What does everybody think of the maps that the game generates?

[mbarloewen]

Hi all,

I was wondering what everyone thought about the maps that the game generates.

It seems to me that invariably (even when playing the archipel. setting) the world consists of just one huge asia-like continent. Sometimes with 1 or 2 other small islands. I like to play large maps and it just seems that the game generates fewer continents then the previous civ games. I am not complaining. I have had some very fun games but I was curious what everyone else has experienced.

Thank you,

Mike

PS I would do some research with the map generater in the editor to see the type of maps it creates, however it is just too tedious to scroll around since there is no zoom out function. Or is there?

[Pyrodrew]

I was hoping for FAR more variety on the type of maps in Civ3... I was expecting a little more variety... instead it's the same (less if you consider we have no swamps or glacier now). I see VERY little difference when changing the arid, cold, dry, warm settings.

If you want more islands/continents you will have to play on a smaller map and/or lower land %. Land contects everywhere, but this will minimize it some.

As for Game Balance the maps are WORSE. Jungles were bad before since starting in the middle of the map (everyone's future expansion area) with poor terrain was never good. Now they removed the banannas (huge growth) & swamp's peat (shield-heavy "swirly mud") & put in disease making the Jungle start position now near impossible. I don't see why they felt the need to put oil in plains... plains was already a good terrain. Since plains appears more often then desert, oil is now more often in plains then in desert or tundra! Since railroads help all terrains except tundra, tundra is now worse as well. And since you can now build mines on grasslands (before you could only forest them), this great terrain has become MUCH better. Desert Oasis is gone, but 'flooded plains' make up for that. Of course where you started impacted your success in Civ2, but now it is even more that way.

I like the game, but this is 1 area I'm disappointed in... and thankful there is an editor. Hopefully, the patch will provide more options in the map generator.

[Terser]

The random maps generated in this game are much better than those in CivII. You'll actually end up with chains and groups of mountains and hills with an occasional lone outcropping. This is much more akin to real life than the "dartboard" method CivII used when distributing elevated terrain.

As for the various terrain types I think you should add flood plains to jungles and tundra as an early game death sentence. It's been my experience that the unit and pop. loss from this land type borders on ridiculous. I'll never forget my first game of CivIII when I unknowingly built my capitol on flood plains. Each and every time the city's population would go up that point of increase was immediately lost to disease.

Realistic? I'm not sure. Aggravating? I'm certain...

[IronSpam]

Yeah I was trying to see whether I could get myself on a good-sized island all by myself. By “good-sized” I mean enough room for eight to ten cities. One of my favorite pastimes in Civ I or II was playing the isolationist Republic with only occasional outside contact. Obviously, that’s less of a winning strategy, given the necessity of contact, diplomacy, and trade with other nation states in Civ III.

So I set the world to Archipelago and then selected the icon with the largest amount of water (i.e., the smallest amount of land). In two or three tries, I ended up on land masses where I was one of three or four other civilizations. (Maybe it was because I was playing with fifteen other countries!) They were generally long and thin islands with obvious choke points, but they weren’t what I was looking for, so I only played these games until about 100 AD.

Only recently, in the game I’m playing now, I ended up on a continent of about twelve or fifteen cities and managed to secure about three-quarters of the real estate. I’m still at peace with my neighbors on the island, but that’s only because I’m stronger than them. I’m playing the French and I must say they’re pretty good (Commercial and Industrious).

There were other larger-sized islands (i.e., twenty or thirty cities) with one or two civilizations each, so this is the kind of game I was looking for, with relatively isolated civilizations on sparse land masses. I liked the pairings, they had a certain historical irony to them: English and French on my island, Russians and Germans on a neighboring island, Chinese and Japanese on another, and the Babylonians and the Persians on still another. The Zulus were by themselves.

I’d have to do it a couple more times to see whether I can land all by myself. It’s no doubt a function of land coverage and the number of other players.

A lot of my game was spent looking overseas for new land to settle. I once found an unsettled island that I was sure no one else found. I launched ships, settlers and troops to claim the land for myself. Before my guys made it there, I made the stupid mistake of trading world maps with the Russians, who I thought was nowhere near the new island. Within a few turns, the other civilizations had ships with settlers there.

Damn the luck. I ended up sharing the island with six or seven others. It was like the United Nations. I was not happy. I got really bitter about losing my sole claim to this land.

So this is what I did. I had a Right of Passage agreement with the Russians and the Germans. After I was done developing my own land, I sent my industrious settlers into their land and planted forests all over his territory. I’m thinking of making Right of Passage agreements with the others just so I can repeat the same fate for them. Forest them in, baby!

Yes it’s unorthodox and it’s petty. But, it’s not destroying their land, and they don’t consider it a treaty violation. I’m still playing the game now, so I haven’t seen my actions arrest their city development on this new island. I’ve got more and faster workers, so they certainly can’t chop down the trees faster than I can replace them.

After that experience, I swore I’d never trade maps again while I’m racing to grab land. I noticed a strange thing, though. In another part of the world, I spotted another smaller land mass of about four or five cities’ worth of tundra. The turn that I caught sight of the land, the Germans seemed to know to know about it, because they wanted to trade maps with me. Of course I refused. (Yes the same race to grab land repeated itself, and I ended up having to share again.)

I’ve got to keep watch to see whether this is true in general. Anybody else notice that other powers want to trade maps with you when a new land mass is discovered? I guess it’s like a “New World” rumor that reaches the other countries. It might be just another way the program loads the dice against you. I mean, I never got word of new unsettled land when the AI found one.

[zebulon]

Originally posted by Terser
The random maps generated in this game are much better than those in CivII. You'll actually end up with chains and groups of mountains and hills with an occasional lone outcropping.

Not to mention the climate "bands" around the planet: horizontal streaks of desert, jungle, temperate zones, etc. where you would expect them. I was very happy to see these.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Terser
The random maps generated in this game are much better than those in CivII.

For appearance, yes.

As for the various terrain types I think you should add flood plains to jungles and tundra as an early game death sentence. It's been my experience that the unit and pop. loss from this land type borders on ridiculous. I'll never forget my first game of CivIII when I unknowingly built my capitol on flood plains. Each and every time the city's population would go up that point of increase was immediately lost to disease.
Realistic? I'm not sure. Aggravating? I'm certain...

Wow, I never imagined flooded plains being that horrid in the beginning, that definitely makes them not a good start & desert a worse starting position as well. I expected tundra to be poor since strategically you get to have your back up against a wall (the north or south pole) instead of your back against an enemy. With desert & jungle you're likely in the middle & the ideal pie for everyone to feast on 1st. There is more communication with other Civs early on, but that is very temporary & is far outweighed by disease & poor terrain.

[November Adam]

I actually thought flood plains where good to start on. Esp. if there is wheat near by. Man this type of city can pump out the settlers. (hopefull a hill or two is near by for those coveted shields). Granted I haven't played at the harder levels yet. So does disease strike more often on higher up levels?

[Sevorak]

The whole disease thing is kind of iffy from a realism point of view, and also happens to kill a lot of starting positions from a gameplay point of view. It should be that if you found your capital near a flood plain, your citizens are immune to flood plain disease for the rest of the game. Same with your capital and jungle. Otherwise, the great African empires would have never happened (everyone dying from disease). Historically, the disease functioned as a barrier to outsider exploration, not as a barrier to the people who lived and grew up with the diseases. Realism is second though, the main reason something like this should be changed is gameplay - to let people start on flood plains and jungles.

-Sev