Hi, folks.

I programmed most of Civ4's randomly generated map scripts.

To assist those who are curious about the maps, I compiled a reference guide, which includes both the technical specs (text) and thumbnail visuals of real instances of the maps (screenshots). If you are curious about what to expect from a given map or any of its custom options, look no further! :)

The map guide is now available here at CFC. CLICK HERE (http://www.civfanatics.net/downloads/civ4/guides/sirians-map-script-guide-v01.zip) to download!
OR you can visit the online version at http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/map_scripts_guide.php

This is a zipped file. You will need to uncompress it.

File size is 6MB! (There are lots of images).

This is your definitive reference materal on the official map scripts.


We are also going to create a Civ4 Reference section on the main site and will add the guide there. Until the section is created we can also make the forum thread sticky.

Also, you may download the map guide and have a look around even if you haven't bought Civ4 yet. Perhaps you will see something that interests you. :cooool:

Happy civving!


- Sirian

Nice, thanks!

Awesome!

Yeah I was really hoping there would be a mouse over (tool tip) info description for each map type but there wasn't- it's just a guess based on the name.

So this helps me big time!

Thanks

Is there any way to have the computer randomly select whether you'll play Continents, Archipelago, Pangaea, etc? Part of the fun of prior Civ games was having no idea what kind of world you'd be in. In Civ 4, it seems you have to pick your general map type off the bat. Yes, you can randomize sea level, climate, etc., but not map type.

I see that the "Custom Game" interface does allow somewhat greater randomizing, but you still have to select a basic map type -- and the number of AI opponents, which again I like to randomize.

Are completely random maps possible?

Is there any way to have the computer randomly select whether you'll play Continents, Archipelago, Pangaea, etc? Part of the fun of prior Civ games was having no idea what kind of world you'd be in. In Civ 4, it seems you have to pick your general map type off the bat. Yes, you can randomize sea level, climate, etc., but not map type.

I see that the "Custom Game" interface does allow somewhat greater randomizing, but you still have to select a basic map type -- and the number of AI opponents, which again I like to randomize.

Are completely random maps possible?


There is no way in the initial release to have the game randomly choose a map script for you. I'm not sure that there ever will be! There is such strong variety and flavor selection, and radical differences between some of the options, that it might do more harm than good.

HOWEVER... I believe that you can have what you are asking for, anyway.

If you play the Tilted Axis map type (it's under Custom game option with the "advanced" maps) and leave the Landmass Size set to random, you will get anything from massive continents to tiny islands. Tilted Axis simulates a world with it's planetary rotational axis tilted over on to its side (so cold runs east to west and the equator runs north to south!) but the climate and other features are pretty close to normal.

You can also get a wide selection of landmass types from Ice Age, but all of them have more arid, colder climates.

The standard Continents map will vary in the number and shape of landmasses.

Custom Continents (advanced map) left on Random number of continents will provide a good variety, too, including some tiny islands (the amount varies) and continents of different number, size and shape.

I would recommend trying Tilted Axis first, though. That is probably closest to what you want.


Happy civving!


- Sirian

very interesting. those terra maps look interesting. so you get all the civs on one continent and a civ-free continent next to it?

I posted this a while back in the Ideas and Suggestions forum. I don't have the game yet, so I haven't looked at the map scripts to see what it would take to do this. Can you pass arbitrary parameters to a map script, perhaps with a handy UI for selecting options?

The map generator should have a more parameters to control what sort of world you get. They should broaden pangaea/continents/archipelago to be a rough number of landmasses. With a 100x100 map, you could have up to 2450 separate 1 tile landmasses (which would be stupid, but you could do it), assuming the poles are bounded by water. With a 400x400 map, you could have up to 15800. Together with the ocean coverage parameter, that would effectively determine the average landmass size.

You need more than just average, though. I would also like to see a parameter for variation in size of the landmasses. One end of the spectrum would be for all landmasses to be the same size. The other end would be for the landmasses to be from 1 tile to whatever, as long as the total number and land coverage were within the specified parameters. That way, you could end up with a map that has one Eurasia and half a dozen medium-sized archipelagos, with the average landmass size being of a South America. Or you could have 8 landmasses from the size of Madagascar to the size of Africa. Or you could have 12 continents all the size of Australia.

I'd also like to see a parameter to control distance between landmasses. This value would have to be constrained by the choices of landmass number and size. You'd have choices like Really Close, where all landmasses are separated by only one coast tile, or Really Far, where all landmasses are separated by 20 tiles of ocean (on average). Perhaps this could be expressed instead as a number of landmass groups. Africa and Europe are separate continents (well, let's pretend they are), but they're in the same group, as they're only separated by what would be a tile or two in Civ. Landmass groups are separated by lots of ocean, while continents within a group might only be separated by a tile of coast.

Since I'm on the subject, perhaps there could be shape parameters. Are the continents like Africa, which has relatively convex? Or do they have all kinds of weird dangly projections like East Asia? Are they long and thin or short and compact? This is a little less fully baked, though.

very interesting. those terra maps look interesting. so you get all the civs on one continent and a civ-free continent next to it?
But when you get to the civ free continent, you'll find barbarian cities with axmen and swordmen. :eek:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/thumbsup.jpg
Thanks Syrian!!

Sweet stuff Syrian :goodjob:

Wow... this makes my agony even worse that I have to wait until the 4th. That terra map looks very promising. Two thumbs up. :goodjob:

Hiya Sirian, before I go and check out your info, I was wondering if you could put one particular rumour to bed 'once and for all'? A number of people are saying that maps are smaller than their civ3 counterparts so-as someone with first-hand experience with Civ4 maps, can you tell us what the size of a Standard and Huge Civ4 map are, and what a similar sized Civ3 map is by comparison? It would just be so nice to tell those 'nay-sayers' "I told you so" ;) :p.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Map grid sizes (actual dimensions of the maps produced by each script) are part of the technical info listed in the Map Guide.

So please, Aussie! HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL! No more questions until you get the guide and check it out. Then I'll take your questions. :D


- Sirian

Hiya Sirian. Sorry for being such a pest, but take some solace in knowing that it is simply a reflection of how much I respect and value your thoughts and opinions ;)!
Anyway, I have checked out the details and the bulk of the maps seem to be in the vicinity of 84x52 for standard maps, with the largest-Terra-being 104x64 at standard size. Given that we know Terra is much larger than maps of the equivalent size in Civ3-and given that the Terra Map is only 20x12 tiles larger than a standard civ4 map-then I think it is reasonably fair to say that, at the standard map size at least, the map sizes are not very different between civ3 and civ4 (in spite of what people may think!)
I seem to recall that map sizes were mentioned in the release party chat log, so I might go there to confirm. However, does my inference sound correct to you Sirian-based on the info I have put forward?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

OK, went away and did some very fast and dirty calculations based on info gleaned from the release party chatlog-and this is what I came up with.
The maximum map size in Civ3 was 128x80 plots in size. In Civ4, the maximum map size (Huge Terra) is apparently around 128x160 (much wider-can you confirm Sirian?) So, given the size difference of a standard 'Continents' map compared to a standard Terra map, I have concluded that a huge Continents map would be somewhere in the order of 104x130 plots. A little smaller in height, but more than compensated for in width. I admit these calculations of mine could be wrong but-if correct-it really does seem to put paid to this myth that Civ4 maps are significantly smaller than their civ3 counterparts.
Your Honour, I REST MY CASE ;) :p!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

You can't compare the grids directly. Civ4 grids are a normal rectangle, but Civ3 grids were running along the diagonals.

Civ3 Grids:
(Duel did not exist - N/A)
60*60 - Tiny
80*80- Small
100*100 - Standard
130*130 - Large
160*160 - Huge

HOWEVER, due to the odd math of the diagonal grids, you have to multiply the two dimensions then divide by two to get the total number of plots.

Compare to the stars on a USA flag, whose "grid dimensions" by Civ3 terms would be 11*9. That equals 99, but in reality there are 50 stars. (99/2)


Civ4 Grids have no odd math. Multiply the width times height for total plots.


Civ3 maps - plot count:
(Duel did not exist - N/A)
1800 - Tiny
3200 - Small
5000 - Standard
8450 - Large
12800 - Huge

Civ4 oceanic maps - plot count:
960 - Duel
1664 - Tiny (But has three civs default instead of four)
2560 - Small (But has five civs instead of six)
4368 - Standard (Seven civs instead of eight)
6656 - Large (Nine civs instead of twelve)
10240 - Huge (Eleven civs instead of sixteen)

So as you can see, the actual sizes -are- smaller, but the per-civ amount of land area is not. In most cases, it's larger. You can add or subtract civs to your desire, though. (In Civ3, you could subtract, but not add beyond the cap without modding).

The per-civ number is the real deal. That's the one that determines how much land will tend to be available. Like in Civ3, you can affect this by raising or lowering the sea level.

The Terra map is the only one out of the box that is BIGGER than the Civ3 equivalents.

TERRA map - Civ4 - plot totals:
1664 - Duel - 832/civ!
2560 - Tiny - 853/civ!
4368 - Small - 873/civ!
6656 - Standard - 950/civ!
10240 - Large - 1137/civ!
14592 - Huge - 1326/civ!


So here is the raw data for Huge maps

Civ3 - 12800 total - 800/civ for 16 civs
Civ4 - 10240 total - 931/civ for 11 civs
Terra - 14592 total - 1326/civ for 11 civs

You could run a Terra map with EIGHTEEN civs and still have more plots per civ in the world than you did with a huge Civ3 map with max (16) civs. :eek:


If players crave huge maps, they have them. Folks can make more maps like Terra if they want.


But here's the real rub. That "plots per civ" stat can be misleading. This is on worlds with mostly ocean. The actual number of usable plots in Civ3 was a lot less, and so it is in Civ4 on ocean.


The land-heavy maps have little water on them. They are a different ball of wax.

A Huge Civ3 map has 12800 total plots, but at 70% water, that is only 3840 land plots! A huge Highlands map in Civ4 has over 6000 land plots. The 3840 land plots on a Civ3 huge map would be divided between sixteen civs. The 6000 land plots for Highlands in Civ4 is divided by only eleven civs, unless you add more.

So the land per civ in Civ3 "Huge" is 240/civ, not counting coastal waters.
Highlands land per civ in Civ4 "Huge" is 545/civ!


