Lag Time and Huge Maps

Spoonwood

Grand Philosopher
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
6,270
Location
Ohio
It would seem logical to think that the inter-turn time goes down the fewer opponents you have in the game. Does it work out this way? Does anyone know?
 
It's not so much 'Opponents' as it is 'Units'. So it depends really on how many other units there are running around. At least, that's how I remember it.
 
The delays are in two main area in my experience.
1) unit actions
2) trade routes

Number 2 tends to not improve as opponents are eliminated, because you tend to get replacement towns. The game has to check trade routes when towns are abandoned or razed or founded. It has to check them when roads are destroyed and built. The same for harbors and airports.

The bigger the map the worse it becomes. Try watching a settler animation in a 250x250 after 400 or 500 towns are in the game. This is why you tend to see players stop pillaging roads in the mid game, it is just too annoying, so you only do it for a good reason.

Units are an issue when wars are going on as they have to move some or much of their troops around. This is why I prefer to not use the patrol feature in massive games. The AI will have some units just going around in circles. The barbs are not much of an issue at higher levels as the AI will kill them all anyway.
 
So, it sounds like for a huge map things will go quicker at first since fewer AIs implies fewer bonus units running around. But, after a while things might lag more, since the AIs have more cities and more units... wait... scratch that. No. Fewer AIs, bigger empires. Bigger empires less corruption, so the AIs each spend more time building its structures and can't pump out as many units/city overall, so the total number of units in the game stays lower than with max tribes.

Personally I rarely if ever animate unit movements. I'll animate battles sometimes, but that's about it. Watching a worker animation when I move it chop a forest takes too long, no matter the map size for me.
 
workers are a huge culprit. The computer puts a lot of "thought" into where to send workers and what needs to be improved. When I used to use automated workers, the lag was rediculous; when I stopped automating them, bing! Problem mostly solved. The AI has tons of the little buggers in the late game, though, and they're all just as good as "automated" and so create a big draw on your computer's processing power.

So in summary, if you want faster IBTs, abduct as many AI workers as you can :goodjob:
 
workers are a huge culprit. The computer puts a lot of "thought" into where to send workers and what needs to be improved. When I used to use automated workers, the lag was rediculous; when I stopped automating them, bing! Problem mostly solved. The AI has tons of the little buggers in the late game, though, and they're all just as good as "automated" and so create a big draw on your computer's processing power.

So in summary, if you want faster IBTs, abduct as many AI workers as you can :goodjob:

I'm sensing a pattern in your advice... just capture and continue. :goodjob:

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom