Map size vs. Number of Civs?

[john k]

Hello all, Long time lurker here, still a noob at Civ IV

Anyways my question. Ive pretty much have accepted the fact that my computer is barely capable of running anything past large games. For example, in the 18 civs earth scenario, I get about to the industrial age and then the loads between turns get almost unbearable. (3 turns per half and hour if im lucky) Usually however, things go haywire when I discover the majority of the planet. But, I really like earth sceanarios so I have been looking at some smaller maps.

In short, which would have a more devastating effect on gameplay, More Civs or a bigger map. I always assumed It was more civs but I have been seeing standard maps with 12-18 civs, I wondered differently Plus, My computer runs the Ghengis Khan Scenario fine.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Endure]

The bigger map size hinders your computers performance far more then the number of civs.

 

[zeeter]

The bigger map size hinders your computers performance far more then the number of civs.

And bigger map PLUS more civs will kill. Mine won't run more than six civs on a huge map. Well, it'll run, but not too well.

 

[T.A JONES]

So many people not allowed to play the game the way it was meant to be played, with troops countries layed in proper size/ proportions

Imagine it was this way for civ 2 or civ3 so long after that last Xpak release!!?

Ive been here watching from the start and see so many of these one or two sparse reports among the usual positve feedbacks( non tech talk) . Yet its every day for years after years, in all forums (tech/bug Gen 4 / Gen bts/ Gen Warlords/ civ3) The ones who can't play came to claim they can't get to the potential they crave. I mean, thats who Ive noticed are so numerious

ITs crazy to think how many havn't even found here to report there woes. Add those to the pile and think what we got.
THe sum would fill the great collesoum . A great specticle of disapointed players

 

[john k]

Im not really disappointed at the lost potential of Civ by my Amish 3000, Im just happy I can play such a great game in the first place.

Disapointment is when you wait months for Battlefield 2 only to find the game dosent even load without and extra $130 for the video card.

 

[eewallace]

Try a medium map, with sea levels set to low, with the maximum number of civs it will let you have. That might speed things up a bit.

(Amish civ...That gives me an idea...Peaceful civ, anti-technology pacifists...Only victory conditions are cultural and diplomatic??? Yeah!)

 

[Woodgar]

I've read on similar threads that it's the map size that really affects performance rather than the number of civs; whether one civ has enough space for 10 cities and 100 units or two civs occupy the same space with 5 cities and 50 units or you pack in five civs with 2 cities and 20 units each, it's the same number of cities and units.

 

[Willem]

So many people not allowed to play the game the way it was meant to be played, with troops countries layed in proper size/ proportions

Imagine it was this way for civ 2 or civ3 so long after that last Xpak release!!?

Ive been here watching from the start and see so many of these one or two sparse reports among the usual positve feedbacks( non tech talk) . Yet its every day for years after years, in all forums (tech/bug Gen 4 / Gen bts/ Gen Warlords/ civ3) The ones who can't play came to claim they can't get to the potential they crave. I mean, thats who Ive noticed are so numerious

ITs crazy to think how many havn't even found here to report there woes. Add those to the pile and think what we got.
THe sum would fill the great collesoum . A great specticle of disapointed players

So what's your point here? Is it Firaxis' fault that people are trying to play the game on antique systems and can't or won't upgrade? Should the game remain in the dark ages of computer technology in order to cater to the small minority of people who just don't have the system horsepower to play it well? If you want to play computer games, you need to upgrade once in awhile. It's as simple as that. Civ 4 really isn't all that demanding compared to other games that are out there. If a machine can't handle the game, it's in serious need of upgrading, or even replacing.

 

[Thedrin]

In fairness, Willem, it seems to me that a lot of the slowdown experienced by antique systems is down to an over-the-top graphics system which can't be simplified. If the game engine were able to support an option to play on a more basic game board - a nicely dressed excel sheet - people would be able to play the larger games much more easily.

Big fan of CivIV but I feel that's the one thing the designers got badly wrong.

 

[Willem]

In fairness, Willem, it seems to me that a lot of the slowdown experienced by antique systems is down to an over-the-top graphics system which can't be simplified.

What over the top graphics system? I play Neverwinter Nights 2 and Oblivion. Compared to these titles Civilization's demands are nothing. I've had to upgrade my video card twice in order to play those games at reasonable settings. And I've read that the newer games like Crysis are especially demanding. Mass Effect for the PC is going to have some fairly high standards as well. If you want to play computer games, you have to be willing to invest in your rig once in awhile, that's all there is to it. Otherwise, break out the chess board or play a game of baseball. If I came across a game that said it could be played on 500 mhz machine with just 64 meg of VRAM and 512 system RAM, I wouldn't even consider buying it as I would think that it probably was going to look and play like crap. I just wouldn't take it seriously at all.

