Map Size

[Lord God Jinnai]

I've searched everywhere and can't find anything on the acutal size of the map, not pixelwise, but the number of tiles or atleast the size in surface area (assuming tiles are still 100km). I'm just looking for an ordinary map. I need this for the Wonders and Achievements model.

[axi]

I have made a proposition about this stuff in the Clash scales thread. I think you can use it since I've had no complaints about the numbers involved.

What are you planning to do with that information? I can't see where it is useful for wonders.
[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 25, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

LGJ:

The nominal values we are going with are 60mi (100km) on a side squares with a map that is 320x200. For scenarios, or base on our decisions this will/may change.

[axi]

Mark: This 320x200 size, is it based on any calculations, or is it arbitrary?

When I made my post about scales, I based my normal map dimensions on the real dimensions of the Earth globe. Is there anything wrong with my calculations?

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[Lord God Jinnai]

I'm using this mainly for natural wonders because there should only be so many per size of the world and i'd like to base it off the size of this world since there are considered a standard of 7 and a few more (which will be of slightly lower levels) for ~15-20 total, only 1 being in the ocean, but that's not too important. Its just that 320x200 with a 60mi/100km size per square won't really do for this.

[Mark_Everson]

Axi:

Sorry, I had forgotten completely about your previous post. Your "normal" sizeof 280x120 seems reasonable. And as you say it's less arbitrary than the scale I stated. As we get more of the computational guts into the game, we will be better able to assess whether even this size is too large for the "normal" map or not. It's just an awful lot of squares, and some things in the AI increase super-linearly with the number of squares.

LGJ:

Well I don't know exactly what you are saying. For now you should use the number that axi presented for a normal size map, 280x120. If you want just to have an idea of land area it's fairly safe to take 30% of the map area. If that's not what you are asking for that you're going to have to restate what it is you need.

[F_Smith]

Was just playing around with some new enhancements last night (*very* early stages, haven't uploaded them yet), but it got me thinking about this topic (trade between civs lead to general thinking about mapsize).

Should the basic gamemap include the entire world? For 90% of the game, civs won't be able to cross an ocean. So unconnected continents will be completely unused, and processing time will be used to compute values for a civ/civs that no one will see until the very end.

That seems like such a waste.

I think the basic game should be just one connected landmass. We can have an 'extended' game that could include other continents, for players that want to run thru 5,500 game turns/years before exploring the 'new world'.

Or, alternatetly, unconnected landmasses could have some routine that generates pop/civ/etc info when they are first 'discovered' -- would that suit?

[Lord God Jinnai]

F_Smith:

Just because the player won't be over on the other continent, doesn't mean other civs won't. And who knows, perhaps that other continent might start trying to conquer and colonizing you before you got a chance to start out on your quest across the world. You can't have that if there is nothing going on over there.

[F_Smith]

Lordy:

But the technology to cross an ocean will not likely come about until at *minimum* 5000+ years into the game. Just thought ya'll might consider that, since it will be wasted cpu time until the tech to cross the ocean is developed by someone.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Umm i suppose you're going by Christorpher Columbus? I know Lief Erikson crossed it much earlier. Also there's now hard core evidence that says the romans crossed the ocanes and visited the americas. They've found some Roman artifacts in tombs sealed since about 500 BCE that are definatly roman in origin (make of them is definiatly roman as one is the bust of a roman warrior and another has some lettering on it, ie Latin).

So crossing oceans might not be so late in the game.

[F_Smith]

Lordy:

Columbus would have been 1492, about 5,500 years into the game. Ericson was what, about a hundred years earlier? (I may be wrong, someone help me there?). I'll even give you back to 1000 a.d./c.e.. But certainly no earlier, at least in an organized, deliberate voyage.

The Romans, Egyptians, Phoenecians, whomever, may all have had individual ships *accidentally* cross the ocean once or twice. I've seen supposed evidence of all these (Thor Hyerdall, the Kontiki, all that stuff, not to mention the 'Quetzacoatl' stories).

But there was not a single recorded attempt to seriously try this by any govt that I am aware of. In no way could they maintain communications. It would have been a one-off deal, almost certainly by mistake.

And most imporantly, how often in playing this game will the technology be available to cross the ocean before about 1000 a.d.? And 1000 is being *v e r y* generous, agreed?

Oh, well, just a thought.

[Lord God Jinnai]

It depends on the circumstances....if its realtively similar to how earth developed, well it'll be within 1500 CE +- 500 years, but circumstances can vary. A small island nation that had developed the ability to cross oceans early on could've done so long before.

Also you're forgetting the other side of the globe, specifically China who developed the capasity and sustained the capasity of ocean cossing thoughout most of the Pacific for about 100 years till one of the Emperors told them to destroy all the ships because they considered themselves the best nation in the world so why trade with barabarians?

Anyway i think it needs to be started atleast as soon as someone has developed the technology to do so.

[Richard Bruns]

I don't think we should limit the game to one landmass, but it is a good idea to ignore things until the player sees them (whatever time that may happen to be).

This is something of a wild idea, but it might be possible and if it works it could help the game detail:

Could we start with a smaller square size and rescale the map after the civ gets big? Perhaps the game could start with 25 km squares and have the map cover one sixteenth of the world. This would mean that young, small civs could be covered in a lot of detail.

When the civ learns about areas beyond the map boundaries, the map is resized. The area that was previously four squares would become one square. The squares would have side lengths of 50 km and one fourth of the world would be covered.

When the civ outgrows thus map, the process is repeated so the map has 100 km squares and shows all of the world.

Is something like that feasable?

[F_Smith]

I love the idea.

Yes, it's very do-able. The OO design is already laid out to allow the player scale up or down, and play at a variety of levels.

Did you ever play the old KOEI game 'Ghengis Khan'? You first played the 'Mongolia' game, in which you had to unite (conquer) all the provinces of one country. Then, when you finished, you went to the 'world' map and played that country and try to conquer the world.

I love this idea. The scale of the map can be tied to the size of the 'known world'.

Good thinking.

[Mark_Everson]

I played Gengis Khan, it was a lot of fun. Until you figured out how to beat the AI that is...

I agree strongly with LGJ on how much of the world should be 'active'. IMO you just can't ignore the whole rest of the world until the player finds it. For one thing, all worlds will not look like the earth! Also, I'm not so sure that we can generate a world that looks as though it evolved similar to the player's part of the world from scratch when we need it.