What maps will there be in Civ

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Try invading. You'd probably fail drastically. Not bad for a 'weak 3rd world nation'. Sometimes some of you Americans are so f**king arrogant that it is incredibly annoying. And you seem baffled as to why other nations dislike you

If the yanks invaded can you imagine the resistance? We INVENTED striking, you know
They'd control a useless population as those who didn't fight them simply wouldn't work.

I say we have a European map and a UK map.

[jdd2007]

quote:quote:

Originally posted by Dida
Britian is a sick cat nowadays, it's as weak as any 3rd world nation.



Try invading. You'd probably fail drastically. Not bad for a 'weak 3rd world nation'. Sometimes some of you Americans are so f**king arrogant that it is incredibly annoying. And you seem baffled as to why other nations dislike you

Anyway, back to the original question. I would expect there would be the standard array of world maps (differing sizes), perhaps some maps of certain areas of the world, I would expect the mediterranean as was the case in civ2, but who knows...we will have to wait and see. But the world maps will almost certainly be in there...

provost, u r overeacting a little. i agree that some americans r too cocky and arrogant, but europeans tend to stereotype americans as arrogant tourists. i would say that a tiny percentage of americans would fit this description.

personally, i thought Didas comment was funny. it was obviously no where near true. i thought of it as a caricature, whether it was meant as one or not.

anyway, there is deep anti-americanism in many countries. i have experienced it first hand in scotland, england and especially france. right now u r thinking about your quote,

And you seem baffled as to why other nations dislike you

what u dont know is that i KNOW why countries dislike us. they dislike us because of our GOVERMENTS arrogance, our tourists arrogance and our way too conservative people...

[Provost Harrison]

Now I agree, the majority of you are the most loveliest people I have ever met, but people who spout this crap are extraordinarily irritating, thinking they are always right. No personal offense, but when someone spouts this crap, they should expect an appropriate scalding chastisement...no offense to other people intended...

[GodSpawn]

Anyway, we've got NUKES!

[red_jon]

Originally posted by GodSpawn
Anyway, we've got NUKES!

Not when you de-evolve, they belong to England

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the more important question is:

woll the world map (the biggest) be big enough to have a proper europe? Like, the real world has been dominated by european nations, and they can have wopping production rates etc, but in civ2 you could do **** if you started as the english.

For this reason, I hope the earth map is based on the Mercator projection, where areas near the poles are enlargened (there's an article on the Onion's web site that says "Greenland thinks it looks fat in Mercator projection" ). This would make the more populated Europe larger than, say, Africa which currently has two civs (on opposite ends of the continent too) or South America, which has zero civs in it.

[Moral Hazard]

From the FAQ

The game *will* ship with scenarios... we'll have more specifics closer to release.

I haven't seen the number 12 before where did you see that Dain? Plus I wonder if this info is still accurate.

[TVA22]

I agree

The european problem referred to is not only experienced with civs there, nor is it a factor of the maps.

It's a factor of the civilization game engine which makes LARGER CIVS ALWAYS BETTER.

As one of my fav civs to play as is the Japanese, I feel for all you out there who like to play the british. I play the Germans quite often too, and they experience the same problem. It sucks so much that to compete in a civ game, you have to leave your home area so early in the game, whereas in real life, these nations were world powers, while still didn't begin expanding until the late indusrial age, earlier by a few centuries for Britian.

Sorry if I seem like a pessimist, but it just doesn't seem feasable to me that the game will favor smaller civs at least fairly with larger ones...you know, give smaller, more compact civs a fighting chance against the larger, sprawling, undeveloped ICS powered ones. (I just don't buy it that the settler thing-2pop points-will solve our problems)

So we will probably have another game where on the real world map the persians or zulus (no offence to anyone who plays them) are the 1st line powers every game, simply because of their room to expand, and Europeans must either take over all of Europe early in the game, eliminating any interesting European wars parallel to real life. Likewise, as the Japanese, I will always have to move away from Japan well within the BC portion of the game, and never be able to be self sufficient (and still competative) on my own territory. . . (sighs)

[El hidalgo]

Well, there are small civs in terms of land area (English, Japanese), and then there are small civs in terms of population (Mongols). So the small land area issue should not be such a problem if Civ can correctly model the effects of trade and increasing agricultural productivity. Japan can support a lot of people even in a small area with very little in the way of natural resources, because of trade. Can you import food in Civ 3, though (on a larger scale than in Civ 2)? That will be the test.

Also, you can get more and more food from less and less land as time goes on, due to increases in productivity and new techs, such as bioengineering. For example, 98% of ancient Egyptians were farmers, whereas only 2% of Americans are today -- and that's supporting a much larger population. Are these effects modeled in Civ 3? You should be able to support a powerful civ with a large population, as the Japanese and English do, in a relatively small area as long as, like these civs in real life, you pursue the right policies (more or less).