This discussion should be about the concept of map dimension in the new game, not about the absolute dimension itself. I will explain this better:
by looking at the gameplay it is possible to notice how the 2 villages occupy almost 50% of the map pretty soon. This impression is confirmed by the linear spam of units form Delhi Sultanate to the English city during the castle age: it seems like a few tiles are splitting the 2 gates one from the other.
This is not necessarily a problem by itself (even in aoe2 sometimes it could be like that) but looking a the new features (more importance to army formations, relevant role of outpost and towers, the possibility to hide in the forest for an ambush, the choice of “when” engaging the enemy, etc.) it seems like the reduced dimension of the 1v1 map will almost obstacle the real exploitation of those new functionalities in a competitive strategic scenario.
What do you think about it?
2 Likes
There will most likely be many size options, as in all AoEs 
You’re right, but for AOE2 online play, the size of 1v1 maps is fixed. So, I think the OP is saying that this fixed size should be larger, in order for all of the gameplay mechanics to be properly utilized. I agree with that view, at least based on the map size we saw.
Imagine the Mongols trying to play a 1v1 game on a map the size of the one we saw for the English and Delhi Sultanate match. Their ability to move their entire base would be almost pointless, since there’s hardly enough room for the two players to start with.
2 Likes
Yes, exactly @AlyoshaVonDiego, I really hope that the competitive maps would be:
- bigger, and therefore more adapt for different playstyle;
- randomly generated each time: e.g. only during the exploration you discover if there is water, if it is a desert, if there are rivers and forests, etc.
This would allow to overcome the limits of having only 8 civs: otherwise, if we know before the game that the map will be “arabia” like or “black forest” like, we could have only mirror matches, with people trying to exploit too much the advantages of each civ based on the map design
I’m not so sure about map sizes for competitive 1v1 game, but yeah map size does needs to be increased. Otherwise it’s just stuck in 1999 formula. I mean I would love to spend hours designing a very big map and spend hours playing that. Let’s just say a big 40 players covering entire Europe. I know, I know I am being a bit too much ambitious and they already said it’s 8 player map. So kind of sad. 
Big map would also help capturing Mongols playstyle much more. Now I wonder how much useful Mongols will be even if it’s like AoE3/AoE2 like mapstyle.
Randomly generated maps is confirmed in a interview with the devs, in an interview a guys asked some competitive questions and one was about whether RNG is present in AOE4. And the response was that the biggest part of RNG lies in the random generated maps, afterwards it’s pretty straightforward.
Hey @Timbonator8142 I heard that interview as well (I think was the one with Nili right?) but I did not know how we should interpret that.
In aoe2 for example Arabia is randomly generated for player locations and resource positioning but at the end is always the same kind of map (sometimes more hills, some times some oasis, but nothing really surprising). On the contrary it would be great (considering the few and very characteristics civ in the new game) a “real” random generated map where you never know, before starting the exploration,. what kind of environment you should expect. Let’s hope they follow the path of “minecraft-like” generation so that you will not civ pick based on clear advantages (open map = mongols; closed map = chinese) but only based on your preferred playstyle.
I would also like to see all of the civilizations utilized in competitive play, and increasing the randomness of the generated maps is certainly one way to prevent people from always picking the same civilization for the same map. However, if civilizations are imbalanced depending upon the map that generates, I could see that being undesirable, too, since players might not like that amount of RNG. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think that the game could be balanced in such a way that all civilizations are viable on several different types of map, so that we can still have some to choose from when playing online.
To explain myself a little bit, I think it’s helpful to reflect on why all civilizations are not competitively viable on the maps used in AOE2. Part of the problem there is the nature of the civilization bonuses. For instance, faster working fisherman, foragers, and hunters are civilization bonuses that very clearly help more on maps with extra shore fish, berry bushes, and animals, respectively. Also, despite the civilizations being relatively balanced on land, it seems like there was little to no attempt to make all civilizations equally viable on water maps. Finally, as you mention, the impassable forests of AOE2 makes some maps much easier to wall than others, lending to more or less aggressive playstyles (and hence, civilizations).
In AOE4, I am hoping that a lot of the issues mentioned above can be avoided. The civilization bonuses don’t need to be tailored to specific types of maps; the civilizations could be balanced on water and land maps simultaneously; and the ability to move through forests may mean that the viability of walling is less dependent upon the map being played.
Assuming we can choose from different randomly-generated maps, I still think one like you mention could be really fun, especially with more realistic landscapes. It would be like an evolution of the megarandom map from AOE2. I just, personally, would also like to have some more standard options to choose from, in case I want to play one type of map in particular.
Agree, that could be a good approach as well.
Anyway I think that the community is not really getting what is relevant for the game or not, so I do not think this post will have sufficient visibility to offer insight to the developers.
Everyone seems to care only about the historical accurate description of his favourite civ or the colour palette of the units, instead of focusing on the gameplay (that should be the most relevant part of the game). I hope these posts and topics will change in the following weeks.