Bigger world sizes...Ok, how?

[Rayanth]

oh, well looking at the map file in note huge map is 128X80

I haven't poked at actual tile sizes yet, i was gonna count when i explored my 40x25 -- it should be noted that in the map sizes XML, the dimensions are not measured in tiles, but some other unit of measure.

in Civ3, Huge was 128x80 I think... I seem to recall hearing that Huge in 4, was bigger than Huge in 3.

 

[Adam7Eight]

If I remember correctly, I believe I seen that each grid square consists of 4 tiles in one of the .py files. So, if we do the math, this appears to be true and Liquid-Fire is correct.

Huge: 32x20 So... 32x4=128, 20x4=80

 

[triton2023]

anyone try other map size which bigger than 40*25?

 

[Adam7Eight]

You're probably not going to want anything bigger, especially if you plan on sticking around to play the 1800's, 1900's and beyond. Things are gonna get slow, I can assure you.

But to answer your question, I haven't tried anything bigger. I don't think I'm going to either. I don't want to play that long of a game just to experience the 3-minute wait in-between turns that I predicted would happen 6 hours earlier when I started the game.

 

[DS_CL]

I recently attempted to create the largest map possible by incrimenting the <iGridHeight> by five and using the 1.6 ratio given by Raynath. I was able to get my maps working up to 35 x 56. At that point, the game would crash about half way through the loading process. I should also add that the load took about 15-20 minutes before crashing on my computer.

I would be interested to know if this is only my computer causing the game to crash or if this is in fact the maximum size the game's engine is able to handle.

This is somewhat dissapointing because the map size is well below the maximum map size of Civ III. Multiplying the map ratio by 4, this size comes to 140 x 224. The Civ III max size was 362 x 362.

 

[Rayanth]

I recently attempted to create the largest map possible by incrimenting the <iGridHeight> by five and using the 1.6 ratio given by Raynath. I was able to get my maps working up to 35 x 56. At that point, the game would crash about half way through the loading process. I should also add that the load took about 15-20 minutes before crashing on my computer.

I would be interested to know if this is only my computer causing the game to crash or if this is in fact the maximum size the game's engine is able to handle.

This is somewhat dissapointing because the map size is well below the maximum map size of Civ III. Multiplying the map ratio by 4, this size comes to 140 x 224. The Civ III max size was 362 x 362.

actually, Huge, if low is correct, is the same as Huge in Civ3, 128x80 tiles (32x20 * 4)

The "Mega" i played with was 40x25, so a whopping 160 x 100 tiles, and i've played that game up to 200 BC so far. No issues. However tabbing out of the game for more than a few seconds will result in a swap dump, which take supwards of about 10 minutes to bring back to memory for the game to run again!

Anything larger than huge is NOT recommended on lesser hardware. I'm starting to get a little annoyed at how long my 40x25 takes to load up, and that's with the following system specs:

Athlon 2800+
512mb of memory (the 40x25 took 300 megs physical memory, and 600 Virtual! nearly a GIG of memory for one map!)
Radeon 9600/256mb video card.

on ANYTHING lesser than my system specs I do NOT recommend any map larger than Huge. If you have something more powerful, particularly in the processor and memory quota, then give larger games a shot. I suspect crashes are a result of memory issues during map generation.

 

[Gedemon]

using the gigantic (37x23) map from low (thx btw), with a longer gameplay, well...

my A64 3200+ - 1Gb mem - 6800GT is very slow since the modern era... I mean not only a 3mn wait between turns, that I can handle with a good book at hand, but even on the normal view it's slow...

I'm playing windowed, maybe it would be better to play full screen WITHOUT alt-tabbing at all

 

[Feet]

Hi all. Quick question.

I want to create a slightly odd shaped map. Long and thin, not dis-similar to the shape of the British mainland. Can this be done? I'm thinking it will be a ratio of 5:1 (so for example 100 tiles in height, 20 tiles in width). If it can be done what's the highest I can go on the height? Ideally if i can go 500:100 that would be top...

I tried to use the tilt_axis map type but this does not give the right ratio and the poles are on the sides instead of at the top and bottom so this is no good to me.

