[MAP] Earth - 420 x 312 - WIP

Quintillus

Restoring Civ3 Content
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
8,422
Location
Ohio
Back in 2014 or 2015, I added a feature to my editor that allowed creating a map from a BMP image. It wasn't the first time that had been done, but it allowed arbitrary map sizes, and allowed more colors than a 1:1 ratio to terrains, and was thus more flexible than previous options.

Arbitrary map sizes... limited only by Civ3's well-known tile limit, of... 362x362 tiles? Not so! There is a Civ3 limit, but the limit is 65,535 tiles, or 2^16 - 1, and 362 is simply the largest number you can fit into a square Civ3 map (or square in an isometric sense, at least), and so that was the limit that the Firaxis editor made, and to my knowledge there hasn't been a map with more than 362 tiles in a single dimension to date.

After adding that feature, I used it to create an Earth map, using NASA satellite imagery of the Earth, in equirectangular projection, as a source, producing satisfactory contours of the landmasses, and halfway decent forest coverage, albeit with some forest/jungle confusion. However, many finer details would be needed to turn it into a fully playable Earth map - notably, hills, mountains, rivers, and resources, in addition to some fine tuning here and there. Alas, it turns out I am not a natural map maker, and it's now been close to 4 and a half years since I last updated the map.

Thus I've decided to upload the work-in-progress of it, so that if anyone would like to take up the torch, they are able to, as well as for the possibility that having more community input from it may motivate me to move it forward at least somewhat.

My overall vision for it comprises (in no particular order):

- Encouraging thinking outside the box with map dimensions
- A more realistic, aspect-ratio-wise, Earth map of the larger possible dimensions
- Due to the inherent Civ3 city number limitations, I'd imagine limiting cities by some combination of not being able to build on desert/tundra, perhaps as well as limiting city building to certain spots (e.g. marsh, hills).
- Lately I've been thinking of a world-wide scenario that pushes Civ in some ways that I still need to prove are technically feasible. Yes, it would work just fine on Marla Singer, Yoda Power, or Rhye's maps, but more tiles and detail are always tempting.

Map details:

- Equirectangular
- 75 degrees North to 60 degrees South
- Beyond the map projection, no continents are favored
- Australia is larger than Greenland

Screenshots (at 10.6% zoom; 1920x1160):

Spoiler Old World :




Spoiler New World :




BIQ Download (Firefox/IE only; does not work in Chrome or derivatives (See also attachment for .zip version)

I'll probably add it to the downloads database once it's more polished.
 

Attachments

  • Quintillus Earth.zip
    47.8 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:
In my eyes one of the biggest problems with Civ 3 world maps is, that they mostly hold too less place for the many civs in Europe - what is geographically correct, but mostly very bad for gameplay. Even the 420 x 312 worldmap holds less tiles for Europe (distance France - Königsberg) than the existing 360 x 306 worldmap, that was introduced with an enlarged Europe by Rocoteh in his WW2 scenario WW2 Global (205 -234 = 29 tiles to 171 - 205 = 34 tiles).
Spoiler :



 

Attachments

  • Quintillus Map.jpg
    Quintillus Map.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,744
  • WW2 Global map.jpg
    WW2 Global map.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,827
In my eyes one of the biggest problems with Civ 3 world maps is, that they mostly hold too less place for the many civs in Europe - what is geographically correct, but mostly very bad for gameplay. Even the 420 x 312 worldmap holds less tiles for Europe (distance France - Königsberg) than the existing 360 x 306 worldmap, that was introduced with an enlarged Europe by Rocoteh in his WW2 scenario WW2 Global (205 -234 = 29 tiles to 171 - 205 = 34 tiles).

@Civinator, my friend, might I ask you to re-post those without the tile numbers? They drive your poor Official Gfx Idiot blind.
 
