[GeoRealism] Important map question for the general C2C enthusiast.

In C2C there are many world sizes. There are also many way's to interpret the word "size." I want to know how YOU as a player interpret the word size so I know how best to offer the map people expect when considering the difference in size.

Let me explain! Since several aspects of the GeoRealism engine rely on surface area, defining the surface area of a plot is going to be necessary. As a result I *MAY* need to add a tag to the world size info file that is used to calibrate the size (area) of a plot for each world size. So here is the basic question:

When you think of maps (worlds) of different sizes, do you literally interpret that as worlds of different sizes? Or do you simply think of "size" in terms of plot size? In other words, is the world represented by a "small" map really smaller than the world that uses the "large" map? Or is it simply that the plots are bigger and therefore there are fewer of them?

Here is another important question:

If it is decided that different "sizes" really mean different size worlds, should the plot sizes be the same for each map? (making a HUGE variety in actual world size?) or should they be scaled appropriately to make things more realistic?

I need to know because what we decide here will have a significant impact on the results and my approach to creating them.

Uh, I never thought about this before
Basically, if I play a cylindrical map, I think the plots are just a smaller planet but have the same size for each map size. Lets say, one plot on a giant world is 100 km and on a small world is 100 km too, but only on a smaller planet.

But when I play a Worldmap on giant and a europe map on giant, I see the plots or smaller on the europe map. A plot may be 100 km in a giant world map, but in a giant europe map it would be only 10 km.
So that's a really difficult question :/

If you're going for realism, in my opinion, you would go for the plot representing as small an area as you can. A 100km square 'plot' on Earth would very rarely be adequately described by a single terrain type/combo. Realism therefore requires a much more detailed scale than this (eg. more like the Europe map on giant in Faustmouse's example).

If this results in "planets" (maps) that are only as big as Europe, well that's a reasonable price for realism...

primem0ver said:

When you think of maps (worlds) of different sizes, do you literally interpret that as worlds of different sizes? Or do you simply think of "size" in terms of plot size? In other words, is the world represented by a "small" map really smaller than the world that uses the "large" map? Or is it simply that the plots are bigger and therefore there are fewer of them?

Click to expand...

Faustmouse said:

Uh, I never thought about this before

Click to expand...

I think most players have probably never thought about this before!

Personally, when I have a map of what is obviously a full planet in front of me (i.e. one where you can go around the world, from the right edge to the left edge), I suppose that I assume that it is an Earth-sized world. If the planet was substantially bigger or smaller than Earth, it's unlikely that humans would have evolved - but humans as we know them, homo sapiens sapiens, are what is in the game. So, I tend to assume that the planet is always roughly Earth-sized. When the map is bigger or smaller, I assume that the scale is different, but not the planet size.

With maps that only depict one continent, it's obviously a different matter.

Yudishtira said:

If you're going for realism, in my opinion, you would go for the plot representing as small an area as you can. A 100km square 'plot' on Earth would very rarely be adequately described by a single terrain type/combo. Realism therefore requires a much more detailed scale than this (eg. more like the Europe map on giant in Faustmouse's example).

If this results in "planets" (maps) that are only as big as Europe, well that's a reasonable price for realism...

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. I think there are quite a few 100 x 100 km = 10,000 km2 squares on Earth that could adequately be described by a single terrain type / combo. There are huge deserts like the Sahara, huge plains like the ones in Central Asia, and there would be huge forests covering much of the Earth if it wasn't for us humans cutting them down.

My Gigantic Accurate Earth Map has 232 x 112 squares. Antarctica is cut off. If it were included, the map would have 232 x 118 = 27376 squares. The Earth's surface is 510,072,000 km2. This means that on my map (which uses a cylindrical equal-area projection), each square represents about 18,632 km2. I found that this was indeed a sufficiently fine scale to represent most of the globe pretty well. In places with complex coastlines like Europe or archipelagos like Japan, I would have liked a bit more detail. But by and large, the scale was quite sufficient to represent most of the terrain around the globe well and even place all the major rivers with their twists and turns.

I HAVE thought about this before. In general, I assume all map sizes are various approximations of the same actual planet size being one like earth.

