (too many times already, is not it?) because I do not design games, I buy them and when my purchase does not satisfy me I do what every buyer should do: I protest and do not protest like a child crying for no reason, I protest because the designers of the games have to understand that making games that do not work is wrong and protest so that other players understand that when a person or company does not perform as promised, is not the right thing to thank them as they try to glue the pieces of a vase which is now broken.
Especially when you stay at home in front of the window to contemplate the fragments of your flower vase, and these assholes give you a beautiful bouquet of flowers or they ask you, as happens now, what is the color of the flowers of your prefer.

Meaningless and stupid attempts to prove me "wrong" on points I could care less about aside, the quote above really says it all, child.

The devs have offered a free game, refunds, discounts, etc, plus apologised NUMEROUS times so clearly they do understand. The fact that you're too dense to have caught on by now really just goes to show that my attempts to cease your blubbering might be a practice in futility. So don't expect any more posts after this as I'm beginning to suspect you're just trying to troll.

The devs are also doing their darndest to fix the game and self-entitled ninnies like yourself can do nothing but moan and call them stupid. Frogboy didn't have to order the dev team to halt all their work, nor did he have to set aside three weeks, to create this topic. So don't be an idiot by calling it a waste of time. It sounds as if you're on the verge of ordering the devs to quit breathing and eating. Let me spell something out for you: Stardock has no obligation to fix your game. The fact that they're continuing to work on this game is nothing short of admirable.

Defintely huge maps. Always have and always will.

Anything under the Maximum size is for wimps, sorry

I'd LOVE to see 64bit support so we can get some of those hugely epic map sizes we talked about during development.

Your statements deserve some answers,

especially where it states that the Company is not obligated to fix my game.
It is not true, because the product, disregarding the advertised features, violates the law to protect consumers, so there are two
1) the developers fix the game in the shortest possible time, compensate the consumer for any damage caused by the delay
2) developers can not fix the game and that return the price paid by consumers and the possible damage caused

The terms apply to any compensation are rather small and therefore the constant reference by the developers for a future game that will free this summer (...?!) and a magic patch 1.2 that will solve all problems (hunger including the world?) seem a nice way to delay time.

However, this is my opinion, we'll see.

I quite liked the bigger maps, smalller ones are ok too.

I must be the only one here who haven't tried the game yet Since I don't know much about the pacing and stuff I can't really comment on Elemental.

But in RTS games I absolutely prefer the smallest maps possible since I want ACTION and not simcity and TBS for 10min.

In Age of Wonders MP I would also prefer a small map since you HAVE to be on your toes and be ready ALL the time!   You don't know what he's going to do so you have to scout him and see what he's up to.

• Is he being aggressive and trying to conquer the map immedietly?
• Is he fortifying two, three cities?
• Is he teching for tier three troops in his capital??
• Is he going for magic??

On a large map, all that would have been kinda irrelevent since going for economy pays of SO much more!

My fellow swede is 50% with me. That's acceptable

The other swede thinks just like me! YEEEAAH

The smaller, the bloodier !

Is this english?