It's official Earth will be in CIV3

[Yoleus]

Originally posted by Akron
I find it interesting that they put in Hawaii but not New Zealand.

Hawaii is US.
NZ is not.

[Robert Plomp]

Gramphos: You know the answer to that question. Stop deny it!
If you wait long enough the answer is yes, otherwise the answer is no

I think you didn't understand my joke

[Grumbold]

Lots of fans are bound to want to improve on the world map so I doubt we will be waiting long for alternatives to appear. That map is certainly more like the world today than at 4,000 B.C. We should have to chop down the trees and overgraze goats ourselves to create the huge dustbowls and deserts

[Mankind]

And what some time will appear patches to Earth map
[well you know... new islands etc. ]

[Faboba]

I'm sure if they're giving us a game editor they'll be shipping with the map editor too ( unless they are insane or very, very dim )

So if the absence of the ability to put a single city on New Zeland, part of a continent where there are no starting civs, bothers you that much I'm sure you can draw it in.

What annoys me is Hawaii looks about the same size and Great Britain. When they/if they put the Celts in the expansion pack, we'll be trying to fit two civs into what looks to be three squares.

Guess we're just lucky the way France is angled. If it was any different you'd probably be able to walk from the UK to France

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Faboba
Guess we're just lucky the way France is angled. If it was any different you'd probably be able to walk from the UK to France

Since the Celts travelled to and from Ireland, Britain and France in coracles without having to discover and build the Civ trireme this would not be entirely unreasonable.

Perhaps settler and warrior units should be allowed coastal sea movement. That would allow the tribes to migrate but not invade

[HalfLotus]

I played world map a few times in Civ2 and it was fun to take over continents and whatnot, but knowing the terrain beforehand eliminates the exloratory aspect of civ. I found it more exciting to play on random maps. Granted, the map generator was poor, but large landmass/continents works well for making believable continents. World map is a good addition, but I wont be using more than a coupla times.

[Mars]

The reason hawaii is so large is cuz its on the equator. flat maps disort things like that.

[Henk_Glimlach]

The best world map would be if you could create emm 8 to 9 city's in GB. And if you take that size. Then the world must be even as big. So big europe, Big USA etc.

[Mars]

64000x64000 world map.

It would take you the whole game to cross the world with even the fastest units

But hey there would be a lot of land. (4,096,000,000 squares)

[St Leo]

Unfortunetly its near the pole (in refrence to the map) and on a flat map that makes it distorted and small. Its still there though, like 3 squares.
The reason hawaii is so large is cuz its on the equator. flat maps disort things like that.

1. The three square thing is Tasmania.

2. The effect is actually the opposite of what you claim. Things near a pole (example gratia Greenland) can appear larger than those away from a pole (example gratia Australia).

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Mars
The reason hawaii is so large is cuz its on the equator. flat maps disort things like that.

You got it the wrong way around Mars. Everything on the equator shrinks and everything near the poles stretches in order to make the world fit on a flat surface.

But this world isn't geographicaly correct - it wasn't in civ2 either. Try placing the equator, 2/3 of the civ maps are above this line.

I ones tried to make a world map for civ of my own, dividing the map into squares and doing one square at a time after my globe. I never finished it, because Alaska, Northern Scandinavia and Russia with all its tundra and ice became to big, and North America, Europe and Central Asia became to small. My map would have been correct, but it wouldn't be any fun playing as it actually made the city supporting world smaller.

As with the rules and choice of civs the making of the map has not been focused on reality but more on gameplay.

How they could leave out New Zealand (And Old Zealand too! ), I simply can't understand though.

[PGM]

Originally posted by Akron
I find it interesting that they put in Hawaii but not New Zealand.

IMHO I don't think it's a proven fact that NZ isn't in. If you look closely, there's a fog all around the map coasts, even over the place where NZ could be placed. It could be there, forgotten under the fog.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by PGM


IMHO I don't think it's a proven fact that NZ isn't in. If you look closely, there's a fog all around the map coasts, even over the place where NZ could be placed. It could be there, forgotten under the fog.

Generally, terrain is "remembered" under fog of war and does not change. Units and cities are subject to change.

[PGM]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Generally, terrain is "remembered" under fog of war and does not change. Units and cities are subject to change.

Yes, but I didn't mean fog of war. I meant the black shroud that covers unexplored terrain.

[FrostyBoy]

There's a few things I can see wrong with that map now

1, no NZ
2, Hawaii too big and not angled correctly
3, Australia is not on the right angle either
4, terrain seems to be wrong in a few places (like persia and scandinavia)

and here's the worrying thing, Dan said that he took this shot just last week (or 2) I think it was, and he said he had to cheat to get rid of the fog, so PGM, there's no fog.

I can also tell that this was hand-made, no bmp mapping or anything, which is not a good sign..