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).

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...)

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.

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

harpo

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.

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 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."

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.

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.

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

The smaller, the bloodier !