Quintillus it looks great, but I would have to remove all those dinky islands. Chop off a ton of the ice in the north. Realism is nice, but got to keep some sanity. What do you envision the cost factor for that size of a map? I used 750 for a 362 map.
 
@Civinator, my friend, might I ask you to re-post those without the tile numbers? They drive your poor Official Gfx Idiot blind.

Oz, the focus of that post is, that I prefer smaller maps, that offer more place in the regions that are important for the mod/scenario compared to a geographically more correct worldmap, that offers a lot of space, but in regions of the world, that are not so important for that mod/scenario. In most cases, due to histoy, Europe should be much bigger on a worldmap, than it is in reality. Per example, what helps a more correct worldmap for a WW2 mod/scenario, that offers plenty of place in Central Africa for hundreds of cities, but for Europe only allows 5- 10 cities ?

I tried to demonstrate this for the 420 x 312 worldmap compared to an existing 360 x 306 worldmap, where the, in all dimensions much smaller worldmap, offers more place for gameplay in Europe and therefore is suited much better in gameplay for most historical mods and scenarios. Therfore the tile numbers are needed to show, that the much smaller map offers much more place in that region. The most accurate worldmap mustn´t always be the best suited map for gameplay of Civ 3 mods and scenarios.

Oz, if you click into the attached screenshots at the bottom of my last post in this thread, you see an enlarged picture of the screenshot with clearly to identify tile numbers, and this picture could be enlarged to an even bigger format, so the eyes doctor is not needed. :)
 
Ah - I actually didn't miss your point; I simply wasn't clear. I've so long referred to myself as the "Village Gx Idiot :crazyeye: " (TM) not only because I have difficulty using gfx tools, but because I don't "think" visually. (True story: 6 years after I moved into my girlfriend's apartment, we were having a dinner party during which one guest mentioned the exposed brick wall in the bedroom. Startled, I replied, "There's a brick wall in the bedroom?") It would have been much easier for completely "see" your point without the numbered tags "confusing" me.

BTW, I, long ago, raised the same question about Europe in another context; @Yoda Power replied that this was his intent with his (admittedly large, 256 x 256) map.
 
Download link's broken. Is there another mirror?

Ah, that's because Chrome and its derivatives no longer allow HTTP (non-S) downloads, and it's an HTTP download. It's not really broken, it just works best in Firefox or Internet Explorer.

But I have added a .zip version as an option as well, as an attachment to the first post. It's an extra step to decompress it (which is why I added it as a .biq directly), but should work in all browsers.

Let me know what you think... as mentioned, this is intended as a "here's a start, do with it what you like" project.
 
Ah, that's because Chrome and its derivatives no longer allow HTTP (non-S) downloads, and it's an HTTP download. It's not really broken, it just works best in Firefox or Internet Explorer.

But I have added a .zip version as an option as well, as an attachment to the first post. It's an extra step to decompress it (which is why I added it as a .biq directly), but should work in all browsers.

Let me know what you think... as mentioned, this is intended as a "here's a start, do with it what you like" project.
I must have missed that. It looks amazing! I'm looking at the Americas and it somehow packs even more space than the America-centered map (with only the adjacent edges of the Old World present) I'm working on that's 400 squares high specifically so it can do that. Looks like I need to be a bit braver and tweak it a bit. :)
 
I must have missed that. It looks amazing! I'm looking at the Americas and it somehow packs even more space than the America-centered map (with only the adjacent edges of the Old World present) I'm working on that's 400 squares high specifically so it can do that. Looks like I need to be a bit braver and tweak it a bit. :)

Go ahead and tweak it! I have now confirmed that this is the latest version, with a few mountains placed around Europe.

The main goal was to create a geographically proportionate map of the inhabited areas of the world (minus the ice caps, basically). I don't know which America-centered map you mean, but because it's wider (not taller) than any other map, America has more space east-west than it would on, say, a 362x362 map.