OK? Does that put this issue to bed for keeps? I could BARELY CONTAIN MYSELF from violating my confidentiality agreement when I was stuck sitting there watching the rumor mill churn on this issue. Barry Caudill's remarks were not inaccurate, but they were pulled out of context. Some map types in Civ4 -are- smaller, but some are bigger - WAY WAY bigger in actual game balance terms. Way bigger.

I don't want to hear any more gripes about "smaller" map sizes. Truly I do not! Just talk to the hand on that one. Or better yet, check out the map guide and play some games on the options that allow for empires of sizes undreamt of in Civ3.

Modders can script new map types and do pretty much anything with them, including maps that would make Terra look like a shrimp. Of course, you might need to network a few mainframes to play an absurdly gargantuan map, but you can try it. If you can live with the performance level you get, then have at it!


The idea that players are "stuck" on "smaller maps" is completely unfounded! :smoke:

And just as Terra is the playground for "I want huge enormous SP games", Team Battleground is the playground for "I want to play MP games in a sardine can and get right in to the action!"

You can have what you want in Civ4. :cooool:


Happy Civving!


- Sirian

Thank you so much for that excellent analysis Sirian. Hearing this from you completely clarifies any existing questions I may have had regarding map size. What always bugged me with all the rumours, though, was this constant claim that it was a 'design decision' of 'we want 3D, so map sizes will have to shrink to allow for it'. I always questioned and challenged this particular element of the rumour, as it just never seemed to hold water. When I first heard how big the Terra maps were (even just in raw height and width) I felt that this should finally dispel that rumour once and for all. After all, if it was all a memory/graphics issue, then bigger map sizes should have been impossible to achieve-PERIOD. Anyway, like you I truly hope that this matter can be put to rest once and for all, as even with 16 civs on the map, 1200 plots less really doesn't sound like that big a deal at all!
Anyway, thanks again Sirian, I always appreciate the time you take to answer my MANY annoying queries-you're a CHAMP (BTW, I hope you're having heaps of fun playing the game-you've earned it ;)!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Thank you very very much, Sirian. This saves me from having to try each map type for myself, and find out that some of them aren't all that great for single player. Terra maps actually crash my system when more of it opens up... and I like to think I've got a pretty good system...

Finally got the game yesterday and played for 10 hours straight... lol.. haven't done that with civ in years.. and I am loving it... You guys all did such an outstanding job. Thank you so much for all your long hours of work and please take some reward by knowing how much pleasure you will be giving so many for a long time to come..

and please take some reward by knowing how much pleasure you will be giving so many for a long time to come..

Yeah, or some reward in how much sheer frustration you have caused those people who still have over 5 days left to get the game, but who want it in their hands NOW!!!!! ;) :)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If you play the Tilted Axis map type (it's under Custom game option with the "advanced" maps) and leave the Landmass Size set to random, you will get anything from massive continents to tiny islands. Tilted Axis simulates a world with it's planetary rotational axis tilted over on to its side (so cold runs east to west and the equator runs north to south!) but the climate and other features are pretty close to normal.
That's close to what I want, yes. Will this option include a possible Pangaea? Part of the fun for me is not knowing in advance whether I'll need to research Sailing at all. Also, if I use the custom options, don't I have to pick the number of AI Civs manually, which again removes some randomness?

What I really want is simply for the computer, not me, to make the first choice in the "Play Now" menu -- without telling me what was chosen. In other words, add a radio button to that first menu that says "Random Map Type." Then when I click "next," you secretly choose a map type for me, and meld that with whatever remaining parameters I choose on Sea Level, Climate, and Map Size. I would think that wouldn't require all that much programming, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

As you say, there's tons of fabulous Civ goodness here anyway. :p But I do miss that sense of being completely in the dark about where I'm starting.

Yes it can give you a pangaea. Try it. :)

"Modders can script new map types and do pretty much anything with them, including maps that would make Terra look like a shrimp. Of course, you might need to network a few mainframes to play an absurdly gargantuan map, but you can try it. If you can live with the performance level you get, then have at it!"

That really peaks my interest. I'm not sure if you've ever read any Orson Scott Card (I hear he can be a real Civ addict if he lets himself), but in one of his books - The Worthing Saga (actually a combination of several "books"), there is a Civ type game that people are playing that more or less mimics controlling a country in history to see if you can do better job than say...Alexander the Great did (part of me wonders if he got this idea from...Civ?). Anyway, if map size technically isn't an issue (assuming processing power isn't an issue), that almost sounds like it could be possible to use Civ IV as a MMO - if you could find a company willing to pony up the processing power, and if there was some way to mod in more Civs and that combined with people being able to "hotseat" in and out of the multiplayer games...Oh the possibilities!:drool:
Although I'm sure Civ Anon :help: commercials could suddenly become true "I said I didn't get up..." & "I thought I was able to handle the power...":eek:

I had the continents one generate the same terrain (different resource locations) two games in a row earlier :eek: I wonder what the odds of that are ;)

I'm not sure if you've ever read any Orson Scott Card (I hear he can be a real Civ addict if he lets himself), but in one of his books - The Worthing Saga (actually a combination of several "books"), there is a Civ type game that people are playing that more or less mimics controlling a country in history to see if you can do better job than say...Alexander the Great did


I was thinking of Azad in Iain M. Banks's "Player of Games." OSC had one good book. Banks has... well, a lot.

And I just got that same map again :undecide: Kind of takes the fun out of a game when you've played the map twice already.

And I just got that same map again :undecide: Kind of takes the fun out of a game when you've played the map twice already.

I've not seen anything like that, but I'll look in to it.

I have not noticed starting out on the same maps; I did find that my first 2 games i was stationed next to the same 2 civs, America(me) with Spanish, and Malinese on one continent. This was a standard 7 civs continent map and the map generator made 3 continents. I'm hoping the same civs don't get paired up, hopefully just coincidence.

On another note, is there a reason Whale resources are generated very seldom? For example, I have played quite a few Pangaea maps and I have not seen ANY whale. The only maps I have seen whale are on Continent maps with a total of maybe 2-3 in the whole world(which is fine I guess). But a huge Pangae map should have a few too. I'm assuming every map generated should come with at least one of every resource?

Oh and while I was testing the whale thing I noticed a few instances where a Pangaea map generated 2-3 small continents away from the main land(seperated by a few ocean squares). This happened twice.

I'm assuming every map generated should come with at least one of every resource?

Not necessarily. Quantities of resources are affected by the number of plots with terrain that could support them.

Pangaeas have less coastal and near-land ocean than any other oceanic map type, so they will tend to have less sea-based resources, and the areas where they would appear may get "hogged up" by other resources types, too. Plus, yes, they are fairly rare in general, sort of like Stone and Marble.


- Sirian

Question on the team maps, is it possible to have a single player team? (create teams of AIs and have yourself on one of those teams)

Yes, I got the same map with the same rivals too! Even all the resources were the same. It wasn't 2 in a row though. It is just a replicate of the first game I played on Wednesday. Standard Continents everything default 7 rivals.

Question on the team maps, is it possible to have a single player team? (create teams of AIs and have yourself on one of those teams)

Yes. You have to set that up under Custom games and fiddle with the team numbers.

I've seen this mentioned in a couple threads and have run into it and restarted several games (mostly pangea) in frustration as well - what's up with the desert tiles?

They seem to appear too frequently, scattered, and oddly positioned. I've seen desert next to jungle (shouldn't savannah/plains be between?). In one map, on standard size, there was desert only 2 tiles from snow/tundra. For example, I didn't realize the lower half of the 'teaser-fantasy' image you provided was supposed to be 'oddball climate' until I read the text file. The placements of deserts seemed just like a real game to me, and that's not good.

Is this a real issue? Is it just a result of noticing the abberations in a random set? Is there any way to control terrain generation rules in the XML or Python files?

Is there any way to control terrain generation rules in the XML or Python files?

You can mod terrain generation for most of the map scripts by modding one Python file:

CvMapGeneratorUtil.py

A few map scripts have proprietary classes that will not be affected.


I recommend either saving a backup copy of the original file, or doing a "mod" (which won't touch your core game files).

If you want larger patches of terrain, turn down the Grain level in the terrain generator class. Warning: this will affect more than just the deserts. You will also get larger patches of grassland and plains (and may have numerous cities with all the plots of one type -- which I generally found to be boring, even if in some cases it is "more realistic").

You could theoretically get large deserts and still maintain a mix of smaller patches of grassland and plains, but you would have to run multiple fractal layers at different grains, in a customized process. You can also expect some civs to be hosed with very poor start locations, if they start on the edge of a large Sahara-like desert.

Confused yet? Don't be. If you can program, you can modify the maps or create new ones. There are plenty of comments and examples in the map script files. Also be sure to look at the entry point file for maps (under Assets\Python). Python is an easy language to learn if you have programming experience.

I'm not going to be able to answer your questions from here, though. Some of the guys in the modding community may be able to provide you further assitance. Good luck!


- Sirian

Hello Sirian,

regarding the problem with the map generator we are experiencing the same problem here in Germany. The last games I had with continents have been started on the same maps of whom you can find screenshots here on civfanatics.

This problem is quite bothering. Is there anything we can do to fix this bug? Do we have to change the random seed in the .ini-file each time we start a new game?

:confused:

Sirian.... I think you might want to look here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135551) ... :blush:

I like the Terran maps the most. However, one thing I have noticed that is really poor is the fact that the game cannot seem to generate a map with topography more like Earth. What I mean is: Jungle, Desert, Grassland, Plains are seemingly just "tossed" onto the map. There is no structure to where they are placed as was in Civ 3. Have you been able to figure a way around this, other than spending large quantities of time in the Map Editor?

In Civ 3, there was an option to select, determining how old the world was. For instance, a 3-million year-old planet would yield a map with different types of topography just "tossed" throughout the map; whereas the 5 million year-old selection would yield a map with terrain/topography more like Earth.
In Civ 4, any map I create seems to generate desert, plains, grass, forest..etc..seemingly "tossed" throughout the world. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the layout of the different topographies.
Has anyone noticed this? Has anyone found a way around this? I have always enjoyed playing on maps much like Earth and NOT having this option is a negative for me.
All in all, though, I am pleased with the game.

Regards,

Zenith Omega 3

I cannot seem to find a way around this issue..

Jungle, Desert, Grassland, Plains are seemingly just "tossed" onto the map. There is no structure to where they are placed as was in Civ 3.

