Default Ai city spacing, 64 bit maps and other ramblings.

[Larsenex]

Greetings!

A few things that I have mentioned before is that with a 64 bit engine we can conceivably have FAR larger maps than before. Your game rig will ultimately determine how large a map you want to play on. I would love a map that is 2 or even 3 times larger than the LARGEST map in Civ 5. That coupled with say 25 or 30 civs and Epic game pacing for me seems like a perfect weekend. It may sound boring to you but I can tell you that it would be something I am really hoping we can get or mod in (very large maps).

All this will be gated by >> Memory (8 gigs ok 16 gigs far better), and the number of cores/threads your processor has. I am limited to 4 as I have a 3570K but I will rebuild using a 6850K next year, (6 cores/12 threads). My assumption is based on GCIII in that each AI is given is own thread if available for turn processing. I would hope that Civ VI is going along the same lines.

Now we know the cities unpack and all spread out. One that that annoyed me is the AI always placed the cities so damn close. I hope they would spread out a bit more to allow for unpacking.

Personally I like to place my cities FAR apart, at least with 1 or 2 hexes between them (accounting for full expansion).

What are your thoughts on the spacing between cities? One thing I would do is if i had a coastal city I would place my 2nd inland almost strait away (many tiles) from my initial coastal to grab some inland space and then put down another coastal either South or North of the main and let the "triangle" fill in. This would be my core empire and I would expand out from there.

I am really looking forward to Civ VI...


Moderator Action: Wall of big text downsized to normal font size

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think I've ever seen you post in Comic Sans before.

But a tl;dr would be that while a 64-bit engine offers advantages, these advantages have probably been used to give us deeper mechanics and richer graphical technologies (note: not art style, before anybody starts that particular gem again) rather than extending the map size.

 

[rastak]

If map size mods were limited by memory before I would "guess" much larger maps could be modded in without the game being unplayable.

 

[toft]

-----

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I am not amused by your choice of font.

So far there have been conflicting signals on whether the map size will be increased or not. Someone on Reddit said that they probably don't want to announce it yet, because if they'd end up having to scrap it before release, all hell would break loose due to the 'broken promise'. It makes sense I suppose, but if I believed in a deity, I'd pray every day that we get bigger maps.

There's some comfort, though, in the fact that us having so few cities in Civ V was caused mostly by the punitive mechanics of expansion (global happiness, science + policy penalty, AI attitude hit), rather than too little space. So, even with similarly sized maps we'll hopefully have many more cities (earlier as well).

 

[uhcougar31]

I go for wherever space is best able to contain the most amount of resources within my civilization borders.

I could see that changing with Civ VI, in that you would want to place your city to contain the most/best resources for your cities specialization, and have them contained within your CITIES borders, not necessarily the civilizations borders.

How close/far away your cities are from your other cities sounds like will be secondary to me. But of course having them too far away allows for a competing Civ to set up shop in the middle of your Civ's potential borders.

I would expect the AI to do the same.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What we've seen so far suggests map sizes to be exactly the same as in Civ5 (the E3 demo fits Civ5 standard map size), although developers could surely add bigger map size on top of those.

P.S. People keep using "64-bit" or "multithreaded" as buzzwords. In reality there's nearly nothing you can do with 64-bit which you can't in 32-bit, it's just most things are easier in 64-bit (although there is a small amount of things which are actually harder).

 

[toft]

-----

 

[rastak]

What we've seen so far suggests map sizes to be exactly the same as in Civ5 (the E3 demo fits Civ5 standard map size), although developers could surely add bigger map size on top of those.

P.S. People keep using "64-bit" or "multithreaded" as buzzwords. In reality there's nearly nothing you can do with 64-bit which you can't in 32-bit, it's just most things are easier in 64-bit (although there is a small amount of things which are actually harder).

Was there a hard coded cap on map size for modders in Civ 5?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maps in civ5 are limited by memory... so yea, 64-bit is not a buzz word.

32-bit limits amount of addressable memory for a single process. It's possible to implement nearly unlimited map with 32-bit. It's not a big deal doing 10000x10000 map in 32-bit, you'll not even need to split it to caches. Your processor will die calculating AI turn and graphical memory will blow generating terrain, but the main memory will be totally ok.

 

[Larsenex]

Toft is correct. Map size is indeed limited by memory. Its one reason I am so happy with the change to 64 bit.

I would direct you to see the different sizes of maps between Galactic Civilizations II and III.

Also UI and icons an generally lots of stuff on screen can also use up memory.

Note: comic sans is my favorite font and well I am older and larger is better!

Moderator Action: Wall of large text downsized to normal font size

 

[Ryika]

Note: comic sans is my favorite font and well I am older and larger is bette[/SIZE]r!

Well, if the formatting of your posts is anything to go by, then you're making a good case against big maps here.

 

[skyclad]

I would like this because then cities could be more "unstacked" (hate that word lol) and still not completely unrealistic/out of scale.
Now for example its would be more acceptable for say the great library to take up an entire tile.
It will always be a bit silly though, building a giant Eiffel tower next to Paris, with the same size as the city

 

[Staler87]

And archers can shoot over the English Channel. The thing is map objects will always be unrealistically proportioned so if it seems like it is a good mechanic then they should add it. For the map size to be realistic one tile of water would have to be rivers rather than channels.

 

[Larsenex]

Ok I'll size down the font a bit. Still the idea is that with larger maps you can still have 'many' civs and still LOTS of room to grow.

That really was what I wanted.

 

[Krajzen]

Wasn't it somewhere mentioned by devs, quite specifically, how maps are NOT going to be significantly bigger?

I recall something like that but can't find appropriate link.

 

[TRoosevelt]

And archers can shoot over the English Channel. The thing is map objects will always be unrealistically proportioned so if it seems like it is a good mechanic then they should add it. For the map size to be realistic one tile of water would have to be rivers rather than channels.

That's why I would like to see larger maps - to increase the scale of land and sea tiles, not only just to have more cities. I would like to have navigable rivers (actual rivers - not just coastal channels) where we could sail upriver into the interior of a continent and explore, trade, and conduct naval combat. I feel the game is really missing out on a lot of strategy and gameplay by NOT having this ability.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Wasn't it somewhere mentioned by devs, quite specifically, how maps are NOT going to be significantly bigger?

I recall something like that but can't find appropriate link.

It was not a general statement, but a statement to the effect that they didn't have to increase the map size *due to some specific thing that I've already forgotten*. So, it could be interpreted either way. ... Which is frustrating, to say the least!

 

[Amrunril]

I want to push back against the idea that larger maps are necessarily better. Changing the map size changes many things about the game, from the relative amount of time spent on city/unit management as opposed to broad strategic decisions, to the competitiveness of unique game elements (world wonders, religious beliefs, early adopter ideology bonuses), to the potential for runaway AIs. Players will differ widely on what the right balance is, and if programming advances better support players who prefer the largest of maps, I'm happy for them. Don't assume though, that everyone would like to see the default size increased.

 

[Staler87]

I want to push back against the idea that larger maps are necessarily better. Changing the map size changes many things about the game, from the relative amount of time spent on city/unit management as opposed to broad strategic decisions, to the competitiveness of unique game elements (world wonders, religious beliefs, early adopter ideology bonuses), to the potential for runaway AIs. Players will differ widely on what the right balance is, and if programming advances better support players who prefer the largest of maps, I'm happy for them. Don't assume though, that everyone would like to see the default size increased.

I think this thread is more about the possibility of larger maps rather than up-scaling of existing map sizes.