Re-reading Civinator's posts from years ago, I'm now thinking it would be fun to have a whole collection of extra-large maps focused on smaller areas, in addition to the world. A Mediterranean/Europe one, a North America one, an Asia one, an Africa one (but likely taller rather than wider), an Australia one if you really want the outback to feel gigantic. Of course, I obviously didn't add all the finishing features to the world one, so starting the others now wouldn't make sense (unless it strikes someone's fancy). And Civ3 doesn't really play humungous maps optimally, with regard to the AI turn time and city limit. But who doesn't like ginormous maps in theory, if not in practice?
 
Oh. It's literally something I started working on in the past week. Haven't uploaded it or anything. I have the Americas in the center of the map with a tiny bit of Europe + Africa and a tiny bit of Asia at the sides. Since it's 400 high I figured it would have plenty of space for civs but your Mesoamerica is still chunkier lol.

For monstrous maps, I wonder if it may be more sensible to increase unit movement by 1 square. Though I wonder what the gameplay effects of that would be (e.g. fast units withdrawing, but still ending their turn on the same square).
 
Oh. It's literally something I started working on in the past week. Haven't uploaded it or anything. I have the Americas in the center of the map with a tiny bit of Europe + Africa and a tiny bit of Asia at the sides. Since it's 400 high I figured it would have plenty of space for civs but your Mesoamerica is still chunkier lol.

For monstrous maps, I wonder if it may be more sensible to increase unit movement by 1 square. Though I wonder what the gameplay effects of that would be (e.g. fast units withdrawing, but still ending their turn on the same square).

That's why I didn't know the specific map! I definitely think increased movement may make sense for larger maps. Civ IV dabbled with that with India's unique unit being a fast worker, and I think Civ VI has 2-movement workers by default. Old World, which I've been playing lately, has multi-movement for everything. Although its cities are also a lot farther apart than Civ's. But that might work with this sort of map. My vision for it included designated city locations (usually done by using the Marsh as the only settleable area), which could be used to keep cities spaced out.

Fast withdraw/retreat would be the tradeoff; there's no way to say "this unit can move multiple tiles, but cannot retreat". You could force the issue through experience levels (not letting any units retreat), but that has tradeoffs too. I am curious what it would look like to have a map with spread-out locations, with multi-movement for all units, but with heavily different retreat probabilities by experience level. Conscript 0%, Regular 35%, Veteran 70%, Elite 100%, or something like that. Experienced troops would be much more likely to live to fight another day in that sort of setup. Though there's still no way to give a higher retreat chance to cavalry if all units have multiple movement.
 
That's why I didn't know the specific map! I definitely think increased movement may make sense for larger maps. Civ IV dabbled with that with India's unique unit being a fast worker, and I think Civ VI has 2-movement workers by default. Old World, which I've been playing lately, has multi-movement for everything. Although its cities are also a lot farther apart than Civ's. But that might work with this sort of map. My vision for it included designated city locations (usually done by using the Marsh as the only settleable area), which could be used to keep cities spaced out.

Fast withdraw/retreat would be the tradeoff; there's no way to say "this unit can move multiple tiles, but cannot retreat". You could force the issue through experience levels (not letting any units retreat), but that has tradeoffs too. I am curious what it would look like to have a map with spread-out locations, with multi-movement for all units, but with heavily different retreat probabilities by experience level. Conscript 0%, Regular 35%, Veteran 70%, Elite 100%, or something like that. Experienced troops would be much more likely to live to fight another day in that sort of setup. Though there's still no way to give a higher retreat chance to cavalry if all units have multiple movement.
What do you think of the city sprawl solution in Rhye's? That might be sufficient.

As for withdrawing, I just realized vanilla horsemen do the exact same thing I was concerned about. If they move 1, attack and flee, they end their turn next to the enemy, but if they use their first move to attack they can still get away. So maybe a movement 3 fast unit would be an actually threatening skirmisher on even standard maps. Mechanics are probably worth testing.

