08-06-2004 00:41									#1
	Professionally, this bugs me about Civ3. Increase Your PM Length

I know it really isn't that important but as a geologist something about Civ3 really bugs me. Do you know the part at the very beginning of the game where you get to choice how old your world will be? In Civ3 the older the world the fewer mountains there are in the world. This is just a total misrepresentation of science. Mountain building occurs as a result of plate tectonics (Ok, hot spot volcanism sometimes helps) and, for the most part, tectonics continues at more or less the same rate through most of the earth's history. Sure, there is a slight slowing as the plant's supply of radioactive isotopes gets used up but that slow down is really small since most radioactive elements have such long half lives.

The real controlling factor is the rate of erosion which has more to do with weather conditions then with the age of the planet. So why the heck did Firaxis tie the amount of topographic relief with the planets age?

	08-06-2004 00:44									#2
	Remove this text

I thought the older the world, the more mountains you get in civ3. I think the reasoning they gave was erosion. I usually choose the middle setting.

But yes, mountain creations is still an ongoing process. Or at least it should be.

Although I can't remember the last time we made a mountain. Mt. St. Helens actually lost elevation when it blew it's top.

And Volcanos such as in Hawaii make more land every day, but not mountainous land. It's at sea level pretty much.

Are there any mountains getting taller?

	08-06-2004 02:36									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It is actually correct to have fewer mountains with an older planet.

Wind and water will erode montains over time. The number of mountains created by plate action could be offset by those lost to it. I am not sure how that is affected.

I would think climate would have a bigger impact. If we have an ice age water is locked up and water levels are lowered. Increase planet temp will raise the ocean levels, covering mountains.

So over all, I do not see a problem with the way they have it now.

	08-06-2004 06:36									#4
	Re: Professionally, this bugs me about Civ3. Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I know it really isn't that important but as a geologist something about Civ3 really bugs me. Do you know the part at the very beginning of the game where you get to choice how old your world will be? In Civ3 the older the world the fewer mountains there are in the world... The real controlling factor is the rate of erosion which has more to do with weather conditions then with the age of the planet. So why the heck did Firaxis tie the amount of topographic relief with the planets age?

I'll take the word of the geologist on this...

	08-06-2004 08:36									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Civ3 is a game, and as such is true to it's own physics engine. It's not going to be a realistic world formation simulation. The map generator only needs one variable to determine 'height', and they chose to label that variable considering erosion over plate tectonics, volcanic activity, cratering, ect.

	08-06-2004 08:50									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I wouldn't be too worried about it

	08-06-2004 10:17									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm not worried about it; just bugged by it.

	08-06-2004 10:21									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dissident Are there any mountains getting taller?

Yes, numerous mountains are getting taller all the time. The Himalayas are getting taller as the Indian sub content smashes into the Asian plate, all of the volcanic hot spots are actively building mountains, and arc volcanoes like Japan or Indonesia are building mountains at a rate which far exceeds the rate of erosion.

	08-06-2004 11:18									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yes, realism isn't a strong point.

I sent out a curragh very early in my chinese empire. He has been at sea for thousands of years. I sailed him all the way around to the tip of Africa (playing 362 X 362 earth map). I can't imagine their loved ones back home liked such a long deployment.

But upon their successful return (I used the goto feature for this- after discovering navigation) they were upgraded to a caravel and sent to discover America.

	08-06-2004 11:59									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Oh well, in 1000 years scientists will have a total new theory on how the mountains developped, and civ3 suddenly is all scientific again.

	08-06-2004 20:08									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dissident yes, realism isn't a strong point. I sent out a curragh very early in my chinese empire. He has been at sea for thousands of years. I sailed him all the way around to the tip of Africa (playing 362 X 362 earth map). I can't imagine their loved ones back home liked such a long deployment. But upon their successful return (I used the goto feature for this- after discovering navigation) they were upgraded to a caravel and sent to discover America.

	08-06-2004 20:45									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

well, they had to offer us three options: less mountains, more mountains and something in the middle. the "age" of the world is just one way to put them as options. perhaps they should rename this to "topography" or something like that.

	08-06-2004 23:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

...or "tectonic activity."