The majority of the maps all use the same terrain generator, and it is essentially unchanged from Civ3.

There's a strip of pure grassland across the equator, thick with jungle.

There is a strip of pure ice at each pole, and a strip of pure tundra between the ice and the temperate zone.

There is a northern and a southern temperate zone, and each is set to a mix of grass, desert, and plains. The ONLY change from Civ3 is that the patches of grass, desert, and plains are smaller and more intermixed. You can make them larger again, to make the game "more realistic", but-- (Hey, didn't I just post on this subject a couple of posts above? I'm pretty sure I did) --it will lead to some civs being put in nasty desert regions and having really craptastic lands to play in, while others will have cities with 20 grassland apiece, and one city to the next being essentially identical in terrain.

I made the call to reduce the terrain patches in size, to better balance the game. In general, where there was a choice to make between "better gameplay, less realism" or "worse gameplay, more realism" I chose the former with no regrets.

You can have the "realistic" maps you want, and without all that much work -- though you will have to modify things, or wait for someone else to do it. See my previous post on the topic, above.

Take a good long look at the Earth map, though. There is a massive desert stretching from the western Sahara all the way through the heart of Asia. The entire eastern half of the USA is pure grassland. Sometimes realistic can be boring! Civ4 is moddable so that you can have what you want, though, and I hope that you get it. Fun is where you find it! I'm proud (in this instance) to have sacrificed a little realism for a lot of gameplay, for the casual user, but also proud that those who want something else can get it, with a little elbow grease applied.

Good luck with your pursuit.


- Sirian

soooo, why is it that i can finish a game on a huge pangea map and epic speed in 11 to 12 hours? (3 games done now, all in under half a day)

a huge map in civ3 takes days (if not weeks) to play. i would guess it is that factor more than actual plot numbers that makes people think "oh, this is small".

soooo, why is it that i can finish a game on a huge pangea map and epic speed in 11 to 12 hours? (3 games done now, all in under half a day)

a huge map in civ3 takes days (if not weeks) to play. i would guess it is that factor more than actual plot numbers that makes people think "oh, this is small".

Not having to burn hours on micromanagement? For starters. :cooool:

Not spending tons of time checking (on every turn) for diplomatic deals, because the AIs are no longer willing to sell everything all the time?

Fewer AI-AI wars, so less time watching them move their units around the map, one at a time, with huge stacks of them? Not having to watch AI units ignore your borders and march across your lands all the time?

Better interface?

Fewer cities to manage (cities more widely spaced, and not as many of them going as early in the game?)


Those are some of the bigger reasons why Civ4 will play faster, none of them having anything to do with map dimensions.


That's good, though, right? The measurement is fun/hour not hours/game. :) We made sure you have LOTS of map options to explore, because we knew you'd be able to finish more games. That's a fair trade, right? :cool:


- Sirian

I really like the Maze map. Nice work!

Fewer AI-AI wars

Ummm, can you define 'fewer' Sirian? I have always enjoyed the idea of AI's going to war with one another-and will probably enjoy it even more now that I can send them to war myself ;)! The only thing I don't like about them is when you have to watch every last move made by the AI's involved.
In all other respects, though, I 100% agree with what you say about WHY games are now probably shorter in terms of hours :goodjob:!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Not having to burn hours on micromanagement? For starters. :cooool:

Not spending tons of time checking (on every turn) for diplomatic deals, because the AIs are no longer willing to sell everything all the time?

nope, never did diplomacy at all, just killed everyone off one by one, and i cheated on pollution and roads. it's VERY nice not to have to do that any more, i'm all with soren's article in the manual regarding stacks of workers etc.

Fewer AI-AI wars, so less time watching them move their units around the map, one at a time, with huge stacks of them? Not having to watch AI units ignore your borders and march across your lands all the time?

gee, who has "show enemy moves" turned on?

Better interface?

the interface is very nice, and will be even nicer once the mouseover problem is fixed, but not an issue with tiime (i did NO micromanagement in the civ3 city interface anyway)

Fewer cities to manage (cities more widely spaced, and not as many of them going as early in the game?)

i know the designers try to get us from building urban sprawls, but i happen to like em and still build em, at least on warlord level an entirely feasible strategy.

That's good, though, right? The measurement is fun/hour not hours/game. :)

no, it's fun/game, which in a longer game is evidently higher.

We made sure you have LOTS of map options to explore, because we knew you'd be able to finish more games. That's a fair trade, right? :cool:

sorry, no, it isn't. if i had a CHOICE to play short or long games, it would be.

EDIT:
it probably comes down to having a strategy (or way of playing) that comes all the way from civ1. (wake settler, R, wake settler, etc etc) and plastering huge continents with evenly spaced cities all maxed in civ2/3
creatures of habit.....

Aussie's got a question? You've got to be kidding me. I've never seen that happen before. ;)


Ummm, can you define 'fewer' Sirian?

Yes. In Civ3, once any two civs (one of them an AI) declares war, any and all of the other AIs can be bought in by either side on the extreme cheap.

This often has a cascading effect leading to extreme dogpiling. Civ A attacks Civ Z. Civ A buys in Civ B as an ally. Civ B uses the cash he got from Civ A to buy in CivC. CivC uses the cash he got from B to buy in D. D buys in E, E buys in F. Now there are SIX CIVS fighting poor little Civ Z, all bought in to the war by passing the same cash from one party to the next. :crazyeye: By the time Civ Z gets Civ A to make peace, Civ E or F may buy Civ A right back in to the war!

If you want to try an experiment, play (Civ3) without allowing yourself to buy any allies. Go to war with a civ, any civ, somewhere in the middle ages or industrial period, and see how long it takes the AIs to cascade through the dogpiling until they have all declared on you! You can do the same back to them, but you pretty much HAVE TO, because this process is completely inexorably inevitable!

Can you say, "Yuck"? :wallbash:


Go to the Civ3 SG forum and track down Sid Vicious and the Magnificent Seven. I was working on Civ4 when we played that game. It was an interesting reminder of many of the shortcomings of the previous AI.

Civ3 Deity/Sid is usually a case of Tortoise and the Hare. The AIs get HUGE bonuses, but they race out and squander them in near-endless wars. If the player can keep his head down, get in and out of wars of his own choice on his own timing, and buy the right allies as needed, he can play the AIs one against and other all game long. The Hares won the race long ago, but they are off napping beside the road, and here comes the Tortoise, the player, crawling across the finish line first.

Civ3 AIs all would attack. They were all warmongers! :shakehead

Civ4 has some builder AIs who tend not to attack much at all, and some warmonger AIs who are usually smart enough not to suicide against a much stronger opponent. Some games, if the peaceniks are stronger militarily, won't see much action. Other games, wars may start early and occur often, but the World War I style "everybody is fighting" wars are more rare.

A lot of Civ3 players used to ridicule the AI for its tendency to suicide itself when had ZERO chance of winning. Now it won't tend to do that, and it won't sell itself like a cheap whore to the first party to ask, so the way that wars play out now is quite different. (Not sure it's perfect, but it has rhyme and reason now).


Does that answer your question? :cool:


- Sirian

the more mixed terrain effect will need some playing before it can be really assessed, i think.
it looks more natural in the city view anyway, at least for someone coming from central europe where the landscape changes a lot when you move a bit to the left. or right.

maybe a FEW bigger contiguous regions of desert etc (on a biiiiig map of course) capture the real world effect anyway, and those are bound to be there on the new random maps, too.

The entire eastern half of the USA is pure grassland. Sometimes realistic can be boring!
probably the only reason why i like REALLY huge maps is that you can adequately put in appalachians e.g. without losing map proportions on a world map. or wadis in the gobi ;)

I read your response to my question and I understand what you mean. I didn't see it from that angle before. Therefore, I thank you for enlightening me. I will be able to play on these maps with more enjoyment while seeing this from a new perspective.
Thanks again,

Zenith Omega 3

I read your response to my question and I understand what you mean. I didn't see it from that angle before. Therefore, I thank you for enlightening me. I will be able to play on these maps with more enjoyment while seeing this from a new perspective.

You're welcome. :)

Happy Civving.


- Sirian

hi! i have a question about the map generation scripts. i'm one of those people suffering from the dark terrain bug, and it would make things much easier for me if my civilization always started at or near the center of the map (this makes the fog covering the dark terrain go away). i tried modifying findStartingPlot in CvMapGeneratorUtil.py, but to no avail. is there any way to accomplish what i want?

thank you very much,
roger

The different options for the Terra map (such as Third World or Old World Start) aren't showing up for me. Any one else having this problem?

--JB

The different options for the Terra map (such as Third World or Old World Start) aren't showing up for me. Any one else having this problem?

--JB

Those aren't options, but descriptions. Some of the maps don't have any custom options.

Old World Start is the reality. That always happens. Third World landmasses or island chains vary by map in number and placement.

hi! i have a question about the map generation scripts. i'm one of those people suffering from the dark terrain bug, and it would make things much easier for me if my civilization always started at or near the center of the map (this makes the fog covering the dark terrain go away). i tried modifying findStartingPlot in CvMapGeneratorUtil.py, but to no avail. is there any way to accomplish what i want?

thank you very much,
roger

Did you read the note in that file? If not, it's at the top.

Those aren't options, but descriptions. Some of the maps don't have any custom options.


I completely misunderstood then! Thanks for the prompt reply, Sirian.

--JB

Civ4 has some warmonger AIs who are usually smart enough not to suicide against a much stronger opponent.
- Sirian

Might that be Montezuma (Atzecs)? He's been attacking me out of the blue in almost every game........luckily, I could put him in his place most of the time

First, as a long time Civilization veteran, from the days of Civ2, I always wanted an option such as Terra. I think that's genius, and I would like to congradulate you on that one.

However, I have one complaint. On a second thought, it's two complaints:

1) There are too many desert tiles in too many weird locations. Even right next to a tundra. Yes, deserts aren't always necessarily hot, any open area without considerable plant growth is classified as a desert, but the graphics annoys me. I'd like to see more plains rather than deserts, and deserts focused on certain key areas. More like big spots where all desert tiles are concentrated, rather than small spots scattered throughout the map.

2) Sometimes, in the Terra map mode, even though sea levels are set to low, there are sometimes areas that consist of single-tile islands (a mini in-game archipelago) and my settler can spawn on one of them, whereas my warrior on another. It's not a "bug", but it's rather annoying.


Other than that, great job on everything.

