Civ2 map scale
Stella070
Does anyone know what scale the civ2 maps are made. (ie how many miles, or km
are represented by each square on the map?
Stel.
Joe Hewitt
Stella070 wrote in message
<199806270402...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Um... wouldn't that depend on the size of the map you were playing on?
Presuming you are playing on an earth map (or an earth-sized planet) you
could work out the actual size of the "squares" according to the circumfence
of the earth which is about 40 000 km or 25 000 mi. A small map 25 squares
north to south. This means that squares are in the vicinity of 800 km (5000
miles) a side on a small map and I guess about half that on a large map.
But horizontal and vertical distances are not equivalent (the small map is
40 squares round = 1000 km a square around the equator). Besides which, you
cant really represent a sphere on a flat map (even when you use a flashy
isometric grid!). For example, to circumnavigate the south pole requires a
much shorter journey than to circumnavigate the equator; but you wouldn't
think so in civ. And why cant we duck over the pole and re-emerge halfway
around the world?
Civ tends to be pretty abstract in some areas and I guess this must be one
of them. Times and distances dont make any real sense. Neither does money
either, for that matter. But it makes for great fun :
Joe.
Bill...@aol.com
Yes, the maps are not to scale at all. For example, in the game, Britain is
at least twice the size of Japan, whereas in the real world, Japan is larger.
And ships in Civ 2 are so slow that a necessary bit of equipment for
Columbus to take along on his voyage would have been Mrs. Columbus, so
Columbus Jr. could finish the journey. But since, during the 15th Century
one turn equals five years, if you gave ships their historically correct
speed, caravels would then be "teleporting" across the map. Guess the game
system just doesn't allow for realism.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Quark
you got extra bonus points for building the Wonder Of The World in the city where
it was actually built in the real world. For example, the Great Wall in China,
the Pyramids in Egypt, the Statue Of Liberty in New York (or France, for those
who know history :-). But some other things just aren't real. Like Marco Polo's
Embassy. I usually complete this in the BC era. But if I remember my history
classes correctly, Marco Polo lived in the 13th-15th century AD! So I guess some
things can't be real in Civ2. Oh well, I hope things improve in Alpha Centauri.
Bill...@aol.com wrote:
--
"There are two types of corps. There's the Peace Corps, and they save lives.
And then there's the Marine Corps. We KILL!"
-General ? who was a very nice man and will advance in the ranks swiftly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But Captain, I canna change th' laws o' physics!"
- Scotty to Kirk, infinite number of times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beam me up, Scotty."
- Kirk, who has never, ever uttered this phrase in the history of Star Trek.
James
Group: alt.games.civ2
Subject: Civ2 realism (was Re: Civ2 map scale)
>And more on the subject of realism in Civ2, I think it would be really cool if
>you got extra bonus points for building the Wonder Of The World in the city
>where
>it was actually built in the real world. For example, the Great Wall in China,
>the Pyramids in Egypt, the Statue Of Liberty in New York (or France, for those
>who know history :-).
"real world"... If you're playing on Earth then perhaps you'd get double
points if it was built in the right area (after all, you can rename a
city just before the thing is built)...
>But some other things just aren't real. Like Marco
>Polo's
>Embassy. I usually complete this in the BC era.
Hmm... Usually somewhere around 1500bc... It's great if I've got the
great wall too, and I want to have lots of allies to start with...
>But if I remember my history
>classes correctly, Marco Polo lived in the 13th-15th century AD! So I
>guess some things can't be real in Civ2. Oh well, I hope things
>improve in Alpha Centauri.
Maybe rather than knowledge alone deciding when you get a wonder, it's
knowledge and time. For instance, the Pyramids couldn't be built in
1000ad... Maybe each wonder has a time "window" if you like (more like a
re-entry window than a part of the OS...) and is only available in that
period. Then in multiplayer you'd have a mad dash to get a particular
wonder as soon as the time was right...
--
James Webley
-------------------------------
"My whole life just flashed before my eyes - and it looked like a junk food
commercial." - Garfield
-------------------------------
Random sig message using EasySign98: http://easysign98.home.ml.org
I will accept spam e-mail for proof-reading. I charge $5 for every e-mail I
receive. Sending of spam e-mail is proof of receipt of this message, and
therefore compliance with this agreement.
Hans Kamp
>
> And more on the subject of realism in Civ2, I think it would be really cool if
> you got extra bonus points for building the Wonder Of The World in the city where
> it was actually built in the real world. For example, the Great Wall in China,
> the Pyramids in Egypt, the Statue Of Liberty in New York (or France, for those
> Embassy. I usually complete this in the BC era. But if I remember my history
> classes correctly, Marco Polo lived in the 13th-15th century AD! So I guess some
> things can't be real in Civ2. Oh well, I hope things improve in Alpha Centauri.
Some features cannot be real. Another example is a Battleship. In the
real world a Battleship can make a voyage around the world in one year.
It would be too easy if you can move one Battleship over the whole map
in one turn (one turn is often one or even couple of years, at the
moment that you developed Steel, and that you can build Battleships). It
would be possible to destroy lots and lots of units of your enemy
civilizations, until it runs out of its hitpoints.
