 |
|
Henk_Glimlach
|
|
What maps will there be in Civ3. Will there be earth and then i meanHuge World: 180x180 16 Civs , and will europe be in there.
Last edited by Henk_Glimlach on 10-10-2001 at 16:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
El hidalgo
|
|
Hmm, when I first read the latest civ3.com Ask the Civ Team, I thought the reply about map sizes referred to earth maps:
quote:
The default world sizes in Civilization III are as follows:
Tiny World: 60x60 4 Civs
Small World: 80x80 6 Civs
Standard World: 100x100 8 Civs
Large World: 140x140 12 Civs
Huge World: 180x180 16 Civs
You can use the included editor to alter these world sizes, with the ability to create maps up to 256 x 256 in size. |
Now I realize world map != earth map. Darn. I have no doubt there will be at least one earth map -- it's a civ tradition. I still believe they will have maps in all the (five) standard map sizes in Civ 3 -- based on the fact that that's how it was in Civ 2 (though there were only 3 standard sizes). I would bet on there being a Euro map and a Mediterranean map as well, for at least a few of the included scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akron
|
|
The problem with world maps is that places near the equator are shrunk while places near the poles are enlarged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
Britian is a sick cat nowadays, it's as weak as any 3rd world nation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jdd2007
|
 |
Cincinnati
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
quote:quote:
Originally posted by Dida
Britian is a sick cat nowadays, it's as weak as any 3rd world nation.
Try invading. You'd probably fail drastically. Not bad for a 'weak 3rd world nation'. Sometimes some of you Americans are so f**king arrogant that it is incredibly annoying. And you seem baffled as to why other nations dislike you
Anyway, back to the original question. I would expect there would be the standard array of world maps (differing sizes), perhaps some maps of certain areas of the world, I would expect the mediterranean as was the case in civ2, but who knows...we will have to wait and see. But the world maps will almost certainly be in there... |
provost, u r overeacting a little. i agree that some americans r too cocky and arrogant, but europeans tend to stereotype americans as arrogant tourists. i would say that a tiny percentage of americans would fit this description.
personally, i thought Didas comment was funny. it was obviously no where near true. i thought of it as a caricature, whether it was meant as one or not.
anyway, there is deep anti-americanism in many countries. i have experienced it first hand in scotland, england and especially france. right now u r thinking about your quote,
quote:
And you seem baffled as to why other nations dislike you |
what u dont know is that i KNOW why countries dislike us. they dislike us because of our GOVERMENTS arrogance, our tourists arrogance and our way too conservative people...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TVA22
|
|
The european problem referred to is not only experienced with civs there, nor is it a factor of the maps.
It's a factor of the civilization game engine which makes LARGER CIVS ALWAYS BETTER.
As one of my fav civs to play as is the Japanese, I feel for all you out there who like to play the british. I play the Germans quite often too, and they experience the same problem. It sucks so much that to compete in a civ game, you have to leave your home area so early in the game, whereas in real life, these nations were world powers, while still didn't begin expanding until the late indusrial age, earlier by a few centuries for Britian.
Sorry if I seem like a pessimist, but it just doesn't seem feasable to me that the game will favor smaller civs at least fairly with larger ones...you know, give smaller, more compact civs a fighting chance against the larger, sprawling, undeveloped ICS powered ones. (I just don't buy it that the settler thing-2pop points-will solve our problems)
So we will probably have another game where on the real world map the persians or zulus (no offence to anyone who plays them) are the 1st line powers every game, simply because of their room to expand, and Europeans must either take over all of Europe early in the game, eliminating any interesting European wars parallel to real life. Likewise, as the Japanese, I will always have to move away from Japan well within the BC portion of the game, and never be able to be self sufficient (and still competative) on my own territory. . . (sighs)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
El hidalgo
|
|
Well, there are small civs in terms of land area (English, Japanese), and then there are small civs in terms of population (Mongols). So the small land area issue should not be such a problem if Civ can correctly model the effects of trade and increasing agricultural productivity. Japan can support a lot of people even in a small area with very little in the way of natural resources, because of trade. Can you import food in Civ 3, though (on a larger scale than in Civ 2)? That will be the test.
Also, you can get more and more food from less and less land as time goes on, due to increases in productivity and new techs, such as bioengineering. For example, 98% of ancient Egyptians were farmers, whereas only 2% of Americans are today -- and that's supporting a much larger population. Are these effects modeled in Civ 3? You should be able to support a powerful civ with a large population, as the Japanese and English do, in a relatively small area as long as, like these civs in real life, you pursue the right policies (more or less).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2001 16:47
), and Europe (for ww2) but we dont know about others.
). This would make the more populated Europe larger than, say, Africa which currently has two civs (on opposite ends of the continent too) or South America, which has zero civs in it.
|