Continent Maps - An Analysis

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Aro
Map #1 and #4 are exactly the same.

But apparently the distribution of civs is different. So, to me, 4 is ok whereas 1 is not.

However, there does seem to be some sort of seed issue that results in identical maps recurring. That's not good.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sirian
If Earth is analyzed, you find there are four continents (in civ terms): Eurasia-Africa, Amercas, Antarctica, Australia. There are some regions of significant islands: East Indies, Greenland/Baffin/northeast Canadian Islands, West Indies, Madagascar, Japan, Britain.

Antarctica is not a continent according to my definition. It does not have a "starting location" and in terms of Civ4 it is represented by the polar caps. Africa+Eurasia (big continent), Americas (medium continents) and Australia (small continent, single civ) is according to my definition a valid constellation, which your scripts fail to deliver in so many occasions.

The islands (Madagascar, Japan, Britain) do not count. Look at my Britain clause. They belong to their particular continent. If by galley-crossing or culture a contact and trade is possible early on, I would not count them as separate continent. And in reality (which you seem to be a fan of) all of them where reached from the continent already by privitive ancient ships.

Start a Continents map at Large size with the Earth's exact dimensions: nine civs on a Large map. What happens? Two get put in Americas, seven on the uber continent.

I did so, and was not able to get an acceptable map in a whole 2 days. I started alone twice and had contact to 7 of 8 AI civs by 2280BC in the third. Mind you I do not cheat and look in the world builder (shame on you yin!). This destroys all fun. I played the games out until I realize, bleh, another lame pangea instead of the ordered continents.

It may be your perception of continents that is out of synch. All twenty samples from the first post are reasonable continental layouts.

I included my definition of a continent. What is yours?

And if a collection of many "continents" with only one civ are acceptable as continents setup, then what's an archipelago setup?

On a sidenote, in a fourth game stub I chose Archipelago - deliberately - to get a separate start. Guess who visited me by 3800BC? Yep, our favorite nutcase Montezuma. I laughed, put the CD in the box and played HOI2 for the rest of xmas. An excellent game, I tell you. And no complaint about the map.

Even the last one, which put all seven civs on a super continent, has an Australia and two Madagacars, plus a subcontinent in the north that is akin to Africa. We call Africa its own continent, but in civ terms it's attached to Eurasia.

Stop to nitpick. You know precisely what I mean. A start with all 7 on one landmass is a pangea game. The islands do not count, they do not bear a civ.

And in no case does the Continents script put a realistic number of small and tiny islands out there. Small and tiny islands got added in some measure to most oceanic scripts.

I did not complain about the lack of islands.

I certainly added them to Pangaea, Terra, Islands, Custom Continents, and Ring/Hub/Wheel.

In my opinion you could have saved the time for the latter three.

If you want a script that produces two nearly even continents, that's doable, but let's not pretend that it is natural or realistic. Most of Earth's land is bunched up in one place.

- Sirian

That would be great - either 2 or 3 (random decision) roughly equal continents. That's all I ask for. Unfortunately, as it stands, this is rather an exception.

By the way, I mentioned the missing X and/or Y wrapping for Highlands in my post. Is there a reason why it is not in? It kind of defeats the main purpose of these maps - to take away the opportunity to keep your back clean by a coastline. As it is in Highlands, the map border - or even a corner - do this much better.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Arrian

However, there does seem to be some sort of seed issue that results in identical maps recurring. That's not good.

-Arrian

Exactly my point. Btw, it happens to me eventually.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by LordShiva
But then, after you erase your memory, how would you know if the map is how you wanted it?

I could leave a note to myself saying the map is great

[Sirian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I mentioned the missing X and/or Y wrapping for Highlands...

There are four types of world wrap:

X-Wrap, global.
Y-Wrap, tilted planet.
No Wrap, region of a planet.
X-and-Y, fantastical.

Look at the climate on Highlands. It's not a whole world, therefore no world wrap. Great Plains, Oasis, Inland Sea... all regional scripts.

Lakes is the only global script that is land-intensive.


Highlands with Y-wrap would defy physics and common sense. I understand your gameplay point, but if you think a shoreline on an oceanic map makes you SAFER on your back side, think again! Coastlines are a particular vulnerability in Civ4.


- Sirian

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Sirian
X-and-Y, fantastical.

Erm, what does fantastical mean? My dictionary seems to be missing this word.

[Willem]

Originally posted by yin26
Just a little tip unless and until there is a "fix" --

There already is a fix available. As Sirian pointed out, the sea levels are higher than they were in Civ 3. I was griping about the exact same thing to him in another thread. After experimenting and finally lowering all my sea levels by an additional -10, not only am I getting better spreads, but I have enough room now to add another civ on Standard, and increase the minimum distances between each civ by almost 50% on low sea levels, 25% on high. The file can be found in Assets/XML/GameInfo. It's clearly labelled as sea level data.

PS: Oops! Isabella plopped herself down just a few squares away from me in one game so I guess I overdid it on the minimum distance. It only happened once though so I'm guessing that the current defaults will be sufficient for 8 civs on a Standard map.

[xxFlukexx]

Map 1, 4, and 20 look pretty bad, the rest seem perfectly fine to me.

