|
Author
|
Topic: maps Current Date/Time:
May 07, 2000 22:25:32
|
OrangeSfwr
Warlord
Pennsylvania
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted April 14, 2000 18:43
   | 
 |
 |  |
Rival civs should be more anxious to trade maps with you. In Civ2 there was a very predictable pattern that with peaceful civs you had to get them to an "Enthusiastic" state to trade maps, and allies had to be at the "Cordial" state. I feel this is ridiculous. Other Civs (in the beginning of the game) should be dying to see your part of the world. I mean now a days certain civs may not want to trade maps for fear of being exposed but around 1200-1600 AD, exploration was key! I feel this should be represented better in Civ 3------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
|
Gord McLeod
Chieftain
Georgetown, Ontario, Canada
Mar 2000
|
|
posted April 14, 2000 19:22
 |
|
| |
Yeah, it's frustrating when you can't get access to the maps of other civilizations when by rights they should be just as eager to trade maps as you are. That seems to be less of an issue in SMAC, a moderate issue in Civ2, and a major issue in Civ:CTP. I'd like to see Civ3 deal with it at least as well as SMAC does, and preferably better.One other thing that might be interesting is to add in some uncertanty factors when you trade maps, particularly in the earlier eras of the game. In the espionage threads, people are calling for inaccuracy on the data you get from spies and other covert operatives... well, I would like to see inaccuracies in maps as well. Not gross mistakes, but I think it would add more to the exploratory side of the game if when you trade maps you get something closer to an outline of coasts and major terrain features (large plains, forests, mountain ranges, etc) rather than detailed at-the-moment-of-trade knowledge of what every square is like. You'd still have plenty of incentive to explore but you'd at least have a good idea of where to go. |
OrangeSfwr
Warlord
Pennsylvania
Feb 2000
|
|
posted April 16, 2000 19:49
|
|
| |
Very good idea, I like it. Along with it, I think Maggelans expedition should give you the knowledge of all ocean squares instead of the little addition in sea travel. I think it makes more sense with the wonder. ------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
|
Earthling7
Chieftain
Square 74, 127
Jul 1999
|
|
posted April 17, 2000 08:47
|
|
| |
Talk about Maggie. I agree, it shouldn't propel ships for centuries to come, even after Apollo. How about this: building the wonder gives you 3-4 virtual ships which explore the oceans. They would do it in the same manner as regular ships, but you would have very limited control over them, if any. That way, it would eventually have given you a good idea of the oceans of the world.Seems more realistic than a "**poof** - here are all the world's oceans" approach... ------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768 |
OrangeSfwr
Warlord
Pennsylvania
Feb 2000
|
|
posted May 03, 2000 21:49
|
|
| |
Well I see your point how you wouldn't want all ocean squares to be revealed, but I don't agree with your idea about the virtual ships. What about something more user defined. Like you can click somewhere on the map and have that entire area (any square within 10 of where you clicked) revealed. Something so you're a part of the exploration. I'm really not sure but I greatly dislike the ship bonus. It's really not accurate. I also think your explorers should recieve some kind of special ability as well. Not sure what though. ------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
|
Biddles
Warlord
Stratford, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted May 03, 2000 22:00
|
|
| |
Gord McLeod: Yes, map inaccuracy, an idea I have had everytime I swap a map in a game. Even more, if I have a city devoted totally to research (for example, this would be my 'Area 51') Than I might consider it useful to delete this city from any maps I trade. After all it wouldn't do to have them know that if they take this city, half of my research production goes with it.
