Professionally, this bugs me about Civ3.

[Dinner]

I know it really isn't that important but as a geologist something about Civ3 really bugs me. Do you know the part at the very beginning of the game where you get to choice how old your world will be? In Civ3 the older the world the fewer mountains there are in the world. This is just a total misrepresentation of science. Mountain building occurs as a result of plate tectonics (Ok, hot spot volcanism sometimes helps) and, for the most part, tectonics continues at more or less the same rate through most of the earth's history. Sure, there is a slight slowing as the plant's supply of radioactive isotopes gets used up but that slow down is really small since most radioactive elements have such long half lives.

The real controlling factor is the rate of erosion which has more to do with weather conditions then with the age of the planet. So why the heck did Firaxis tie the amount of topographic relief with the planets age?

[Dis]

I thought the older the world, the more mountains you get in civ3. I think the reasoning they gave was erosion. I usually choose the middle setting.

But yes, mountain creations is still an ongoing process. Or at least it should be.

Although I can't remember the last time we made a mountain. Mt. St. Helens actually lost elevation when it blew it's top.

And Volcanos such as in Hawaii make more land every day, but not mountainous land. It's at sea level pretty much.

Are there any mountains getting taller?

[vmxa1]

It is actually correct to have fewer mountains with an older planet.

Wind and water will erode montains over time. The number of mountains created by plate action could be offset by those lost to it. I am not sure how that is affected.

I would think climate would have a bigger impact. If we have an ice age water is locked up and water levels are lowered. Increase planet temp will raise the ocean levels, covering mountains.

So over all, I do not see a problem with the way they have it now.

[hexagonian]

Re: Professionally, this bugs me about Civ3.

Originally posted by Oerdin
I know it really isn't that important but as a geologist something about Civ3 really bugs me. Do you know the part at the very beginning of the game where you get to choice how old your world will be? In Civ3 the older the world the fewer mountains there are in the world...
The real controlling factor is the rate of erosion which has more to do with weather conditions then with the age of the planet. So why the heck did Firaxis tie the amount of topographic relief with the planets age?

I'll take the word of the geologist on this...

[Aeson]

Civ3 is a game, and as such is true to it's own physics engine. It's not going to be a realistic world formation simulation. The map generator only needs one variable to determine 'height', and they chose to label that variable considering erosion over plate tectonics, volcanic activity, cratering, ect.

[Tassadar500]

I wouldn't be too worried about it

[Dinner]

I'm not worried about it; just bugged by it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dissident
Are there any mountains getting taller?

Yes, numerous mountains are getting taller all the time. The Himalayas are getting taller as the Indian sub content smashes into the Asian plate, all of the volcanic hot spots are actively building mountains, and arc volcanoes like Japan or Indonesia are building mountains at a rate which far exceeds the rate of erosion.

[Dis]

yes, realism isn't a strong point.

I sent out a curragh very early in my chinese empire. He has been at sea for thousands of years. I sailed him all the way around to the tip of Africa (playing 362 X 362 earth map). I can't imagine their loved ones back home liked such a long deployment.

But upon their successful return (I used the goto feature for this- after discovering navigation) they were upgraded to a caravel and sent to discover America.

[Robert]

Oh well, in 1000 years scientists will have a total new theory on how the mountains developped, and civ3 suddenly is all scientific again.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Dissident
yes, realism isn't a strong point.

I sent out a curragh very early in my chinese empire. He has been at sea for thousands of years. I sailed him all the way around to the tip of Africa (playing 362 X 362 earth map). I can't imagine their loved ones back home liked such a long deployment.

But upon their successful return (I used the goto feature for this- after discovering navigation) they were upgraded to a caravel and sent to discover America.

[Alex]

well, they had to offer us three options: less mountains, more mountains and something in the middle. the "age" of the world is just one way to put them as options. perhaps they should rename this to "topography" or something like that.

[Purple]

...or "tectonic activity."

[Last Conformist]

I think Purple is on the right track ...

But while I never much played with the climate/gegraphy settings, usually sticking to the standard values, I thought the mine effect of chosing a younger world was getting more "lumpy" terrain (ie, big continuous expanses of the same terrain type), and of older getting more mixed terrain?

Wouldn't make any sense either.

[Kuciwalker]

It's both. Younger = more mountains + more clumping, older is the opposite.

I like younger worlds - mountain ranges are cool.