Earth Maps Included?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by static
I hope if they do make an Earth map, that the resources are all in the right places. There should be alot of oil in the Middle East, gold in northern california, etc...

Ehrr, sorry: better not
Most part of resources layer adding to Civ III is NOT knowing where in the heck they are.
If you know in advance where steel and oil will be found, it will be unbalancing easy to rush for an early conquer of useful places in right timing.

You can also try to nurture in advance and manipulate the dumb AI of a different Civ you know will be useful to have as a friend the moment you'll need all that uranium...

No, I hope that an "every new game" change in resource distribution will keep the earth map fresh enough and replayable.

[El hidalgo]

OK, I am confused. Are you saying that you can sail north and end up in the southern hemisphere? That's not the case. You can sail north from Siberia and end up in Canada's Norther Territories (after you start heading south again after reaching the north pole)... but you're going to have to head south to get to the southern hemisphere.

Originally posted by Lord Magnus
re: Lemmy
When I said "It was dumb that you can't sail north to reach the southern hemisphere and vice-versa." I was refering to Civ2 and not CTP. But in CTP you can choose a map where the north and south edges weren't connected. And why would a civ need a special tech to travel from the north to south edge of the world? Just take a ship and sail full speed ahead, that's how they do it in real life.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by static
I hope if they do make an Earth map, that the resources are all in the right places. There should be alot of oil in the Middle East, gold in northern california, etc...

If that is the case then the English are screwed...

[static]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Ehrr, sorry: better not
Most part of resources layer adding to Civ III is NOT knowing where in the heck they are.
If you know in advance where steel and oil will be found, it will be unbalancing easy to rush for an early conquer of useful places in right timing.

You can also try to nurture in advance and manipulate the dumb AI of a different Civ you know will be useful to have as a friend the moment you'll need all that uranium...

No, I hope that an "every new game" change in resource distribution will keep the earth map fresh enough and replayable.

True, but this problem could be solved by adding the option to "randomize resources" before you start the game. The main reason for having all the resources in the right place, is for making scenarios based on WW2 or Earth:2000. I see your point though, the AI civs would be screwed in a regular game, if the human civ knew where all the oil was beforehand...

[General Ludd]

Even civ2 had a randomize resources option.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by El hidalgo
OK, I am confused. Are you saying that you can sail north and end up in the southern hemisphere? That's not the case. You can sail north from Siberia and end up in Canada's Norther Territories (after you start heading south again after reaching the north pole)... but you're going to have to head south to get to the southern hemisphere.

ooppss
Now that you pointed that sailing to the south hemisphere from the northern hemisphere is wrong...on a round world, but when I suggested that I had Civ2's flat map in mind where it is possible to sail from the north edge/hemisphere to the south edge/hemisphere. But I trust that Firaxis will design the world map so you'll end up in the right place like making sphereical maps instead of flat ones.

[Falconius]

It would be cool if we could have it both ways: Earth map with resources in their proper places, and the ability to randomize them.

It would also be cool if the map editor allowed you to place resourses specifically where you wanted them, as opposed to the frustrating Civ II map editor which only allowed you to choose a "seeding." Making scenarios with that blasted thing drove me bonkers

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think land units can pass through the poles unless they are some kind of highly specialised artic unit. The only exception is probably the explorer (if they are in Civ 3). Air units, maybe. Nuclear subs can cruise underneath North Pole since it's just a big ocean down there.

As for resources, it's a good thing that one must acquire certain civ advances before a number of crucial resources becomes visible. This minimises on the land hogging trick, esp. on maps where resoruces are randomly placed.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Lord Magnus
re: Lemmy
When I said "It was dumb that you can't sail north to reach the southern hemisphere and vice-versa." I was refering to Civ2 and not CTP. But in CTP you can choose a map where the north and south edges weren't connected. And why would a civ need a special tech to travel from the north to south edge of the world? Just take a ship and sail full speed ahead, that's how they do it in real life.

Originally posted by Lemmy
it would be cool that you could go to the other side of the world by crossing the northpole, maybe there could some special tech which would allow you to do this.

Originally posted by Lord Magnus
re: Gangerolf
You joker, I think CTP called the connected map a "doughnut-world" not because it had a hole in the middle but because it was uniform like a doughnut and not broken at the north and south edges of the map.

if the north and south edges of a map connect, the shape really is like a doughnut. Just think about it, on a spherical world you're standing on the northpole, no way that you can go directly to the southpole, this is only possible if you stretch the two poles to each other in the center of the earth, this would result in a hole

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Oh no. I hated CTP's doughnut-shaped map. It's so idiotic. Imagine a planet with an enormous hole in the middle.

Once you have read a book of Terry Pratchet about the Discworld, you have seen everything...