I've also thought about giving conscripts a near-100% withdraw ability. Logic being the green troops are likelier to rout, and also to preserve them in their low-health state against better units. It would sort of allow a kind of "Zerg rush" style scenario against more advanced civs; low attack and defense, but cheap and have tricks to keep themselves alive and harass/overwhelm the enemy.
 
I confess to having had some thoughts about full Earth maps, of late. And I look at maps, of any sort, and note that the following areas are all but useless to both Civs and civilizations:
  • Anything north of the Arctic Circle (with a "cut-out" to include all of Scandinavia excepted.)
  • The Sahara.
  • The Amazon Jungle.
  • The Australian Outback.
In one lifetime or another, I'd like to get around to making an Earth map which:
  • Eliminate that Arctic bit,
  • "Compress" areas like the Sahara & Amazon, north-to-south, and "compensating" for this with higher Tile movement costs.
  • Artificially moving the now already "compressed" Africa southwards, thereby ...
  • Enlarging the map areas where Civs can actually exist.
I have a few other specifics in mind, like using Quint's editor to make the ocean areas, along the western coast of Africa, Sea Tiles, so galleys can't go gallivanting to Timbuktu.

:D
 
Sorry all, for some reason I didn't see the notifications for the posts here even though I appear to have thread-watching enabled.

What do you think of the city sprawl solution in Rhye's? That might be sufficient.

As for withdrawing, I just realized vanilla horsemen do the exact same thing I was concerned about. If they move 1, attack and flee, they end their turn next to the enemy, but if they use their first move to attack they can still get away. So maybe a movement 3 fast unit would be an actually threatening skirmisher on even standard maps. Mechanics are probably worth testing.

I've also thought about giving conscripts a near-100% withdraw ability. Logic being the green troops are likelier to rout, and also to preserve them in their low-health state against better units. It would sort of allow a kind of "Zerg rush" style scenario against more advanced civs; low attack and defense, but cheap and have tricks to keep themselves alive and harass/overwhelm the enemy.

You'll have to refresh me on that solution in Rhye's. I've actually played far more RFC in Civ4 than Rhye's (either Rhye's of Civilization, or Rhye's map) in Civ3. RFC seemed like pretty much the coolest thing ever to me when Civ4 was new.

I can see the logic on conscripts being more likely to flee. I suppose that would also make them less useful for defending important areas.

The movement 3 unit could still move two tiles, attack/withdraw, and be stuck next to an enemy, but it would reduce the chances of that happening. I'm not sure there's a good way to avoid that altogether in a traditional Civ-like 4X. Although pie in the sky, it would be neat to be able to configure a unit to withdraw with, say, 2 hitpoints, so it still can withdraw again on the defensive turn, and really be a bit of a pain to finish off. Not possible in Civ3, but one can dream. I've also occasionally wished that I could tell, say, a Knight, no, I don't want you to withdraw with one hitpoint, it's really important to try to finish off this Spearman this turn! And especially if I'm digging deep into the reserves, and it's a Knight that only has two hitpoints to start with, it seemingly always loses on the first round of combat and then retreats rather than try again.

I confess to having had some thoughts about full Earth maps, of late. And I look at maps, of any sort, and note that the following areas are all but useless to both Civs and civilizations:
  • Anything north of the Arctic Circle (with a "cut-out" to include all of Scandinavia excepted.)
  • The Sahara.
  • The Amazon Jungle.
  • The Australian Outback.
In one lifetime or another, I'd like to get around to making an Earth map which:
  • Eliminate that Arctic bit,
  • "Compress" areas like the Sahara & Amazon, north-to-south, and "compensating" for this with higher Tile movement costs.
  • Artificially moving the now already "compressed" Africa southwards, thereby ...
  • Enlarging the map areas where Civs can actually exist.
I have a few other specifics in mind, like using Quint's editor to make the ocean areas, along the western coast of Africa, Sea Tiles, so galleys can't go gallivanting to Timbuktu.