Thanks for any advice you can give.

 

[Ravinhood]

Just to let yall know all that ratio stuff isn't necessary. I've been running 80x60 maps for several games now. Works great and 14 civs can get near 7 cities each easily, I average 8 to 10 cities on this map. The first number is the width and I think it could push 100 or a little more. The 60 is pushing the height, but, I still think it could take 20 more points also. I'm guessing 120 x 80 is near max size map. I also play PANGEA maps, so, that makes a difference also in land mass vs water. Rather have lotsa land than water anyways in my games.

You guys having lag issues and all probably have some system issues. I just have a 2.4ghz Intel processor with 1gig ram and sound blaster 5.1 gamer sound card and Geforce Ultra 5900 video card. My virtual memory is 2500 and I've only seen the game hit around 880mb used so far on the chart. Works great and runs smoothly, I haven't seen any slow down at all. But, I'm using single unit graphics and health bar as far as my only graphics option change.

 

[DS_CL]

actually, Huge, if low is correct, is the same as Huge in Civ3, 128x80 tiles (32x20 * 4)

Actually, I am referring to the hard limit of 362 x 362. This was the largest size map the Civ III editor would allow you to build. Since I have scenarios I was hoping to convert from Civ III to Civ IV that are at this limit, if I cannot find a way to up the map size this will not be possible.

I also tested a few maps disregarding the ratio of 1.6 to 1. This works fine. However, if you scroll to the world view, and roll around the map you will notice a few graphic glitches in the clouds and how the terrain is drawn. However, I haven’t noticed any negative affect on the game by disregarding the ratio.

 

[Adam7Eight]

Since each grid cell in Civ4 consists of 4 plots, then 362/4= 90.5

Go ahead, someone make a map that's 90.5x90.5.

 

[IntegerX]

Hi, I haven't have the game yet so my question may appear stupid.

Can someone explain why in WorldPickerInfos.xml, gigantic map is keyed in as 2.4 times that of standard map; yet, CIV4WorldInfo.xml, the size is 40x25 (which is not 2.4 times that of standard)?

How do the two things correlate?

 

[Adam7Eight]

The "2.4" setting in the WorldPickerInfos file makes the map appear bigger on the setup screen in relation to the other map sizes. It has nothing at all to do with the actual gameplay or the actual 40x25 size of the map.

 

[IntegerX]

The "2.4" setting in the WorldPickerInfos file makes the map appear bigger on the setup screen in relation to the other map sizes. It has nothing at all to do with the actual gameplay or the actual 40x25 size of the map.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense now.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

I'm looking at creating a 150X180 scenario map. There's a lot of mountains and ocean, though, and I want to make forests unsettlable. Any idea if these will effect how long the scenario will take to load... I'm hoping all of the unusable terrain will make this large map act like a much smaller map in loading... Or does an empty super-gigantic map load as quickly as a normal one... Anyone notice this when using the maps? I don't have the game, yet, that's why I'm asking...

Thank you.

 

[Adam7Eight]

It will still definately take longer to load. The more plots you have, the longer it's gonna take.

However, it might be a little quicker in regards to the time it takes in between turns to other larger maps later in the game, since there's a lot more unsettlable land.

 

[Adam7Eight]

First post has now been edited for simplification.

 

[Feet]

Ok well if you want to read this thread I made over at Apolyton I have found out through trial and error that the max number of tiles you can have on the Y axis is between 125 and 127.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141652

This means that theoretically you should be able to have around 180 on the X axis, though obviously I'm just guessing this.

180 x 125(ish) then. Definately the Y axis is correct anyway.

 

[Adam7Eight]

Ok well if you want to read this thread I made over at Apolyton I have found out through trial and error that the max number of tiles you can have on the Y axis is between 125 and 127.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141652

This means that theoretically you should be able to have around 180 on the X axis, though obviously I'm just guessing this.

180 x 125(ish) then. Definately the Y axis is correct anyway.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[jpinard]

Anyone know what this line actually represents?

<iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>7</iNumFreeBuildingBonuses>