First, as a long time Civilization veteran, from the days of Civ2, I always wanted an option such as Terra. I think that's genius, and I would like to congradulate you on that one.

However, I have one complaint. On a second thought, it's two complaints:

1) There are too many desert tiles in too many weird locations. Even right next to a tundra. Yes, deserts aren't always necessarily hot, any open area without considerable plant growth is classified as a desert, but the graphics annoys me. I'd like to see more plains rather than deserts, and deserts focused on certain key areas. More like big spots where all desert tiles are concentrated, rather than small spots scattered throughout the map.

2) Sometimes, in the Terra map mode, even though sea levels are set to low, there are sometimes areas that consist of single-tile islands (a mini in-game archipelago) and my settler can spawn on one of them, whereas my warrior on another. It's not a "bug", but it's rather annoying.


Other than that, great job on everything.

Your settler will -always- spawn on the continent in Terra. Your scout or warrior getting stuck out on island is rare. Sorry about that! You can pick them up later, though, after you build your first galley (which you could consider doing sooner rather than later if you have islands near your start! Probably some resources out there.)

The desert question was answered earlier in the thread.

Thanks for the compliments on Terra. :)


- Sirian

Oh my, I usually don't do the "not reading anything written before and just posting straight ahead" thing, sorry about that :)

I'll mod the Python file and make sure there are larger patches of any sort of tile.

Not having to burn hours on micromanagement? For starters. :cooool:

Not spending tons of time checking (on every turn) for diplomatic deals, because the AIs are no longer willing to sell everything all the time?

Fewer AI-AI wars, so less time watching them move their units around the map, one at a time, with huge stacks of them? Not having to watch AI units ignore your borders and march across your lands all the time?

Better interface?

Fewer cities to manage (cities more widely spaced, and not as many of them going as early in the game?)


Those are some of the bigger reasons why Civ4 will play faster, none of them having anything to do with map dimensions.


That's good, though, right? The measurement is fun/hour not hours/game. :) We made sure you have LOTS of map options to explore, because we knew you'd be able to finish more games. That's a fair trade, right? :cool:


- Sirian

Don't forget he said "epic speed" to which means the time to research, build improvements and build units/builds is less than it would normally be as well.

That's like saying "why does it take only one hour to drive from Washington to New York when I drive 90 m.p.h. as opposed to three hours if I drive 30 m.p.h.?":lol:

Don't forget he said "epic speed" to which means the time to research, build improvements and build units/builds is less than it would normally be as well.

Isn't epic speed the setting that slows down research and building?

1) There are too many desert tiles in too many weird locations. Even right next to a tundra. Yes, deserts aren't always necessarily hot, any open area without considerable plant growth is classified as a desert, but the graphics annoys me. I'd like to see more plains rather than deserts, and deserts focused on certain key areas. More like big spots where all desert tiles are concentrated, rather than small spots scattered throughout the map.


I'm the one who asked about deserts, Spin. Rather than changing the grain, as was suggested, when I went into CvMapGeneratorUtil.py I found that, to my surprise, deserts were set to 35% coverage while plains were only 20%. I too was annoyed at the desert/tundra thing. I think I see the problem the devs ran into - the northern borders of mongolia and khazakstan (both basically desert) are at the same latitude as the southern border of alaska. I guess what breaks immersion for me is that desert/tundra isn't so much defined by latitude as by geocentric region. Yes - in asia, there is desert that far north. In north america, that same latitude is tundra and the nearest desert is 1000 miles south.

So, my fix - It's crude, but I'll be refining it further. (This is around line 1000 in the mapgenerator python file, in the terraingenerator function).

def __init__(self, iDesertPercent=25, iPlainsPercent=30,
fSnowLatitude=0.7, fTundraLatitude=0.6,
fGrassLatitude=0.1, fDesertBottomLatitude=0.15,
fDesertTopLatitude=0.4, fracXExp=-1,
fracYExp=-1, grain_amount=4):

I moved the desert latitude further south (it was at .2-.5, now it's .15-.4), dropped the amount of desert by 10%, and raised the amount of plains by 10%. The desert has a slightly smaller region in latitudes, which keeps it from getting even more 'patchy' with the reduced coverage percentage.

Even if you're not a programmer, these numbers are easy to understand. Oh - latitude is 0.0 at the equator and 1.0 at the poles, so a latitude of .5 is the same as 45 degrees on a globe.

Hope this helps you.

Thanks totof, you have been very helpful.

I have also noticed, that around the same lines, there are the necessary information to be edited in order to change the amount of increase/decrease of desert/plains/mountains latitudes when the climates are switched.

I'm beginning to understand things a little bit.

Just wanted to add that I also had the same map randomly generated twice. I had all the default options both times - the only difference was a different civ and difficulty level. I played and quit early a number of games in between (about 5 or so). It is exactly the same map though - I can post the save games if you like. Opposing civs are also the same (and in the same spots) and as far as I can tell, resources are the same or very similar.

Edit: Nevermind - I noticed this was already reported here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135551 . Yes I had the same map there SuperBeaver showed btw.

Hello,

I don't have the game yet, but am anxiously awaiting it. I would like to create a scenario with a fixed map with starting locations and cities, but that randomly generates resource placement. I don't think the random placement of resources is possible using World Builder save file, so some sort of map script is needed.

My question is, can map scripts be created that will always generate the same terrain? Yet randomize other factors. Can I simply input terrain coordinates according to type rather than have them generated, or do the scripts require that terrain only be randomly generated? Can map scripts be used to create specific starting locations and even cities? How much can the scripts do, or are we required to create our own scripts to do these things?

Thank you.

1. can map scripts be created that will always generate the same terrain?
2. Can map scripts be used to create specific starting locations and even cities?
3. are we required to create our own scripts to do these things?
Thank you.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Sirian - thanks for all the feedback and time you've put into this website and the game.

Several people including myself are working on slightly (or massively) larger map sizes. I've noticed even with a slightly enlarged map that has just a few more width x height tiles than "Huge" - there is no ocean whatsoever. Not only that, but the game takes about 40x longer to generate the random world.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134418

For example, it only takes my computer about 5 seconds to generate a "Huge" Pangaea map. But if I make a new class of map sizes (lets call it Superhuge) that increases the width by 2 and the height by 2, it takes 4 minutes to generate. Not only that, but when I look at the map, there is no ocean. Can you give us some insight as to whats going on?

Also, has Firaxis figured out the random map generator problem?

sorry double post

Sirian, in your reply to Aussie_lurker's question about map sizes you point out that Civ4 maps are actually of almost the same size or even bigger than the maps of Civ3.

You are doing some nice maths there, which look good.

Yet, you have completely confused me.
You give the example of Civ3 huge maps with 160*160 tiles. According to my maths, this results in 25,600 tiles. You state that only 12,800 of them are usable.
Could you please explain this in more detail to me?

I understand that you are referring to the tilting, which makes one Civ3 tile being rotated by 45°. So, at the orthagonal, a Civ3 tile is ~1.42 longer than a Civ4 tile.

Nevertheless, the conclusion from your explanation would be that rotating a given tile by 45° makes it consume 100% more space - as otherwise you would have considerably more tiles available in Civ3.

Any explanation for this, please?

Sirian, in your reply to Aussie_lurker's question about map sizes you point out that Civ4 maps are actually of almost the same size or even bigger than the maps of Civ3.

You are doing some nice maths there, which look good.

Yet, you have completely confused me.

This is one those things where a picture is worth a thousand words.

Please open up the Civ3 editor, generate a standard map randomly, then turn on the grid numbers for the plots and see how they are numbered. Then with this picture in mind, try rereading my explanation and math. Generate a Civ4 map and turn on the grid, and see the difference in how the "map width and height" are numbered and counted. Hopefully this will clear up the confusion.


- Sirian

Several people including myself are working on slightly (or massively) larger map sizes. I've noticed even with a slightly enlarged map that has just a few more width x height tiles than "Huge" - there is no ocean whatsoever. ...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134418

... Can you give us some insight as to whats going on?

I responded.

Hi Sirian! Firts of all I would like to thank you for your job and for the nice guide you provided.
However I definitely agrees with Grotius: I REALLY miss the possibility to have a "standard" random world. I mean, it is clear that you phocused in offering a wide variety of MP-fun world settings. In a certain way I miss the good old Civ2-Civ3 possibility to totally randomize you outcome so that I could expect anything from the world generation.
What I'd like is quite simple: it's like the actual "archipelago" script, but without the "archipelago" forced option. It could be just question of changin the script's name (e.g.: standard world) and to add a couple of big-landmass option to the landmas setting. (I don't to be misunderstood: I do not think you should actually change the game, just wanted to give an idea of what I mean in "civ4 terms").
The answer you gave to Grotius does not satisfy me at all and seems odd to me: why should I choose tilted axis to get a random world, instead of having the possibility to choose a "standard random world"?

I hope you'll reply

Many thanks

Well, I always thought that the differences between the map scripts were too great to justify a "true random" on the scripts.

Oasis is hugely different from Mirror; Maze is nothing like Lakes; etc.

Some maps have significantly different game balance; not all maps even HAVE a sea level or climate option, many have custom options specific to those maps. These elements are all lost to any attempt to randomize.

It was an oversight not to provide a random script that offers the classic choices and ONLY those. Sorry about that! I thought of a lot of things, but that one wasn't among them. Sorry. :)

You guys can make one yourselves, though. A good scripter can code it and test it in under and hour. Someone will probably do it for you sooner or later.


- Sirian

I'll definately be looking for something like that- a random option that only chooses between regular 'ol archipelago, continent, and pangaea maps.

But, I do enjoy the custom_continents maps. I've gotten a lot of varied worlds with it so far. I'll be sticking with that for the time being. :D

It was an oversight not to provide a random script that offers the classic choices and ONLY those. Sorry about that! I thought of a lot of things, but that one wasn't among them. Sorry. :)

You guys can make one yourselves, though. A good scripter can code it and test it in under and hour. Someone will probably do it for you sooner or later.

- Sirian

You don't have to apologize! I did a great job!!
I hope that someone will mod that.

Btw, I do not propose to add a script. I'd rather think that the actual Archipelago and Continents scripts are complementary in a certain way...IMHO it would be better to merge them in one standard/classic world script highly customizable

Well, I always thought that the differences between the map scripts were too great to justify a "true random" on the scripts.

Oasis is hugely different from Mirror; Maze is nothing like Lakes; etc.

