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

Hold on... you are reading this too quickly without catching what I am saying
(Thunderbrd is correct in his last comment)

My previous comment is letting people know specifically what options will be given if we choose #4 . The choices that the player will have with option 4 the two game options given in post #18.

The options we are voting on are 1-5 in post #10 above. I am repeating them in more detail below.

Choice #1: 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.

Choice #2: We make all worlds the same size, using the number of tiles to determine the size of a plot. This is a choice for the number of plots being equivalent to greater detail of the same sized world. As the "world size" increases, the plot size decreases (because world size isn't really increasing, detail is).

Choice #3: We make all tiles the same size, adjusting the world size to fit the number of tiles. This means that a world that has twice as many plots is twice as big.

Choice #4: Again is what I mention above. We will put the two game options at the end of post 18 to give players the choice on how they want their map to scale.

Choice #5 in post #10 will give the player several details to pick from giving them full control over plot size, world size, and rules for them as well as world sizing. This will give the player the choice to have non-realistic sizing.

Please vote for the above 5 choices!
 
@ls612
You need to re-vote according to the options in the last post

@Thunderbrd
So I gather you are changing your vote from #2 to #4? If so we are at a 3 way tie so far between 1, 3, and 4.
 
No. #4 is. #5 would give additional detailed options allowing unrealistic maps.
 
I tend to be #4 myself. Choice is almost always good, and limiting the game is what you don't want to unnecessarily do.
Simply make the default setting the most agreeable.

Realism vs gameplay. These are models and simulations of realistic behavior.
I would default to what makes gameplay sense (and fun), and tilt it towards realism if possible.
Most people don't fret or worry over the realistic distances when wrapping maps around globe (at the poles mostly), and gameplay compromises are to simulate for playability.
Detail helps maintain plausibility, and depth of gameplay is more engaging, but don't make things awkward just to shoehorn something in.

Maps of different planets are by definition different sizes. Different sized maps for each planet make sense.
The moon map should be smaller and have less squares than the earth.
So I think area usage and habitability is somewhat standard, cities take up about as much space as residents and resources accessible whether they are on the Earth or Mars. Living conditions are just constrained by environment.
For realism sake, try to keep scales consistent and easier to follow. Don't twist for the sake of realism when they compromise playability.
Inconsistent playability is disconcerting. That is why I don't like hex maps with a zig-zag movement when you are trying to go in a straight line.
 
primem0ver said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem I see with this whole topic is this: the GeoRealism engine, especially in its climate model but also in other apects, uses Earth as a template. But if you used a planet of a different size than Earth, most of the parameters would change drastically.

Even very minute changes to the Earth's axial tilt or orbital eccentricty can have drastic effects on the worldwide climate. It is now widely accepted that the fluctuation of the Earth's axial tilt between roughly 22° and 24.5°, plus slight changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity and the activity of the Sun, are responsible for the regular ice ages we experience. Change the Earth's tilt by only 1°, and you might get a huge icecap all over Canada instead of forests!

Changes in Earth's planetary size would have even more extreme effects on climate. If the Earth were larger or smaller, then the rotation speed would be different, which in turn means a different length for night and day, which in turn means different heating and cooling phases and resulting winds, and leads to a very different climate. You could compensate this by having the Earth rotate faster or slower, in order to retain the 24 hour day. But then, again, the wind speeds on the surface would be different - this time, because of the different spin rate of the planet. And again, we would have a very different climate.

If the rotational speed increases significantly, you get to a point where, all of a sudden, there no longer are three bands of prevailing winds on the planet, but five (there cannot be four). So we would not have a division into tropical, temperate and polar zones, but into five different major zones. Hugely different climate!

It is also doubtful that homo sapiens as we know it would have evolved on a planet bigger or smaller than Earth. Even relatively slight changes in the planet's gravity, a tenth of a G more or less, would have had drastic effects on evolution. Not to mention the aforementioned changes in worldwide climate, which in turn would have a huge effect on evolution as well.

So, the point I'm trying to make is: any changes to planetary size, even slight ones, would have drastic effects on climate and evolution. Now you can either:

1) Pretend that these changes don't exist, that the planet is just like Earth except for being bigger or smaller. But that doesn't seem to fit well with your design philosophy, which emphasises realism. Or:

2) Take the changes into account and write the engine accordingly. But then, we are really talking about SimEarth plus SimLife rather than Civilization, and it would be incredibly complicated.

