Civs v Map size v Speed

[Dark Destroyer]

Ive been playing this game to death for months now (or years, it gets kinda blurry), and I really enjoy playing on a 256 x256 map. It makes the games feel really epic in scope. Unfortunately, by the industrial age the game really slows between turns.

Playing with all 18 civs it is unaccepably slow. With 10 in is still bad, but playable

With 4 it is pretty quick

Ive a P4 1700 with 512mb memory

What map sizes do find playable ,and with how many civs?

[rpodos]

IIRC, I think on the last chat with Firaxis, Soren said that the issue is the number of civs, not the size of the map.

Or I might have that backwards.

In any case, it has to do with the type of pathfinding algorithm used, which is different from the one in Civ2.

Also, more memory is the best solution.

I've got two answers:

First, if I expect to play a game all the way into the modern age, I won't play anything larger than large, and I max out at 10 civs.

If I'm playing an early warmonger game (typical), I expect to have overwhelming momentum by cavalry or tanks at the latest, and usually stop there, so I don;t mind the processing time... I play on a wide variety of map sizes, and with differing numbers of civs, depending on what I'm experimenting with.

I'm tending toward larger maps... it slows tech trading, and also gives neighboring civs enough time to build large numbers of units for me to destroy. But again, I usually stop playing before the modern age.

R

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by rpodos
IIRC, I think on the last chat with Firaxis, Soren said that the issue is the number of civs, not the size of the map.

Or I might have that backwards.

You have that backwards. Map size is the issue.

[Immortal Wombat]

Why is that? Surely the number of civs would mean more decision-making, more unit movement etc., whereas the larder map means...? Longer pathfinding distance?

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Why is that? Surely the number of civs would mean more decision-making, more unit movement etc., whereas the larder map means...? Longer pathfinding distance?

Longer distance and more possibilites for the pathfinder. Decision-making is not inherently slow and unit movement uses the pathfinder. As the map gets larger, the pathfinding calculations grow exponentionally. Adding more civs does not increase the number of possible pathfinding destinations.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
Longer distance and more possibilites for the pathfinder. Decision-making is not inherently slow and unit movement uses the pathfinder. As the map gets larger, the pathfinding calculations grow exponentionally. Adding more civs does not increase the number of possible pathfinding destinations.

It increases the number of units using the pathfinder, no?

Or does the pathfinder compute all the possible routes from all possible locations to all possible destinations?

Does the AI pathfind long journeys at once then? Or is the time taken by the possible routes?

[Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

It increases the number of units using the pathfinder, no?

Or does the pathfinder compute all the possible routes from all possible locations to all possible destinations?

Does the AI pathfind long journeys at once then? Or is the time taken by the possible routes?

Well, I didn't write the pathfinder so I don't know the exact details... yet. It's based on A*, though. One thing to remember, though, is that the pathfinder is not used solely for planning unit movement. It is also used to handle the trade network computations. And these calculations become more involved once you have harbors (then you have to deal with naval blockades and choke points)....

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS
As the map gets larger, the pathfinding calculations grow exponentionally.

That right there explains alot Mike, thanks for the info. I know sometimes you are faced with a problem that you can only be solve with an algorithim that grows exponentionally (someone gave me an example about the distance of two towers, or somthing like that as an example).

Now you got me wondering if that exponential function grows 2^n, 3^n, or heaven forbid, 256^n!

[Dark Destroyer]

So what is the max civ you should have on a 256 x 256? with 1700mhz

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Dark Destroyer
So what is the max civ you should have on a 256 x 256? with 1700mhz

What I believe Mike's said is that the number of Civs does not effect the time between turns.

I have a P3 550MHz with 256MB of SDRAM, I find no problems with slowdowns between turns when I play Marla's map with 10 civs. I suggest you make sure only Explorer and Systray are running (ALT+CTRL+DEL, end task all other programs). I also suggest you download a program called FreeMem Std (I believe it's at download.com). It's free. What it does it does is that you tell it how much memory to free up, and it will do just that. Makes my games run very smooth.

[Ethelred]

Certainly the number of civs would be less relevant than the number of units. Larger maps means there will eventually be more units. More interactions between the units. More places to go especially after railroads. And that is just in one turn. Some things would require looking ahead more than one turn.

How about moving Air Craft Carriers. That entails decisions on where for the ship PLUS at EACH tile along the way what and where for each unit onboard the ship.

Every time I even think about programming I shudder at the amount of planning. I think a key personality aspect is the ability to avoid looking far into the future of the project so you can pretend for a while that the whole thing is managable.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Every time I even think about programming I shudder at the amount of planning.

Same here, but it seems to me a miracle everytime I finish a program.

[Ethelred]

I have the good fortune of not being a programmer. I might have become one if my first class in programming hadn't had the worst teacher on the entire earth for the job. Maybe there was something he could teach but it sure wasn't programming. 4.0 students were saying they just wanted to escape with a C.

Idiots with Phds in mathematics should not be allowed out of their cages.

Besides that Fortran on a CDC 3300 programmed with punch cards is a royal pain. If I had started college ten years later I am pretty certain I would have become a programmer.

[Minuteman]

Re: Civs v Map size v Speed

Originally posted by Dark Destroyer
Ive been playing this game to death for months now (or years, it gets kinda blurry), and I really enjoy playing on a 256 x256 map. It makes the games feel really epic in scope. Unfortunately, by the industrial age the game really slows between turns.

Playing with all 18 civs it is unaccepably slow. With 10 in is still bad, but playable

With 4 it is pretty quick

Ive a P4 1700 with 512mb memory

What map sizes do find playable ,and with how many civs?

I haven't played the game in about a month, but when I did I generally preferred (like you) playing on a huge map w/ 16 civs. As you noted, these particular settings give the game an epic feel, but also serve to slow the game down beyond acceptable levels of toleration.

However, because I was partial to these settings I simply accepted the fact that each game I started would take about a week to complete. So "playability", as I defined it in terms of Civ3, was solely contingent on the # of civs that I could squeeze into the game.

Unfortunately, however, if you have responsibilities, like work or school...or both (like me), playing Civ3 on a regular basis using these settings isn't a practical proposition, which is a royal bummer!

Forget about MP, scenarios, etc. If there was one thing that I wish Firaxis would finally address in any upcoming patch, it would be that. It really sucks to have to put my job, schoolwork, and social life in jeopardy every time I want to play Civ3 using the settings that I prefer.