Some maps have significantly different game balance; not all maps even HAVE a sea level or climate option, many have custom options specific to those maps. These elements are all lost to any attempt to randomize.

It was an oversight not to provide a random script that offers the classic choices and ONLY those. Sorry about that! I thought of a lot of things, but that one wasn't among them. Sorry. :)

You guys can make one yourselves, though. A good scripter can code it and test it in under and hour. Someone will probably do it for you sooner or later.


- Sirian
Uhm... As a native speaker of the English language, asphinctersayswhat?

Did you just say that the differences between SET map scripts, such as Oasis, Mirror, Maze, etal; were varied enough to justify the omission of a "true random" script? This makes little sense.

I have noticed the resounding silence regarding response to queries about the lack of "randomization" in your Random Map generator. The facts, as they appear to be, are that "random" makes little showing at all in your random maps. People, including myself, are experiencing an alarming amount of "random" repetition when choosing this option on maps. How about answering the many questions about repetative "random" maps?

I am assuming the comment about user created scripts refers to an options interface?

Moving thread to the Civ4 Reference and Guides forum...

Do you think it'd be within the realm of possibility to create a map script that generates maps like these? (attached)

It's a quick combination of Photoshop's Clouds tool with three color ranges selected with the Color Range tool (for land, coast, ocean). Mostly land, but with water passageways seperating the landmasses (of definable width). What kind of starter point should I use...would ramping up the Continents script to 80-95% land produce something like this, or maybe archipelago on snakey continents?

Sirian, I've got a question that I don't think has been asked yet.

You stated that 160x128 (Or close, not exact quote) is the largest Terra map as well as the largest map in game.

There's a mod in the maps forum that allows you to generate maps up to 400x400, but they crash which is to be expected I suppose.

Anyway, my question is: Is it possible to get maps larger than 160x128 to work in game?

It seems the world is big enough for all of you guys, but personally I love and have loved the large maps in the past and have always desired bigger ones yet. I'd love to see much larger map sizes (perhaps double) and am wondering if it's possible to get that since they already have the slowing technology mods that I like :).

Shame to see that the Civ team went with more speedy content this time around (Or so it seems) and didn't also allow more options for longer games as well. Epic mode currently even seems like a joke.

Also, if you programmed Civ4's random maps... then did you have any say somewhere along the maps on their size? If so and you will for Civ5 could you suggest the possibility of massive maps... like an Earth that just the UK island could support like 10-15 cities... anyway, I'd love to see a Civ map where your empire could literally have over 100 cities. I love massive scale stuff if you can't tell :)... one game a month wouldn't bother me.

You stated that 160x128 (Or close, not exact quote) is the largest Terra map as well as the largest map in game.

There's a mod in the maps forum that allows you to generate maps up to 400x400, but they crash which is to be expected I suppose.

Anyway, my question is: Is it possible to get maps larger than 160x128 to work in game?


Hehe, yep, that's my program, Atlas (it's technically not as much a mod, really). The largest map I played on was 166x153 to be precise. Some people claimed 25000 plots was the max, but this proves them wrong I'd say (166x153=25398).

Anyway, Sirian, have you seen Atlas yet? I'm very very curious what you think of it, with you being the game's map scripter and such. Please don't take my making my own generator as a sign I don't like your work, I esteem it highly. I just liked to supplement and improve on some parts. Your map info reference has been of great use to me for this project, so thanks :goodjob:

Hopefully my question is not a technical as some of the others. Is there an easy way to delete either units or cities from a map? We all make mistakes right? I sure liked the map editor in Civ3 where I was prompted as to which features of a plot I wanted to delete (units, resource, city, etc.) Is there an "undo" button/option?

Hopefully my question is not a technical as some of the others. Is there an easy way to delete either units or cities from a map? We all make mistakes right? I sure liked the map editor in Civ3 where I was prompted as to which features of a plot I wanted to delete (units, resource, city, etc.) Is there an "undo" button/option?

My Map Viewer/Editor MapView might be something that couzld please you. I´ve to admit that cities and unit´s aren´t supported yet, featuress like oasis and ice neither but you can do pretty much with it already, especially when it comes to deleting or editing/adding specific categories of a plot, like resources, features, roads or just change terrain etc.

http://www.bindig.net/MapView/MapView.Signature.jpg (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141622)

Sirian,

I've been trying to generate rivers on my map script which features mountain ranges. The problem with the default implementation include rivers corssing mountain ranges and taking long detours through icy terrains.

From what I understood, the getRiverAltitude global function can control the altitude which is considered by an algorithm I do not control in order to determine the flow of rivers. If I understand correctly, that algorithm spawns a river start and tries to reach the sea from there. This is not what I'd like, since I believe such an algorithm provides inherently wrong river systems when there are mountain ranges. It will create rivers which go either along the range or which will come perpendicularly to it, look stuck, and go through.

I'd like to create a map script where I tell the rivers where they end (thus start from the sea) and then move up until I find something interesting, like a lake, hill or mountain, or a terrai where the altitude is at its maximum. This would create shorter rivers with much more realistic behaviour around mountain ranges. At least, I hope so. But I don't know where to start in order to do so. Is it feasible, and how?

Sirian,

I'd like to create a map script where I tell the rivers where they end (thus start from the sea) and then move up until I find something interesting, like a lake, hill or mountain, or a terrai where the altitude is at its maximum. This would create shorter rivers with much more realistic behaviour...

You can manually place rivers any way you please. You need to give each one its own RiverID number, or it won't work correctly. This is especially true if combining hand-placed rivers with ones generated by the default process.

It may also be necessary (I don't think so, but this is the worst case) for you to determine the path of the river first, working backward, then actually place the river segments working forward. That would be what to try if placing backward doesn't work out correctly.

You probably have everything you need by examining the Mississippi River creation in Great Plains along with the river creations in Oasis. Those are the instances where I generated my own rivers.

Let me also tell you that BY FAR, rivers gave me more headache than anything else involved with map scripting. I think we got things opened enough to make it possible to do just about anything now, though.


I downloaded v2 of Tectonics the other day. I haven't tried it out, but I looked at the code briefly. It does look like a promising alternative to the Civ3 Fractal Generator as a basis for creating terrain.

Plates are a funny thing, though. I don't think all of your assumptions match the real world behavior of plates (for instance, the meeting of two plates in the Indian Ocean, at ground zero for last year's massive tsunami, doesn't seem to be modeled. Or maybe I didn't examine it closely enough). There is also the problem that realistic is usually unbalanced: massive deserts or jungles or plains, almost monochromatic terrain in huge areas. I purposely moved terrain generation away from larger patches of terrain types because it turned out to be quite unintersting to play with city after city with 21 grass plots, for instance.

The "wind" and rainfall looked like a promising element, though. Although, things like hurricanes can defy such models, and yet make a big difference to climate and terrain.

If I get the opportunity, it might be fun to put some work in to experimental models for different ways to generate terrain. One thing that bugs me is that the Continents map type (the basic fractal map) has nothing resembling volcanic islands, archipelago regions, or small irregularities along coasts. I was very happy with the way Pangaea turned out. I really like having a few small islands off the coast now and then, or some snaky peninsulas or various inland seas, which we don't get from the core fractal. Islands and Custom Continents are the closest I came to successfully mixing large and small bodies of land, and I'd like to do more in that direction. Your plate work doesn't seem to generate small landmasses, though. Or does it?

Maybe you could do a sampler similar to what I did for my map reference, so we could see what kinds of lands your script generates? Visuals might help attract more folks to the script, too.


- Sirian

Hi Sirian, thanks for the answer.
The tectonics simulation is very crude. I didn't add code to create hot spots like Hawaii. When plates meet I decide either they go towards each other or not, and if they do, they either collide (both raise) or there is subduction (one rises). It's very crude, as I know subduction can cause the creation of islands on the plate going down a bit back from the meeting line, but my goal was to get mountain ranges.
There are sometimes small islands generated, particularly at the meeting of two or three sea plates, or if you happen to have a land seed totally surrounded by water seeds. The map is very very random.
The climate generation is not very good as the desert stripes are too predictable. The wind etc doesn't give me enough prairies either.
I'll try to upload some more pictures too.

I updated my script to include new river generation system. The script I wrote is really ugly but I understand why it took you the most time to get rivers to flow correctly. The choice of west of river/north of river gave me a headache (so when I am north of a river, I want to check the 4 plots around the beginning of the river and that's getWE or getNS api and ... arghh. If I ever finish Clash I won't code rivers as a part of a northern or western square. Don't know how, but there must be something simpler.
I also updated the forum threads here and on apolyton to include some more screenshots. It's a bit hard to see the mountains, but you can see the islands and continents fairly well.

I'm curious to hear your response to the rather widespread claims that "random map generation" is something of a false phrase, and that in fact civ 4 basically picks pre designed maps at random from a list.

I'm not sure how I feel about these claims yet as civ IV blue screens and crashes too often to play enough to find out.

Sirian, I'm working on a map script and am having a small problem. I have set up the map so that it is all land. I have defined my own AddLakes() so that the map generator doesn't add in any random lakes. The problem I am having is that a one-tile lake is being created to the north of each players starting plot whenever the starting plot does not have a river right next to it.

Is there an additional function that I need to override to prevent this from happening?

Also, where can I get a list of all of the functions that the map generator will automatically use from the map script? I have found many of the functions in the map scripts, but there are probably more. It would be helpful to have a complete list.

Sirian, I'm working on a map script and am having a small problem. I have set up the map so that it is all land. I have defined my own AddLakes() so that the map generator doesn't add in any random lakes. The problem I am having is that a one-tile lake is being created to the north of each players starting plot whenever the starting plot does not have a river right next to it.

Is there an additional function that I need to override to prevent this from happening?

normalizeAddLakes()

You need to override that function to stop the default behavior. While you are there, you probably also need to override this one too:

normalizeAddRiver()


Also, where can I get a list of all of the functions that the map generator will automatically use from the map script?

./Civilization 4/Assets/Python/EntryPoints/CivMapScriptInterface.py

Anything from that list not overridden has some sort of default operation.


- Sirian

I'm curious to hear your response to the rather widespread claims that "random map generation" is something of a false phrase, and that in fact civ 4 basically picks pre designed maps at random from a list.

There was a bug that reset the random map seed (by mistake, obviously) and so would cause the map generator to produce certain maps (made from certain seeds) over and over for those experiencing the bug.