:D

Indeed, those are good examples of why at a large scale, these sorts of conversion are often not ideal for gameplay. Although I think you could make a nice unique scenario around, say, Australia itself where there are separate temperate areas separated by large swathes of inhospitable desert. Wouldn't be surprised if I could find something of that sort somewhere in the Downloads Database, or an old thread.

And yet again, I'm reminded of a project that sounded cool but is competing with 42 other projects for attention...
 
Indeed, those are good examples of why at a large scale, these sorts of conversion are often not ideal for gameplay. Although I think you could make a nice unique scenario around, say, Australia itself where there are separate temperate areas separated by large swathes of inhospitable desert. Wouldn't be surprised if I could find something of that sort somewhere in the Downloads Database, or an old thread.

And yet again, I'm reminded of a project that sounded cool but is competing with 42 other projects for attention...

*sigh* ditto on the "42," and what a bummer it is that @Blue Monkey's files on the "New Civ 3 Projection World Map" were corrupted.

And, again about that "42," if I ever actually have time for it :undecide: I'm doing a similar map for Terra Fantasia. The Earth looked different 120,000 years ago, but the overall shapes of the continents were the same ...

... And, about scouring dbs etc., as the now "pseudo-Archivist" :cooool: - Nope. Seriously, don't waste your time. Even though anyone looking at a regular map of the Earth can notice both north of the Arctic circle (and I don't think that even that has ever been "truncated") the swath of inhospitable terrain extends in another, at a mildly different angle, from the Sahara well into Asia.

C'est la guerre.
 
You'll have to refresh me on that solution in Rhye's. I've actually played far more RFC in Civ4 than Rhye's (either Rhye's of Civilization, or Rhye's map) in Civ3. RFC seemed like pretty much the coolest thing ever to me when Civ4 was new.
Basically the settlers in Rhye's have more shields and higher pop-cost than vanilla, and as you advance in the tech tree they replace themselves with even more costly settlers. In addition, among some other features, no cities can be built on deserts, tundra, jungle or forests -- period. From the readme, which also has some other really great stuff:
Spoiler :

Problem with a generic Earth map
using standard rules
Solution
- The world is almost completely covered with cities even in the Ancient Age.
- Some civs have “very good” starting locations, causing the first city to be a settler factory. For example, the Iroquois start by the lakes, and every lake tile offers 2 food (This setting is hard coded and can’t be changed.).
- Reduce the over-production of settlers:
The Settler unit is split into 3 units: ancient Settler (cost: 3 population & 100 shields); medieval Settler (cost: 4 population & 190 shields; requires Feudalism); and modern Settler (cost: 5 population & 300 shields; requires Enlightenment).
Expansionist civs get a discount.
This progressively slows civs expansion and drastically cuts loading times.
- Removed the chance of getting a settler from a goody hut (replaced with a warrior)
- Increased Worker shield cost (24) and Granary cost (8) to slow down the growth of cities.
- Flood plains will produce 2 food instead of 3.
- Disease strength caused by flood plains increased to 80.
- Enabled plagues.
- LM plains, LM hills (0 shields), LM grassland (1 food), together with invisible resources, close to some starting location will affect the way some civs develop. Over-growing civs will have a problem with shields or food and their expansion will be contained.
- Reassigned some civ traits. (Iroquois were agricultural, too! That combo should be avoided.) In-game civilopedia shows the new traits.