	08-06-2004 23:55									#14
	Remove this text

I think Purple is on the right track ...

But while I never much played with the climate/gegraphy settings, usually sticking to the standard values, I thought the mine effect of chosing a younger world was getting more "lumpy" terrain (ie, big continuous expanses of the same terrain type), and of older getting more mixed terrain?

Wouldn't make any sense either.

	09-06-2004 00:11									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It's both. Younger = more mountains + more clumping, older is the opposite.

I like younger worlds - mountain ranges are cool.

	09-06-2004 20:13									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I thought the world age setting worked more like the older the planet, the terrain would be less homogeneous. So maybe it's not less mountains you are seeing, but less mountain ranges?

	09-06-2004 20:26									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It's less mountain ranges and less mountains.

	10-06-2004 01:32									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It doesn't make any sense either way. Certainly not both!

	10-06-2004 05:20									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bizarre, I thought it was just fairly uniform terrain on the one hand(young), fairly diverse terrain on the other.

	10-06-2004 05:43									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Nope, it has to do with only mountains, AFAIK.

	10-06-2004 06:22									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm... IIRC it's all terrain that clumps more.

	10-06-2004 08:04									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Really? I never knew that.

	10-06-2004 11:11									#23
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Hmm... IIRC it's all terrain that clumps more.

yeah I read that somewhere.

You will find huge mountain ranges and such.

	17-06-2004 10:03									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Am not sure about the actual changes, but my impression was not that there were less mountains with age, just that terrain became more varied. Thus only the smaller areas that were under continual tectonic upheaval would have large mountains, whereas those that formed early and were stable for billennia would have subsided somewhat due to erosion or to buoyancy effects.

Besides, I know that, for a planet like Earth where it is believed earlier in its history was the more tectonically active time, the later you get the more the core has cooled and the less mountain-building you should get. Of course on this planet 5 Billion years has not been enough to slow that rate dramatically, but the idea is the same, even if the exact times involved are a bit less accurate.

Take it from a (former) Geophysicist!

	17-06-2004 11:17									#25
	Suffering from ads?

Realism is definately not a strong point. Hell their model for "global warming" is laughable, especially when nukes cause it rather than causing nuclear winter.

	17-06-2004 18:05									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Imagine the huge quantities of fossil fuels, plastics and chemicals that go into the atmosphere if you exploded a nuke in a populated area.....



Where there's a will, there's an explanation.

	19-06-2004 09:45									#27
	Got spare money?

That age thing bugs me too. The modern form of plate tectonics appeared at the end of the Archean Eon (2.5 billion years ago). Most of our continental crust formed between 3 and 2 billion years ago. before 3 million years ago the earth was a true water world, being dominated by subduction zone island arcs (like japan) and Hawaii-type island chains.

	19-06-2004 21:30									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

The age = mountians is a holdover from the initial version of Civ, i believe. I think, back in the deep recesses of Sid's mind he was thinking of the Disney movie "Fantasia", especially the dinosaur equence in "rite of Spring". Most of us have probably sent his, especially the older people. Very early on in the movement, there is a visual of dozens of volcanoes evrupting at once, as if the whole world was a mountian range. I think because of that and a lot of other childhood visuals in both books and film that we have ingrained in our heads that the distant past was all volcanoes and mountians. Which it really wasn't. There's no real evidence that say in the Devonian or the Late Triassic that there were massive mountian ranges that dwarfed the himilayas, nor was the terrain any more or less diverse. (i suppose an exception might be made for desertification in Pangea)

I will say that when I design my own maps, I do keep a keen eye out for the geology. you can expect to find grasslands on the wet sides of mountains and plains/desert on the dry side. Stuff like that.

	19-06-2004 22:39									#29
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The AC climate model also had its failings (how freaking much water was bound at the poles, really?[/i], but it was alot more interesting.

	20-06-2004 14:22									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The windward side of Mountains being rainier was a nice touch in AC. Prevailing currents increasing/decreasing sailing times and limited weather patterns influencing battlefield conditions could be an interesting couple of inclusions for Civ4, and could be tied into global warming/pollution ideas too.