 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
cha- CHINGGGGGG
YESSSSSSS
FINALLYYYY
WOHHOOOO
YEAH!!!!
ok im done now
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:14
|
|
Another couple hundreds dollars...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
Way too many, imo.
Even with a larger map, you can't fit 16 civs and their cultural areas without having all them bumping into each other. There would be less room to explore and to grow |
You're joking, right? All there was in Civ II was room. When I would play on the big map size, there was no way for me to fill up a quarter of the available land area, even by 1900, unless I just went all-out to size 1 city building. Also, it will be much more fun to have to interact with other players (or the AI) while at the early stages, rather than the limitless expansion possible in Civ II. This will have the added bonus of reducing the power of set strategies like ICS. ICS only worked because it would take a while to locate other civs. If you have to defend your cities from the get-go, it becomes harder to just stretch out over a huge expanse.
Now territory will become valuable. Look at the modern world. Almost all of its fertile areas are filled with people. India can't just build settlers and expand its borders; Pakistan would probably object. My old CivII games would follow the same pattern: Rush to build forty or fifty cities and explore the map for the first 100 turns or so. Then, improve all my cities while pumping out wonder after wonder (Adam Smith, Michelangelo, J.S. Bach, Leonardo, Magellan, King Richard and Shakespeare would all appear virtually simultaneously). After this, I would still only have constant contact with 1 or 2 civs. Finally, I'd just mop up. If I made the map size too small, I would be hindered more by the other civs, but then it would be too easy to conquer them all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
WOW this is getting a lot of support. i hope it wasn't some kiind of typo or misunderstanding... then we (and firaxis) would be screwed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:14
|
|
Ok, let's figure this one out.
If a large map is 90 x 90, that would be 8100 tiles.
Half of them (hypothetically) would be ocean tiles, so you have about 4000 land tiles.
Each city consists of an average of 17 land tiles and 4 ocean tiles (some more, most less or no ocean tiles). This does not take into effect colonies or cultural area.
Let's say the average Civ has 12 cities.
16 civs with 12 cities each would take up about 3200 land tiles, about 80% of the land area just with cities. That may be accurate for Europe or eastern US, but not for the rest of the world.
Unless there's something wrong with the calculations, 7-9 advanced civs would fill up about half the land tiles and be more accurate (not to mention, more playable, imo) than 16. Playing with the 16 civs option may not be as fun as you think, giving less room or flexibility.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2001 15:24
) but it neglects to mention what happens when you create your own 17th civilisation. Do you have to overwrite one of the originals, pick any 16 or can you then choose to play with 17...?
.
|