The map generator produces maps based off the same PRNG (pseudo random number generator) that everything else in the game uses. Given the same seed, it will produce the same map again.

The seeds are not supposed to repeat, but something was causing them to reset back to the beginning of the PRNG seed sequence. That bug is supposed to have been found and fixed as of v1.52 so it should not be a problem any more.

This was never a problem with the map generator, by the way. My map work was catching the blame, but the bug affecting the seeds was coming from somewhere else.


The map generation code is no secret, however. You don't have to take my word for it. Open the code and look for yourself. The map scripts are here:

./Civilization 4/PublicMaps/

The Entry Point file is here:

./Civilization 4/Assets/Python/EntryPoints/CvMapScriptInterface.py

The map utility file is here:

./Civilization 4/Assets/Python/CvMapGeneratorUtil.py

What you see is what you get. Go ahead and look for yourself. :)


- Sirian


PS: you can manually force a given seed by setting a certain switch in the Civ4.ini file to something other than 0. Then you can see that the map generator will produce identical maps from identical seeds, no matter what that seed happens to be! Remember to change it back to 0, though, so that random map generation will resume.

I'm going to bang my head for not remembering the CvMapScriptInterface.py myself in the first place. I had read it and forgotten it when I started my map. Grrr.
One question, though, it appears that the sequence is:
1)generateRandomMap actually calls
1.1)generatePlotTypes
1.2)generateTerrain
2)addRivers
3)addLakes
4)addFeatures
5)addBonuses
6)addGoodies
Apart from using one function to do something different from what it names implies, is there a way of reordering data? Like setting terrain after rivers have been generated?
Incidentally, I do not know how flood plains are determined, whether all desert + river are flood plains or not, and if that's not the case, when is the change made? For instance, is it possible to have desert (not flood plains) by a river?
Now back to banging my head.

A. Apart from using one function to do something different from what it names implies, is there a way of reordering data? Like setting terrain after rivers have been generated?

B. I do not know how flood plains are determined, whether all desert + river are flood plains or not, and if that's not the case, when is the change made?


A. You can do anything you like whenever you like, unless you are calling on data that hasn't been generated yet or passing back mismatched information compared to what the Return call is expecting.

B. Flood Plains are a Feature and are processed with the rest of the Features. (You can change how they are handled. For instance, there is different Flood Plains behavior with the Fantasy Realm map script, if the support necessary to release that map ever makes it in.)


- Sirian

Thanks, Sirian. I somehow missed the CvMapScriptInterface.py file.

That's odd... I only did a minor edit of the Terrain Generator class of the Python map generator, and now it says there's a problem with CvEventInterface?

Oh, well... That'll teach me to make backups... And now to reinstall...

hi Sirian!

I try to create a process that generate resources in random maps.And i want to know if it's possible to override the values in the 'CIV4BonusInfos.xml' directly in the .py file ???

I've tried to create a worker in the random map and that does nothing.

but is it possible to add an unit or a barbarian city in a random map ?


Many thanks for all note in the files .This is helpfull !!

I've done some changes in your maps and create a little map :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151629

Where would be the best place to add post-generation custom features to the terrain?

I'd like to pick one random point on the map (within 0.8 latitude), and increase the height of all the terrain at a distance X by one level (hills to mountains, ocean to coast, etc) to simulate a crater. I havn't exactly figured out where to put this, although I have a general idea of where the plot selection goes on.

Hi!

I achieve to put units,barbarian cities and bonus resources (without being normalized) in the random map generator ,adding them in the function:
- def startHumansOnSameTile()

But this fonction seems to be call two times ,if i put a worker or a resource ,this will appear two times !
I resolve this with a global variable but 'startHumansOnSameTile()' is realy called two times or did i make a mistake ?

I also try to open a window during the map generation to allow the player to define lots of settings. I can open a pop up!but the generation of the map still continue and i can't use function to get popup's entries. I wonder if it's possible?

hi Thalassicus, perhaps you will found the answer of your question by reading
the 'def addFeatures()' in the file 'Archipelago.py' wich replace Peak along the Coast !

thanks ! bye !

Is there any way to disable the generation of a certain type of terrain? I'm trying to remove plains and forests from maps and after tweaking CvMapGeneratorUtil.py it worked for the most part except around the starting locations for each civ. This is probably because of the normalizing functions (addgoodterrain, removebadterrain, etc). Is there any way to override these functions without tweaking each and every map script located in the publicmaps folder? In other words, where are the normalize functions located, or is it to be left for the SDK?

Termite: the normalize functions are handled in C++. You can override them, but yes it's work for every map script. I'm not sure if you'll be able to mess with them or not, after the SDK, but I'd guess yes.


Thalassicus: The best place to mess with plot types (heights -- water/flat/hill/peak) is at the front of the terrain generator function. See Mirror or Pangaea for examples.


Sto: AfterGeneration() would be better than StartHumansOnSameTile() -- check the Entry Points file under the Python Assets for more about where to best put which operations.


- Sirian

I'm overriding getRiverAltitude and returning an integer in the range 0 .. 1000. Does this method care and/or is this method sensitive to the range of values returned? What does the default implementation return? Mine seems to work, mostly, though it picks a few paths that surprise me.

As an aside, I was thinking that a marvelous debugging tool would be to have a method in python to be called with each plot on the map and returning a string, which would be printed hovering over that plot in the display. Map scripting people could use it to debug things more visually (I could immediately see if the rivers are actually flowing downhill or not), and I can think of a variety of other uses. Does such a thing exist already (I haven't found it yet)?

I'm overriding getRiverAltitude and returning an integer in the range 0 .. 1000.

That will work OK.


it picks a few paths that surprise me.

The value you return is added to terrain heights. The intended result is a combination of "tilting" the river to flow in a certain direction while still having its path affected by the local terrain.


Does such a thing exist already (I haven't found it yet)?

No. However, what does exist is that Print commands output to a debug file. I found that to be all I needed in debugging my scripts. If you think map tags for display in-game would help you, though, I don't see why it couldn't be done.


- Sirian

That will work OK.

The value you return is added to terrain heights. The intended result is a combination of "tilting" the river to flow in a certain direction while still having its path affected by the local terrain.

No. However, what does exist is that Print commands output to a debug file. I found that to be all I needed in debugging my scripts. If you think map tags for display in-game would help you, though, I don't see why it couldn't be done.


- Sirian

Thank you very much for the answer. The adding of the terrain height explains it, I had assumed it would strictly obey the river altitude function.

I mostly use the print commands and the hap debugger for debugging at the moment, but I have often thought a more visual style might make some things easier. I will have to think about just how much work I'm willing to put in to get it I guess.

Again, thanks for the answers!

Hi there. This is all very interesting and informative. However, I think I have a question that hasn't been asked yet. If so, sorry about that. :blush:

In any case, here's the question: does it make a difference in a worldbuilder save what size the map is labeled as and what the latitudes are set at? I ask because I'm looking at two different world builder saves, one of which says:

BeginMap
grid width=84
grid height=52
top latitude=0
bottom latitude=0
wrap X=0
wrap Y=0
world size=WORLDSIZE_STANDARD
climate=CLIMATE_TEMPERATE
sealevel=SEALEVEL_MEDIUM
num plots written=4368
num signs written=0
EndMap,

while the other says:

BeginMap
grid width=84
grid height=52
top latitude=50
bottom latitude=5
wrap X=0
wrap Y=0
world size=WORLDSIZE_HUGE
climate=CLIMATE_TEMPERATE
sealevel=SEALEVEL_MEDIUM
num plots written=4368
EndMap

So one claims it's huge and the other claims it's standard. Does the game interact differently with these maps based off of this? Also, what is that num signs written = thing, anyway?

The 'world size' does matter to the game. Have a look at assets\XML\gameinfo\Civ4WorldInfo.xml. Particularly, note settings such as the research pace adjustment. Personally, I think they should have just calculated something relative to the number of workable land and water tiles, but there you have it.

I believe the signs refer to landmarks. Try adding a landmark to your map and I believe you'll see this change (not going to say for sure since I haven't done this in a while).

Surt, that's great. Thanks for the response. One more question: do you know if the ResearchPercent tag increases research times, or increases the amount of research itself? Thanks!

Surt, that's great. Thanks for the response. One more question: do you know if the ResearchPercent tag increases research times, or increases the amount of research itself? Thanks!

I believe the result is that the number of beakers required to complete each technology is changed.

I got this great idea for a scenario, which unfortunatly demands a "handmade" map.. Urbanwars I called it :D
however landscape not being the issue or problem to much length.. I come over some different problems. I wanted to make this scenario futuristic and without workers. how to i disable techs and some units like infantry ?

.. my thought was to replace the infantry with Navy seals and just rename the unit without making a mod just a scenario. how to i proceed to do this ?

I downloaded the civ4 editor in the tools section so I can rename the civs and so..

however I cannot change the leatherheads with a picture :( is this possible ?:cry:

I made this banner for the scenario :D
http://www.fangamer.voidcrafted.net/civfiles/images/urbanlogo.jpg

Is there any way to have the computer randomly select whether you'll play Continents, Archipelago, Pangaea, etc? Part of the fun of prior Civ games was having no idea what kind of world you'd be in. In Civ 4, it seems you have to pick your general map type off the bat. Yes, you can randomize sea level, climate, etc., but not map type.

I see that the "Custom Game" interface does allow somewhat greater randomizing, but you still have to select a basic map type -- and the number of AI opponents, which again I like to randomize.

Are completely random maps possible?
I know a really easy way to do that. :mischief:

Simply start a thread on the forums asking for a starting save using a random map setting. People on the forums are very friendly and more than willing to help with this kind of stuff. Someone can easily use some dices to select a type of map at random, generate the starting game and post it. You simply need to specify the conditions you would like them to meet, like difficulty setting, map size, anything but pangeae, any type but low sea level if applicable, make sure the no cheating allowed option is on so you can submit to HoF, etc.

With the activity of this community, I bet you will get an answer within a few days. See, that was not so hard when you use a little imagination! :D

[1st post]

Might be somewhat unrelated, but is there any info on the map type (or is it a scenario?) named "planet", which is in the same dir of others like Earth and such? Is it the same pattern of "Terra" maps?

p.s.Sorry if it posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it with the search options.

Hi,

I've played 3 games of Civ 4; but on my 4th game I chose the Great Plains map and standard size world.