However, with multi-maps in play and potentially multiple planets such as a moon map, mars map etc, we are presented with this as a problem when we consider we'll likely have an enforced # of tiles on all maps. I've never brought it up before but what this would mean is that on a moon map that is the same tile count size as an Earth map, we have a situation where either we see the moon and every other planet as being the exact same size as the original OR we see the tiles as being different measurements of terrain coverage. Either way presents some issues, especially with a generator like yours influencing multiple maps and not just the first.

Thunderbrd said:

I HAVE thought about this before. In general, I assume all map sizes are various approximations of the same actual planet size being one like earth.

However, with multi-maps in play and potentially multiple planets such as a moon map, mars map etc, we are presented with this as a problem when we consider we'll likely have an enforced # of tiles on all maps. I've never brought it up before but what this would mean is that on a moon map that is the same tile count size as an Earth map, we have a situation where either we see the moon and every other planet as being the exact same size as the original OR we see the tiles as being different measurements of terrain coverage. Either way presents some issues, especially with a generator like yours influencing multiple maps and not just the first.

Click to expand...

Well for the moon and other non-earth maps we have said that you could always use "black" tiles to size it to the map. Such as this ...

or

However I suspect that the Solar System map will be very large (as large as the Earth maps) but still have a skewed scale on the orbit of the planets to be more playable than realistic.

Well... how would we get a unit able to move off the map to the west to end up on the map at the east?

Thunderbrd said:

Well... how would we get a unit able to move off the map to the west to end up on the map at the east?

Click to expand...

Believe it was explained in the earlier topic that one could put "transition ports" at the edge of the east and west sides of the map that puts you on the other side of the map. I am unsure if you can see on the other side of it though.

Alternatively you could do what the Future Mod did and line up all the maps 90 degrees and use a toroidal map. Thus the north to south become east and west then at the poles you have impassible black terrain. This however makes the Moon and Mars the same size but still not as large as the Earth Map.

From my understanding the way Multiple Maps will work is that there will be specific things that can create access points between maps (either natural or built). A spaceport or a launchpad could be an access point from earth to the Solar System map, and when that probe moves into the space of Mars it would naturally and automatically go to the Mars Map, ie that would be a natural access point.

There is the issue of moving up a map scale (into the Solar System or Galactic Map), and where units appear, but we've discussed that in another thread. Moving down would probably allow you to access options (land at spaceport X, land in general area, crash, etc).

As for the sizes (in tiles) of maps, I think that the normal map is earth-sized, and that the other maps should be scaled accordingly (the moon is 1/3rd dimensions, mars is 1/2 dimensions).

LOL. OK... back to the topic. I appreciate the comments made to this end. I would like some more input though. Most of you seem to say that you picture each map being the same size more or less, with plots representing larger areas on smaller maps. Personally, I don't see it this way but whatever the majority wants is what I will do.

Here is a list of options we should decide between. Please only consider the "home" world only since other worlds naturally come with a larger variety.

1. The first is my personal favorite (because it is easiest to implement while accommodating some variety): we pick a range of sizes that are suitable for life and adapt the world sizes to be iterations within that range, larger maps for larger worlds and modifying the plot sizes so that they all fit within the range on which human life can easily exist.
2. We make all worlds the same size, using the number of tiles to determine the size of a plot.
3. We make all tiles the same size, adjusting the world size to fit the number of tiles. (My least favorite).
4. We give a limited number of options to pick between. If we pick this, then we should determine what those options are.
5. We allow the user free reign on how they want this to be determined (also not a favorite of mine).

When I look at map sizes I equate Standard as Earth sized. But because I'm a Sci-fi 4X Space enthusiast, when I play a Large Map I visualize a world with perhaps a 30K mile diameter. Huge would be a 50K mile diameter and so on for each larger size.

Tiles are the same size no matter the Planet size, so a Huge would have many more Tiles than a Standard. etc.

Personally, I don't see it this way but whatever the majority wants is what I will do.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in this regard.

Of the list: 1, 3, 4, and 5 as possibilities.

JosEPh

My player-view is that a tile represents a fixed area independent of map sizes (which is why rivers, hills, mountains, don't seem to change their scaling). It therefore follows that a larger map represents a larger planet, not one at a higher level of detail.