Really, I miss a proper spherical globe... damn "conservative sequel"! That banned I probably would like more a "doughnut-shaped map" that a map with unpassable borders... I still remember with hate the "Greenwich" line on the Civ and Civ II maps where your air units lost their direction, go back and crash out of fuel!

If I'm forced to consider a world map more like a fictional board or arena, I'll enjoy more a "doughnut" map that left me more freedom of movement and some pretty interesting tactics: no more Civs holded "back to the wall" in the North or South of the map.

But it's late for suggestions, all the "conservative" work is done....

[Kuciwalker]

Lord Magnus

When was the last time you studied geometry? The Ctp2 "Doughnut World" was called that because it was a flat representation of the surface of a torus. Duh!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

it is always best to have both options.

choice is king

[Edward]

If you don't mind the Go To function and AI's getting confused, a doughnut map would be easily implementable.

But I trust that Firaxis will design the world map so you'll end up in the right place like making spherical maps instead of flat ones.

I seriously doubt Civ3 will have spherical maps. It requires a radical restructuring of the map and how it's implemented. It affects many different areas of the game's programming. We would have certainly heard about spherical maps by now if they were going to be in Civ3.

There are two relatively direct ways to implement a spherical map (both of which would require much programming and revision, but no need to abandon the "square" basis of Civ).

---

1) a cube map

All spherical worlds would be comprised of six flat rectangle maps joined up to make a cube. A square on one of the cube's edges connects to the five expected squares on it's same face, plus the three adjacent squares on the adjoining face. The corner squares are less satisfying. They connect to the three expected squares on their face, then two squares from one adjoining face and two squares from the other adjoining face. It's easier than I make it sound. Think of a Rubic's Cube (9 "squares" per side would make for a very small cramped world but you get the picture).

A spherical view can be faked via graphics algorithms. (Imagine a cube-shaped balloon inflated until it became a sphere.) Squares on cube's edges act normally, but near the corners you'd have cities without a full 21 squares to work.

I'm sure the mathematicians will advocate a more spherical 20-or-more sided die, but the beauty of the cube is that squares are still square and still connect simply at edges and points.

---

2) a coin map

All spherical worlds would be comprised of two flat rectangular maps. They're sewn together along the edges like a pillowcase or two sides of a coin (heads = Northern hemisphere, tails = Southern hemisphere). The poles are the centers of the two sides. The edge squares lie on the equator. The two sides each work just like normal Civ2 maps. However there are no invisible walls. Every edge square "touches" and is adjacent to it's corresponding edge square on the other "side"/hemisphere much like the edge squares on the cube world. The unfortunate corner squares connect to the three expected squares on their side and to three squares on the other "side" of the world.

Graphic algorithms could fake a view when you're near a corner or looking at the whole world. (To warp the map to get a spherical view, the center/pole squares can be artificially raised - much like the tinfoil on top of Jiffy-pop popcorn. Of course here the Jiffy-pop has two expanding sides. Don't try this in your microwave!) Again, cities near corners won't have 21 squares to work due to the diminished connections to equator squares on the flip side.

You could also try two flat circular "disks". Instead of being a rectangle, the edges of each "side" of the world are jagged - much like enlarging an aliased bitmap circle and seeing the pixelation. Every edge square "touches" and is adjacent to it's corresponding edge square on the other "side"/hemisphere. However you get really awkward connections to other flip side equator squares. I think the rectangular pillowcase, while less realistic, would be easier to implement and more "understandable" and pretty than rough edged disks or octagons.

---

Of course there other options (like a Mercador map with fewer squares at any given latitude as you move towards the poles) but I think the above two options would be the easiest to implement and display. I personally favor a cube. More tidy. In Civ4 perhaps...

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by skywalker
Lord Magnus

When was the last time you studied geometry? The Ctp2 "Doughnut World" was called that because it was a flat representation of the surface of a torus. Duh!

Grade 8 or 5 years ago.
But the real point is that you don't have to point stuff out with a "You're so dumb" attitude. What I said...

I think CTP called the connected map a "doughnut-world" not because it had a hole in the middle but because it was uniform like a doughnut and not broken at the north and south
edges of the map.

is not necessarily wrong but it's not as specific as what you said, but just because you knew something that I didn't doesn't make you better than me. You're not going to make or keep friends if you keep acting like that. Next time omit the 's and the "Duh" and your post will be better received.

[Lord Magnus]

Originally posted by Lemmy
if the north and south edges of a map connect, the shape really is like a doughnut. Just think about it, on a spherical world you're standing on the northpole, no way that you can go directly to the southpole, this is only possible if you stretch the two poles to each other in the center of the earth, this would result in a hole

I guess so, but that's also why a truly sphereical world would be better than a doughnut world.