------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
|
Adm.Naismith
Warlord
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
|
posted May 04, 2000 09:32
|
|
| |
Biddles, keep cities hidden is not very common in history, nor realistic IMHO.Please note:
1) on Civ model only main cities are reproduced (I mean, I can't imagine a world of only a hundred cities), where most likely any "Area 51" site doesn't include too much people. 2) Also most secret area in the world are know for many years (we don't know exactly about USSR cosmodromes or Nuclear place, still we knew they existed. Of course you can argue that we don't know what is still unknow  but that's X-Files script. I agree it can be more secret what really happens in town, where SMAC infiltrate datalink model is so powerful to be unrealistic and wandering spies too much powerful or too ridiculous, but that's another thread: espionage. ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
general_charles
Chieftain
Brussels Belgium
Apr 2000
|
|
posted May 04, 2000 09:40
|
|
| |
Perhaps there could be an option with spies, they can either try to get the maps of pay to have the, pay someone that works in the government to get them and therefore risk little... But I think that there could also be 3 different types of unknown terrain, one where you know there is land and one where you know there is sea and one where you really don't know. These terrains will be automatically shared with allies while the precise map will stay the same. But why not have two options when you exchange maps, one with only terrain and cities, and the other with full military details that only your allies are willing to give? |
mwaf
Chieftain
Helsinki, Finland
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 04, 2000 09:57
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Biddles on 05-03-2000 10:00 PM
Even more, if I have a city devoted totally to research (for example, this would be my 'Area 51') Than I might consider it useful to delete this city from any maps I trade. After all it wouldn't do to have them know that if they take this city, half of my research production goes with it.
|
I like the idea, however, this isn't tactically very smart, especially if the area you removed is in a region that you most likely explored as it would look suspicious not to have that part of the map and drag attention. And if you would try to get round this by removing useless parts of the as well the player (or AI) you exchanged the map with probably wouldn't want the exchange a map full of holes with you again (in multiplayer and in single player if the AI is smart enough). In my opinion, you should be able to remove city size info, maybe even road/railroad info or trade the map with only the terrain. Also, you can read my opinion on maps and what MapMaking really should be here.
|
Biddles
Warlord
Stratford, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted May 06, 2000 05:13
|
|
| |
Adm.Naismith: A good point, but there have been 'mythical' cities throughout history. Admittedly it hasn't happened that a major european city has remained hidden, but that's not to say that it couldn't be done. Maybe this would only be possible under a police state, where you could build the city into a cave system and ban everyone from going outside except on important buisiness. THis would of course get harder as tech increased. Besides, it is going to remain hidden if nobody goes near that area.I do like the idea of altering what goes on there though. mwaf: That is why we would only delete the city and it's terrain improvements, we would still tell them that it is open grassland, just leaving out the part that it is occupied.
------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
|
general_charles
Chieftain
Brussels Belgium
Apr 2000
|
|
posted May 06, 2000 05:24
|
|
| |
I think that this is actually incorporated in the game civ2 itself, I mean, all governments have secret sites, and they never tell anyone about them, not even their allies, and in civ2, you do not see them but it is understood that you might have some. Besides, if you add too much realism to the game, the first part of it would seem real fast while you will spend half an hour on each turn in the latest parts of the game... |
Stuff2
Chieftain
Sep 1999
|
|
posted May 07, 2000 18:31
|
|
| |
There should be different kinds of maps to be traded. I mean, there are many different things that are mapped and maybe you have some purpose with the knowledge a map gives you. Just beacouse u exchange a map with an ally u don't have to give them your total geographic knowledge.- Land area (and borders)
- Terrain and vegetation map
- climate map
- population map
- Infrastructure
- Special resources
- Military improvements In modern times the only kinds of maps that actually needs to be exchanged is the last two ones. Since a normal geographic map easily can be bought everywhere. |
Biddles
Warlord
Stratford, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted May 07, 2000 22:25
|
|
| |
Okay to show what I was talking about in a different example, using stuff2's maps (which I like by the way):
You and CivX are trading climate maps. You don't really like civX that much and you are pretty sure war is going to break out soon. There is a strait of water that runs from your capital to a CivX beachhead, which would be perfect for a naval invasion if it wasn't so stormy as to sink all ships trying to sail it.
What you do is swap your climate map, but alter it to show that those straits are clean sailing.
In three turns civX launches an attack by way of sea , on you. Unfortunately for civX the fleet is destroyed before it reaches you by storms that they don't know exist.------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
| |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
