Map size problems

[Ned]

Googlie, Asia is about 10 times the size of Huge. It is ENORMOUS! The research rate also seem to slow proportionately. I guess that it must be around ten times slower than for a huge map.

So - I do not believe we have only four or five choices for research rate. I believe we have a formula that relates map size to research rate.

Download and play the Asia map and see just how slow the techs come. You will be SLOWLY, but I believe, surely, convinced.

Ned

[Googlie]

According to Prima's guide (figures courtesy of Chris Pine, Firaxis)

Where DIFF = difficulty level (Citizen,0,Transcend,5);

TECHS = #techs your faction has discovered;

MOSTTECHS = greatest #techs discovered by any one player;

TURNS = # turns elapsed;

WORLD = worldsize, with the modifier as set out earlier;

Formula is:

Research costs = [ 11 + (DIFF x 4) + {(TECHS x 6) / 5 } - (TURNS / 8 ) - ( MOSTTECHS / 5) ] x TECHS x WORLD

If tech stagnation is selected, divide the TURNS by 12 instead of 8, and also multiply the final result by 1.5

The greatest factor is (according to Chris Pine) not the world size, but the # techs you have already discovered

WORLD factors are fixed at the multipliers given earlier.

Having said that, prima also goes on to say that research costs vary from about 65 (citizen level, tiny map, game beginning) to about 9000 (Huge map, Transcend, about 70 techs already discovered, or 13,000 with tech stagnation.

I routinely play on an 960 x 900 world, and in a tech stag game at the end my tech costs were over 30,000 per turn, which does suggest that humungous maps do attract a higher than 1.6 multiplier.

Who knows?

Googlie



[This message has been edited by Googlie (edited March 14, 2000).]

[Travathian]

The Worldsize figure does factor into as a multiplier. And the actual figure for is somewhere else in that book, have to check it when I get home. I dread checking to see what the Asia map multiplier will be.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Custom sized maps do get a different multiplier than the standard settings. Reference the Fsaest Transcend Thread by Korn469 and the result obtained by David Byron in his fast transcend in a smaller than tiny map. His ability to achieve tech gains quickly were largely in part to the smallest scale map possible (with his unique strategies not withstanding) allowing tech multiplier of less than .6 for tiny maps.

The opposite I assume holds true for Colossal maps and tech multipliers in excess of 1.6.

[Chowlett]

Googlie, that's almost funny, you typing all that out. I did exactly the same a couple of days ago in this thread - you could have just copied it