Why play earth maps?

[vktj]

Originally Posted by gps

If you're - for example - playing continents you can be pretty sure that there is a landmass - and you also know roughly where it must be and how many Civs it carries.

Perfect World (or my Totestra update; see url in my sig) isn't quite so predictable; it performs plate tectonics on a random height field to generate continents, then (optionally) simulates meteor strikes to have more continents. It's rather random...there is usually a new world out there, but no telling how big it is or if instead I'll bump in to other lands with civilizations.

There's also this map script posted recently which looks quite unpredictable: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=462862

I wonder if there's a "keep Europe, western Asia, and Africa the same but randomize everything else" script out there for Civ?

- Sam

[vktj]

Talking to myself, but here's a medieval map of the earth as food for thought, which I got from http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMwebpages/201A.html [1]

In the middle ages they believed:

• That the earth was round (the whole "They thought the earth was flat in Columbus' time" is pretty much a myth)
• That the area around the equator was too hot to be habitable, making the southern hemisphere completely inaccessible
• That, while there was land in the "antipodes" south of the equator, they had no idea what it looked like and they believed no one lived there
• They had no idea that the Americas existed to the west of them
• As you can see in this map, they knew about Africa, but only north of the Sahara desert, and knowledge of Asia was sketchy.

For me, when I am playing Civ and half of the world is still in the fog of exploration, I feel like the people did in the middle ages, who just didn't know what was over the ocean or past the desert.

[1] More about this map is at http://cartographic-images.net/Carto...bius_Maps.html

[gps]

Originally Posted by vktj

For me, when I am playing Civ and half of the world is still in the fog of exploration, I feel like the people did in the middle ages, who just didn't know what was over the ocean or past the desert.

True, but at least you know it makes sense to explore, because there might be benefits waiting. Most people in the middle ages actually were afraid to explore because you might fall from the edge of the world if you went too far or other stuff liek that. Not quite sure we can really understand how those people felt with all the superstition around...

[Ataxerxes]

Originally Posted by gps

True, but at least you know it makes sense to explore, because there might be benefits waiting. Most people in the middle ages actually were afraid to explore because you might fall from the edge of the world if you went too far or other stuff liek that. Not quite sure we can really understand how those people felt with all the superstition around...

Somewhat, but it was also more reasonable. Since they knew the world was round (the people who counted did) they weren't worried about falling off the edge. Exploration of Africa was quite dangerous with being a heathen and Malaria waiting for you. Exploring to the west was dangerous because of less advanced ships and some idea of how large the world was (Columbus expected China to be where the Rockies are while others knew better). The impetus for exploration was knowledge of benefits from trading with the east.

Also, in the middle ages Europe wasn't the major player in the world they became later. Some very serious Islamic invasions had to be dealt with (Battle of Tours early and later on the Ottomans got close to Vienna) and the Crusades ultimately failed. I wasn't easy just planting the flag when you weren't at all sure you could deal with whoever was there.

[Lone Wolf]

I guess when I think about any medieval nation, "they had limited geographical knowledge" is one not the only thing to pass my mind. When I think medieval France, I think about Charlemagne, classic chivalrous culture and Hundred Years War. When I think medieval Byzantium, I think of struggles with Arabians and Turks, its conflicts with the Western church and its occasional blend of Christianity and classicism, and so on. Some of it is present in mods like RFC. When playing RFC, you indeed lose some of the flavourful unpredictability and lack of knowledge about surroundings, but you also gain something as well.

Therefore, I enjoy both the unpredictability of random maps, and "realism" of RFC.

[fyermind]

I enjoy being able to plan my early game from the first turn. I like axe rushes, but I am not very good at them. Playing as Roosevelt makes is possible for me to practice (a lot) at different levels of difficulty until I feel more confident. Practicing having a lot of land but being isolated also is fun for me (again Roosevelt). Sometimes I want to stomp europe or get used to the happiness caps of immortal/diety. I started playing immortal as Rome on an earth map. Things I have learned from the earth maps I carry into random maps.