Sometimes the reality must be hurt for keeping the game playable. At
chieftain level I succeeded to build the Appollo Program Wonder in BC,
while I know that spaceships didn't exist before the birth of Jesus
Christ!
Hans Kamp.
Pinochet
Bill...@aol.com wrote in message
>Yes, the maps are not to scale at all. For example, in the game, Britain is
>at least twice the size of Japan, whereas in the real world, Japan is
larger.
Hmm....let me see..
Britain Honshu
on Large 26 10
on Medium 5 11
on Small 2-3 6
Real World 84,200 87,805
Heh, things look real funny on that one......
> And ships in Civ 2 are so slow that a necessary bit of equipment for
>Columbus to take along on his voyage would have been Mrs. Columbus, so
>Columbus Jr. could finish the journey. But since, during the 15th Century
>one turn equals five years, if you gave ships their historically correct
>speed, caravels would then be "teleporting" across the map. Guess the
>game system just doesn't allow for realism.
Not as is. But it's a turn-based system, so thus things have to happen.
Maybe if it was real-time things would be better, but those games can
be a pain..
Still, the worst example of less than realism, is the well Eurocentric
pattern
of things(not unsurprising, but still...), there's 3 civs in the Americas, 1
in
southern Africa, 2 in the far east, 2 in the distant Middle East, and 11 in
Europe or around the Mediterranean...
BTW: I was just looking at the world_s.mp and noticed that the Mongols don't
have a starting place.....anyone else noticed this?
Pinochet
Hans Kamp wrote in message <35A9AC...@introweb.nl>...
>Quark wrote:
>Sometimes the reality must be hurt for keeping the game playable. At
>chieftain level I succeeded to build the Appollo Program Wonder in BC,
>while I know that spaceships didn't exist before the birth of Jesus
>Christ!
At least on Earth.....of course, there are those who believe otherwise.....
Pinochet
Quark wrote in message <35A92006...@concentric.net>...
>And more on the subject of realism in Civ2, I think it would be really cool
if
>you got extra bonus points for building the Wonder Of The World in the city
>where it was actually built in the real world. For example, the Great Wall
in >China, the Pyramids in Egypt, the Statue Of Liberty in New York (or
France, >for those who know history :-).
No, thank you. That just doesn't seem right, it'd detract from the game,
basically making it a try at being an accurate version of history by
rewarding players for such...That just doesn't appeal to me.
> But some other things just aren't real. Like Marco Polo's
>Embassy. I usually complete this in the BC era. But if I remember my
>history classes correctly, Marco Polo lived in the 13th-15th century AD!
Man, that would be one OLD guy.. He lived in the late 1200s anyway,
and IIRC, all he really did was write one book.
>So I guess some things can't be real in Civ2.
Not without reducing the value of the game.
>Oh well, I hope things improve in Alpha Centauri.
I'm sure we'll find nit-picks with that game too......like when the first
probes
of AC in our world reveal it doesn't have planets or something. }:+)
Andrew R. Gillett
> And more on the subject of realism in Civ2, I think it would be really cool if
> you got extra bonus points for building the Wonder Of The World in the city where
> it was actually built in the real world.
Nooooo!
That would ruin the game! Remember, it is a game, not an encyclopedia.
You might as well say that you are only allowed to play on the Earth map,
and you must build cities exactly where they were built in real life, and
you must follow history to the letter. And then it wouldn't be a game.
--
Andrew Gillett
http://argnet.fatal-design.com/
ICQ: 12142937
Pinochet
Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
<1050.501T2...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>...
>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>Bill...@aol.com wrote in message
>
>>Still, the worst example of less than realism, is the well Eurocentric
>>pattern of things(not unsurprising, but still...), there's 3 civs in the
>>Americas, 1 in southern Africa, 2 in the far east, 2 in the distant Middle
>>East, and 11 in Europe or around the Mediterranean...
>
>people will have actually heard of the cities they're building.
I didn't say they didn't have *reasons* I said that it was less than
realistic.
>You could, if you wish, create a couple of new civilisations based in
sub->Saharan Africa.
Yes, I could, in fact I'm sure others have already done so, but all that
means
is I don't have to suffer through it anymore..
>Because of this, few users will benefit from their presence or notice their
>absence.
The cultures? Certainly not, but things do tend to get a little crowded
around Europe, wouldn't you argree?
Kieron Dunbar
>Bill...@aol.com wrote in message
>Still, the worst example of less than realism, is the well Eurocentric
>pattern of things(not unsurprising, but still...), there's 3 civs in the
>Americas, 1 in southern Africa, 2 in the far east, 2 in the distant Middle
>East, and 11 in Europe or around the Mediterranean...
The obvious reason for having a lot of European civilisations is so that
people will have actually heard of the cities they're building. You could,
if you wish, create a couple of new civilisations based in sub-Saharan
Africa. A lot of people wouldn't recognise the civilisation or leader
names, much less a few of the cities. Because of this, few users will
benefit from their presence or notice their absence.
Combined with the desire to represent the cultures of most of their
markets, this almost guarantees that there will be a lot of Western
European civilisations in the game.
kwaheri, Kieron For mail address, rotate the username
Kieron Dunbar
><1050.501T2...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>...
>>The obvious reason for having a lot of European civilisations is so that
>>people will have actually heard of the cities they're building.