I used to see these discussions all the time when Civ first came out and I can't believe that they're still going on. Computer technology has come a long way since then yet people are still clinging to their old standards. Maybe they're afraid to let go to their tried and true systems. Well IMO they need to get with the program and realize that computer technology is continually evolving and what's hot this year is going to be obsolete the next. I bought myself an 8800GT graphics card back in January and at the time it was the hottest thing on the market. Now Nvidia has a 9800GT available that makes mine look feeble. That's just the way that technology works, and people need to accept that instead of hoping for all the developers to retrograde their software to standards set 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[Wenla]

What over the top graphics system?

IMHO just beautifull graphics doesn't make a good game...

Any how, I finally got upgraded my PC (memory => 3Gb + NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT), not for the nice graphics but just to play BtS (haven't finished yet any game because of crashes). If this doesn't help, then I don't know what to do (except to give up playing BtS).

Wenla

 

[Willem]

IMHO just beautifull graphics doesn't make a good game...

I hardly call Civ's graphics beautiful. They're adequate, nothing more.

 

[Willem]

(memory => 3Gb + NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT), not for the nice graphics but just to play BtS (haven't finished yet any game because of crashes).

How do you have your RAM configured? If you're using a dual channel setup with 3 of the same types of RAM you're going to have problems.

 

[Wenla]

How do you have your RAM configured? If you're using a dual channel setup with 3 of the same types of RAM you're going to have problems.

Now you are asking information that I don't have, a professional installed my memory. If you assume that I have dual core (assuming that your question about dual channel have something to do with that), I don't.

Like you can see, I only use PC, I'm not familiar it's inner life.

Wenla

 

[Thedrin]

Winston:
They're adequate, nothing more.

That's grossly inaccurate. Civ II (and presumably Civ I) had far less intensive graphics engines that would be more than adequate for Civ IV.

Just for clarity, I'm not suggesting that it was a mistake for the makers of Civ IV to try to make use of the more advanced graphics systems available. Just that it was a mistake to set up the game in such a way that it could not be used without an advanced graphics system. This board game really doesn't require it.

 

[Willem]

Civ II (and presumably Civ I) had far less intensive graphics engines that would be more than adequate for Civ IV.

Not in my opinion. No way in hell would I play a game that looked like that, both of them look awful compared to today's standards. Why should someone who has the gear to run a decent looking game be penalized because of a few throwbacks who don't want to keep up with technology? It would be like forcing an athlete to place weights on his ankles in order to make him equal to someone with a bad leg. Your argument makes no sense at all.

 

[T.A JONES]

Why should someone who has the gear to run a decent looking game be penalized because of a few throwbacks who don't want to keep up with technology? .

A few throwbacks? Ha. I thought you were talking about now havin ta play on travel sized gameboards limited to 10 civs, as being the throwbacks! lol

BUt wait, for your definition, Does that include all the coreduo guys who can' play huge with less then 8 civs minus all that reported dely?. Your claims of a " few throwbacks" Thats really rich bra.

ANyway, to cut back on how much (time) I got to say, I'll resonate words from another that come into play:

A good turn based strategy game does not need the 3D graphics that they seem to want to push upon the consumer. The mechanics of the game are far more important and unfortunately that is what is being ignored. 2D graphics "top down or 3rd person" which ever you prefer is more than adequate and to me preferable. They use less resources and allow for larger simulations than is possible using 3d graphics

Lets see a pic of the typical maps you run flawless late age WIlliem,. How many civs and what size map you got repreasentin your historical epics with? If its plenty, then come fruitation time how long are the turns if you don't mind? . YA thats what I thought..You like small maps

Hey! Not your fault, Like you had a choice!. Im wondering how crowded the 'NEW' downsized HUGE DEFAULT becomes when you try n squeeze more then ten whole civs on a globe nowaday? Anyway... .

Read my point" I said "The ones who claim they can't get to the potential they crave" WHat did you think this meant?
Was it their desire for meaningless 3d effects to play smoother or, are they after better simulation + performence brought on by greater amounts of variables and calculations, through increased diversity and variety, and most, freedom in size, not size constraints, especially with their choices of done up mods, to become playable? . I think that was what I was gettin at friend

Many who like you, prefer small arcade type simulations and they have enjoyed them flawless to that certain point.
Will, you are more then welcome to have a small civ mentality, just understand others wanted "true epic proportions" for their money and the game hasn't delivered like it has in the past on their "today's" (2005 civ4 launch) rig
You play em ' pocket sized' fast as you say, you proved it. . When you can meet the proper sized simulations as I say..well, how about you prove that to...

kinda like this:

Heres the civ3 speed for extra huge 400+ cities 16+civs 10000+ units late game..OH forget,my demo epic is a mod larger then Total realism for Warlords .(hundreds more calculations added) How fast do "real size" "3rd Xpak" type mods play on your rig btw?