Certainly random maps are the "real challenge" to me, but known maps, earth or otherwise, can be great training grounds. The earth map is special because a lot of people have thought very hard about it, so it is the best tutorial for how to achieve different victories, or what to do when the map looks like X. I think it is right up there with Nobles Club and Immortal University for reliable good games emphasizing a predetermined part of the game.

[vktj]

Originally Posted by fyermind

known maps, earth or otherwise, can be great training grounds

This thought leads me to shameless plug for my first Civ4 mini project:

Being able to play the same map again is one of the reasons why, when updating Perfect World, I made one of the options the ability to have a fixed random seed. In addition to a random 53-bit map seed (9,007,199,254,740,991 different seeds), it is possible to choose from five different fixed seeds in Totestra.

If someone chooses a given fixed seed, as well as the same climate, water level, map size, island amount, patience amount, map ratio, "break Pangaeas", bug fix (reduce mountains and fix continent split), and map wrap options with Totestra, they will get the exact same map every time.

In addition, with Totestra, all of the parameters that affect how a map is generated are saved as a sign on the map, making it possible (albeit requiring editing the map script) to recreate that map if desired.

- Sam (the download and info link is in my sig)

[s.bernbaum]

I enjoy the exploring, so Fractal is my favorite. It can generate any kind of map, from a pangea to a bunch of large islands. I never know what is there until I check it out.

[gps]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

Therefore, I enjoy both the unpredictability of random maps, and "realism" of RFC.

Exactly. This is one of the greatest things of the whole Civ IV package. There are so many options and ways to play this game: random maps - you got it. Earth maps - you got it. Random maps similar to real world areas (inland sea, great plains, archipelago, etc.) - you got it. No matter what your personal preferences are, you most certainly have the proper option somewhere to select it. There's no other entrie in the franchise that even comes close...

[History buff33]

Rhys and Fall is fantastic. I've conquerd Rome with Carthage and explored the Americas with Japan. Its nice to have that changing history element.

[Target MC]

What are we talking about here?

The actual history of the Earth itself, or the Earth maps provided in the initial CIV IV game along with the mods?

[G-Max]

I play on Earth maps only because they are pre-made, which means that I know where the resource squares are without having to discover the technologies that reveal them. The whole resource-revealing thing is one of the worst parts of Civ IV.

[Ataxerxes]

Originally Posted by Target MC

What are we talking about here?

The actual history of the Earth itself, or the Earth maps provided in the initial CIV IV game along with the mods?

Mostly earth maps provided with the game itself. I think the discussion got started with playing the Earth maps (not mods) that came with the game. Then some people, like me, diverted the discussion to RFC.

I agree completely with History Buff regarding RFC. Although the game has a historic base (more so than BTS), every game changes some aspect of history.

[duckstab]

I don't play plain old BtS on any pre-made map, earth or otherwise, because to me the exploration aspect is really important. Without a real fog of war, regular BtS seems to devolve into a second-rate war game.

However, I do enjoy the RFC lineage. There's something about playing as a "real" civilization and overcoming the historical challenges it faced. Obviously, you have to forego the novelty of discovering a largely unknown world, but typically in RFC or one of its modmods you're not starting from nothing. You have a larger number of starting units and often some actual territory. And you're also likely starting in a world that contains more well-established rivals.

I always thought it might be fun to try something like FFH2 on an earth map. I don't know if that's possible or not.

[Target MC]

Originally Posted by duckstab

I don't play plain old BtS on any pre-made map, earth or otherwise, because to me the exploration aspect is really important. Without a real fog of war, regular BtS seems to devolve into a second-rate war game.

However, I do enjoy the RFC lineage. There's something about playing as a "real" civilization and overcoming the historical challenges it faced. Obviously, you have to forego the novelty of discovering a largely unknown world, but typically in RFC or one of its modmods you're not starting from nothing. You have a larger number of starting units and often some actual territory. And you're also likely starting in a world that contains more well-established rivals.

I always thought it might be fun to try something like FFH2 on an earth map. I don't know if that's possible or not.

So it sounds to me that you much prefer the mods over the initial game itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by fog of war. Civilization V is much more a second-rate war game than BtS.

[duckstab]

Originally Posted by Target MC

So it sounds to me that you much prefer the mods over the initial game itself.

That would be an overstatement. It's just a different set of challenges.

I'm not sure what you mean by fog of war.

I literally mean the areas of the map that are initially black and which are subsequently obscured if not in sight of your cities/units. I think the former is pretty much pointless if you have advance knowledge of the underlying terrain.

Civilization V is much more a second-rate war game than BtS.

I don't think any title in the Civilization series shines as a war game. They're empire management games in which war is a factor. As such, the military aspects are intentionally simplified. Not only is the combat rather unrealistic but the AI is unable to compete with the human player without massive numerical or technological superiority. If you take out any of the non-military aspects of the game without adding something back, what's left simply isn't that interesting. This is why I've never been drawn to mods that emphasize the military side of the game.

[logintime]

I almost exclusively play tectonic maps, usually with the arid setting. You get a somewhat more realistic continent/landmass design, but with enough randomness that you never know what's out there. I've seen maps that are basically small archipelagos spread everywhere, pangeas, and even the occasional civ trapped behind the ice. It's enjoyably different each time.

[Target MC]

Originally Posted by duckstab

That would be an overstatement. It's just a different set of challenges.

That's not what it sounded like to me when you mentioned RFC.

Originally Posted by duckstab

I literally mean the areas of the map that are initially black and which are subsequently obscured if not in sight of your cities/units. I think the former is pretty much pointless if you have advance knowledge of the underlying terrain.

Any idiot can see the terrain with World Builder. I think you're asking for something better than the fog of war that is in BtS.

Originally Posted by duckstab

I don't think any title in the Civilization series shines as a war game. They're empire management games in which war is a factor. As such, the military aspects are intentionally simplified. Not only is the combat rather unrealistic but the AI is unable to compete with the human player without massive numerical or technological superiority. If you take out any of the non-military aspects of the game without adding something back, what's left simply isn't that interesting. This is why I've never been drawn to mods that emphasize the military side of the game.

I never said that.

Civilization V is a terribly broken game and the current best strategy for it is to 'infinite city sprawl' and eventually conquer your enemy. Sounds like a second-rate war game to me, even if it wasn't meant to be one.

From your judgment, Road to War and other such mods weren't for you obviously. Any mod that favors the military in particular.

I think BtS does a decent job in empire-management, and as a player myself I tend to focus more on Culture and Space Race victories rather than Conquest and Domination victories. Even though Conquest and Domination victories give me a higher score.

[Swissdictator]

I always play my first game of a new civ on an Earth map as the Romans... with random start if possible. In those instances is it is so I can focus a bit more on the new game itself.

When I do play on Earth maps, I like the alternate history feel of it (again, random starts). There's something fun about finding the Japanese lurking in South America having built up an empire (and in the silliness of Civ, after clearing the Amazon they suddenly have fertile lands)... or seeing an empire emergy from Australia seizing all of Oceania. It can make a conquests feel more alive... like when I land troops in the British Isles.

However I also like random maps and the exploration.

Plus as gps said: You can probably figure out there is another landmass or two. Once you've discovered your whole continent you can even figure out how many civs there are.

Which is why I wish we had a little more randomness (IE setting a range for the number of civs).

I think there is something to be said in the variety of map types. Playing on continents all the time would get boring. Next game of mine will either be Pangea, Earth, or Archipelago (in all my years playing Civ I almost never, if ever, play on the last one).

I can see something fun in almost all the map types: different strokes for different folks.