>I didn't say they didn't have *reasons* I said that it was less than
>realistic.
Of course it's less than realistic. As soon as you start having 7
civilisations starting off in various parts of the world at the same date
the game starts getting a bit less than realistic.
>>You could, if you wish, create a couple of new civilisations based in
>>sub-Saharan Africa.
>Yes, I could, in fact I'm sure others have already done so, but all that
>means is I don't have to suffer through it anymore..
I'm not sure what you mean by `suffer through it'. I wasn't really
suggesting that as a solution for your problem, but explaining part of the
reason why more European civilisations were chosen. There are other things
such as only using cultures generally considered to be civilised and not
(with the sole exception of the Americans) using former European colonies.
>>Because of this, few users will benefit from their presence or notice their
>>absence.
>The cultures? Certainly not, but things do tend to get a little crowded
>around Europe, wouldn't you argree?
If you play on Earth, it probably would. A multi-player game where
people play as the English and Celts can get especially interesting...
You also have to consider that European countries were strongly influenced
by the presence of their near neighbours. This competition ensured that
cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe that it
had in China.
And you've always got the tools you need to change the distribution on
Earth if you want to.
Pinochet
Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>><1050.501T2...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>>The obvious reason for having a lot of European civilisations is so that
>>>people will have actually heard of the cities they're building.
>>I didn't say they didn't have *reasons* I said that it was less than
>>realistic.
>Of course it's less than realistic.
I'm glad you agree.
>As soon as you start having 7 civilisations starting off in various parts
of the >world at the same date the game starts getting a bit less than
realistic.
Which is another matter.....however that is part of the game, and does
contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
concentrated
in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
>>>You could, if you wish, create a couple of new civilisations based in
>>>sub-Saharan Africa.
>>Yes, I could, in fact I'm sure others have already done so, but all that
>>means is I don't have to suffer through it anymore..
>I'm not sure what you mean by `suffer through it'.
I think it reduces the quality of games played on Earth, that's what.
> I wasn't really suggesting that as a solution for your problem,
Sure you were, though I don't quite know why you wasted your time doing so,
both the solution and reason for the actual decision were rather obvious.
At least to me.....doesn't mean I agree with them, but they were readily
apparent to me.
> but explaining part of the reason why more European civilisations were
>chosen.
Which is something I was fully aware of, so you were basically stating
the blindingly obvious concession Microprose used in making the game.
>There are other things such as only using cultures generally considered to
>be civilised and not (with the sole exception of the Americans) using
former >European colonies.
The Mongols, civilized? You must be kidding.. They're the only real
exception, though the Sioux, Celts and Aztecs come close....
>>>Because of this, few users will benefit from their presence or notice
their
>>>absence. The cultures? Certainly not, but things do tend to get a
little >>crowded around Europe, wouldn't you argree?
>If you play on Earth, it probably would. A multi-player game where
>people play as the English and Celts can get especially interesting...
Yep....of course the REAL Celts lived all through Europe...not just on
the island of Britain.. Plenty of other inaccuracies too, like the
Russians,
but they don't really detract from the game like the European Situation
does.
>You also have to consider that European countries were strongly influenced
>by the presence of their near neighbours. This competition ensured that
>cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe that it
>had in China.
Which is another matter entirely.....
>And you've always got the tools you need to change the distribution on
>Earth if you want to.
Which just means I don't have to live with the problem forever, thankfully.
Leon Marrick
I certainly agree that Europe is chock-a-block with competing
civs; reminds me a lot of history. After 476 AD, instead of one culture
monopolizing the region (as in China or the Islamic Middle East), you
had a lot of quarrelling states, with a civilization that altered - and
alters - noticably every 250 kilometers from whatever start point you
care to name.
I am not so frustrated with a densely packed Europe as I am with
the inability of any computer game I've ever played or heard about to
realistically simulate both expansive empires and tiny but incredibly
productive city-states. In Civ2, you can effectively render either,
depending on the map scale you choose, but not both at once.
Yours,
Leon Marrick
jn...@my-dejanews.com
"Kieron Dunbar" <nor...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
> >Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
> ><1050.501T2...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >>The obvious reason for having a lot of European civilisations is so that
> >>people will have actually heard of the cities they're building.
> >I didn't say they didn't have *reasons* I said that it was less than
> >realistic.
>
> civilisations starting off in various parts of the world at the same date
> the game starts getting a bit less than realistic.
>
> >>sub-Saharan Africa.
> >Yes, I could, in fact I'm sure others have already done so, but all that
> >means is I don't have to suffer through it anymore..
>
> suggesting that as a solution for your problem, but explaining part of the
> reason why more European civilisations were chosen. There are other things
> such as only using cultures generally considered to be civilised and not
> (with the sole exception of the Americans) using former European colonies.
For that matter, with the exceptions of Egypt, Babylon, and China;
around 4000 BC many of those that formed that civ were living elsewhere.
>
> >>Because of this, few users will benefit from their presence or notice their
> >>absence.
> >The cultures? Certainly not, but things do tend to get a little crowded
> >around Europe, wouldn't you argree?
>
> If you play on Earth, it probably would. A multi-player game where
> people play as the English and Celts can get especially interesting...
