Feedback: Maps and Terrain

[Howard Mahler]

I have tried the Giant map size.
(14 Civs.)
Liked it a lot. Thanks.

However, as I got to the 1890s AD I ran into a memory allocation problem on my Mac.
MAC OS 10.6.7.
4 GB of memory.

I believe based on what has been said before this is not unexpected, nor is there much that can be done about it.
Although I do not believe I unpacked (if that is the right word) the images as I used to on earlier versions.
Just thought I would mention it as a warning to others.

I used Macapaka to unpack the 5 FPKs.
Have not had another memory allocation problem yet playing about 10 more years.
In 0.9.4 version of HR, I had not had to do this when playing on huge rather than giant maps.

 

[Howard Mahler]

On a Huge map I play at marathon speed.

Trying out the Giant map I also played on marathon speed, the slowest speed available.
While it is not terrible, due to the large distances to be covered, I suspect a slower speed would be better, particularly in the later parts of the game for example after 1600. Wars take more turns on average when the civs are further apart and bigger.

I hope that when you get the chance you will consider adding a slower speed to go with the bigger map sizes.

 

[Xyth]

However, as I got to the 1890s AD I ran into a memory allocation problem on my Mac.
MAC OS 10.6.7.
4 GB of memory.

Were you able to continue the game after quitting and reloading or were you consistently getting the MAF after reloading?

I used Macapaka to unpack the 5 FPKs.
Have not had another memory allocation problem yet playing about 10 more years.
In 0.9.4 version of HR, I had not had to do this when playing on huge rather than giant maps.

Good to know. That's actually better than I expected. Keep me posted.

I hope that when you get the chance you will consider adding a slower speed to go with the bigger map sizes.

That shouldn't be too hard to do. I'll give it a go for 0.9.6.

 

[Howard Mahler]

On the Huge map the Domination victory is already very long and hard.

On the Giant map it is usually way to much to get 51% of the area.

If possible, I think this requirement should be reduced for Giant maps.
For example, 1/3 of the land area as well as twice anyone else.

P.S. Really enjoying the game I tried on a Giant map.
Thanks!

 

[Keinpferd]

That sounds like you've overcome the memory issues on Giant size maps? I was thinking to get another 2GB RAM, but according to how Xyth describes Civ as a 32bit game with no access to more than 2GB of RAM (which I have now), that would be useless. Any suggestions?

 

[Xyth]

On the Huge map the Domination victory is already very long and hard.

On the Giant map it is usually way to much to get 51% of the area.

If possible, I think this requirement should be reduced for Giant maps.
For example, 1/3 of the land area as well as twice anyone else.

P.S. Really enjoying the game I tried on a Giant map.
Thanks!

Unfortunately I don't see any obvious way I can change the required area percentages for individual mapsizes.

That sounds like you've overcome the memory issues on Giant size maps? I was thinking to get another 2GB RAM, but according to how Xyth describes Civ as a 32bit game with no access to more than 2GB of RAM (which I have now), that would be useless. Any suggestions?

Howard was apparently able to play until the 1800s without any MAFs. Once he unpacked the FPKs he was able to play beyond that. So it's still not perfect but it's better than I expected and hopefully it can be improved further over time.

More RAM would be beneficial as the system will still use a sizeable chunk of memory leaving less than 2GB available to Civ4.

 

[davidtylr]

Is it possible to have the workers upgrade roads like you can start off with a dirt path and then you can upgrade to a road and a stone road and so on. as you discover tech it gives you the ability to upgrade roads.

 

[Xyth]

Is it possible to have the workers upgrade roads like you can start off with a dirt path and then you can upgrade to a road and a stone road and so on. as you discover tech it gives you the ability to upgrade roads.

Pretty sure it's possible. What do you see as the (dis)advantages of implementing something like this?

 

[davidtylr]

The advantages is you can pick which routes are more important. Corporations and religion can spread easier on the more advance roads. Commerce and productivity increase with the more advance roads. To make it interesting maybe the more advance roads cost maintenance and / or decrease health. Maybe you can have a new resource to decrease maintenance on roads. I think the one thing that this mod is missing is more worker actions.

 

[Simon_Jester]

That could largely supplant thing like the move bonus you get on roads after Engineering is discovered.

I don't know if making corporations, religion, or trade routes spread better along modernized roads would work.

If we do this, I suggest having three 'road' tiers: path (1/2 move), road (classical, 1/3 move), highway (renaissance, 1/4 move) and railroad.

The catch, of course, is that the advantage is a bit marginal, and that during those eras there's no shortage of things for workers to do, really. It's in the late renaissance and industrial ages that you've pretty thoroughly improved all the terrain you wanted to improve, and until then road upgrades just force you to choose between modernizing your Stone Age road network and irrigating farms, which Vanilla civ doesn't make you do.

