ISDG ~ Water Coverage

What amount of water coverage is best for the ISDG?


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Cyc

Looking for the door...
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
14,736
Location
Behind you
As we have decided to go with Continents, water coverage of the map becomes more important than it does with Pangaea. Therefore I'm running a poll to get your opinion for the ISDG. Below is the water coverage image from the game, showing optional choices between Continents in 60%, 70%, and 80% water coverage. I'm sure you're all familiar with this screen. 60% water means more land, 80% water means less land.


So the choices are as follows:

A. 60% water - more land tiles

B. 70% water

C. 80% water - less land tiles

D. ABSTAIN

This is a public poll and will be open for 6 days.
 

Attachments

  • 70% Continents.gif
    70% Continents.gif
    46.9 KB · Views: 395
As we're using Continents, which means less land than a Pangaea game, I believe we should use only 60% water coverage.
 
Yes, and for transcontinental trade let's have 4-6 coast connections.

And 4 Islans with Lux (it was suggested at German site).
 
60% Water would mean even more cites can be build than an a "small map". 100+ Cites may slow down DG and increase the number of units, that have to be pulled over the map.
 
Nah, I think 80% will just make it a Navy game. A small map is a small map. It's only so big. I'd rather cross land than cross water. You don't HAVE to build cities, but it will allow you to if you want. Having ships sunk at sea is just a huge waste of man power.
 
It is not big difference, the question is how the continents are connected. I vote for pre Astronomy trade possibility.
If Ivory Island at equal distance from each capital and have EQUAL access for any civ it is OK for any %.
 
Trade via coast is important but will rarely be possible with 80% water. I vote for 60% water on a 60x60-Map as to prevent too much cities to manage.
 
Trade via coast is important but will rarely be possible with 80% water. I vote for 60% water on a 60x60-Map as to prevent too much cities to manage.

I definitely agree. With 80% water, changing the trade parameters to Map Making is pretty much useless. Unless you only want to trade with the other Tribe on your Continent, with whom you're always at war with... ;)
 
Everyone believes in early war on 80% water continents? Doesn't anyone think it may be worth cooperating with your continent-mate to get way ahead of the other continent?
 
:D
I've watched you play 3 too many times, Chamnix. And no, I don't want to buy the swamp land.
 
It may be useful to cooperate and to fight down the other continent in tech race, but there are a lot of possibilities in civ :ar15:
 
I definitely agree. With 80% water, changing the trade parameters to Map Making is pretty much useless. Unless you only want to trade with the other Tribe on your Continent, with whom you're always at war with... ;)

This could be corrected by some extra coasttitles in the middle.
 
This could be corrected by some extra coasttitles in the middle.

Then why call it Continents? Just call it the archipelago it will be.
 
Then why call it Continents? Just call it the archipelago it will be.

I meant in the middley between the 2 Continents. There would 2 Continents. But there exist seatitles("coast"), so trade between continents can happen with map making without the need to build the light house. Great Light house offers trade over seatitles. Trade by Astronomie or GLH would be another option.
 
:)
I know what you meant. It would be easier and smarter to just use 60% water coverage.
 
Top Bottom