Laskaris said:

Not sure I agree with this. I think there are quite a few 100 x 100 km = 10,000 km2 squares on Earth that could adequately be described by a single terrain type / combo. There are huge deserts like the Sahara, huge plains like the ones in Central Asia, and there would be huge forests covering much of the Earth if it wasn't for us humans cutting them down.

Click to expand...

Yes well ok it's not "very rare", but for your map to be ultra-realistic, it would have to be the case virtually all the time, which it isn't. And it also has to cope with the effects of human encroachment, as you're stuck with your map through all the ages of the game, and all the depredations inflicted upon it by players and the AI.

To sum up, I still think plots 100kms square cannot really result in a 'realistic' map, and that any 'smaller' scale, at least down to 10kms square, will be more realistic.

Koshling said:

My player-view is that a tile represents a fixed area independent of map sizes (which is why rivers, hills, mountains, don't seem to change their scaling). It therefore follows that a larger map represents a larger planet, not one at a higher level of detail.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. However I equate standard map size with a planet with a surface area about that of Europe or Australia.

LOL. Such a wide variety of views. Ok... lets start picking between the options I have proposed please. I have Koshlings from his description. Dancing... I could assume the same thing but your view and Yudishtira's don't really fit any of the options.

Personally I thought the map sizes were all abstracted and it was only the level of detail. Such as a unit is not huge and a city only one tile but the unit represents many units and the 1 tile city represents like a do on a map rather than the actual size of a city.

However in planning AtoM we discussed the opposite way in that map size actually represented planet size since the "homeworld" could be set to something not earth-like as well.

Thus I think we need to look at it as a mixture of both where the map size represents an abstracted world of different sizes.

I think the initial planet would always be Earth sized and tiles represent an abstraction of the 'majority' of the territory they define. No map can get large enough to give us the kind of detail we have in RL... that doesn't mean that the smaller maps are any less earth sized.

Sure, rivers and hills and such are always the same size regardless of tile count, but that's just the difference in the abstraction based on the level of detail the player demands vs the computer's capacities. We'd need about 100 times the maximum current map size tile count to accurately portray the real world and all its very many cities and terrain variations.

Nevertheless, Humans and most animals simply could not have evolved the same on much differing a planet size as the difference in gravity alone would've shaped all life vastly differently. Even a small variance there would've created impressively different life adaptations, Dwarf like or Elf like human forms would come from stronger or weaker gravitational pulls. So Human is uniquely Earth and a product of the gravitational pull as much as any other factor, and the same can be said for Horses, Pigs, all animals really.

Therefore, I have no choice but to see map tiles as a poor resolution approximation of their area, and that area and ensuing approximation to be much larger with each step smaller on the map size.

Then so far the votes are as follows (correct me please if I am wrong):

Joseph II: 1, 3, 4, or 5
Koshling: 3
Hydromancerx: 1 or 3
Thunderbrd: 2

My own vote is 1 or 4. So far that gives us a tie between 1 and 3. I would like more votes please

EDIT: I am liking 4 more and more since we could give two choose-able options that would cover most circumstances:
Option 1: All world sizes have equal area
Option 2: All plot sizes equal regardless of world size

If none are chosen, then by definition condition #1 on which we are voting is the effective result
If option 1 is chosen, then by definition condition #2 on which we are voting is the effective result
If option 2 is chosen, then by definition condition #3 on which we are voting is the effective result
Both being chosen is NOT an option. These two should be mutually exclusive. (though we could make the effective result condition #1

I vote option 1 (all worlds are the same size). That's just the way I think about it while playing, and is the simplest to keep track of.

That's kinda confused the vote ls... you're actually casting a vote for option 2 I think. What he was saying for Option 4 was to put the choice in the hands of an option - which I think is actually a good idea because if we generate multiple maps, the first map would probably be (all world sizes are the same and the area size per tile is just larger on smaller maps) which would establish the basis for the sizes for the rest of the world maps, all scaling to the original determination as from there all tile sizes (on global maps) would represent equal area in comparison to the rest of the maps.