My guess is on the world map, even large with both England and Celts
starting at normal spot, one of those civs is going to be dead before
1 AD.
>
> You also have to consider that European countries were strongly influenced
> by the presence of their near neighbours. This competition ensured that
> cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe that it
> had in China.
>
> And you've always got the tools you need to change the distribution on
> Earth if you want to.
>
> kwaheri, Kieron For mail address, rotate the username
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Pinochet
Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>
>>>>realistic.
>>>Of course it's less than realistic.
>
>important for the game.
I agree it isn't a primary concern....
>It's clearly not important to you, as you are arguing against an attempt
>at realism.
Which doesn't mean I can't say something is less realistic, or that
there are also other problems stemming from that decision.
>>>As soon as you start having 7 civilisations starting off in various
>>>parts of the world at the same date the game starts getting a bit >>>less
than realistic.
>>Which is another matter.....however that is part of the game, and >>does
contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
>>concentrated in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
>What doesn't it help?
The game play. Is it really good to have so many Civs close together?
>If you replace `civilisation' by `independent country', you will actually
>find that that has generally been the case in Europe.
And India, and Africa, and North America, and MesoAmerica, even
China at points.
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by `suffer through it'.
>>I think it reduces the quality of games played on Earth, that's what.
>Why do you believe it does this?
Having so many Civs close together while others are off on their own
free to grow..
>>> I wasn't really suggesting that as a solution for your problem,
>>Sure you were, though I don't quite know why you wasted your time doing
so,
>I remember what I was doing. I was there at the time.
And apparently I interpret it differently. No big deal, that happens all
the time.
>I'm sorry I didn't mention this at the time, but I didn't realise you'd be
so >nterested in he first line of that paragraph.
? Huh?
>>> but explaining part of the reason why more European civilisations
>>>were chosen.
>>Which is something I was fully aware of, so you were basically stating
>>the blindingly obvious concession Microprose used in making the >>game.
>So why are you acting as if Microprose did something wrong by not
>selecting ivilisations based on acchieving an even spread around the
>planet?
Wrong? If you mean as in not BEST for playing the game, yes that
was IMO wrong. Just because I KNOW why they did something doesn't mean I
agree with those reasons.
>>The Mongols, civilized? You must be kidding.. They're the only
>>real
>Hmm... Forgot about them. I was only guessing at their reasoning, >anyway.
Es machts nichts.
>>Yep....of course the REAL Celts lived all through Europe...not just on
>>the island of Britain.. Plenty of other inaccuracies too, like the
>
>And they can live throughout Europe in a game you're playing.
But they didn't START on Britain, they just moved there later on.
>Somewhere in the British Isles (which is actually Ireland on the large
>map, if not the others) would seem like a logical place, however, as >that
is where most of the people who identify themselves as Celtic live >today.
Logical? No. More like another concession to please the customers
who would want something familiar to grasp.
>>Russians, but they don't really detract from the game like the >>European
Situation does.
>
>What's wrong with the Russian start place?
Historically speaking, the first Russian civilizations were in and around
Kiev and the Ukraine.
>That's roughly where Moscow, the capital of the Russia at the time of >the
suggested leaders, is.
And the leaders are yet another concession to modern players, one
that is inconsequential though, so I don't bother with it.
> And I would hve thought that that, being situated in Europe, would be
>part of the European Situation.
No, the problems are different. Like say there is a plague of Dutch Elm
Disease and there's also a fire burning one forest of it. The two
problems are different things.
>>>cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe >>>that
it had in China.
>>Which is another matter entirely.....
>Clearly a closely connected matter, though.
I don't agree. For one thing, technologicallly speaking China was
in the lead till the 1400s or so and was going good up until the 1600s when
they really started to slip behind.
>Having only one civilisation in Europe would mean that there would be >an
unrealistic lack of close competition. Surely you don't want that?
Solve one problem and cause another? No. But such problems already exist
in the Americas and even with China in the old game.
>>>And you've always got the tools you need to change the distribution >>on
Earth if you want to.
>>Which just means I don't have to live with the problem forever,
>>thankfully.
>I still don't see what your problem is. The designers chose the
>civilisations for several good reasons,
Good reasons ? Not IMO. Their reasons were entirely based on marketing
and playing to their customer's sensibilities. Those are NOT good enough
reasons for me. My perspective is different than theirs yes, but so what?
We don't have to agree, do we?
> and your pre-occupation with having evenly-spread civilisations is
>something you, not they, have to deal with.
I have to deal with what I see as THEIR mistakes, yes. Does that
mean I shouldn't complain? It is a problem I have and one I can
solve, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't say I think this is a problem.
Kieron Dunbar
>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>>I didn't say they didn't have *reasons* I said that it was less than
>>>realistic.
>>Of course it's less than realistic.
>I'm glad you agree.
Excellent. Furthermore, I'd say that realism isn't actually all that
important for the game. It's clearly not important to you, as you are
arguing against an attempt at realism.
>>As soon as you start having 7 civilisations starting off in various parts
>of the >world at the same date the game starts getting a bit less than
>realistic.
>Which is another matter.....however that is part of the game, and does
>contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
>concentrated in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
What doesn't it help? If you replace `civilisation' by `independent
country', you will actually find that that has generally been the case in
Europe.