 

[Willem]

A few throwbacks? Ha. I thought you were talking about now havin ta play on travel sized gameboards limited to 10 civs, as being the throwbacks! lol

BUt wait, for your definition, Does that include all the coreduo guys who can' play huge with less then 8 civs minus all that reported dely?. Your claims of a " few throwbacks" Thats really rich bra.

ANyway, to cut back on how much (time) I got to say, I'll resonate words from another that come into play:



Lets see a pic of the typical maps you run flawless late age WIlliem,. How many civs and what size map you got repreasentin your historical epics with? If its plenty, then come fruitation time how long are the turns if you don't mind? . YA thats what I thought..You like small maps

Hey! Not your fault, Like you had a choice!. Im wondering how crowded the 'NEW' downsized HUGE DEFAULT becomes when you try n squeeze more then ten whole civs on a globe nowaday? Anyway... .

Read my point" I said "The ones who claim they can't get to the potential they crave" WHat did you think this meant?
Was it their desire for meaningless 3d effects to play smoother or, are they after better simulation + performence brought on by greater amounts of variables and calculations, through increased diversity and variety, and most, freedom in size, not size constraints, especially with their choices of done up mods, to become playable? . I think that was what I was gettin at friend

Many who like you, prefer small arcade type simulations and they have enjoyed them flawless to that certain point.
Will, you are more then welcome to have a small civ mentality, just understand others wanted "true epic proportions" for their money and the game hasn't delivered like it has in the past on their "today's" (2005 civ4 launch) rig
You play em ' pocket sized' fast as you say, you proved it. . When you can meet the proper sized simulations as I say..well, how about you prove that to...

kinda like this:

Heres the civ3 speed for extra huge 400+ cities 16+civs 10000+ units late game..OH forget,my demo epic is a mod larger then Total realism for Warlords .(hundreds more calculations added) How fast do "real size" "3rd Xpak" type mods play on your rig btw?

This post is so garbled and lacking in communications skill that it's hard to reply to. But the bottom line is that I can play on a slightly larger than Huge map with the standard number of civs with no problems at all. The only time I really have to wait for my turn is when I'm at war and the enemy units are doing their moves. Other than that it takes just a few seconds for the AI to do it's thing, a couple of minutes at the most. I'm not sure what else you're ranting on about but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Thedrin]

Willen:

Me:
That's grossly inaccurate. Civ II (and presumably Civ I) had far less intensive graphics engines that would be more than adequate for Civ IV.

Not in my opinion. No way in hell would I play a game that looked like that, both of them look awful compared to today's standards. Why should someone who has the gear to run a decent looking game be penalized because of a few throwbacks who don't want to keep up with technology? It would be like forcing an athlete to place weights on his ankles in order to make him equal to someone with a bad leg. Your argument makes no sense at all.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my second paragraph.

 

[wannabewarlord]

Interesting how a simple question about technical feasability from one guy turns into an off-topic disuccsion of should or should not be graphic power of a game and a machine, respectively. It's not really what the OP asked for.

Anyhow,
I would have to side with Willem on the debate though. Computers and graphic cards have evolved to a certain standard where you can and should expect good graphics to any sort of game. It's after all what sells the game to the majority these days, as much as I dislike the fact that in the same way, graphics seem to try to make up for non-existing creativity and gameplay. Too often content (gameplay, story, ideas) is traded for package (graphics), if you know what I mean. I am not saying there aren't games that can have both, but too often this is not the case. Yes, maybe 2D graphics or representation by vectors and numbers would excite the hardcore strategy player who cares just about the underlying complexity of the simulation, but it would not those who also like to look at what they're doing.

I mean if you eat a steak, it tastes better in a nice plate with garnishment than out of a paper bag, doesn't it?

Anyway,
concerning Civ IV and your guys' remarks. As Willem said, I think these days a game can demand a certain level of graphic and cpu power of the average gamer. If you don't have the machine to handle these games, you're setting yourself up for missing out. You don't have to have a $2000 rig that plays Crysis on Very High smoothly while rendering a Pixar movie in the background (yeah, I am not so good at analogies ), but there's plenty of mid-range systems that don't cost a fortune and handle the majority of the games well. If you're not willing to invest in those, then you have to accept that you will not be able to handle new games to their full potential or at all.

In the end it's really a question of choice.

Just my 2cents.

cheers
-wannabewarlord