Galaxy must become bigger!

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi... i just realized that GalCiv II gigantic galaxy is as 3 times!!! smaller than the GalCiv one.
When in the first game there 28 by 28 sectors now there are jst 16 by 16....784 Sectors against 256!!!
Having in mind that the number of civilizations has increased...the new galaxy has become a sandpit.
I miss the impression of deep space i had in the first game.
To get a real galactic feeling there must be more a lot more space to create real galactic empires.
So please, get us real big map...at least as big as the one from GalCiv.
ideas
7,091 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's true : With all planets on the map (good idea), we can have without problem a bigger map. For now, the map is really too small : Space in Galciv 2 is, sorta, a children garden (not in the same way that in Homm IV, but you know what i mean).

It's strange : Our computer are more and more powerfull, but since lot of years (i play since 1988), map are more and more littles. On all strategy games.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually the gigantic map in GalCiv 2 is 18x18, not 16x16. Additionally, the sectors now have 15x15 tiles instead of 12x12 in GalCiv 1.

Which gives you a maximum of 18x18x15x15 = 72,900 tiles
as opposed to 28x28x12x12 = 112,896 tiles
which is a decrease by about 35% from GalCiv 1 to 2.

However, a gigantic map with all settings to abundant can have more than 850 habitable planets as of 1.1-Beta-3. My machine can barely handle a gigantic map with ~120 planets, I wonder if anyone here is really able to handle the maximum right now.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the option should still be given for an even bigger galaxy. Its not difficult to implement and there will always be people who want to play on ridiculously large maps (like me ). Even if its a strain on even the top range computers, as Stardock have said with the graphics, the game should continue to get better as computers get better. There’s no reason to force players to stick with arbitrary sizes, maybe players could even chose the actual number of sectors (like 12x8).

I often like to play the largest map but with habitable planets set as rare, so space is huge with vast distances between planets. Kind of realistic...

But that’s just me.

Charlie
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I highly doubt it. Galciv1 didn't have the graphics, the AI capability, the planets on the map, or anything like that. That's where the machine power has gone. 850*135%=well over 1000. Who needs that much micromanagement? *shudders*
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've only ever played Tiny gals (played a small one on the third(?) campaign mission, but other than that all tiny maps!)

Last night, I figured I'd set it on Gigantic, just for a laugh...

My god, forget everything else - the sheer site of that minimap had me wetting myself in both joy and anticiaption!

Then I saw a funny line cetnred around my planet... Took me a while to realise it was my flagship's range - I'd never seen it before

Then seeing my race's influence borders stopping at space... so far, I've only ever seen them stop because they met another race's borders. It was at that point that I realised everything I'd learned about this game - every tactic - is suddenly going to change... now I understand why the AI builds so many scoutships (even on tiny ) - and I realise that I will finally need to build some myself!

To me, that is the real joy of GalCivII - there truly are so many different ways to play...
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A bigger galaxy but not necessarily more stars, jsut have the clusters contain fewer stars and have them more spaced out. That woudl give the game more prolonged feeling. Where you can pause and have peace between wars over small clusters.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I requested this a few weeks again on the same topic - I don't see why we can't specify our own map size instead of 4 fixed sizes.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Not sure what game it was I was playing but you could add your own galaxy sizes to the tables used for the maps and you could include number of stars and planets per stars too in the table.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I too would love to see the ability to manually set the galaxy size, ESPECIALLY for non-square map sizes. I think it'd be quite interesting to play a 12x4 sector map for example, where the players all have to go through each other to find the others....
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I too would love to see larger map sizes. If the only side effect is a massive slowdown on more antiquated machines, then so be it! Let those with powerful computers enjoy the larger maps, and those without can either play them and experience a significant amount of lag, or just ignore them.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In the beta 1.1v2 I had 6 map sizes - Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge and Gigantic.

I think you can make your own custom maps through modding. May want to check out the modding forums to see how.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
would like a bigger map too but I am affraid my pc won't


That's the problem from Stardocks point of view as far as I see it. Not everyone is as honest with themselves about their PC capabilities (and knowledge) as you are! They get enough muppets complaining that the "game crashes" or "runs too slow", and when you get them to post their debug files, you can see they are trying to run the game on bare minimum spec PCs or laptops with integrated graphics cards.

Add in larger maps and the number of people complaining increases exponentially as anyone running an old FX5200 / 5700 card or similar that is OK on the existing gigantic will suddenly start getting random CTDs due to overheating of the GPU etc - and promptly storm into the forums with yet another "this buggy game sucks because my PC is sh!te" type post.

Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Have it do some sort of check when starting up a super-gigantic galaxy and show a message box if the PC is marginal. Sort of like what it does when you start it for the first time on a PC with outdated drivers or somesuch. I hope they don't start catering to the lowest common denominator.

I also like really really big galaxies. The bigger the better. I only play GalCiv2 in a gigantic galaxy. Right now I have a game in a gigantic galaxy with all races enabled (except humans, it only allows 10 and I'm playing a custom race) Is fun. I wouldn't mind even more races and a bigger galaxy. The first time I played it like that the aliens started killing each other off often before I even had a chance to meet them, but this time they're being more civilized.

The biggest problem with a really really big map in my mind is that the end game could start to drag since it can take a LONG time for a ship to get where it's needed. This time around I'm doing like the 19'th century British navy did and stationing local forces all over the place. While concentration of force is good, sometimes you need to do trade offs. I research a lot of propulsion techs.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It always surprises me how many people try to run these game, when they barely meet the minimum required specs (if they even bothered to read them..), and complain so loud and vociferously that the game is "bugged" because it turns into a slide-show when they're trying to play a huge/gigantic map with a 800 mhz Celeron and a 32 MB GeForce 4000 MX. Sigh..

Bigger maps require more computational resources that rise in an exponential rate. For instance, going from a 2X2 map to a 4X4 map isn't twice the work.. it 's not even 4 tmes.. it's 8 times the amount. And while this might not be a problem for a middle to top end rig, it can choke or kill (through overflow CTD) a minimum spec system.

I personally think most publishers need to really start raising their minimum requirements for their games, because the n00b on the street often doesn't understand why they can't have all the bells and whistles of those who meet the recommended requirements.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think it'd be quite interesting to play a 12x4 sector map for example, where the players all have to go through each other to find the others....
That's exactly why I love the "Lakes" map setting in CivIV. Empires generally develop on a narrow band of land covering the North/South sweep of the map, and every Civ ecounters each other early on. It makes for a very interesting and competitive game, especially after late game resources are revealed.

Of course, GalCiv2 doesn't have enforceable Zones of Control, unless you're always at war and picking off ships that cross over your border.

Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Maybe Super Gigantic maps could be released as mod? Anybody who want it could use it personally. And if it's really will be nice it could be included in one of the future updates. Why not?

If it will be not from StarDock, but just a fan's mod, then requierments could be other than for original game. Just especially for mod.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm fine with the number of planets. I can hardly manage the number of possible planets now, on the high end. I would like however like a much bigger map, with more dead space, and tighter clusters. To use an example from another game, the current possible maps (no matter what settings I try) all seem to be like a "Pangaea" map in Civ4. All the Civs feel like they are cramped against each other, with no 'natural' borders. In Civ4 one of the best things they did was to allow every civ to have its own continent.

I'd love a scenario where each race had its own cluster of stars. Once colonized, they'd have to research quite a bit of tech and push their lines of supply into deep space with starbases before meeting the deep space borders of another race. When you go to war, it at first would be over control of the deep space routes to your enemy. Only later would you be able to take the war to his home planets.

I think something like that would add to the epic feel of a game. Seems like space should feel bigger...
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
They get enough muppets complaining that the "game crashes" or "runs too slow", and when you get them to post their debug files, you can see they are trying to run the game on bare minimum spec PCs or laptops with integrated graphics cards.


I'd like to defend those muppets.
All gamers don't seem to realise that not everyone is computer literate. I'm sure we all started mostly from trial and error at one point or another. Those who ask usually want help to over come their illiteracy.
However, I do know we get people who seem to complain a lot, but I always assume they are just young kids.

Game Crashes should never happen - these always stem from software, and to a lesser extent hardware. People who complain about crashes have a right to complain. IMO, game crashes are worse than bugs.

Add in larger maps and the number of people complaining increases exponentially as anyone running an old FX5200 / 5700 card or similar that is OK on the existing gigantic will suddenly start getting random CTDs due to overheating of the GPU etc

These shouldn't be the problem of the user, these are usually the problem of the developers unless there's a malfunction of some part of the user's computer. GPU overheating under full load and full capabilities is the problem of the hardware company.

If something run slow, it usually means that the computer is unable to cope, but it should never cause a computer to crash or explode. I do understand that creating perfect software code is diffcult.

- and promptly storm into the forums with yet another "this buggy game sucks because my PC is sh!te" type post.

yeah, kids.

Anyway, I like the ability to specify my own map size than having preset values. We don't have a cap for polygon count, why have a cap for map size?