Just like the last versions, the Earth map is broken

AlextheGr8

Warlord
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
180
I am so tired of the Earth map. I love the layout, but the map is just broken. There are never enough resources on the largest size for 12 players. Every time I play there is some resource that is not found in most places.

Right now I started in South America. There are absolutely no horses. No iron either. There are a few luxury resources, but no strategic resources at all. None in central America either. Only a gold mine.

Why is this? If I set standard resources, on every other map there are numerous ones spread out in the surrounding areas.
 
I am so tired of the Earth map. I love the layout, but the map is just broken. There are never enough resources on the largest size for 12 players. Every time I play there is some resource that is not found in most places.

Right now I started in South America. There are absolutely no horses. No iron either. There are a few luxury resources, but no strategic resources at all. None in central America either. Only a gold mine.

Why is this? If I set standard resources, on every other map there are numerous ones spread out in the surrounding areas.

well, talking about historically accurate...
There were no horses nor iron in south and mid america, and there is plenty of gold... Thats true in real life...

PS: I know it sucks gameplay wise.
 
Maybe it's Karma. Every time I select Rome for example I don't get any iron, not even in remote places and every time I play a Civ with a horse UU I don't get horses near or even remote.
 
well, talking about historically accurate...
There were no horses nor iron in south and mid america, and there is plenty of gold... Thats true in real life...

PS: I know it sucks gameplay wise.

I doubt the game is being historically accurate. It just seems the Earth map doesn't do a proper dividing of resources. A few games before in G&K there was ZERO oil in Africa and the Middle East. Luckily as I advanced there were 2 oil deposits and 1 aluminum. That will have to make due.
 
well, talking about historically accurate...
There were no horses nor iron in south and mid america, and there is plenty of gold... Thats true in real life...

PS: I know it sucks gameplay wise.

There is a huge amount of iron in those locations. The map, if it is being historical, is trying to force civs in the "New World" to be pre-iron age. That doesn't mean iron does not exist in South America or Central America. Some of the largest deposits of iron on Earth are down there.
 
While I don't disagree with you, Luckymoose, were they available to be mined/extracted before the Colonial Period? (Not saying a tech point, but just historical era.)
 
I never understood the point of maps like this - exploration and discovery are diminished because you already know the layout of the map as if you removed the fog before playing. Sounds very appropriate for a scenario (isn't there one already?) but not to introduce predictability into the regular game.
 
Lack of enough natural wonders also plagues Earth map IIRC.

And predictability of a map isn't that bad unless you plan to play the map again & again. I play on earth or terra every once & a while.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
Being venice and getting placed in se Asia was annoying for a while because of the hordes of barbarianships that would always plunder trade routes . Damn you Oceania
 
Earth maps have no scripts applied, it's a simple pre-made map, which often means that it spawns resources randomly (it has no pre-placed resources), and and places city states randomly, but the area it covers has A LOT more water than other map types.
 
well, talking about historically accurate...
There were no horses nor iron in south and mid america, and there is plenty of gold... Thats true in real life...

PS: I know it sucks gameplay wise.

Yeah some things are historically accurate. Problem is the ai starts there, and they didn't do so well. Although France is there in my current game, and they are doing ok (I don't think they had iron though). Only weird thing is I was in North America, and had no coal whatsoever. Had to put a city on the west side of the Andes in South America to get coal (and only 6).

I never understood the point of maps like this - exploration and discovery are diminished because you already know the layout of the map as if you removed the fog before playing. Sounds very appropriate for a scenario (isn't there one already?) but not to introduce predictability into the regular game.

To each his/her own. I prefer Earth maps, and play them almost exclusively. I find the immersion factor is better. Yeah exploration is diminished, but you are still searching for barbarians and goody huts, so there is stuff to do in the early game.

Lack of enough natural wonders also plagues Earth map IIRC.

This is the worst part for me. Having only one natural wonder is a let down.
 
Earth maps have no scripts applied, it's a simple pre-made map, which often means that it spawns resources randomly (it has no pre-placed resources), and and places city states randomly, but the area it covers has A LOT more water than other map types.

The Earth is approximately 70% surface water (higher percentage in Civ V, due to absence of Antarctica).
 
I never understood the point of maps like this - exploration and discovery are diminished because you already know the layout of the map as if you removed the fog before playing. Sounds very appropriate for a scenario (isn't there one already?) but not to introduce predictability into the regular game.


I like the layout in certain areas, really makes setting up a civ and fighting wars very fun. Also lots of water too so adds some nice naval battles and amphibian assaults.
 
Top Bottom