Huge Maps: Civ4=150x110 (with crashes), Civ3=362x362 (no crashes)...???

[yoshi]

Originally Posted by MrCynical

In any case, since when did Civ 3 have fancy graphics?

That was the point of my comment: that I should have held my tongue then, considering the graphics over-kill in Civ4.

My criticism of Civ3 (at the time) was more a result of my personal bias towards bling over content and irritation at present day society's tendency to almost always give precedence to superficialities. What can I say, my f-ing bad.

That said, Civ4 should have just improved on 2D (or fake 3D) and left it at that. And Animated terrain is over-kill either way IMO.

No it won't run as huge maps as Civ 3 yet, but frankly I don't think there are that many people that want them.

The bigger the map, the more realistic the play because unit movement makes (a bit) more sense tactically--it makes no sense temporally though. Same goes for map exploration. On small maps, it makes (a bit) more sense temporally--it shouldn't take you a quarter of the game just to get from one end of the continent to the other--but tactically, it is almost ridiculous, especially now that there is no ZoC to prevent units from simply zipping past potentially thousands of enemy units during their turn.

From what I can tell, at least a quarter of the players enjoy or don't mind playing on large maps. That's more than enough to justify an increase in the max number of plots.

Your question seems to be why Civ 4 won't run a 362x362 map according to the thread title, which has been answered very satisfactorily.

The question was meant to imply the questionable merits of features such as 3D at the cost of other aspects of the game that deserve to be less limited. Perhaps I should have titled the thread, "3D at the cost of what?" or "How does Firaxis justify 3D?" or "Smaller maps for bigger graphics, WTF?" or something along those lines but the issue is ultimately the same one.

(I picked maps because I had just finished playing a game of Civ3 on a max sized map and it irritated me that I couldn't do this in Civ4 just so I can watch the pretty graphics. I already had issue with this before Civ4 came out when it was announced that due to the high requirements, Civ4 would have smaller maps than Civ3, just when many players--especially modders--were drooling at the thought of even bigger maps without having to put up with all of Civ3's hard-coded BS and with more goodies to play with to boot.)

So no one has given me a good enough reason to see merit in the decision to go 3D. That is, why should graphics--and it's got to be the graphics that are the main cause of the limitation because the XML and Python data and other game functions don't eat up that much--the least important part of a game like this, take centre stage and cost players' systems dear in the process?

(Just admit this was the wrong decision and I'll be happy.)

Originally Posted by Firaxis

Huge Oceanic Map: 104 plots wide, 64 plots tall, at "Standard" map size Bigger than Civ3!!! Terra maps are BIGGER THAN equivalent Civ3 maps of the same sizes!

I never understood this: a square is a square (plot, tile or whatever) even if it's "tilted" (a 'diamond'). ???

[warpstorm]

Originally Posted by yoshi

"How does Firaxis justify 3D?"

This is an easy question to answer. They wouldn't have gotten the money from the publisher to make Civ4 if they didn't do it in 3D as their publisher at the time had that as a requirement.

(You have remember that very few developers have the internal resources to make a game on thier own without funding from a publisher. When the publisher makes the money contingent on certain design features, you do what they want or you don't get paid.)

[MrCynical]

So no one has given me a good enough reason to see merit in the decision to go 3D. That is, why should graphics--and it's got to be the graphics that are the main cause of the limitation because the XML and Python data and other game functions don't eat up that much--the least important part of a game like this, take centre stage and cost players' systems dear in the process?

I basically answered this question on the previous page. Firaxis' publisher when Civ 4 began development was Atari, who insisted on 3D. Firaxis had no choice in the matter, so asking them to justify it is a somewhat stupid request. Whether Take 2 would have done the same at the time I don't know, but the point is somewhat moot given how late in the development they took over as publisher. If you wish to complain, it is Atari you should be complaining at. In any case, given the nature of publishing companies Civ was going to have to switch to 3D eventually anyway. At least it is now out of the way.

And Animated terrain is over-kill either way IMO.

If you don't like it then turn it off.

I never understood this: a square is a square (plot, tile or whatever) even if it's "tilted" (a 'diamond'). ???

A 362x362 diamond map doesn't mean there are 362 diamonds in a single row. The numbering method means it's more like there are 362 in two rows combined as the numbers sort of zigzag between the tiles. This results in far fewer tiles than you might expect (basically a quarter). The numbering system for squares actually means what it sound like.

[Ranos]

Originally Posted by MrCynical

If you don't like it then turn it off.

