Super Earth Map (MGE & ToT) by Denis Kozhin
But I was typing on my phone... and driving so... lollol ahh yes I've done that before, except after pasting I took the time to remove the formatting so people wouldn't think I was yelling at them.
Yes, you are correct I use CivMapGen whick allows to load a map and then create another new one with the same size, which is what I need when playing the extend original in TOT, do mapedit or civ2map let you do that also?
Because I can seem to be able to open MYGIANTWORLD with this program, but it opens the other giant one's I have GIGAWORLDED and NEW WORLD MAP... are you familiar with this 2?
Last edited:
Knighttime
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 379
It appears that CivMapGen supports a maximum map height of 125, both when creating a new map or opening an existing one. (Because of the way Civ maps work, within the game this corresponds to Y coordinates in the range 0 to 249.) However, MYGIANTWORLD.MP has a map height of 127, and this is what's causing the range check error.
What's interesting is that within the game's built-in map editor (Civ2map.exe), when you create a new map, the dialog box includes the note, "Each dimension must be at least 20, no more than 250." That corresponds to the CivMapGen map height limit of 125. And in fact, you can't create a new map in Civ2map with the dimensions of MYGIANTWORLD -- although you can open that map just fine. The same limit is enforced by the game itself, when you create a custom map while starting a new game of Civ2ToT -- you can't enter a Y value greater than 250.
So, what I'd like to know is, how did this creator ever make a map with a height of 127 and a max Y value of 253? Is there another map creation program out there that doesn't enforce the limit? Did he do it by hex editing?
MapEdit is excellent at allowing you to edit any map in X and Y coordinates.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/mapedit-2-1.206/
More in what sense? MYGIANTWORLD 32512 squares. NEW WORLD MAP 32688 squares.
However, in the second map, the land area is significantly increased (Europe, in the first place), due to artificial distortions. The disadvantage of this map (for MGE players) is that the zero meridian passes through Europe. This causes a resource duplication error for cities that have areas on that meridian. For TOTPP players, this is not important, as this bug has been fixed in the patch. In the first map, the zero meridian passes (as the "date line" is supposed to) across the Pacific Ocean. Areas of duplication of resources are "drowned" in the sea, and do not affect the game balance.
In general, both of these maps are of mediocre quality (in my opinion) in terms of the accuracy of transferring the areas and distances of the continents. As well as the placement of landscapes (in terms of game balance).
Last edited:
I meant in the sense of wich has more space for cities, as we can read in this topic the first one can accomadate arroun 700+100 cities... but can the second one accomadate more?
"Space for cities" is a very vague concept in Civ2. You can place cities literally one square apart. In this case, for 700 cities, half or even a third of any of these cards will be enough for you. Or place cities according to some other system. Offhand, for example, if you evenly cover the entire map with cities (with the condition that the distance between each city is 4 squares), both of these maps must withstand more than 1000 cities.
When I plan my citie's placement I tend to never place them with squares overplacing each other... the 700 number it wasn't mine but the original poster/owner. Are you sure about both maps withstand more than 1000 cities? Because that would be my next project...
You can only know for sure on your own. There is a relatively easy way to check this before starting a game, or creating a scenario. In the standard map editor, mark on the selected map using an arbitrary type of terrain (for example, ice) the places of the future location of cities. Then, in the MapEdit program, check through the Tools menu (CountSquares tab) how many squares of ice you got in total.
Ok but surely it can withstand more cities than GIGAWORLDED that I'm using in my current game and I have currently only 550 cities...
I checked this by using the AI's 'fertility' system. When a city is built, fertility is set to 7 on nearby tiles (unless it was less already). So, I ran this script to go left to right, top to bottom, and built created a city wherever fertility was larger than 7. This yielded 442 cities.
The AI will only build on plains and grassland, so there are definitely more places for cities, but this is a rough idea.
The AI will only build on plains and grassland, so there are definitely more places for cities, but this is a rough idea.
