World Map, second try...

[OzzyKP]

OzzyKP@aol.com

[Mercator]

Thanks for sending me your map OzzyKP!

I suppose you meant to send it too, didn't you Spanky? Unfortunately you seemed to have forgotten to attach the map (or Hotmail screwed up)!

Every new map is a little more incentive for me to continue with the site I'm (supposedly) working on, so any other maps anyone else may have are extremely welcome.

And if anyone would want to volunteer doing some dirty slavework for me (i.e. write descriptions and enter hundreds of maps into the "database")... Your help would be highly appreciated.

[Spanky]

Curses!

Well, I'll try it again, then. OzzyKP, did you experience the same problem, or did it arrive safe and sound?

Like I said, Mercator, I'll be happy to write a short description of my own map - any free time I have other than that, I need to devote to my own project, I'm afraid.

An improved version might be coming along as well, by the way (see my Road to Empire thread).

[Mercator]

I got it! I haven't looked at it yet... But I have been following your scenario thread a while, that looks pretty damn good!

A map description would be nice, but not really necessary, one map isn't gonna make much difference among the loads I got.

[OzzyKP]

I got the map just fine. Thanks!

The terrain was much more varried and interesting. Richer. It doesn't seem particularly playable though, for areas not granted the rich soil and the few good spots of land. Plus it still has the same dimensions of the original map, and those just drive me up a wall, hehe.

[Spanky]

Thank you for your comments!

OzzyKP, by "dimensions", do you mean the shortened Pacific, or the way the world map is projected? I noticed that your map and Andrew Livings' both use a solution where the map's proportions look most correct in the small map view, while in the main window, the terrain gets a more 'compressed' look (which I guess might be due to the isometric perspective).

I don't quite understand what you mean by playability, though. Sure, some areas are a lot more fertile than others, but isn't that the point? It's all based on data taken from the actual world, which to my mind should give it a realistic feel that should increase playability, not the opposite.

What I do realize is that this realism might make it less suitable for a standard game, but for scenarios, my philosophy is realism first, then adjust for playbalancing. For example, in "The Road to Empire", the Chinese are going to have the largest population by far, as they actually did at the time, but this is going to be made up for (or so I hope) by the fact that they are far behind in military technology, have an economically inefficient government and, when played by the AI, are generally peace-loving and not interested in advances that could make them more powerful.

[BeBMan]

Re: Need your addresses

Originally posted by Spanky
Bebro, I tried the address stated on Civ2000, but it apparently isn't valid!

Sorry, have to fix that. Please, try bernd@civii.de

BTW, Ozzy and Spanky I will upload your maps at the CivUniversum (a German civ site) if thats ok?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spanky
Thank you for your comments!

OzzyKP, by "dimensions", do you mean the shortened Pacific, or the way the world map is projected? I noticed that your map and Andrew Livings' both use a solution where the map's proportions look most correct in the small map view, while in the main window, the terrain gets a more 'compressed' look (which I guess might be due to the isometric perspective).

Yea, I mean the proportions of the land. The projection and shape and such. Same unjustifyably distorted map that came with the game. I'm not sure what isometric perspective means, but I tried to make the land look accurate in both the map view and the main view. I'm not sure why you thought it was compressed. Much of my map is greatly expanded from the original. Africa is greatly expanded to actual size, South america is, north america is. All based on reality.

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't quite understand what you mean by playability, though. Sure, some areas are a lot more fertile than others, but isn't that the point? It's all based on data taken from the actual world, which to my mind should give it a realistic feel that should increase playability, not the opposite.

What I do realize is that this realism might make it less suitable for a standard game, but for scenarios, my philosophy is realism first, then adjust for playbalancing. For example, in "The Road to Empire", the Chinese are going to have the largest population by far, as they actually did at the time, but this is going to be made up for (or so I hope) by the fact that they are far behind in military technology, have an economically inefficient government and, when played by the AI, are generally peace-loving and not interested in advances that could make them more powerful.

Well as for the realism I notice you used quite a lot of hills in your map. Was that used to show elevation? There are many places that do indeed have a high elevation, high above sea level, but yet still have fertile, and often flat ground. Since we don't have an elevation component to this map like in Alpha Centuri it can be hard to portray in the map. When I made my map I'd mix a few hills in with plains to symbolize this. But in your map, its just covered with hills, which makes that land pretty much unusable in a game, which simply isn't the case.

Also, my approach was that due to the size and importance of rivers in the game they should only be added for truly significant rivers in the real world. If we really wanted to be accurate to earth darn near every inch of map would be covered with a river, because in a plot of land as large as one map square there is without a doubt a river there almost every non-desert place on earth. But of course to compare the significance of the Mississippi with the small river/creek that goes through my town of Holland Michigan the Black River is absurd. You used quite a lot of rivers.