You can't. Choose "Turn off Animations" and the units are no longer animated. Choose "Turn off Effects" and the bombardment from catapults is no longer shown, the flames don't shoot from the chimneys of mines plus a few other fairly irrelevent items. The trees still sway, the rivers still flow and the carts still move in and out of the mines. There is no way to turn off all animations.

[Phoenix_56721]

Originally Posted by Zhahz

Don't mix facts in with clueless rantings! What are you trying to do!?

First of all I wasn't ranting I was quoting Sirian who made the map script's for Civ4. All I was trying to do was to show where I read that some maps in Civ4 were bigger then Civ3, now I don't understand how all the tiles and grids work as they related to Civ3 to Civ4 nor do I care I was just posting what I read. Personally I think the maps in Civ4 are plenty big.

[yoshi]

Originally Posted by warpstorm

This is an easy question to answer. They wouldn't have gotten the money from the publisher to make Civ4 if they didn't do it in 3D as their publisher at the time had that as a requirement.

(You have remember that very few developers have the internal resources to make a game on thier own without funding from a publisher. When the publisher makes the money contingent on certain design features, you do what they want or you don't get paid.)

I thought Firaxis was the one pushing the 3D in order to sweeten the deal. Well, if you say it was the publisher, then I guess I was wrong. (My apologies to the guys at Firaxis.)

Originally Posted by MrCynical

I basically answered this question on the previous page.

I believe you told me why the 3D is there but I don't think you (or anyone else) has justified it (i.e. given a really good reason for there being all this bling in a TBS game, not to mention the cost to your system).

Originally Posted by MrCynical

A 362x362 diamond map doesn't mean there are 362 diamonds in a single row.

I was thinking more like a square as viewed from a corner instead of one of the sides, hence the 'diamond' look (i.e. a square grid that's rotated 45 degrees and looked at from an angle). Shouldn't the number of tiles be the same either way?

[MrCynical]

I believe you told me why the 3D is there but I don't think you (or anyone else) has justified it (i.e. given a really good reason for there being all this bling in a TBS game, not to mention the cost to your system).

As I have said in at least two posts, I think there is a significant segement of the market that wouldn't play a game with very poor graphics, even though it is TBS, and the reviewers would be exceptionally unimpressed. This is enough justification for the publishers of the game, even if not for you.

I was thinking more like a square as viewed from a corner instead of one of the sides, hence the 'diamond' look (i.e. a square grid that's rotated 45 degrees and looked at from an angle). Shouldn't the number of tiles be the same either way?

But Civ 2 and 3's maps aren't squares viewed from one corner. Imagine the square viewed from a corner as you described. Civ 2's maps are rectangular and placed with one edge towards you, even though the grid of squares has a corner to you. As a result the edges are zigzags rather than straight lines to avoid cutting tiles in half. Yes the actual number of tiles is the same, but the Civ 2&3 method of describing a map size counts two rows of tiles on each side instead of one, to compensate for this zigzag effect. A map described as 362x362 in Civ 2&3 would only be described as 181x181 if it was composed of squares rather than diamonds. I can't really explain it any better without a diagram, but you've basically been overestimating the number of tiles in Civ 2&3 maps by a factor of 4.

My main comment would be that Civ 4 will run as large maps as any of the previous Civs did at their release, so they haven't sacrificed that much for the graphics upgrade. If Civ 4 won't run a 181x181 map by this time next year, you might have a reason to complain. I'm also surprised you don't prefer the way Civ 4 can do the interturn in under a minute at any stage of a huge map game, so it is actually possible to PLAY them, instead of having one eye on them while reading a book. While the scrolling and unit moves may be sluggish on huge maps, I can genuinely play them in Civ 4, which I couldn't in Civ 3. The huge map interturn in Civ 3 frequently took 15 minutes+ in the late game on the same computer, and froze up completely far more often. I have to say that I can actually play larger maps in Civ 4 than Civ 3.

[Smidlee]

Originally Posted by MrCynical

If Civ 4 won't run a 181x181 map by this time next year, you might have a reason to complain.

Actually I believe my pc can come close running that size now even though I won't play it all the way though to find out. I play some on Atlas impossible size maps (250x160 ?) with 1.52 but they are just too big for me to continue playing.

[MrCynical]

It may take a while for maps that large to be playable all the way to the end, but it shouldn't take much longer than it did for Civ 3. The Atlas maps are a nice round 40000 tiles whereas the 362x362(diamond count) Civ 3 maps only have just under 32800.