Code:
local yield = coroutine.yield
-- Returns an iterator yielding all tiles on all maps.
local function iterateTiles()
return coroutine.wrap(function ()
local w, h, maps = civ.getAtlasDimensions()
for z = 0, maps - 1 do
for y = 0, h - 1 do
for x = y & 1, w - 1, 2 do
yield(civ.getTile(x, y, z))
end
end
end
end)
end
local totalCities = 0
for tile in iterateTiles() do
if tile.fertility > 7 and totalCities <1010 then
civ.createCity(civ.getCurrentTribe(),tile)
totalCities = totalCities+1
end
end
print(totalCities)
-- 442By the way, this is an excellent example of why I think that this map is not of very high quality.
In Canada, I counted 23-24 cities. The population of real Canada is 38 million. Comparable in terms of population, the country of Peru (32 million) is represented on this map by 2-3 cities (and even then, the territory of these cities is at least half in Brazil and Bolivia, Lima and Callao are completely absent). The population of real Egypt is about 100 million. Egypt is represented by 4 cities on this map. The funniest thing is Bangladesh. The real population of this country is about 170 million. Bangladesh does not have any cities on this map. Lol. )
so... you have a death wish?
I can see the map download was updated in 2016 but it must have been by an admin as Denis Kozhin @Tiberium 's account says he hasn't been here since 2008. I guess it can't hurt to chuck him a PM and see if it lures him back, the readme that comes with the map also has a email, I'll try that too. I'll also chuck CivMapGen creator Peter a PM on the C-Evo forums and try his old email too to see if I can lure him here too. Not holding my breath though lol.
EDIT: Peter's email bounced back (so hopefully he visits C-Evo forums again) but Denis's email did not bounce back so ya never know haha.
.
Last edited:
Nice, if I'm seeing it right, at least almost 800 cities is possible as there's a lot of desert swamp mountains and artic and tundra available...
Well, I must admit, I really exaggerated the possibilities of world maps. 1000 cities, it is unlikely to withstand. I tracked down my own 32700 size world map that I made a few years ago for a multiplayer game. Unlike the maps under discussion, it significantly increased the land area above the sea (approximate ratio of 13 to 19 thousand squares). This map made it possible to place cities with the maximum filling of the whole world (taking into account extreme types of terrain and individual islands in the ocean), without crossing areas cities - only about 800-900 cities. If we place cities only according to the fertility system of Prof. Garfield - even less - 322 cities.
So your assessment of the map's ability to accommodate 800 cities is most likely close to the truth.
The extreme types of terrain is not a problem as I usually have hundreds of engineers (in the game I playing currently in extended original TOT GIGAWORLDED map I have over 600) so I always transform, that's the reason I love this new maps that have appeared... but I would love to have one where the islands aren't so small that you only have a couple of land squares... if we had a map that maximizes land over sea it would be possivel to go over 1000 cities per map, and that's only the original earth map because the alien map could take you to 2500 cities easy... and if you could take it to the extreme 4 maps in one game than 5000 cities could be possible, no?
Let's say you spend 1 second controlling each engineer every tour (most likely more than 1 second if you need to move far). 600 engineers is 10 minutes. Also, let's say half of your 1000 cities complete construction, demand riot control, or vice versa, start or end a king's day celebration. 2-5 seconds per city is 20-40 minutes. Plus, we will add time to make any strategic decisions in the game, and a general analysis of the situation. The duration of one tour will be at least 1 hour. And most likely more time. Are you ready to spend so much time on the game? I envy. ) Or are you planning to beat the record of a guy who played Civ2 for ten years? Of course, it is possible to fully automate the movements of engineers, to outsource construction in cities to advisers. However, then it is not clear what the meaning of the game is. After all, competitors in such a game (even AI) are most likely not expected.
In addition, all instructions for the game indicate that when the limit of 1000-plus cities is exceeded, a singularity begins, which can cause crashes in the game. Well, if you actually manage to build that many cities (1000-5000), it could be an interesting experiment to test the game's capabilities. Share the results of this experiment, good luck. )
In addition, all instructions for the game indicate that when the limit of 1000-plus cities is exceeded, a singularity begins, which can cause crashes in the game. Well, if you actually manage to build that many cities (1000-5000), it could be an interesting experiment to test the game's capabilities. Share the results of this experiment, good luck. )
I know it will be a logistics nigthmare but I'm willling to try it... but I still have to figure out how to play the original extended game with an extra 2 maps... if it's even possible!!!
Similar threads