Now, my assumption had always been that GeoRealism would work with Earth-sized planets, full stop. It's difficult enough, in my view, to model an Earth-sized planet more or less realistically, never mind other types that we can only speculate about.

Not trying to be a naysayer, just trying to point out the ramifications.
 
Just my 0.02, but you can have 'realism' (in layman's terms, if you will) without keeping up with all the latest planetary climate science. Especially as this science tends to be wrong, at least as often as not. There is understandably rarely consensus about such theories, and sometimes when there is consensus - but the theory is still wrong - it certainly happens! - it makes the theory even more harmful and less beneficial...

I'm not saying that's the case with your examples, but why not aim for a model of climate realism that will satisfy your average person, even if it will not pass muster when subjected to rigorous 'scientific' scrutiny...?
 
Now, my assumption had always been that GeoRealism would work with Earth-sized planets, full stop. It's difficult enough, in my view, to model an Earth-sized planet more or less realistically, never mind other types that we can only speculate about.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your assessment Laskarsis, but this point compels me to comment. I'd LOVE it if this generator could handle this very degree of 'realism', because then we could apply it to differing planets for multi-maps and create a really cool sense of diversity in the Galactic era.
 
Laskaris said:
The problem I see with this whole topic is this: the GeoRealism engine, especially in its climate model but also in other apects, uses Earth as a template. But if you used a planet of a different size than Earth, most of the parameters would change drastically.

Even very minute changes to the Earth's axial tilt or orbital eccentricty can have drastic effects on the worldwide climate. It is now widely accepted that the fluctuation of the Earth's axial tilt between roughly 22° and 24.5°, plus slight changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity and the activity of the Sun, are responsible for the regular ice ages we experience. Change the Earth's tilt by only 1°, and you might get a huge icecap all over Canada instead of forests!

Changes in Earth's planetary size would have even more extreme effects on climate. If the Earth were larger or smaller, then the rotation speed would be different, which in turn means a different length for night and day, which in turn means different heating and cooling phases and resulting winds, and leads to a very different climate. You could compensate this by having the Earth rotate faster or slower, in order to retain the 24 hour day. But then, again, the wind speeds on the surface would be different - this time, because of the different spin rate of the planet. And again, we would have a very different climate.

If the rotational speed increases significantly, you get to a point where, all of a sudden, there no longer are three bands of prevailing winds on the planet, but five (there cannot be four). So we would not have a division into tropical, temperate and polar zones, but into five different major zones. Hugely different climate!

It is also doubtful that homo sapiens as we know it would have evolved on a planet bigger or smaller than Earth. Even relatively slight changes in the planet's gravity, a tenth of a G more or less, would have had drastic effects on evolution. Not to mention the aforementioned changes in worldwide climate, which in turn would have a huge effect on evolution as well.

So, the point I'm trying to make is: any changes to planetary size, even slight ones, would have drastic effects on climate and evolution. Now you can either:

1) Pretend that these changes don't exist, that the planet is just like Earth except for being bigger or smaller. But that doesn't seem to fit well with your design philosophy, which emphasises realism. Or:

2) Take the changes into account and write the engine accordingly. But then, we are really talking about SimEarth plus SimLife rather than Civilization, and it would be incredibly complicated.

Now, my assumption had always been that GeoRealism would work with Earth-sized planets, full stop. It's difficult enough, in my view, to model an Earth-sized planet more or less realistically, never mind other types that we can only speculate about.

Not trying to be a naysayer, just trying to point out the ramifications.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's a definite #2 then!!!
 
@Laskaris

In all seriousness, the only thing that you mention that I think is really relevant is the wind-speed issue. Here is why:

  1. Tilt is irrelevant since it is not (currently) a choice.
  2. Personally I would choose #1 if I had to choose between 1-3. This means that the change would not be that drastic (as far as wind belts are concerned). As you say... for humans to exist on such a world would not give us a huge range of choices (which is why I am not an advocate of choice #3.)
  3. Gravity may be an issue... but different densities of materials could compensate for the small difference (which could affect plate tectonics... but a solution for this lies below).