There's a lot of luck involved in Continents map where one or more civs start out on a small isolated island. This happened a lot in Civ3 too. Because of this and because the AI can't invade on a continents map I don't play on continents anymore. Continents was just designed to give out wacky, completely original (despite the repeate map bug) maps. I do remember in Civ3 that on an isloate start you sometimes had a good deal of land to work with, so I recommened lowering the seal level to low. I don't remember having 2 main continents in Civ3 as normal, I remember a lot of isolated starts.

I always thought that if you wanted to not be alone you could go into custom game and set the number of continents you want.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sirian
There are four types of world wrap:

X-Wrap, global.
Y-Wrap, tilted planet.
No Wrap, region of a planet.
X-and-Y, fantastical.

Look at the climate on Highlands. It's not a whole world, therefore no world wrap. Great Plains, Oasis, Inland Sea... all regional scripts.

Lakes is the only global script that is land-intensive.


Highlands with Y-wrap would defy physics and common sense. I understand your gameplay point, but if you think a shoreline on an oceanic map makes you SAFER on your back side, think again! Coastlines are a particular vulnerability in Civ4.


- Sirian

Logic and realism have the lowest priority for me, if it comes to civ maps. I prefer a good gameplay, and less hassle with map generation. That is also the reason for my stance on the continents setting.

The three classical categories - archipelago, continents and pangea should guarantee what they stand for: archipelago for single starts, in pangea all start on the same landmass and in continents we have a number of m landmasses with n civs, both m and n being strictly greater than 1 (but n not necessarily being the same for all continents).

What concerns highlands - it is a really great setting and I enjoy it tremendously. However, the lacking wrapping ruins it for me. Now that I know your stance, all I can hope for is, that somebody of the modding community finishes the work you have begun.

[Sirian]

A global version of Highlands is something I might do down the line.

The "primary" scripts have to strike the best balance between realism and gameplay. You don't want any variation, but it's in there anyway, and it was there in Civ3.

In fact, in Civ3, Archipelago was flat-out broken on small map sizes. (Ever read about RB Civ3 Epic Ten? Small map, Pelago, six civs, all jammed like sardines on to two islands?)

Archipelago can start more than one civ on the same landmass. If you want every civ on its own landmass, guaranteed, then play Islands.

Continents varies, giving you anything from Australia to Eurasia. The variety is the aim there. Custom Continents was put in to give players some control. Pangaea gives one super continent with all civs starting on it, and Archipelago gives narrow lands -- small continents, large islands, or tiny islands. Archipelago is about the sea.


- Sirian

[tai4ji2x]

well, then we need another option: a "balanced continents" or something

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sirian
A global version of Highlands is something I might do down the line.

Even though I'm aware, that "might do" is not quite the same as "will do", I thank you wholeheartly for at least considering it. Please consider even a fantasy highlands map (both wrappings). In terms of gameplay it would be great! And - frankly - who cares about realism? And how realistic are wheels, hubs and such? Just give it the title "Fantasy Highlands Donut" and be done with it.

I can imagine, that making those mountain ranges, lakes and valleys match at the borders is a challenge, but I don't think an unsolvable.

The "primary" scripts have to strike the best balance between realism and gameplay. You don't want any variation, but it's in there anyway, and it was there in Civ3.

In fact, in Civ3, Archipelago was flat-out broken on small map sizes. (Ever read about RB Civ3 Epic Ten? Small map, Pelago, six civs, all jammed like sardines on to two islands?)

Well, this game came out to be better than Civ3.

Continents varies, giving you anything from Australia to Eurasia. The variety is the aim there. Custom Continents was put in to give players some control. Pangaea gives one super continent with all civs starting on it, and Archipelago gives narrow lands -- small continents, large islands, or tiny islands. Archipelago is about the sea.

I wouldn't complain about a map with such a variety. My main concern are maps with only 1 Eurasia and 1 Australia, but the Americas lacking. For the lone civ (if AI) this is certain doom, a human can handle it. But for the civs on the Eurasia it is not different than a pangea. The one missing civ does not change it one bit. Even if is discovered later, it likely does not change anything in the geopolitical view. The "continents kick" on contact is gone.

Overall a 4-2-1 standard map would be perfectly fine with me.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Adagio
If I had the MiB memory eraser thingy I would

Or have a buddy, wive, kid, father, dog, goldfish generating and checking the map for you.

[yin26]

Originally posted by Willem


There already is a fix available. As Sirian pointed out, the sea levels are higher than they were in Civ 3. I was griping about the exact same thing to him in another thread. After experimenting and finally lowering all my sea levels by an additional -10, not only am I getting better spreads, but I have enough room now to add another civ on Standard, and increase the minimum distances between each civ by almost 50% on low sea levels, 25% on high. The file can be found in Assets/XML/GameInfo. It's clearly labelled as sea level data.

Ah, this is helpful. Thank you.

[Willem]

Originally posted by yin26


Ah, this is helpful. Thank you.

As I mention in my original post, it looks like I overdid it on the minimum spacing. I had one game where Isabella plopped herself down just a few squares away. But I suspect using the current default setting should work on getting 8 civs into a Standard map game.

At any rate, the civ splits are definitely much better. Before the changes, my norm was ending up on a small continent with just one other civ. Since I typically ended up dominating the land mass through smarter city placement, it got rather boring after awhile. But now my norm is starting out with 2-3 other civs out of 8 on a good size continent. I'm even seeing 4:4 splits sometimes, which never happened before. I've certainly never seen that "all civs in the game on one continent" setup that I did once.