>>I'm not sure what you mean by `suffer through it'.
>I think it reduces the quality of games played on Earth, that's what.
Why do you believe it does this?
>> I wasn't really suggesting that as a solution for your problem,
>Sure you were, though I don't quite know why you wasted your time doing so,
I remember what I was doing. I was there at the time. I'm sorry I didn't
mention this at the time, but I didn't realise you'd be so interested in
the first line of that paragraph.
>> but explaining part of the reason why more European civilisations were
>>chosen.
>Which is something I was fully aware of, so you were basically stating
>the blindingly obvious concession Microprose used in making the game.
So why are you acting as if Microprose did something wrong by not selecting
civilisations based on acchieving an even spread around the planet?
>The Mongols, civilized? You must be kidding.. They're the only real
Hmm... Forgot about them. I was only guessing at their reasoning, anyway.
>Yep....of course the REAL Celts lived all through Europe...not just on
>the island of Britain.. Plenty of other inaccuracies too, like the
And they can live throughout Europe in a game you're playing. Somewhere in
the British Isles (which is actually Ireland on the large map, if not the
others) would seem like a logical place, however, as that is where most of
the people who identify themselves as Celtic live today.
>Russians, but they don't really detract from the game like the European
>Situation does.
What's wrong with the Russian start place? That's roughly where Moscow, the
capital of the Russia at the time of the suggested leaders, is. And I would
have thought that that, being situated in Europe, would be part of the
European Situation.
>>cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe that it
>>had in China.
>Which is another matter entirely.....
Clearly a closely connected matter, though. Having only one civilisation in
Europe would mean that there would be an unrealistic lack of close
competition. Surely you don't want that?
>>And you've always got the tools you need to change the distribution on
>>Earth if you want to.
>Which just means I don't have to live with the problem forever, thankfully.
I still don't see what your problem is. The designers chose the
civilisations for several good reasons, and your pre-occupation with having
evenly-spread civilisations is something you, not they, have to deal with.
kwaheri, Kieron For mail address, rotate the username
Kieron Dunbar
> "Kieron Dunbar" <nor...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My guess is on the world map, even large with both England and Celts
>starting at normal spot, one of those civs is going to be dead before
>1 AD.
Both will probably have left for Europe or north Africa long before then
anyway. Whether the slower development caused by the early cramped
conditions is fatal or not is another matter.
There's always the possibility that one might wipe the other out with his
very first militia, of course.
Rich
>
>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by `suffer through it'.
>>>I think it reduces the quality of games played on Earth, that's what.
>
>>Why do you believe it does this?
>
>
>Having so many Civs close together while others are off on their own
>free to grow..
>
ok then let's take a look at he various starting points, Europe, usually 2
or 3 civs her, at least 1 will probably die early, and the conquest is good
for expansion too.
China, not the easiest to expand from, all those plains with a distinct lack
of water make moving left less than practical, upward one has the forests.
only straight down for a few cities does one reach the grassland, and truly
gain an advantage...sometimes...depends how the AI cities have faired in
europe and the middle east.
Africa, used to give a huge advantage in civ1, but with the reduced size in
civ2 it's hard to establish quite such a dominant citybase, and by the time
you reach the northern coast there's usually someone else there to present
your first challenge (even if the Carthaginians don't start there on you).
After taking the north coast it doesn't get a lot easier either, crossing
the gulf you get to invade southern europe
(I find it to be the hardest place to hit europe from), or busting that
land link into the midle east can be equally tricky. By the time you get off
Africa there's probably someone to compete with you.
America, if you start here alone (never happens on the highr levels) Is the
easiest place to start a large, dominant civ...if you ignore the AI trading
techs to keep up(possibly pass if there are 6 AI civs), if not you're going
to have to fight here even before contemplating the rest of the world. Once
America's colonised you can move into Africa, where conquest will result in
the same problems as starting there, or invade Europe or Asia, and the long
sea journey makes it difficult to support either from your mainland.
My point is, all the starting points have their advantages and
disadvantages, which adds to the spice of the game, whoever you play. At
some point no matter who you start as on Earth, you stand a good chance of
meeting someone at your own power level if not higher.
Earth is my favorite place for a bloodlust game, because there are so many
different ways the power can fall.
Also enjoy Europe immensly(hey i figure why not take advantage of
the many civ thing), but... that's another story:)
anyway thats my $0.02,(well probaly more but whose counting?),
Rich
Kieron Dunbar
>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>>>Once upon a time, Pinochet wrote thus:
>>>>>Kieron Dunbar wrote in message
>>>Which is another matter.....however that is part of the game, and >>does
>contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
>>>concentrated in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
>>What doesn't it help?
>The game play. Is it really good to have so many Civs close together?
It's not really good or bad, just different. There are a variety of real
world maps with a variety of distributions of civilisations, land, etc..
You choose a map based on the sort of arrangement of civilisations and land
you want. If you don't like the arrangement you get, remember that you were
the one who picked the map in the first place.
>>If you replace `civilisation' by `independent country', you will actually
>>find that that has generally been the case in Europe.
>And India, and Africa, and North America, and MesoAmerica, even
>China at points.
