26-02-2000 03:18									#1
	Map Size Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've searched everywhere and can't find anything on the acutal size of the map, not pixelwise, but the number of tiles or atleast the size in surface area (assuming tiles are still 100km). I'm just looking for an ordinary map. I need this for the Wonders and Achievements model.

	26-02-2000 04:01									#2
	Put an end to popups!

I have made a proposition about this stuff in the Clash scales thread. I think you can use it since I've had no complaints about the numbers involved.

What are you planning to do with that information? I can't see where it is useful for wonders.
[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 25, 2000).]

	26-02-2000 05:13									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

LGJ:

The nominal values we are going with are 60mi (100km) on a side squares with a map that is 320x200. For scenarios, or base on our decisions this will/may change.

	26-02-2000 13:22									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Mark: This 320x200 size, is it based on any calculations, or is it arbitrary?

When I made my post about scales, I based my normal map dimensions on the real dimensions of the Earth globe. Is there anything wrong with my calculations?

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

	27-02-2000 10:56									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm using this mainly for natural wonders because there should only be so many per size of the world and i'd like to base it off the size of this world since there are considered a standard of 7 and a few more (which will be of slightly lower levels) for ~15-20 total, only 1 being in the ocean, but that's not too important. Its just that 320x200 with a 60mi/100km size per square won't really do for this.

	28-02-2000 00:07									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Axi:

Sorry, I had forgotten completely about your previous post. Your "normal" sizeof 280x120 seems reasonable. And as you say it's less arbitrary than the scale I stated. As we get more of the computational guts into the game, we will be better able to assess whether even this size is too large for the "normal" map or not. It's just an awful lot of squares, and some things in the AI increase super-linearly with the number of squares.

LGJ:

Well I don't know exactly what you are saying. For now you should use the number that axi presented for a normal size map, 280x120. If you want just to have an idea of land area it's fairly safe to take 30% of the map area. If that's not what you are asking for that you're going to have to restate what it is you need.

	10-08-2000 20:10									#7
	Got spare money?

Was just playing around with some new enhancements last night (*very* early stages, haven't uploaded them yet), but it got me thinking about this topic (trade between civs lead to general thinking about mapsize).

Should the basic gamemap include the entire world? For 90% of the game, civs won't be able to cross an ocean. So unconnected continents will be completely unused, and processing time will be used to compute values for a civ/civs that no one will see until the very end.

That seems like such a waste.

I think the basic game should be just one connected landmass. We can have an 'extended' game that could include other continents, for players that want to run thru 5,500 game turns/years before exploring the 'new world'.

Or, alternatetly, unconnected landmasses could have some routine that generates pop/civ/etc info when they are first 'discovered' -- would that suit?

	10-08-2000 23:33									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

F_Smith:

Just because the player won't be over on the other continent, doesn't mean other civs won't. And who knows, perhaps that other continent might start trying to conquer and colonizing you before you got a chance to start out on your quest across the world. You can't have that if there is nothing going on over there.

	10-08-2000 23:48									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Lordy:

But the technology to cross an ocean will not likely come about until at *minimum* 5000+ years into the game. Just thought ya'll might consider that, since it will be wasted cpu time until the tech to cross the ocean is developed by someone.

	11-08-2000 00:00									#10
	Tired of ads?

Umm i suppose you're going by Christorpher Columbus? I know Lief Erikson crossed it much earlier. Also there's now hard core evidence that says the romans crossed the ocanes and visited the americas. They've found some Roman artifacts in tombs sealed since about 500 BCE that are definatly roman in origin (make of them is definiatly roman as one is the bust of a roman warrior and another has some lettering on it, ie Latin).

So crossing oceans might not be so late in the game.

	11-08-2000 00:28									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Lordy:

Columbus would have been 1492, about 5,500 years into the game. Ericson was what, about a hundred years earlier? (I may be wrong, someone help me there?). I'll even give you back to 1000 a.d./c.e.. But certainly no earlier, at least in an organized, deliberate voyage.

The Romans, Egyptians, Phoenecians, whomever, may all have had individual ships *accidentally* cross the ocean once or twice. I've seen supposed evidence of all these (Thor Hyerdall, the Kontiki, all that stuff, not to mention the 'Quetzacoatl' stories).

But there was not a single recorded attempt to seriously try this by any govt that I am aware of. In no way could they maintain communications. It would have been a one-off deal, almost certainly by mistake.

