How many Cities in a giga-game?

[twilight]

Hi,

how many I can use? In CivII there were a max of 256 cities and now? Is there a max?

The background is I created my first (extended) Gigamap and want to play with 32 peoples. That means for CivII I could use under ten for every Civ but in this map fit Hundreds and Hundreds more cities.

[ilcattolico]

The limit is 1,00,000... Just kidding. I can't answer your question but maybe there is someone who can? Consider this a 'bump'.

[twilight]

Thanks ;-)

Another question, Is there a way, perhaps a little programm, that let you see the flc.files? I plan to put all kinds of units in my personal mod but do not now hów to see them eficently. In the moment I put them all in a mod but this is a very big afford. Takes too much time.

[vmxa1]

I am seem to recal hearing it was around it was 512.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I am seem to recal hearing it was around it was 512.

YEs that is right

the giga map has a lot of open space even after the limit is met

I'm playing one right now against 24 civs, lots of open desert, jungle and tundra

I wish they would remove the limit

[Minuteman]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


YEs that is right

the giga map has a lot of open space even after the limit is met

I'm playing one right now against 24 civs, lots of open desert, jungle and tundra

I wish they would remove the limit

Don't hold your breath, Sleepy.

The limit has been at 512 since 1.16f and it's unlikely to change, at least according to Firaxis Dan. He once told me when I complained about the limit at Civfanatics that extending the limit beyond 512 would simply "consume too many system resources" for most users.

However, that was almost a year ago, and I assume that the system specs for the "average" user has only increased since then. So that argument seems kind of dubious today....not that it didn't then.

Besides, if Firaxis was really concerned about their game overtaxing the systems of their customers, then why did they include the ability to make these damned "huge" maps in the first place? I think, at the very least, that the user should have the option to exceed the 512 city cap if they want to. If our systems can't handle it, then we should be the judge of that, shouldn't we?

[oogs]

They could at least make this a modable feature... those who want/need more cities can have more, those who don't care/can't handle more on their system leave it at 512 :P

[DrFell]

Sounds kind of realistic though, having some open spaces (deserts, tundras, etc) instead of the whole map blanketed in cities by 500AD. Not that I've actually seen a giga map in action though.

[Minuteman]

Originally posted by DrFell
Sounds kind of realistic though, having some open spaces (deserts, tundras, etc) instead of the whole map blanketed in cities by 500AD. Not that I've actually seen a giga map in action though.

Actually, I think it's less realistic to have so much territory unclaimed by any nation. With the exception of Antarctica, every square mile of real estate on Earth is claimed by someone. It's unfortunate that the only way to claim land in Civ3 is to build cities, but that's how it's set up.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by twilight
Thanks ;-)

Another question, Is there a way, perhaps a little programm, that let you see the flc.files? I plan to put all kinds of units in my personal mod but do not now hów to see them eficently. In the moment I put them all in a mod but this is a very big afford. Takes too much time.

Paint Shop pro comes with a thingy called animation shop, which can view (and edit!) flc's.

[Ijuin]

Here is a simple method of claiming land without cities:

1.) The first Civ to explore any land/coast/sea tile gets the initial claim to it (Ocean tiles cannot be claimed and are open to everybody once the requisite tech is achieved).

2.) A Civ's claim over any tile holds until a unit of a Civ that is at WAR with the claimant fortifies with the tile within its vision range. When this happens, the tile is occupied by the enemy unit, and ownership switches to the occupying nation. The original claimant can reclaim the land by removing the enemy unit and then fortifying its own unit in that spot. The occupying unit does not need to remain fortified in place after the tile has flipped to its side (that is, the unit may un-fortify and move elsewhere, and the tile will still remain on "his" side), but doing so ensures that no one else may claim the land unless the occupying unit is destroyed.

3.) City borders based on culture take priority over national borders based on exploration/occupation in this manner. However, while at peace, no Civ is allowed to found a city or colony within the land claimed by another Civ--to do so is an act of war.

4.) When a Civ is eliminated, all of its territory that is not already occupied/claimed by the conquerer becomes "unowned", and is up for grabs.

However, there is a problem in using diplomacy to cede land to other nations--the AI cannot compute the strategic value of land, and instead would have to compute a price based on its productivity and the presence of any resources/luxuries. Also, making it so that land can only be ceded when negotiating peace (like with cities), would mean that the only way to acquire claimed land would be via warfare--I would really prefer to make land tradable.

[twilight]

Hm, that could be the reason therefore, that the AI NEVER trade cities. Once I suggested for fun to give one AI my whole giant Empire for only one goldpiece. He did not want it ;-)
That must be changed.

The landproblem can be soved by a mod. I changed the rules in that way that the cities borders are extremly fast extended (change the cultural need for those range extensions). Now the cities are very fast at their max range. After putting oases in deserts and plains in the sibirian arctic at special locations the AI will build there and even if there aren't many cities the land will be owned by someone very fast.

I use another detail. I *HATE* Deserts full of streets so no one can build them there. To give my Arabs not this disadvantage of not having ways to use their ressources I put Shores between oasis. For explanation: These oasis are next to a normal plain field, these field are the only locations in the desert where cities can be build and the oasis are very very richt, so that the desert cities are as valuable than other cities. As I said I put shores between them, they look exactly like desert but there can roads be build, so I have Caravanstreets ;-)

I changed many of such rules and hope it will work. So woods aren't to terrainchange because after a while there are no woods anymore. I use them as natural barriers where Infantry come through but no wheeled units, which is cavalry too. So big armies have to avoid them. Jungle is even worse and are not passable like mountains. In modern times it will be possible (not mountain-passing) but it will be a long long game since I decided to raise the minimum development-turns from 4 to 20, perhaps more. So I will have a real middle age for example.

AM I off-topic? Oops, sorry ;-)

BTW: Thanks for all the tips with cities and Paint shop pro.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Minuteman


Actually, I think it's less realistic to have so much territory unclaimed by any nation. With the exception of Antarctica, every square mile of real estate on Earth is claimed by someone. It's unfortunate that the only way to claim land in Civ3 is to build cities, but that's how it's set up.

You could 'claim' the territory unofficially by building colonies on the resources and placing military units in the area.

[twilight]

Originally posted by DrFell


You could 'claim' the territory unofficially by building colonies on the resources and placing military units in the area.

But this will end with Spains/Russians/Chinese/Luxembourgians claiming the arabian desert

[Minuteman]

Originally posted by DrFell


You could 'claim' the territory unofficially by building colonies on the resources and placing military units in the area.

If colonies weren't well nigh useless in Civ3, then that would be an ideal workaround, at least in terms of creating the illusion of hegemony over unclaimed land of this type. However, since colonies don't generate any culture of their own, and thus contribute nothing to the expansion of the national borders of the nations that build them, it would probably be a waste of time & effort.

Deploying military units to these "no-man’s-lands" is effective only if an incursion by your neighbors/enemies is a nuisance. However, chances are that these units will just spend the bulk of their time fighting the countless barbarian hordes that always crop up in untamed lands.