|
Author
|
|
Topic: Maps and historically accurate |  |
|
BRENNANonTHEmoor
Settler
croton,NY, Westchester
Feb 2001
|
 |
posted February 02, 2001 00:19
  | 
 |
 |  |
Civ III- should have a map of our world like in civ II. The World map should be bigger for instance in japan or England you could only fit two maybe three cities. Also I would like Civ III to have a historically accurate civs. example the Mongols are very aggressive, Russians are expansionist, Germans are nationalist, Warlike... Lastly you can draw out your border. so although you dont have a city say in iceland you can still claim that as your countries land, thus any military or otherwise action on that land such as a settler building a cities is forbidden under a tready.
|
Anatolia
Chieftain
Andong, South Korea
Nov 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 06:01
 |
|
| |
I think it's going to be difficult to have an accurate world map. It would have to be so big that it might take forever to play a game. Depends on your computer, I suppose. Personally, I like playing on a large size map of a small geographical area. This, to me, is a more realistic scale. For example, a map of the Fertile Crescent with the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, the swamps surrounding them, and one civilisation being the Babylonians, another the Assyrians, and so on. |
Yog-Sothoth
Warlord
Trondheim, Norway
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 07:13
 |
|
| |
I for one likes the world map very much, and the more detailed the better. I don't think the maps will be a problem however, since they probably will have plenty of good maps and hopefully a great map editor shipped with the game. |
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 07:23
|
|
| |
The World Map is my favorite, and although I was greatly disappointed when I discovered that what I took to be the south end of Italy turned out to be Europe itself in my first Civ I session; I got used to the world maps of both Civs, and am hopeful for a slightly more realistic one in Civ III, keeping in mind the improvement from Civ I to Civ II. |
The Viceroy
Chieftain
London, Great Britain
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted February 02, 2001 10:42
|
|
| |
I love the world map .. but also find the size of Britain and Japan to small .. I actually think maps should be as large as your memory allows, or as small as the user wishes (with the level of detail being reduced for smaller maps) .. The speed of tech advance and economic output should also be user defined at the start of a game (without creating a scenario) .. or defaulted to size of map (so absolutly huge map, has very very slow science, and very slow production) .. User selection though is the key.. Some people like short quick games on small maps, other like me love a game that seems to go on forever, with maps so large ... it really is a big deal to cross the atlantic.------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 11:04
|
|
| |
A more detailed world map is a must. I love playing on world maps ... and the bigger the better. |
Vrank Prins
Chieftain
Haarlem, Netherlands
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 12:14
|
|
| |
First this ....
quote:
Originally posted by BRENNANonTHEmoor on 02-02-2001 12:19 AM
. . . Also I would like Civ III to have a historically accurate civs. example the Mongols are very aggressive, Russians are expansionist, Germans are nationalist, Warlike. . . .
|
. . . . .
historically accurate ???????????????
I have never liked this kind of stereotyping of CIV's. Depending on from which side you're looking at things, these things can be said from either the british or the americans too (or the dutch if you want to !. I've seen indonesian movies about the colonial period, we're definitely the bad guys there). quote:
Civ III- should have a map of our world like in civ II. The World map should be bigger, for instance in japan or England you could only fit two maybe three cities.
|
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES I would love that.
|
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 17:09
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by BRENNANonTHEmoor on 02-02-2001 12:19 AM
The World map should be bigger for instance in japan or England you could only fit two maybe three cities.
|
Before dreaming about worldmaps there England (or Japan) alone, can harbour 10-15+ cities - keep in mind two important things: - The AI can only handle max 6-8 simultaneously playing AI-civs, because of sharply increasing and quickly insurmountable math-crunching AI-technical reasons. 6-8 civs on such a huge scale 500 x 320 sized map (for example), means civs surrounded with lots of no-mans-land, and very long waiting-times before diplomatic contacts with everyone can be established. - Is it fun moving around units on such gigantic 500 x 320 sized maps? Heres a comparison: 120 x 80 = 9600 tiles (large Civ-2 map)
500 x 320 = 160000 tiles (16.66 times  more tiles to uncover). Well, happy uncovering all the unknown land in search of those elusive 6-8 AI-civs, thats what I say.  ANATOLIA quote:
"Personally, I like playing on a large size map of a small geographical area. This, to me, is a more realistic scale. For example, a map of the Fertile Crescent with the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, the swamps surrounding them, and one civilisation being the Babylonians, another the Assyrians, and so on. Yes, if any particular minor part of our world is suppose to fit 50+ (or more) cities; thats really the only realistic way to go about it.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 02, 2001).] |
Bubba
Chieftain
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 17:34
|
|
| |
As I mentioned in another thread an easy way to get more cities in smaller areas such as UK, Japan or the Netherlands without needing gigantic maps is to shrink the city radius.In Colonization, for example, the city radius was only one square around the city. This allowed for a decent amount of cities, that did not overlap and which could be in historically accurate places without a map much larger than the Civ II world map. For example, it was feasible to have Montreal, Boston, NY, Toronto Philadelphia and Washington in more or less the correct places without overlap. Just a thought. |
Joseph
Chieftain
Napa, Ca. USA
Feb 2000
|
|
posted February 02, 2001 17:35
|
|
| |
If a city is going to be 21 tiles (Civ 2) than 200 by 200 Should be a good size map. However if the cities are going to be like CTP 2 (71 tiles) than we will need some maps 250 X 250 or bigger. I also voter for realistic Planet Earth maps.------------------
|
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 03, 2001 05:18
|
|
| |
What about the distribution of resources? If a big map means a smaller city radius, then, unlike civ I and II, the cities won't be allowed to make use of more resources around them, and become dependent only on the grasslands, or mountains, etc. I believe this is another reason why a BIG map of the Earth (where the resources are more or less determined) is inapplicable. Still, I am expecting at least a better looking earth in any way, since Civ II has improved Civ I's map greatly, and I think we have reason to demand Civ III of similar improvements. |
Lord_Davinator
Settler
Kathmandu, Nepal
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted February 03, 2001 06:46
 |
|
| |
A world map and a good accurate and big one is an absolute must. The expanding city idea of CTP 2 is also worth adding. As for historical accuracy. The leader should define that... alexander-aggresive...etc.. you know. but how about getting leaders to change thier behavior at times for a nation can have all kinds of leaders some are expansionist..some are peaceloving... |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 03, 2001 07:13
|
|
| |
It is actually fun to play on massive maps. I got Julius' Brezandas "no limits" mod, which allows maps larger than 31 000 tiles and yes the game takes a little longer, but is more fun than on smaller maps. The AI also seems to be doing no worse than it usually does - no difference there. |
tniem
Warlord
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted February 03, 2001 13:38
|
|
| |
Seems like if maps are going to be made much larger, then unit movement must increase at a similar ratio to speed the game up. Otherwise conquest will be impossible, which in some ways is probably a good thing. |
Vrank Prins
Chieftain
Haarlem, Netherlands
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 05, 2001 07:03
|
|
| |
Though everybody is talking about maps here, there's one more thing I would like to say about characterizing CIV's here.
Why not make a serie of characterprofiles which can be randomly given by the computer to the opponent CIV's your playing against. In that way you'll never know what your up against at the start of the game. Castro, leader of the cubans may turn out to be biggest capitalist there is, and Dubya, leader of the americans, the one who's making cigars and doing creative things with them. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