And most imporantly, how often in playing this game will the technology be available to cross the ocean before about 1000 a.d.? And 1000 is being *v e r y* generous, agreed?

Oh, well, just a thought.

	11-08-2000 00:43									#12
	Increase Your PM Length

It depends on the circumstances....if its realtively similar to how earth developed, well it'll be within 1500 CE +- 500 years, but circumstances can vary. A small island nation that had developed the ability to cross oceans early on could've done so long before.

Also you're forgetting the other side of the globe, specifically China who developed the capasity and sustained the capasity of ocean cossing thoughout most of the Pacific for about 100 years till one of the Emperors told them to destroy all the ships because they considered themselves the best nation in the world so why trade with barabarians?

Anyway i think it needs to be started atleast as soon as someone has developed the technology to do so.

	11-08-2000 01:03									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think we should limit the game to one landmass, but it is a good idea to ignore things until the player sees them (whatever time that may happen to be).

This is something of a wild idea, but it might be possible and if it works it could help the game detail:

Could we start with a smaller square size and rescale the map after the civ gets big? Perhaps the game could start with 25 km squares and have the map cover one sixteenth of the world. This would mean that young, small civs could be covered in a lot of detail.

When the civ learns about areas beyond the map boundaries, the map is resized. The area that was previously four squares would become one square. The squares would have side lengths of 50 km and one fourth of the world would be covered.

When the civ outgrows thus map, the process is repeated so the map has 100 km squares and shows all of the world.

Is something like that feasable?

	11-08-2000 03:03									#14
	Suffering from ads?

I love the idea.

Yes, it's very do-able. The OO design is already laid out to allow the player scale up or down, and play at a variety of levels.

Did you ever play the old KOEI game 'Ghengis Khan'? You first played the 'Mongolia' game, in which you had to unite (conquer) all the provinces of one country. Then, when you finished, you went to the 'world' map and played that country and try to conquer the world.

I love this idea. The scale of the map can be tied to the size of the 'known world'.

Good thinking.

	11-08-2000 04:18									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I played Gengis Khan, it was a lot of fun. Until you figured out how to beat the AI that is...

I agree strongly with LGJ on how much of the world should be 'active'. IMO you just can't ignore the whole rest of the world until the player finds it. For one thing, all worlds will not look like the earth! Also, I'm not so sure that we can generate a world that looks as though it evolved similar to the player's part of the world from scratch when we need it.

	11-08-2000 06:41									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I thought we had already planned on routines that would generate a world at any starting time. (If you wanted to jump in at 1500 AD, the game would generate a world/scenario for you.)

	11-08-2000 06:52									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Richard:

I was afraid that someone would point that out But I still think that the games that start at 1500 will look noticeably different from the ones that have evolved to 1500 through actually being played. I freely admit I may be wrong... we're just too far away from having actually done it to be sure.

	11-08-2000 12:34									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Here's the problem with that though....

Since most worlds will not look like earth in any way/shape or form (well aside form the tiles themselves ), who can say what how a civilization elvolved over time instantly? I mean just look at our world at around say 1000 BCE and 1000 CE... things evolved differntly in some areas, some faster than others and in differnt ways. Also you wouldn't be able to do a situation like playing the aztecs from the dawn of time and having the europeans come by and start attacking your land before you ever know of europe!

This is why i think we should keep track of the whole world, although the display doesn't haveto be worried about being refreshed for unknown parts.

BTW played Genghas Khab II...its a cool game for what it is...one of the better war/strategy games out there, except like mark said, the AI.

	12-08-2000 09:23									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What I am seeing here is that the scaling idea can be done without too much trouble, but people don't want it for the default game. I understand why it might not be good for it to be the default setting, but I still think it should be an option if implementing it won't be too much work. I would love the high precision available at the start of the game.

By the way, it would be possible to include outside influences. The scaling process could automatically activate at a certain time if the player was not advancing fast enough. Then the newly created civs could be more advanced than the player's.

	13-08-2000 13:38									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Not really getting into the game aspect of this, but there is considerable evidence that many cultures crossed the oceans in ancient times. There are too many sources to name, but as one example, the Olmecs stand out...to the extreme! If you look at all Olmec sculptures they are all obviously African in origin..., but all Olmec sculptures are on the western half of South America, before the Panama Canal made crossing the Americas easy! Just something to consider when deciding whether or not to model the whole world from the start or just a part of it.