Exactly. The game can't acchieve this, however, so the people who designed
the map decided upon using that way of working within the restrictions.
I don't believe that their way is necessarily worse than your way.
>>Why do you believe it does this?
>Having so many Civs close together while others are off on their own
>free to grow..
Which means that you can decide whether to play a civilisation whose first
interest is expansion, or war. Then see how that measures up against the
computer civilisations in their various positions. If you want every
civilisation to start in a similar position, a map of the world wouldn't be
a particularly good place to start in any circumstances.
>>>> I wasn't really suggesting that as a solution for your problem,
>>>Sure you were, though I don't quite know why you wasted your time doing
>>I remember what I was doing. I was there at the time.
>And apparently I interpret it differently. No big deal, that happens all
>the time.
No big deal, I'm just telling you that what you posted was wrong. Maybe
you'll learn not to make such assumptions about people in future, but I
wouldn't put money on it.
>>I'm sorry I didn't mention this at the time, but I didn't realise you'd be
>>so interested in he first line of that paragraph.
>? Huh?
Would you like me to re-post that paragraph, so that you can see the
sentence in context?
>Wrong? If you mean as in not BEST for playing the game, yes that
Sorry, I was just going by the tone I read into your post.
>was IMO wrong. Just because I KNOW why they did something doesn't mean I
>agree with those reasons.
They didn't create the Earth maps (or any of the maps) so that they suit
everyone. If they don't suit you, don't use them as is. I'm sure there are
plenty of people who are satisfied with them.
>>>Yep....of course the REAL Celts lived all through Europe...not just on
>>>the island of Britain.. Plenty of other inaccuracies too, like the
>>And they can live throughout Europe in a game you're playing.
>But they didn't START on Britain, they just moved there later on.
They didn't start civilised, either. Given that, history doesn't suggest
any obvious focus, and Ireland is as good a place as any if you are only
considering their civilised period.
>>Somewhere in the British Isles (which is actually Ireland on the large
>>map, if not the others) would seem like a logical place, however, as >that
>is where most of the people who identify themselves as Celtic live >today.
>Logical? No. More like another concession to please the customers
>who would want something familiar to grasp.
Why don't you think it's logical? And where would you like them to start,
anyway, and why?
>>>Russians, but they don't really detract from the game like the >>European
>Situation does.
>>What's wrong with the Russian start place?
>Historically speaking, the first Russian civilizations were in and around
>Kiev and the Ukraine.
So what? If you want to replay history, you've bought the wrong game.
>>That's roughly where Moscow, the capital of the Russia at the time of >the
>suggested leaders, is.
>And the leaders are yet another concession to modern players, one
>that is inconsequential though, so I don't bother with it.
As opposed to a concession to whom, exactly? Modern players are the only
sort they'll get. If the Russian capital was founded as Kiev, do you think
any player would ever want to move it to Moscow?
>> And I would hve thought that that, being situated in Europe, would be
>>part of the European Situation.
>No, the problems are different. Like say there is a plague of Dutch Elm
>Disease and there's also a fire burning one forest of it. The two
>problems are different things.
Could you rephrase that without the simile, please? I have no idea what
your answer to the question means.
>>>>cultural conservatism could never have the same effect in Europe >>>that
>it had in China.
>>>Which is another matter entirely.....
>>Clearly a closely connected matter, though.
>I don't agree. For one thing, technologicallly speaking China was
>in the lead till the 1400s or so and was going good up until the 1600s when
>they really started to slip behind.
I doubt this is a particularly good newsgroup to discuss why you believe
the first sentence, and what relevance you believe the second has.
>>Having only one civilisation in Europe would mean that there would be >an
>unrealistic lack of close competition. Surely you don't want that?
>Solve one problem and cause another? No. But such problems already exist
>in the Americas and even with China in the old game.
You certainly can't solve all the world's problems. Why not try what you
can acchieve?
>>I still don't see what your problem is. The designers chose the
>>civilisations for several good reasons,
>Good reasons ? Not IMO. Their reasons were entirely based on marketing
>and playing to their customer's sensibilities. Those are NOT good enough
>reasons for me. My perspective is different than theirs yes, but so what?
>We don't have to agree, do we?
No, but clearly their decisions have had more effect on you than your
opinions about why you think they made those decisions has on them.
>> and your pre-occupation with having evenly-spread civilisations is
>>something you, not they, have to deal with.
>I have to deal with what I see as THEIR mistakes, yes. Does that
>mean I shouldn't complain? It is a problem I have and one I can
>solve, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't say I think this is a problem.
I haven't said you can't. I am just explaining why I believe their actions
were not mistakes, and were perfectly reasonable.
Samuel Hogarth
<rlanc...@compuserve.com> writes
>Interseting thread. However, am I alone in prefering not to play on the
>Earth maps, where you know the shape of the continents and can have
>a fairly good guess at where rival civs are.
>
>Kind of takes the fun out of the exploration part of the game, IMO.
>
>Rob
>
Agree.
SH
ALHK
>>contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
>>concentrated
>>in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
>Earth maps, where you know the shape of the continents and can have
>a fairly good guess at where rival civs are.
No you're not alone. I typically play Cheiftain or Warlord level with an 80
x125 map and log the game as done when I have uncovered every square
on the map. I do occasionally go back and play a few turns on those old
games, but they're just not interesting to me after I've explored the whole
world.
