World age question

[Lose]

What are the differences between world ages? I assumed its based on resources and terrain but I am not sure.

heres my guess..
3 billion years = less future era resources, more ancient era resources
4 billion = equal amounts of all era resources
5 billion = more future era resources and less ancient era resources

 

[spider1]

3 billions years - more mountains and hills
4 billion - normal
5 billion less mountains and hills

I'm not sure if it does anything to resources.

 

[Lose]

3 billions years - more mountains and hills
4 billion - normal
5 billion less mountains and hills

I'm not sure if it does anything to resources.

where did u find this information??

 

[anandus]

where did u find this information??

Well, that's what what world age did in previous civ games, so it wouldn't be unthinkable it'd be the same here.

The older, the more eroded, basically.

 

[Misterboy]

where did u find this information??

This is pretty much how it's worked since the dawn of Civilization.

The idea behind it is an extremely simplified model of our planet's geological history. As our planet has cooled to its current state, there are far fewer mountains being formed, and with time, glaciers and other forms of erosion have tended to flatten landscapes over millenia.

Like many parts of the UI, it could use a mouse-over to help out newer players.

 

[Becomedeath]

3 billions years - more mountains and hills
4 billion - normal
5 billion less mountains and hills

I'm not sure if it does anything to resources.

Whilst I'm sure in game this may be correct, geologically, it's in reverse. An older planet would have more mountainous terrain. Mount Everest, after all, isn't getting shorter!

Unless the rain and wind on Civ planets is exceptionally fierce!

Oddly, a pangea should have few or no mountain ranges at all other than glacial.
due to the lack of tectonic movement.

But then it's not Sim Earth is it

 

[Pouakai]

Mount Everest, after all, isn't getting shorter!

True, but it isn't old either, it's only a toddler, geologically speaking.

To be honest, I'd wondered about world age too.

 

[King_Course]

What are the differences between world ages? I assumed its based on resources and terrain but I am not sure.

heres my guess..
3 billion years = less future era resources, more ancient era resources
4 billion = equal amounts of all era resources
5 billion = more future era resources and less ancient era resources

Ehhh....? The ressources we use didnt' show up at the same time we invented machinery that could use these ressources .

Oil is Fossil Fuels. Organic matter turned into polymers millions and millions of years ago. 1.7 billion years ago Uranium was driving a natural nuclear reactor in Oklo Africa.

 

[KaiserKevin]

It has to do with mountains and hills (younger more), they really ought to make it more clear.

 

[Becomedeath]

Maybe, on a young enough map, Krakatoa is within sight of the coast!

(Pet complaint, sorry for sneaking it in there!)

 

[buchengshi]

Well, that's what what world age did in previous civ games, so it wouldn't be unthinkable it'd be the same here.

That's one of the little problems I have with V: They don't tell you any of this stuff anywhere. Sure, if you've been playing previous Civ games, you can kind of just assume it. But if you're new to the game it's a setting that gives you no clue what it does. I guess tooltips for these were to hard to figure out how to code.

On the flip side of this, someone who played a lot of Civ4 would assume that scouts get you bigger bonuses from goody huts; yet that's now how it works now.

 

[sebasm]

Wouldn't an older world provide more hills and mountains as it would give them more time to get formed?

 

[spider1]

Somewhere, in some Civ manual or game, the explination for older worlds having less mountains and hills is over time the geologic processes have worn them down. Not that that is true mind you, it's just what I've read. In fact, any world with active plate tectonics such as the Earth will always have mountains and hills being created.

 

[apocalypse105]

3 billions years - more mountains and hills
4 billion - normal
5 billion less mountains and hills

I'm not sure if it does anything to resources.

What does it with the forest and jungle? If you pick like 3 billions years you have more forest and jungle to?

 

[KaiserKevin]

What does it with the forest and jungle? If you pick like 3 billions years you have more forest and jungle to?

Picking the 'wet' option gives more jungles, marshes, and forest (rivers too I think)
'Arid' gives more plains and deserts

 

[forty2j]

Whilst I'm sure in game this may be correct, geologically, it's in reverse.

Actually, it's correct. Planets are more tectonically active (forming mountains) when they're younger, and the mountains tend to erode over time.

 

[Becomedeath]

Actually, it's correct. Planets are more tectonically active (forming mountains) when they're younger, and the mountains tend to erode over time.

That's only theory to be fair, plate tectonics as we have it on Earth is very rare and has never been observed elsewhere in the solar system at the level we have it. Mars and Venus have virtually no tectonic movement for example.

However, we're talking about features that don't actually need billions of years as the options suggest.

A monolithic mountain range in 15 million years? I'll take one to go please!

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/u...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

 

[Furycrab]

3 billions years - more mountains and hills
4 billion - normal
5 billion less mountains and hills

I'm not sure if it does anything to resources.

This is pretty what is is/has been in most Civ games.

New mountains do form with time, however erosion plays a bigger factor. So the older the planet, you'll end up with fewer hills, but more discrete mountain ranges surrounded by relatively flat plains and valleys.

On a side note, playing Incans on a 3billion planet is fairly OP.

 

[Lose]

Actually, it's correct. Planets are more tectonically active (forming mountains) when they're younger, and the mountains tend to erode over time.

how come mt everest is growing taller every year then?

 

[19Mellon73]

how come mt everest is growing taller every year then?

Because the indian subcontinent is still pushing into Asia.