I was surprised to see the world with edges that could not be traveled on. These were to the West and the South. Like Edge-of-the-World edges; not Ice at the poles. And it was to the West as well as to the South.

I stopped playing that world before I searched the North and East.

Is this normal?

I started a 2nd game with the same settings and found an edge to the West on this 2nd game also.

Thanks,

rschrumpf

yes..some maps do not have a wrap-around axis...most are east-to-west, the way you normally think of it...tilted wraps N-to-S...great plains, inland sea, and a couple other don't

Hi,

I've played 3 games of Civ 4; but on my 4th game I chose the Great Plains map and standard size world.

I was surprised to see the world with edges that could not be traveled on. These were to the West and the South. Like Edge-of-the-World edges; not Ice at the poles. And it was to the West as well as to the South.

I stopped playing that world before I searched the North and East.

Is this normal?

I started a 2nd game with the same settings and found an edge to the West on this 2nd game also.

Thanks,

rschrumpf

Yes, maps and map scripts are allowed to determine for themselves whether to wrap around on x coordinates, y coordinates, both coordinates, or neither, to provide the maximum flexibility to gameplay.

My smartmap script offers this choice explicitly.

Does anyone know if it's possible to change the default map climate options inside a .py file? I suppose you can do it in the xml, but that'd change them for all the map scripts. I'd like to have in my map script a climate option and would like to use the default option (isClimateMap to return true) rather than create another as an additional option. But then I'd have to remove the 'rocky' and 'cold' climates since I really only provide wet/normal/arid.
Can this be done, and how? It's not such a big issue but I don't like having a climate option panel when there's already an unused one before.

Does anyone know if it's possible to change the default map climate options inside a .py file? I suppose you can do it in the xml, but that'd change them for all the map scripts. I'd like to have in my map script a climate option and would like to use the default option (isClimateMap to return true) rather than create another as an additional option. But then I'd have to remove the 'rocky' and 'cold' climates since I really only provide wet/normal/arid.
Can this be done, and how? It's not such a big issue but I don't like having a climate option panel when there's already an unused one before.

I would love to know if there's a way around this too. However, a workaround if you want less options is available: just remap rocky and cold to be the same as normal, and document this for the user. On my map script I'd like to be able to offer more/different options, and I haven't discovered any way to make that happen.

@ Sirian:

Are you going to be updating your excellent Map Scripts Guide (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/reference/map_scripts_guide.php) to include the 3 maps added in the v1.61 patch (Fantasy_Realm, Fractal, and Shuffle, I think)?

Thanks

I suppose this is sort of a bump...

Yes, I'm interested in the "Fractal" map too. Anyone know its story?

Thanks!

a.badger

Fantasy_Realm map script gives me black terrain. No other map types do that ever since the 1.09 patch was released. Anyone who understands the map scripts... is there something that makes fantasy_realm different from other map types?

Bump on request to add new v1.61 maps to the Map Scripts Guide article. :)

Indeed, I'd be particularly interested in the mechanics behind how a Fractual map is generated, although I can guess fairly well just by endlessly generating maps and comparing them. Would be good to have the detailed explaination though. :)

By the way, I reckon there's a bug with the Toroidal map option... it seems to allow civs to start anywhere along the "latitude" of the map (if you can call it that)... so you can get some horrible results like this... :eek: :crazyeye:

Having just read through this thread from the beginning, I haven't been able to find a tutorial on exactly how to go about writing a map script.

For example, what exactly is the difference between FractalWorld and HintedWorld, and am I right in assuming MultiLayeredFractal basically applies FractalWorld seperately for each continent, before positioning them with another pass?

Also:
def isClimateMap():
"""
Uses the Climate options
"""
return 0

def isSeaLevelMap():
"""
Uses the Sea Level options
"""
return 0
Whilst I know what those do (greying out certain options in the advanced form), how are the options defined? And how can they be removed completely (instead of being greyed out)?

I, too, would be interested in the updates to this based on the new 1.61/Warlords inclusions.

Thanks,
~The Meal

Hey guys. I want to make the biggest possible accurate Earth map using Warlords 1.61. No modding, no cities, no units, just an accurate, maximum possible size and accurate as possible map of Earth. Based on my past work making C3C maps, I reckon this would take me a year to do at max, although the World Builder in Civ4 does seem a bit less "friendly" than the C3C editor/mapmaker.

The thing that irritates me about most C3C world maps is they are way too small. The idea of their being "one tile" space between Washington and Baltimore is preposterous for a "world map." I know why it happens this way: limit to ~500 cities in C3C (or at least earlier unpatched versions of it). Also, I know that, when a map gets truly huge, it slows down the game, but that just means buy a faster/bigger chip and more memory!

Based on the fact that Baltimore-Washington is ~39 miles apart, and Essen-Dusseldorf is ~23 miles apart, and using a 3 tile gap rule, the IDEAL size for maximum accuracy would be 7.5 miles per tile.

Using the figures of 24,900 (Earth circumference) and 9750 miles (distance between 77-degrees north lat, and 64-degrees south lat) we get

1300 tiles north-south axis
3320 tiles east-west axis

Is this utterly impossible? If so, what would be the MAXIMUM possible size map to generate in Civ4 Warlords 1.61.

Also, is there another Warlords patch else mapmaker edition impending that might prompt me to delay starting on this?

ADDIT:

i think 1 tile for 50-100 miles might get it as real as possible, but trying to have every city on the planet, and every town and 'other locales' represented as a cottage plot would take it to the extreme, and even then, what sort of scenario would you have with it? 'play modern day were everyone hates the west but when you try to act, the west turns against you, marking you as the enemy so they can suck up to others' scenario?

if you make a map that big that is the whole world, only a post modern scenario (WW3) or some of the big wars from history, or 1000AD scenario would make it worth the load time

The scenarios that would be facilitated by a truly massive scale map would be:

Age of Discovery
Hundred Years War
Age of Imperialism
American Civil War
Era of Battleships
WWI
WWII
Korean Conflict
Vietnam Era
The Cold War
The Gulf War I and II
War on Terror

I've been a player in the ongoing PBEM "The Cold War" for over a year now, and I think that a very big Earth map in Civ4 Warlords would provide a foundation on which to get some modder going on a similar mod for Civ4.

ADDIT 2: So has anyone played the Genghis Kai's Giant map (90 x 210), or a larger Civ4 map through to the 21st century? If so, what are your system specs and what sort of turn times did you have at the end? Just curious, because that would be a good litmus test of the viability of making even larger maps.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184684&page=11

The ideal 1300 x 3320 size map is probably impossible based on existing technology, and the way the game is set up, i.e., a memory hog because of fancy graphics, etc.. However, MAYBE 650 x 1660 could be made to work by resetting things in the game that eat up lots of processor time? I'm just seeking feedback, and do not mean to impugn the exemplary work of others. Rather, I would like to stand on the shoulders of giants in that, the map I'm talking about making would NOT be very suitable for an epic "all of human history" sort of experience, but would require that most cities be pre-placed, and that settlers not be buildable, and that AI behavior be carefully shaped to insure that it suited the specific scenario. However, all of that are even further elaborations on the foundational work which needs to be done which is a map! The bigger the map, the more suitable it will be for a variety of scenarios, and thus, my raison de posting.

Also, to clarify about the issue of the game being limited to only 24 civs, I do not think that this is an issue. For example, El Justo's TCW mod has a few more than 24, something like 30 I think for the SP version. However, the MP version has only 8 civs. This is done simply by combining Latin America into a single tribe, combining Canada, Australia, NZ, England, etc., into the UK, etc. So, I don't think that being limited to 24 tribes would be an insurmountable impediment to taking the sort of prospective map I'm discussing (i.e., a very LARGE Earth world map, with enough room for say, 8 or 10 communities in Vietnam alone??). Say for example WWII. 24 slots for tribes would allow all the major players to have a slot, and leave a few extra slots for "non-aligned powers" or something like that. This is how the "Kamikaze Contest" map for WWII works: all of Latin America, large portions of Africa, and a few other sundry places are in the "neutral powers" "nation" The have limited numbers of cities and buildings, can only build immobile defensive units, and IIRC, cannot trade techs. Thus, they sit there, and if one of the active players or AIs WANTS to start taking over that territory, they can allocate their resources in that way, but generally because of how the scenario is set up (VP tiles, etc.) this is a losing venture. However, because the territory is THERE it provides for an interesting set of alternatives, and also more realistically presents the geographical factors impinging on a simulation of the WWII era. So in sum, the lack of civ slots would not present a serious difficulty for making good scenarios of the sort I present in the list using the sort of very large map I'm thinking of making. I just need to know how big the map can should be!

Someone in another thread commented that my list of potential scenarios that a truly massive Civ4 map could facilitate was interesting, but questioned whether (for example) a good "Vietnam War Scenario" might best be served using a map that represented mostly only Vietnam. Actually I think that a proper Civ scenario for "Vietnam War" must actually be about the "ERA" and not simply about the strategy and tactics of war in that particular theatre. There are already excellent games that focus on the military aspect of most wars in the last 200 years, which Civ is not in any position to improve on because of the game engine

http://www.digitalriver.com/dr/sat5/ec_Main.Entry17C?SID=45905&SP=10023&CID=119338&PID =832786&PN=1&V1=832786&CUR=124&DSP=&PGRP=0&ABCODE= &CACHE_ID=119338

However, what the modern-war scenarios in games like TOAW III do not cover, which Civ is well suited to cover, is the balance and interplay between warfare, social, technological, political, and cultural factors. But in order to accurately represent such factors, what would be needed (at minimum) is a map that presents a sufficient number of communities in both of the key nations: Vietnam, China, and Russia all had troops on the ground in Vietnam. Thailand, Cambodia were theatres of war, and if memory serves Thailand had a contingent of troops in the FWP nations, which also included: Australia, New Zealand, Korea, and possibly at least one other nation I'm forgetting . . . oh yes! the United States!

So at minimum, a Civ-Style simulation or alternate history scenario for Vietnam must include all (or at least some) of each of these nations. A map like the one used in the C3C "War in the Pacific" scenario might suffice, but I think that properly representing Vietnam might actually require a large scale map in which Vietnam is disproportionately large (and Pacific Ocean small) compared to the rest. However, a whole Earth map that was at the "ideal" scale of 7.5 miles per tile would also serve very nicely (if it wasn't impossible because of game speed issues).