>Kind of takes the fun out of the exploration part of the game, IMO.
Uhhhmmmm, yeah, that's what I was saying above . . . :-)
A Long Hard Knight
Pinochet
Robert Lancaster wrote in message
<#d81Aiht...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>...
>>I think it reduces the quality of games played on Earth, that's what.
>>
>Interseting thread. However, am I alone in prefering not to play on the
>Earth maps, where you know the shape of the continents and can have
>a fairly good guess at where rival civs are.
Oh, the CG maps are fun, but there's also that thrill one gets from
taking over the world from some real place. One I even created an
Aussie Civ for similar reasons.
>Kind of takes the fun out of the exploration part of the game, IMO.
Yeah, but there is a different fun.
jn...@my-dejanews.com
Samuel Hogarth <sam...@lansdown.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <#d81Aiht...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>, Robert Lancaster
> <rlanc...@compuserve.com> writes
> >Earth maps, where you know the shape of the continents and can have
> >a fairly good guess at where rival civs are.
> >
> >
> >
> Agree.
>
> SH
I don't like playing on the earth map either; Europe seems
too crowded, I've already played the Americans there a few times,
so bored at the position, China was fun once, but I would rather play
somewhere different.
I also seem to play better on maps where I don't know the terrain
than where I know it via playing it before for some reason. (Could
be a play too perfectist when I already know the terrain.)
Rich
>>
>>Which is another matter.....however that is part of the game, and does
>>contribute a bit to the enjoyment of it.....having so many civ's
>>concentrated
>>in and around Europe though, well it doesn't really help.
>>
>>
>>
>Earth maps, where you know the shape of the continents and can have
>a fairly good guess at where rival civs are.
>
>Kind of takes the fun out of the exploration part of the game, IMO.
>
>Rob
>
>
worlds the geography is of a type that the computer NEVER would generate,
and thus makes you play variations on strategies....
helps me perfect my strategies, as I've previously stated I'm a fan of
occasionally trying COMPLETELY different things(I find playing by my
standard winning strategy(to be honest, like everyone elses it's more of an
algorithm) much more tedious than playing a map i've seen before) and
finding that a particualar odball strategy works on a CG map(or even a
couple) doesn't make it viable, BUT if i can get the thing working on CG
maps, Earth, Europe, and others, then I know i'm onto something.
I also like watching a world(Earth is a great example) develop in different
ways in different games.
The essence of the game IS in my opinion CG maps, but the premade ones
definately have their place.
Sidoine de Wispelaere
can download it at :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/sidoine
England is nomore the largest isle of the World.
landon
your map looks great, but the one thing about japan/engand-ireland's size, I think that they really had to make england and ireland large, the was it stands, you can comfortably fit 3 cities on it, changed, 2 cities, and with the english and the celts starting there, they needed some space. Japan only has one civ on it, so it needs a lesser amount of space
Bill Faanes
the world. Why? Because the largest invasions have pivoted there. The
Vikings ravaged northern Europe (myself being a descendent from Norway I
mean no disrespect to them), the Magyars and Mongols sacked Eastern Europe
and the Arabs terrorized Southern Europe. Thus it became a militarized camp
of terrified nations with a certain bloodlust inherent in their history.
China was left alone after the withdrawl of the Mongols. India was crushed
by the Arabs and meanwhile the Americas were left in their own solice to
build mighty empires that were unfortunately from an age too far past.
Australia, Oceania, and the southern portion of Africa were left for tribes
to embattle each other.
Thus you can understand the military position of the world. China isolated
itself to prevent further assaults from outsiders. The Europeans converted
the Viking raiders and thus added them to the sphere of European control.
The Arabs were evicted from Europe by the French and such emphatic
characters as El Cid. This militaristic tradition of Europe brought it
across the straits of Gibraltar and chased the Arabs (the Turks, more or
less) across to the Middle East. The British, French, Spanish, and others
crossed the seas into colonies and excessed dominion on the aboriginal
nations in the America, Africa, and Asia.
There you have it. Europe simply advanced due to its key position in the
world to establish
VtnmsWndr
>the world. Why? Because the largest invasions have pivoted there.
>There you have it. Europe simply advanced due to its key position in the
Nice try. The largest invasions did NOT pivot there. Even if they had, it
doesn't explain why Europe became dominant.
The mongols didn't withdraw from China, they just lost political control.
India was conquered by the Mongols, not the Arabs.
From playing Civ2, you should have learned that "militaristic tradition" isn't
sufficient to conquer other civs. Hordes of veteran warriors can only get you
so far. In your next theory, try to include such things as technology (science
advances) and economics (units, city improvements, trade routes, etc.) and then
explain why Europe developed quicker in these areas.
My theory is that Europe had the best overall geography conducive to
civilization growth. In Civ2 speak, Europe had the best starting position.
May the wind fill your solar sails.
-- ChrisH
jn...@my-dejanews.com
have been impressed with Europe.
Europe also had the social-economic conditions favorable to exploration.
China during Marco Polos time could have sent ships to colonize North
America by going NE along the coast to Russia, across to Alaska and
SE. (Pretty close to a Great Circle Route). However at the time the
Chinese didn't care for it, especially after losing a fleet to
the weather during their attempted invasion of Japan.
