Tweet
Map size problems
This is more or less a matter of personal taste (just like sexual orientation, dress sense, and whether or not dictatorships are really all they're cracked up to be).
I was playing on Civ2. I was playing on SMAC. I was playing on Civ Call to Power.
Now, of all these three, I think SMAC is the best overall. Civ2 has the biggest range of versatility (the scenario idea was a truly genius addition!). But, much in CtP's defence, it boasted the largest maps.
SMAC, in my opinion, actually had *less effective* map sizes than Civ2 did. Here's why:
Civ2 emphasized terrain differences by simply defining about twelve different terrain types, and then assigning each square a terrain classification. The game allowed a 149 by 119 square map. I suspect this might not even be the largest map available either (although it's the size of my present Star Wars scenario effort).
SMAC, however, emphasized terrain differences by raising or lowering the terrain. This meant that the actual physics of each square was more realistic, but it also meant that some terrains needed many squares to adequately express. Mountains, for example, required nine spaces to express (one for the central peak, eight surrounding for the slopes leading up). I suppose you could have a small mountain in four squares (no square for the central peak, just four squares whose common corner is very high).
However, this means that to express the terrain of an entire earth-sized planet (eg, Planet!
) you'd need at least four times the number of squares.
Do you get that?
You do not. The game, even on huge size maps, is actually much smaller in maps than I was expecting from Civ2. Factor in the fact that Planet Busters are capable of such incredible radii of damage (something I'm still rather against) and you have a situation ongoing.
Personally, I thought that each square ought to represent a very large amount of terrain. Therefore, fungal blooms encompassing nine squares were aesthetically not right to me. Also, the idea that a forest could expand utterly and completely in one turn over a square struck me as odd.
Much nicer would have been gradations of forestation, or fungal infestation. (The same goes for bodily hygiene, but you don't want to hear my views on that right here
.)
What do you think? Did any of you find this anomalous?
------------------
"In all creation, there can be no task more onerous or tedious than that of playing God." - Stephen Fry, 'The Liar'.
I was playing on Civ2. I was playing on SMAC. I was playing on Civ Call to Power.
Now, of all these three, I think SMAC is the best overall. Civ2 has the biggest range of versatility (the scenario idea was a truly genius addition!). But, much in CtP's defence, it boasted the largest maps.
SMAC, in my opinion, actually had *less effective* map sizes than Civ2 did. Here's why:
Civ2 emphasized terrain differences by simply defining about twelve different terrain types, and then assigning each square a terrain classification. The game allowed a 149 by 119 square map. I suspect this might not even be the largest map available either (although it's the size of my present Star Wars scenario effort).
SMAC, however, emphasized terrain differences by raising or lowering the terrain. This meant that the actual physics of each square was more realistic, but it also meant that some terrains needed many squares to adequately express. Mountains, for example, required nine spaces to express (one for the central peak, eight surrounding for the slopes leading up). I suppose you could have a small mountain in four squares (no square for the central peak, just four squares whose common corner is very high).
However, this means that to express the terrain of an entire earth-sized planet (eg, Planet!
) you'd need at least four times the number of squares.Do you get that?
You do not. The game, even on huge size maps, is actually much smaller in maps than I was expecting from Civ2. Factor in the fact that Planet Busters are capable of such incredible radii of damage (something I'm still rather against) and you have a situation ongoing.
Personally, I thought that each square ought to represent a very large amount of terrain. Therefore, fungal blooms encompassing nine squares were aesthetically not right to me. Also, the idea that a forest could expand utterly and completely in one turn over a square struck me as odd.
Much nicer would have been gradations of forestation, or fungal infestation. (The same goes for bodily hygiene, but you don't want to hear my views on that right here
.)What do you think? Did any of you find this anomalous?
------------------
"In all creation, there can be no task more onerous or tedious than that of playing God." - Stephen Fry, 'The Liar'.
Comment