Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

6x6

27 (21.3%)

5x5

23 (18.1%)

4x4

30 (23.6%)

3x3

24 (18.9%)

2x2

7 (5.5%)

1x1 (I use the "nano fort" mod

0 (0%)

Bigger than 6x6

8 (6.3%)

Any odd shape (2x3, 6x2, etc)

8 (6.3%)

Total Members Voted: 127

[Awayfarer]

A board in the gameplay questions area got me to thinking about this: what have you set your standard embark area to? I tend to go with 5x5, or occasionally smaller.

[Theoclymenus]

I usually use 3x3 but I am not adverse to using up to 5x5. I think my computer can handle it...

I've just never felt much need for any bigger. If I can fit a source of magma and a source of water into a 3x3 embark spot then I am more than happy with that. However, if someone posts up a particulary interesting map then I am happy using any old size.

[Krash]

4x4 mostly does the charm for me, unless there's something I really want (then it might be 5x3 or 3x5).  Smaller makes it hard to build interesting underground creations, and larger murders my FPS.  (I haven't tried out 40dx yet since I'm waiting for the new version.)

[GenericOverusedName]

I've found that if I want to maintain a steady FPS over 50, I can't go over 5x5. Granted, if there's a large river or somesuch, that'll affect the FPS more. But if there's a really nifty feature that I feel I absolutely MUST have, then I'll stretch my processors a bit. (Yay multicore shenanigans!) If you're lucky, you can fit in 4+ biomes in that range, too. Not that you NEED that many.

[Shzar]

I stick with 3x3, or sometimes 2x3 or 2x4. Keeps the FPS floating prettily around 40 fps with a spring and 160 dwarves.

[ElChad]

I go with 2x2 just for simplicity

[Deathworks]

Hello!

An interesting question indeed. Personally, I stick to 3x3 as it is large enough to do a lot of digging and building, even if one or more tiles are eaten up by a brook.

Deathworks

[azrael4h]

I go with 6x6 on this computer, 2x2 on my parents. Not because I NEED a 6x6 area, but that I'm too lazy to change it.

[Tylui]

I'v ebeen doing a lot of 6x2s recently...  Weird, eh?

[Dakk]

i like areas bigger then 6x6, i just like to have a large areas to mess in and carve/ctonstruct.
And big areas with HFS are fun to explore.

My comp can handle them fine with partial print on, as long there isn't some huge aquifer around.

[Sutremaine]

About twelve tiles, though I might go a couple higher if there's something particularly cool I can get. No more than fifteen, unless there's a lot of desert on the map.

[sneakey pete]

4*4 is nice for me... however, i still run out of space sometimes (especially in relic rags where my fort was only 2 z levels high and spread out a LOT.)

[Flaede]

I'm greedy and want HFS, Magma, underground water and something... I have yet to find all that in less than a 4x4. and usually not until a 6x6.

oh. and sand. I'd give up HFS and underground water (&trees) for glassworks.

[Strife26]

I like small. I try for 3 x 3 when first searching. Then I look for a 4x4 with my features. At 8 x 8 I regen the world.

[Untelligent]

I usually won't go bigger than 5x5 or 6x4, but I'll definitely go smaller than that if the stuff I want is all right next to each other.