what kind of PC can run 320 x 320 world map?

[vmxa1]

At 290bc I have 21 cities with several settlers about and the times are 90 seconds.

Leos and Suns and Sistine all build by somebody. They don't half
step at Sid. At least I put dow the uprising and now have swords and horses and spears. Starting to pile up cats for any visitors down the road. I now the Templars was built as well so it will be at least knights and muskets. Given the map, I would not be shock to not see anyone for a long time and face even later units.

This could be fun to play, but it will take weeks to conquer a civ at this level. It will take massive numbers, my hats off to those with the fortifude to tackle it.

[vee4473]

Nice reporting vmx. Do you still have only that island? Which was a small portion of the entire map. Those turn times will skyrocket soon i'm sure.


My main thought is that it would be challenging enough to win on a map of this size and difficulty without having to wait so long between turns.

I suppose that it gives the player much time to formulate strategy, although I sometimes have my best ideas come quickly and when the turn times skyrocket on a map of this size, i find my ideas have become muddled by the time my turn comes back up....maybe I should take notes...

[vmxa1]

I suspect I could drop at least 80 cities on that island with no need to make them more than CxxC or wider.

It looks small, butI am only using about 20%. I wish I had taken note of the overall land ownership I had. It was miniscule, that is for sure.

Yes the time will get much worse. I had had the animation for a settler take about 2 full minutes on a 250x250 map with lots of water. Full turns as long as 25 minutes, so I am sure this will get some where in that area.

It has fewer civs, but more land, so it wil get paiful. I could stand that, but I just do not want to manage as many cities as I would have to handle.

I also do not want to stage an invason of several island. It will require at least 100 transports of one flavor or another.
Probably 100 artillary pieces of some types and maybe 10 armies.

If it was just a 160x160 it would be a lot less and be done sooner. By the time I get navigation all will be way down the line in the tech tree, no one will be backward.

I can usually catch at least one civ with just ancient tech at sid, but not in this game. This is in part because I cannot make contact and get any research help.

[i_choose_life]

Originally posted by vmxa1
No, but 250 with 24 civs on lots of water will press anything. I ran it last year on a 3GH.

The amount of DDRam is more important than the proc. I play on a 320 x 320 world map with a 2GH with 1Go of Dual Channel DDRam 3200. It works great!

[vmxa1]

I don;t see how that matters. I never see civ use more than about 400MB. Running with a gig and nothing else, I have plenty of spare. Mine is Munchkin (sp) ddr 3200 as well and a 10K raptor HD.

It is cpu bound, not memory. The HD is not a factor either. You can prove it by moving it to a slower machine. I moved it to my 1.7gh with only 512 and it took twice as long for a turn and did not use all the memory.

[Dis]

well I tried an Earth map that was like 360 by 340 or something.

But until I figure out how to get more than 7 civs, I'm not too interested. I just can't see building that many cities. I started as Spain and have expanded to Italy and Greece and into Germany and Northwest Africa.

I'm already bored . And I just left the ancient age.

And if I don't keep expanding, I'll lose. China has unfettered expansion accross all of Asia. The Zulu and Americans are doing very well as well. How can I compete when they are twice as large as me? I just can't bring myself to build that many cities. It's against my nature

the weird thing about that game is the Incas only had one city. The Incas just have a poor starting position. Historically accurate, but not very good. I also had Japan and England. The islands hampered them a bit, but that's fine by me

[vmxa1]

What you need to do is to first select world size to huge. Then set the 360 or what you want and other parms.

If you did this and generated the map, you can go to the tool menu and select scenario. From that scenario properties. You will then see the setting for the number of players. Set it to what you want up to the max of 31 (not counting barbs).

There is little point to a map that size if you do not want to manage tons of cities.

[Dis]

yep, I got it going (see my other thread).

Now for a 362 X 362 Earth map with 32 civs.

Sounds fun

[vee4473]

I'm wondering if it is a viable strategy for such large maps to just build fewer cities that are fartehr apart.

That way, by the time the other civs get to your territory, your culture boundaries would prevent them from colonizing and therefore prevent them from getting too big.

Or is it not possible for you to expand your boundaries fast enough to lock out other civs?

[vmxa1]

I have not seriously tried this type of map. I would think the options are to make a normal empire and try to win via UN or Space.

The other choice is to do a conquest run. This would be lots of cities with all but the core CxC or CxxC. They will provide the support for massive troops to smash the other civs.

It will be lots of work either way.

[bobbo008]

dude, you're going to hit the "too many cities" limit and all of the time you put in will feel like a huge waste. at least for me. you could also not allow cities to be built in deserts or tundra, but i could never bring myself to do that, and so obviously havent tried it.

stupid hard-coded city limit.
stupid game.
stupid bitterness.

[Panag]

Originally posted by bobbo008
dude, you're going to hit the "too many cities" limit and all of the time you put in will feel like a huge waste. at least for me. you could also not allow cities to be built in deserts or tundra, but i could never bring myself to do that, and so obviously havent tried it.

stupid hard-coded city limit.
stupid game.
stupid bitterness.

hi ,

at least there is such a thing , imagine 2500 cities under your control , .....

and if one plays the game good , he or she will not hit that limit , and if it happens , just send out some troops for a war or two , .....


have a nice day

[Robert]

I'm sorry, I have hitted the game too often to say that 'one will not hit it'.
On a huge map you surely run the risk to have too many cities.

Remember that if the AI has many cities (and with 32 civs that's surely possible) you won't be able to build new cities as well.....!

I'm sure it is a memory limit. I can't imagine why they would've included such a limit for fun.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm sorry, I have hitted the game too often to say that 'one will not hit it'.
On a huge map you surely run the risk to have too many cities.

Remember that if the AI has many cities (and with 32 civs that's surely possible) you won't be able to build new cities as well.....!

I'm sure it is a memory limit. I can't imagine why they would've included such a limit for fun.

hi ,

so that you would have to go to war if you want to expand , ....





have a nice day

[Dis]

Originally posted by bobbo008
dude, you're going to hit the "too many cities" limit and all of the time you put in will feel like a huge waste. at least for me. you could also not allow cities to be built in deserts or tundra, but i could never bring myself to do that, and so obviously havent tried it.

stupid hard-coded city limit.
stupid game.
stupid bitterness.

So what happens when you get too many cities? Does the game crash, or can you keep playing? I'm done building cities, I don't need anymore.

check out my minimap. I'm not sure how many cities that is, but it's alot.

I did manage to lock out the ai, but that was mainly do to starting in asia. And having a few granary cities shell out settlers.