You made the central United States grassland, I certainly think plains are better there. The land isn't lush and wet at all, it has been called "The Great American Desert"

What I meant by playability was that there are only a few select spots on earth that are capable of sustaining a civ in a game. While in reality most everywhere has people, and is mostly determined by the advance of the civilization. While my map doesn't reflect this either, it is a good point to take into consideration. Europe and the United States aren't necessarily better land, they have just been worked more. If they haven't been worked by man as much they would be huge temperate forests like siberia or something.

And yea, good point about scenario vs. regular game. I'm sure this would make a great scenario map. I look forward to playing yours. I had more a general game in mind when I made mine, perhaps thats the main difference. I don't mean to be critical, I'm just pointing out what I thought of your map.

[OzzyKP]

Bebro, thats fine, i'm sure we both appreciate people spreading our maps around.

And how do I get this Andrew Livings' map everyone has mentioned?

[BeBMan]

Well, you could download his "crisis of the new world order" scenario and load a savegame into the map editor.

Since I plan to do this anyway, I also could send you the map then.
(I already have the scn, but I´ll look for a newer version)

[BeBMan]

Ozzy, uploaded your map - with a five star rating, the highest possible on the CivUniversum website

[Heresson]

[Spanky]

Sorry guys, I've been a bit busy lately, so I haven't had time to reply here for a while!

Bebro, I will send you a copy of my map with a widened Pacific as soon as I get the chance (I don't have access to my computer right now). You can decide for yourself if you want to post it at CivII Universum, though. Like I said, it's designed to work with altered rules.txt and terrain1.gif, so that there would have to be a short explanatory text accompanying it (I could write you one in German or English if you still want to post it).

OzzyKP, don't worry about the criticism - I don't mind as long as it's constructive, and I think it makes an interesting point about different design philosophies. First of all, let me say that I've compared both our maps to an Atlas I have at home, and yours is definitely the more accurate where proportions are concerned. In fact, I'm beginning to think the designer of the original Civ2 map must have photographed a globe to use as a reference: The continents get shorter towards the poles, and Africa and Asia show the same effect towards the west and east, respectively.

About the "Great American Desert", though - I was wondering if I hadn't made a big mistake when you pointed that out, since I based those tiles on a map depicting agricultural usage. But a website I recently stumbled upon quotes the Canada Grain Council in saying that the Great Plains' "Annual production of wheat, oats, barley, rye, sorghum and corn in the region is greater than 334 million tonnes - roughly 25% of the world's total production of these grains2." But since the term you use must have come from somewhere, I searched a bit more and found that it is generally used for the area between the Missouri and the Rockies, and was coined by settlers to describe an area they thought was desert because it looked dry. I'll go over my map once more to make sure, but I think I covered most of that area with hills.

Speaking of hills, I think you've pointed out a major problem with the way Civ2 defines them, since they denote both elevation and fertility. I was aware of this when I made the map, though. Maybe a difference in our philosophies is that I see the main function of hills and mountains in that they hinder movement across the map. Together with rivers, which of course do the opposite, I believe that these can create a more realistic gaming experience, by making individual civs move and define their borders in an historically more accurate way. That said, if I have overlooked elevated areas that should be flat, I would be grateful to you if you could point them out to me.

The lack of fertility in hills I don't see as a problem in itself, since this can either be changed through editing rules.txt, or compensated for by making the adjoining land richer. This is also one of the reasons that I used "quite a lot" of rivers. Excuse me if I say so, but I think you might be exaggerating just a bit here, since I don't think you'll find any creeks on my map! There are many more significant rivers out there other than the Mississippi, and the ones that I've included are only the larger ones. Again, I think these are necessary to making gameplay historically accurate.

I think as you say, we're both just using different approaches, whith me relying on changing the game mechanics if necessary in order to achieve the desired effects, which I guess might make my map more suitable for scenario design.

[Spanky]

Map on its way

Bebro, the map is on its way.

[master on high]

Map Design

I've been designing maps for as long as I can remember...and while few of them have been published (and even fewer actually used) I know that they're some of the more accurate/unique maps out there.

Just reading through your arguments...and I wanted to pipe in what I thought about map making.

To represent hilly areas and mountain ranges you only have to think about what those actually do to units and cities. If the diamond is an area that is easily defensible, difficult to cross, and unproductive, I'd say that's a hill or mountain. If it's just "high" but retains none of those characteristics, then that diamond certainly couldn't be a hill or a mountain! More likely a plains square.

You may also use this sort of thinking to outline regions that are placed on greater projections when looking at smaller areas on the same size map. Forests may have clearings with plains diamonds or wet areas with swamp diamonds. Plains areas are traditionally grasslands broken with plains, forests, hills, and sometimes tundra. Mountains always have valleys or tundra and forests to break it up, etc. It makes the map look better and changes the effects of individual squares, making it more interesting when playing on it.

And for rivers you should just take a map that only includes rivers that are so and so important and only use the rivers included in that map. Makes it easy to figure out which ones to use.

That wasn't as much as I thoguht it would be...