 

[Xyth]

I had a quick look into this. Rate of movement is pretty much the only thing I can easily adjust across different route types. Everything else is separate and would require some tricky coding to detect how different cities were linked - which of course creates AI difficulties. I'd like to look into it in more depth later though, it's an interesting idea.

 

[Howard Mahler]

A possible idea for future editions is high speed rail, available with some later tech.
Either all railroads are faster (2 times or 3 times current speed) or maybe workers have to build (upgrade) the high speed rail.
It is possible that there could be some other benefits to some squares.

Maglev trains could be available at an even higher tech level.

I had a quick look into this. Rate of movement is pretty much the only thing I can easily adjust across different route types. Everything else is separate and would require some tricky coding to detect how different cities were linked - which of course creates AI difficulties. I'd like to look into it in more depth later though, it's an interesting idea.

 

[davidtylr]

This is what I think

The wheel - Path - 2 movement
Engineering - Road - 3 movement
Railroad - Railroad - 4 movement - Require coal
Automobile - Highway - 5 movement - If possible have highway cause +1
superconductors - High speed rail - 6 movement - If possible have High speed rail cost +1

I think with the highway and high speed rail the penalties should apply every 3 tiles its been improved. I think the worker automation for Highway and high speed rail should be turned off because of the penalties.

 

[Simon_Jester]

The improvement in speed from railroad to highway to high speed rail isn't worth the cost. In the current system, you go from being able to move an infantry unit two squares (with The Wheel) to three squares (with Engineering) to ten with railroads. That's what makes it worth the trouble to build the railroads in the first place- they totally change the way moving troops across your empire works, along with the economic benefits.

If we do it your way, each upgrade from one road type to the next is very, very marginal- why would anyone really bother building high speed rail, given that it actively costs them money and only lets infantry move one extra square per turn along the high speed rail line?

You'd also hurt a whole range of late-game strategies on large landmasses, which rely on being able to shuttle troops around the empire quickly by rail. Just as too-fast troop movement is unbalanced on some maps, so can too-slow troop movement interfere with things.

 

[Xyth]

Quick note:

tchristensen has reminded me that we can easily adjust how different routes affect different improvements, similar to how railroads currently improve the yield of mines and towns. I think this has a lot of potential when considering these new route options.

 

[davidtylr]

What i am seeing with this is just like real life have movement between citys faster as the civilization advances.

I think it would be good with the more advance road to have some sort of ongoing price so civilasation is a bit ore reluctent in putting the more advance roads everywhere and more into creating a route.

If posible it would be good to have the highway cost +1 and wether we have a road after that have a higher penalty.

I would like to see a road Higher then highway but more in the end of the tec tree. If not increasing movement but increce bonuses with the city improvements and decrecing the +1 from the highway. It might be good to insure that the more advance roads can only be built with in your civ borders.

I think this improvment will allow a smother transition for a civilization into the future.

 

[KaneofEgypt]

Adding unhealthiness for some of the roads could almost tip the scale in the opposite direction than this mod is trying to go. Although health from resources is being adjusted, we need to make sure that we don't further unbalance the game with the highway. I understand your outlook, but the +1 seems too much for a 6-tile long highway.

 

[Xyth]

This is what I'm thinking for pre-Industrial routes:

Roads
Requires The Wheel
• No movement changes
• Will use a new 'dirt' road graphic

Paved Roads
Requires Engineering
• 1/2 movement cost
• 1/3 move cost at Civil Service
• Will use the Roman road graphic found in some BTS mods
• Requires Stone

The idea being that roads are quick to build and used to connect resources and cities for trading but to receive improved movement requires building the more time-consuming paved roads. I'm not considering how these routes might affect different improvements or tile yields yet.

Still considering where to go after railroads but I don't think there's space for both highways and another type of rail. For the latter the art would suit electric rail but there isn't anything that looks modern enough for Maglev trains or anything like that.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Like the addition of reefs.
Good job.

I think the frequency is too high; I would reduce the basic frequency by a half, and leave the option to have more. I think the additional reefs setting should be about what you have as the current basic setting. (One man's opinion.)

I do not understand the -25% defense.
Yes the defender would have trouble, but so would the attacker.
(Remember, a tile is perhaps 200 miles across, so this is a large area of sea.
Both the attacker and defender would find themselves in reef infested waters.)

I think no bonus or penalty to either attack or defense would be fine.
Perhaps a bonus to whoever was inside cultural boundaries would also work.
This would represent having better charts of the local reefs.

Also, perhaps the effect of reefs should be less on speed with steel ships and/or with radar (representing sonar.)

 

[Howard Mahler]

I like the new option for additional coastal tiles.
Personally, I think a setting between basic and additional would work better.

I think I would prefer either:
1. 1 and 2 equally likely.
2. 1/2 chance of 1, 1/3 chance of 2, 1/6 chance of 3 (assuming this is possible)

One man's opinion.

In any case, nice job.