That leaves wind speed (assuming day length stays the same). With my approach to programming the engine, this isn't a significant problem. Wind speed is part of the calculations and those speeds can be changed by a factor that is implemented into the world size XML. Density change on tectonics could also be factored into the world size xml as well.

Honestly, I am with Yudishtira on this particular objection. I don't really care about minutia of detail except to the point where it makes the game interesting. My point in creating the GeoRealism engine was to keep maps from being unrealistic. Realism is nice too. But being so realistic that it cuts down on options was not my intention (to the point where I didn't really think about some of these aspects you bring up).

In the end, that is why the option is so appealing to me (with regards to choice #4). If you are a realist, you will chose to keep the worlds the same size. If it is the choice that matters to you, you will chose same sized plots (regardless of planet size implications). If you are a literalist and sort of in between (like me) you will chose to keep both unchecked, going with default plot sizes that are meant to balance both choice and realism as much as possible.

In the long run we can work the realism of those implications into the algorithm. It wouldn't be that much of the change (since the calculations assume as little as possible).
 
primem0ver said:
Tilt is irrelevant since it is not (currently) a choice.[
Click to expand...

I brought up tilt merely to point out that even a change as minute as 1° more or less in the Earth's axial tilt has a drastic effect on world climate. Changes in size, even relatively small ones, would have an even more drastic effect.

Gravity may be an issue... but different densities of materials could compensate for the small difference (which could affect plate tectonics... but a solution for this lies below).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought about this myself... Change the planet density to compensate for the different size. It messes up the geologic model that uses Earth as a template, but as you say, you can, again, change some variables to try to compensate for this.

Honestly, I am with Yudishtira on this particular objection. I don't really care about minutia of detail except to the point where it makes the game interesting. My point in creating the GeoRealism engine was to keep maps from being unrealistic. Realism is nice too. But being so realistic that it cuts down on options was not my intention (to the point where I didn't really think about some of these aspects you bring up).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can sympathise with that point. I'm not an advocate of ultra-realism to the point where it kills all the fun, either. Like I said, I was just trying to point out the ramifications.

One thing I worry about, though, is that we put more on our plate than we can handle. Again, simulating an Earth-like planet more or less realistically, with plate tectonics and climate and all that, is already a very complicated task. Now Thunderbird is bringing up different kinds of planets, and whether we could simulate those more or less realistically, too. It's a great idea, I'd love to have such options myself. But dang, it would be another truckload of work...

I was part of the closed beta tester team for Magna Mundi, a game by Paradox Interactive that eventually got cancelled. There were several reasons for this cancellation, but one of the reasons, in my view, was that the developers were simply too ambitious for their own good. They were putting in every cool idea anyone had ever brought up, adding feature after feature, and eventually, they just could not get it to work properly anymore. (That's just my personal impression. I wasn't deeply involved with the project as a mere beta tester, and other people who were involved will have different stories.)

So, my advocating caution here is really less about wanting to achieve perfect realism. It's more about not over-extending ourselves. I'm all for having different planet sizes and all that, but let's focus on getting Earth-sized planets right first, and once that is working, we can try to add other stuff. That would be my suggestion.
 
Laskaris said:
So, my advocating caution here is really less about wanting to achieve perfect realism. It's more about not over-extending ourselves. I'm all for having different planet sizes and all that, but let's focus on getting Earth-sized planets right first, and once that is working, we can try to add other stuff. That would be my suggestion.
Click to expand...

The choices here won't add much more work than what was already planned. 2-3 tags in xml, a few if then statements and a division/multiplication problem. That is pretty much it. Things like wind speed, atmospheric pressure, density, etc are already part of the math. Changing things from 3 wind belts to 5 belts on the other hand would be some significant work which is why I don't want to go there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
[MOD] Just a list of what I think C2C going stand-alone MAY pay at least some attention to.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Osk21
Osk21
D
Another scientific victory
Replies
4
Views
743
damerell
D
O
Tool - Civ4 BTS Map Validator
Replies
0
Views
389
onkelm
O
Lorizael
Crewed Space Flight and Ultra Deluxe Map Size Names
Replies
1
Views
370
JumpShark
JumpShark
A
[Map Script] Continental Drift Map Script
Replies
11
Views
1K
axatin
A
Back
Top Bottom