The Arab world controlled the major trade route to the far east
and so weren't interested in finding another route.
Protugal then discovered the route around Cape Horn to get a
new route to China, and were smart enough at Navigation to know
that Columbus proposed route to China was much longer, so Spain
fianced Columbus journey, which would have been doomed had it
not been for the existance of the North American contient.
They had also just finished securing Spain and were ready to
go out and conquer and convert the natives. This is a case
it which it wasn't an advantage to be smarter than your
competitor. (Athough Spain did squander it's wealth received
from the "New World.")
It's also kind of interesting that the Chinese discovered Gunpowder
first, but put it to use as fireworks, while another civ
found a use for gunpowder as a weapon. Another case where another
civ beat the inventor of a tech to a practicle use of the tech.
Shawn M. Winnie
dominance is the result of the flip-side of that conflict. (Yes, the
book is mildly controversial, but he *did* win a Pulitzer for it...)
According to Diamond's thinking, since Europe had more independent
decision-makers, the resulting decisions were more variegated and
(following Darwin) superior "new" ideas were more likely to be
implemented by someone and copied soon thereafter. As an example, he
points out the difference between Columbus' first New World expedition
and the Chinese treasure fleets of the earlier fifteenth century. The
Chinese treasure fleets, hundreds of ships with crews in the tens of
thousands, were stopped due to Chinese court politics when an inward-
looking faction won. Columbus, on the other hand, was an Italian who
worked for the Duke of Anjou (France) and the King of Portugal before
he started pitching his expedition. He was turned down by Portugal,
the duke of Medina-Sedonia and the count of Medina-Celi before the
Spanish crown agreed to his second proposal.
Helps me to understand why I have so much trouble on Emperor once the
AI nations start to gang up on me with their coordinated research plan...
(Side note on Diamond's book. The above argument is a more-or-less
offhanded supposition in the book's epilogue. The broader argument
holds Europe and Asia, along with Northern Africa, to be broadly
categorizable as one area for the purpose of understanding the
last 11,000 years of development.)
"Ultron" <ult...@midco.net> wrote:
> actually, the reason that europe became so dominate in the world is
> simple conflict. all china ever conflicted with was itself, the northern
> barbarians, and the japanese. europe was a mess of dozens of different
> competing powers, all looking for an edge above the others. this fueled
> both technological development and borrowing from older more established
> china, but it fostered a sense of exploration and discovery always looking
> for additional resources.
*********************************************************************
* The "Western Model" is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite *
* but by the impartial judge. -Fareed Zakaria (ForAff Nov/Dec'97) *
*********************************************************************
Ultron
conflict. all china ever conflicted with was itself, the northern
barbarians, and the japanese. europe was a mess of dozens of different
competing powers, all looking for an edge above the others. this fueled both
technological development and borrowing from older more established china,
but it fostered a sense of exploration and discovery always looking for
additional resources.
VtnmsWndr wrote in message
<199807311935...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Historically, Europe has been a starting point for the most powerful civs
in
>>the world. Why? Because the largest invasions have pivoted there.
><snip>
>>There you have it. Europe simply advanced due to its key position in the
>>world to establish.
>
>Nice try. The largest invasions did NOT pivot there. Even if they had, it
>doesn't explain why Europe became dominant.
>
>The mongols didn't withdraw from China, they just lost political control.
>India was conquered by the Mongols, not the Arabs.
>
>From playing Civ2, you should have learned that "militaristic tradition"
isn't
>sufficient to conquer other civs. Hordes of veteran warriors can only get
you
>so far. In your next theory, try to include such things as technology
(science
>advances) and economics (units, city improvements, trade routes, etc.) and
then
>explain why Europe developed quicker in these areas.
>
>My theory is that Europe had the best overall geography conducive to
>civilization growth. In Civ2 speak, Europe had the best starting position.
>
VtnmsWndr
exploration.<
Exploration doesn't lead to dominance unless "favorable social-economic
conditions" exist. But why did Europe have these conditions?
Shawn writes>According to [Jared] Diamond's thinking, since Europe had more
independent decision-makers, the resulting decisions [in response to invasions]
were more variegated and (following Darwin) superior "new" ideas were more
likely to be implemented by someone and copied soon thereafter.<
Why did Europe have more independent decision-makers? Also, political and
economic decisions are much more important than military ones and so the idea
that Europe developed as a response to invasions is poor.
Ultron writes>actually, the reason that europe became so dominate in the world
is simple conflict.<
More accurately, competition (not necessarily military) drove Europe to develop
faster than China and India. The increased competition as result of Europe's
state system produced new technologies quicker than the empire systems of China
and India. But what caused Europe to develop the states system? Europe has
more mountains and rivers separating its different economic regions than China
or India have. Western Europe is closer or was easier to travel for the
migrating populations that originated in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Combined, these GEOGRAPHIC reasons lead Europe develop its states system.
Another GEOGRAPHICAL advantage Europe has is its vast coastlines and numerous
rivers. Besides being excellent for agriculture, these areas encouraged trade
and technology exchange. Anybody who plays Civ2 knows its best to build cities
on the coasts :) .