I've also occasionally wished that I could tell, say, a Knight, no, I don't want you to withdraw with one hitpoint, it's really important to try to finish off this Spearman this turn! And especially if I'm digging deep into the reserves, and it's a Knight that only has two hitpoints to start with, it seemingly always loses on the first round of combat and then retreats rather than try again.
Don't units only flee if they would have died anyway?
I confess to having had some thoughts about full Earth maps, of late. And I look at maps, of any sort, and note that the following areas are all but useless to both Civs and civilizations:
  • Anything north of the Arctic Circle (with a "cut-out" to include all of Scandinavia excepted.)
  • The Sahara.
  • The Amazon Jungle.
  • The Australian Outback.
In one lifetime or another, I'd like to get around to making an Earth map which:
  • Eliminate that Arctic bit,
  • "Compress" areas like the Sahara & Amazon, north-to-south, and "compensating" for this with higher Tile movement costs.
  • Artificially moving the now already "compressed" Africa southwards, thereby ...
  • Enlarging the map areas where Civs can actually exist.
I have a few other specifics in mind, like using Quint's editor to make the ocean areas, along the western coast of Africa, Sea Tiles, so galleys can't go gallivanting to Timbuktu.

:D
I don't completely agree with this, but it depends on what you want your game to do. Just because land isn't inhabited or densely populated doesn't necessarily mean it has no purpose -- gameplay-wise or in real life (oceans are a good example of this). Done correctly these regions can, for example, be highly competitive resource areas or trade routes. Many of the areas you mentioned are economically lucrative in some way or another (mineral wealth of the deserts & northern latitudes, numerous scientific, timber, medical, agricultural etc. industries from the Amazon), not to mention being home to some of their own civilizations. If you're limited in how extensively you can settle these areas and are forced to only connect to valuable resources via colonies, then their security becomes more fragile and competitive, especially if you have to deal with barbarians that these kinds of "terra nullius" areas are great for continuing to provide up into the modern era, constantly giving your military units something to do.

Also, "gallivanting to Timbuktu" is precisely what Hanno did! (to Cameroon, anyway) 😝 Although, cutting off a coastal trade route could force civs into building a land route over the Sahara. Get yourself some Tuareg caravans that can handle the higher movement cost you put on desert.
 
Basically the settlers in Rhye's have more shields and higher pop-cost than vanilla, and as you advance in the tech tree they replace themselves with even more costly settlers. In addition, among some other features, no cities can be built on deserts, tundra, jungle or forests -- period. From the readme, which also has some other really great stuff:
Spoiler :

Problem with a generic Earth map
using standard rules
Solution
- The world is almost completely covered with cities even in the Ancient Age.
- Some civs have “very good” starting locations, causing the first city to be a settler factory. For example, the Iroquois start by the lakes, and every lake tile offers 2 food (This setting is hard coded and can’t be changed.).
- Reduce the over-production of settlers:
The Settler unit is split into 3 units: ancient Settler (cost: 3 population & 100 shields); medieval Settler (cost: 4 population & 190 shields; requires Feudalism); and modern Settler (cost: 5 population & 300 shields; requires Enlightenment).
Expansionist civs get a discount.
This progressively slows civs expansion and drastically cuts loading times.
- Removed the chance of getting a settler from a goody hut (replaced with a warrior)
- Increased Worker shield cost (24) and Granary cost (8) to slow down the growth of cities.
- Flood plains will produce 2 food instead of 3.
- Disease strength caused by flood plains increased to 80.
- Enabled plagues.
- LM plains, LM hills (0 shields), LM grassland (1 food), together with invisible resources, close to some starting location will affect the way some civs develop. Over-growing civs will have a problem with shields or food and their expansion will be contained.
- Reassigned some civ traits. (Iroquois were agricultural, too! That combo should be avoided.) In-game civilopedia shows the new traits.


Don't units only flee if they would have died anyway?
Ah yes, that is a good reminder! Part of why Rhye was a great modder, creating mods with ideas like those. I've borrowed the restrictions on settler locations (albeit not as strict) in many of my personal scenarios and stories as well.

Units flee when they reach 1 hitpoint, but if they don't flee, they might still win the fight. It's especially annoying if e.g. a Warrior is attacking a Knight and getting lucky, but the Knight would still have a 75% chance of winning if it didn't flee. Rare, but situational.
 
Top Bottom