So, there is a purpose behind my interest. A Civ4 map that is the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE size would have applications, and if it existed, some prospective modders who were interested in making one of the above listed scenarios might take it up as a project (probably not me!). The existing "large" Civ4 maps (e.g., Genghis Kai's Giant Map at 90 x 210) are probably well-suited for an epic "all of human history" sort of game, but what I'm targetting is something a bit different. Specifically, a map that is suited for simulating modern global history (in which most cities are pre-built and capacity to build more is dramatically limited), or specfiic segments of that ~500 year period.

1300 x 3320? Well, that's certainly very ambitious and optimistic of you. :) You could of course try to make a map that big - I don't think the map generator would stop you. However, your computer would - if not during the making then during the playing.

Realistically, you'd struggle to get a hundredth of that size... I doubt that even 130 x 332 would be possible for a playable map. A friend of mine made a 128 x 256 map, and it's too memory-heavy for almost anyone's computer to play into the later game.

So yeah, I admire your ambition, but it's just not practical to have a map quite that colossal. (Although, if it were possible, I'd certainly be interested in playing such a map. ;) )

Thanks for your response Lord Parkin. It is worthwhile to know that even 128 x 256 is "too big" to work, given the current application configuration.

So my next question is: what needs to be reset in the program (i.e., TURNED OFF) to make it possible to go big on maps? I ask this question because I know this: El Justo's The Cold War map, which is at the scale of about 130 x 130 slows down in later game (about 5 minutes per turn), but never does hit the wall and experience ever-increasing turn slow downs. This has been made possible because of certain changes he made in the editor. Most notably, turning off trade of resources and techs. Taking this set of calculations out of the cycle dramatically speeds up turn time. Here is what I_Batman had to say about this over in the TCW thread about playing with the 325 x 354 huge The Cold War 1950s map

Quite a few months ago I played a game on Civ III 50's map right through to the late 70's. All I did was ignore the winner (U.S. space race) and continued on. If I remember correctly the game hit a wall in the late 50's, and turns started taking up to 20-30 minutes when at peace. Turns flew when at war.

I playing on my powerful rig, not my laptop.
Now, the unsettling and frustrating part was when I looked at task manager during the slow peacetime turns, the game was only chewing up 50% of my processor, and about 800 meg of my 2 gig high end memory. Nothing else was running, and the rest of the memory and processor was idle.
That points to something in the code of the engine as a limiting factor.

Overall, the huge map is virtually perfect in my opinion. I could see opening up the arctic island paths a bit more to allow more cat and mouse of Soviet and NATO subs, but other than that the map is just fine.

But you have to have incredible patience to play that map as an SP game. Because I work at home most days, I can have the huge map going on my powerful PC, and do my business work on my laptop, so it was no big problem for me, but under normal cicumstances, the huge map has too much of a lag for SP games.

MP games, totally different. It would be great for PBEM games.

So, what I gather from this is that the Civ applications are at present simply not configured for maximum turn speed. This is probably a reflection of two things: 1) each successive rendition of the game has been based in part on previous code, meaning that there is likely to be some redundant, even mildly conflictual code in there; 2) the focus of the game designers has been on giving the game curb-side appeal through imagery, and limited strategic permutations and details (e.g., fewer units, fewer stats, smaller maps).

While I think the game they have come up with is exemplary, I would like to hold them to that claim that was made early in the development cycle that "Civ4 will be THE MOST MODDABLE CIV of them all." I still don't see an editor anything as effective as that which came with C3C, and while it is no doubt possible that Soren or someone like that might be able to figure out how to reset the app to make it possible to run massive maps, I still don't see that sort of moddability becoming an easy to pick up talent based on the apps and guidance they are providing.

Since Civ4 came out, I will be frank. I've played more C3C, and other games than I have Civ4. I've got into the Matrix Games, tried out other games etc. I cannot tell you how much I wanted to love Civ4, but (and I wish it wasn't true) the game is a disappointment to me. Maybe they scooped up a new 13 or 14 year old market with it, but what about us old Grognards? Have we simply been cast aside as disposable market segments? The fact that there is still no editor, that my ambition to make really big maps that could afford true tactical action, and the fact that modders like El Justo are pretty much TOTALLY disinterested in even starting to try to redo their mod for Civ4 is a pretty clear indication of the strategic marketing blunder Firaxis has made with Civ4. We all love the game a lot, and I guess that is why we have held on for years even after the disappointment.

The problem is, the fixes in El Justo's mod were largely computational things. For instance, he discovered that turning off the ability for trades to be negotiated between players saved considerable between-turns time, because Civ3 was using up a lot of computer power to calculate all the possible deals between all civs which had met each other every turn (or somesuch), so with 31 civs playing at once this would be a colossal number of cross-calculations.

However, I think you'd find that with Civ4, while there are probably some few computational things which you could "fix" to speed up the game slightly, the kind of difference you are talking about (hundredfold and more increases in speed) are simply not feasible in this way. The fact is that the largest part of the lag in Civ4 games is due to the graphics in the game, and there's really no way to get around this unless you go and redesign basically the whole graphics engine so that you get simpler images using less computer power (and thus allowing larger maps). But this pretty much means redesigning the entire game, something which I'm sure you're not too keen on. ;)

So yeah, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but maps of the kind of dimensions you are talking about (not just hundreds but thousands of tiles in perimeter) are simply not possible in any way with Civ4, as far as I can see.

. . . So yeah, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but maps of the kind of dimensions you are talking about (not just hundreds but thousands of tiles in perimeter) are simply not possible in any way with Civ4, as far as I can see.

That is what I was afraid of. I can believe you Lord Parkin, I just wanted to get confirmation from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Maybe I'm alone, but based on the number of peers I have on this site and at 1BC who have griped about the direction the game has taken, and the way the "ultra-moddability" simply has not come to pass, I do not think I am alone. Maybe "we," the guys who would like to see a graphically simpler game that nonetheless kept all the neat cultural, social, religious, political, diplomatic, etc., parts of Civ4 are an inconsequential market segment. But then based on the nature of their games, Matrix makes their bread and butter catering to even smaller market segment.

I sure wish somebody would make a game that would combine: (a) the neat civ-building features of Civ4; (b) the graphical level of about C3C; and (c) the military operations and tactical capacity of TOAW III and War in the Pacific. What a game that would be :cool:

Lakes

Regional Map: No world wrap

This is not true!

Guys,

In our Team, we wish to add a new terrain type: marsh. But we are afraid about the problem it can create with the random map generator.
So, we hope to know if it can be done without any problem, or will it need some changes on the random map ? If yes, what must be done ? No one in the Team knows about maps.

Heeeelp !:please:

Thx.

Hian the Frog.

What is a good map for single-player play against the AI?

Yes, I know this guide repeats the company line that all maps are good for this. But, doesn't the Civ AI have big problems in trying to mount an invasion across to another continent? I was reading in a Better AI thread that they maybe seem to have it doing that. But, it seems it still had major problems understanding that it could invade on the same continent.

If the Civ AI can't properly invade another continent, that's important to know in trying to find a map for a decent game against the AI. That seems to make Archipelago as bad choice. Or, if it can't see to invade on the same continent, then maps like Hub put the AI had a serious (even worse than normal) disadvantage.

Lately, I've been trying land-only maps like Highlands to avoid some of these issues. My current game is on Rainforest set to connect all the edges (to avoid corners and edge placements). I miss the naval game, but if it helps this pitiful AI play the game, then its worth it.

Any thoughts?

What is a good map for single-player play against the AI?

Yes, I know this guide repeats the company line that all maps are good for this. But, doesn't the Civ AI have big problems in trying to mount an invasion across to another continent? I was reading in a Better AI thread that they maybe seem to have it doing that. But, it seems it still had major problems understanding that it could invade on the same continent.

If the Civ AI can't properly invade another continent, that's important to know in trying to find a map for a decent game against the AI. That seems to make Archipelago as bad choice. Or, if it can't see to invade on the same continent, then maps like Hub put the AI had a serious (even worse than normal) disadvantage.

Lately, I've been trying land-only maps like Highlands to avoid some of these issues. My current game is on Rainforest set to connect all the edges (to avoid corners and edge placements). I miss the naval game, but if it helps this pitiful AI play the game, then its worth it.

Any thoughts?

Have you tried the map scripts in the map script forum? There's a whole bunch there. Almost anything you can imagine.

What is a good map for single-player play against the AI?

Yes, I know this guide repeats the company line that all maps are good for this. But, doesn't the Civ AI have big problems in trying to mount an invasion across to another continent? I was reading in a Better AI thread that they maybe seem to have it doing that. But, it seems it still had major problems understanding that it could invade on the same continent.

If the Civ AI can't properly invade another continent, that's important to know in trying to find a map for a decent game against the AI. That seems to make Archipelago as bad choice. Or, if it can't see to invade on the same continent, then maps like Hub put the AI had a serious (even worse than normal) disadvantage.

Lately, I've been trying land-only maps like Highlands to avoid some of these issues. My current game is on Rainforest set to connect all the edges (to avoid corners and edge placements). I miss the naval game, but if it helps this pitiful AI play the game, then its worth it.

Any thoughts?
The AI isn't too bad at mounting intercontinental invasions, especially on the latest BTS patch. If you notch up the difficulty a little from what you're used to, you'll definitely have a challenging game even on an islands map.

Personally my absolute favourite map scripts are Big_and_Small and Fractal. Both (usually) generate continental maps, and the AI seems to handle them just fine. :)

I've got a map layout I like but is there any way I can get it to randomly generate the location of goodies and bonuses without having to do it manually with console commands?

Realistically, you'd struggle to get a hundredth of that size... I doubt that even 130 x 332 would be possible for a playable map. A friend of mine made a 128 x 256 map, and it's too memory-heavy for almost anyone's computer to play into the later game.


As a realism lover who's recently getting back into :bts: , i'm curious:
Is this mega-map of Earth as we know it?
-if yes, may i have a look?
-if no, how would i go about creating a 160x240 map?

I'm hoping that my new computer would be able to run this ok..

- Giant Earth Map mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=296)
- Earth 192*120 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=231788)
- Jabartos Giant Maps (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=373434)

Thanks J!:):thanx:

Hi folks,

I don't know much about python and I cannot find it in the script. Maybe one of you experts can give me a short answear if it is not too much trouble.
Is there an easy way to modify the highlands script to have 20% to 25% water?
Thank you!!