apoc527

Join Date 03/2003

Galaxy Sizes

Huge is too small?

I don't know if this is a bug or not, and maybe it's just my expectations from GalCiv 1, but the largest galaxy available in the beta doesn't seem that large to me. I don't think it IS a bug, and in fact, maybe the largest galaxies aren't programmed in, but there don't seem to be that many stars compared to GalCiv 1 Huge galaxies.

How many stars *should* we be seeing in Huge galaxies? If this is the maximum, then I think it's too small for a truly epic game. I'll be back in 5 minutes...I'm going to count the stars on my game and then start a game in GalCiv 1 to compare.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry, that was "Gigantic" is too small, not "huge." Anyway, the Gigantic galaxy in GalCiv is 30x30 sectors. The Gigantic Galaxy in GalCiv 2 is about 15x15 sectors. That's significantly smaller, and while I realize that GalCiv 2 utilizes planets that can be colonized by more than 1 race, it still seems puny for a truly epic game. Is this intentional for the beta?

Successfully updated karma reason!

One thing I found is that on gigantic map with abundant stars and tight clusters, there are so few clusters that I usually start with at least one, if not two, races almost on top of me (in 9 opponent games, that is). I fixed that by switching to scattered stars, at least.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've noticed the same thing. In my last game on gigantic another race was only two systems away from me at the start?!

Will have to switch to scattered next game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

The main difference is that in GalCiv 1, the only on screen objects were stars. This time, the planets are on there. So the # of sectors is fewer. On the other hand, the sector sizes are bigger.

After the game is released, we may add back Humongous as a 20x20 galaxy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The sector sizes are fine, and so is the number. The bigger issue is the number of stars, but that seems to be related to the style chosen (Tight or Loose Clusters or Scattered). Scattered games seem to have more stars.

My only concerns with the current size is that it's actually really hard to get that "epic" feel especially with 9 other players on the map. You run into each other way too soon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yes I would support all of these comments. In Galciv and Sid Mier's Civ series I always tend to play epic slow burners and like to get myself established in my corner of the 'verse before we ll established races start slugging it out. So far I don;t get this feel and it WAS possible in this in GC1. I may have to drop a few players and change the star scatter - any ideas what is the closest way to approximate this dynamic anyone?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well, there's a way to get it with what I consider a slight cheat.

Set it to Gigantic Galaxy, Scattered stars, drop the races down to about 6 (though I did get a beautiful start with 9 opponents once, owned a quarter of the galaxy with not one alien planet mixed in with mine by the end of the expansion phase), and then, on your first move, do a "show ownership" on the minimap. If it looks like you're going to be too crowded, start another game.

I have to agree, there were times playing a maxed galaxy with maxed opponents in GC1 that I was worried I wouldn't make contact with the other aliens SOON ENOUGH (I like to make contact just in time to start trading), but with Beta 4C, I almost always have to rush to universal translators.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Would it be hard to make an option where players can set their own number of sectors depending on system specs ? A bit like good old "The Settlers", the more memory your PC had the bigger the map could be. (Map size 8 could take weeks before you even got close to the rivals). If the computer can handle it why not give them an option to play a 50x50 map ?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I argee.... for a 10 race map, even 15x15 feels too small, especially given how slow the early game is with anything else other than colonizing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

After the game is released, we may add back Humongous as a 20x20 galaxy.

Size isn't so much the issue for me as the fact that an AI race seems to start right next to me in many games. It doesn't seem that hard to me to run a check of starting system locations and relocate a race if two are very close.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I always have "Universal Translators" as one of my starting techs'. And I agree, you meet the other civs WAY too fast.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Perhaps this is by design? If the real life player is given a free hand for the first 50-100 turns he may be so far ahead of the AI that the game will be over for all intents and purposes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

GalCiv 1 only had 5 opponents so it's not hard to have the galaxy feel empty. We'll tweak around the tight clusters more.

My suggestion would be to play on a gigantic map with only 5 opponents if you want that truly epic feel. You put twice as many players into the same space and you're definitely going to run into them sooner.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

I've updated the gigantic galaxy size from 14x14 to 18x18. That adds 128 more sectors to the game. Also been tweaking the clustering algorithm to get better results.

It will be VERY VERY important to get lots of testing on this by people who have marginal video cards. Is there anyone in this thread who only has 32 megs of video memory?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had dropped the number of opponents down, but almost always had one start on top of me with tight clusters anyway. Looking forward to seeing the new tweakings. The larger gigantic galaxy will be nice too

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am running on a 2.8 ghz celeron processor running 32 mb graphics card if that is any good to you. Would be more than willing to test it out. Can be contacted via kezstain@hotmail.com

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

Ok. The question we'll be looking to resolve is whether it messes up textures.

We may have to decrease the # of unique planets, that's one thing that eats up texture planets is that there's so many unique planets in the game that get generated with each new game and have their own texture.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please, please do not dummy down the graphics just to support 32MB graphics cards. Even 64MB cards are old by todays standards but should easily work with the game as it stands already.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yes - that would be me - this machine was "state of the art" in 2000 with a 32MB graphics card. Not sure when I will get to play around extensively - maybe not til after 18 Dec - but would be happy to report. What types of anomolous behavior are you looking for?

gnh

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

GForce -- we're looking for planets with missing textures on them or just general slowness.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2411

elmo -- btw, there will always be some sacrifice for lower-end.

The solution is to let people after they've purchased it be able to upgrade to better stuff after release when we have a better idea of the purchasing demographic.

For instance, GalCiv II may be the first game (certainly that I know of) whose textures are vector based rather than raster (i.e. when you play Quake 4 or some other 3D game, their textures were probably made as bitmaps in Photosohp or whatever). In GalCiv, ours are vectors so we could easily have 4096x4096 sized textures on ships which would give it amazingly graphics.

But for compatibility, the textures are 256x256.

Successfully updated karma reason!

elmo -- btw, there will always be some sacrifice for lower-end.

Agreed. I'm suggesting 64MB cards should be that low end point if it means lowering the graphics quality just to include 32MB cards.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi!

I'm suggesting 64MB cards should be that low end point if it means lowering the graphics quality just to include 32MB cards.

I'd just like to point out on the issue of laptop users being unable to play Civ4, because their sistems have a built-in 32MB non-upgradeable graphics card. Please don't repeat that with the GalCiv 2.
To circumvent the problem, the GC2 setup program should do a test of the graphics card, and set the game in low-end graphics mode, where the number of unique textures is limited.
BR, Iztok

Successfully updated karma reason!

I've been playing with as large a galaxy as possible, with stars set to rare and planets abundant and habitable planets abundant, also, stars scattered. This gives the game a more realistic feel, since the outer most planet of one system shouldn't be three feet away from the next star system IMO. And stars are REALLY far away in real life, so it should take a while to get out there. Plus it limits expansion since your ship ranges don't change just because you increase the size of the galaxy.

I would also like to see a much larger galaxy, for the simple reason of realism. Stars should be really far apart. Of course, the smaller tightly packed galaxies should remain for quicker campaigns with more conflict.

My machine at work has a crappy Rage 128 Pro Ultra GL AGP with 32MB, I could test after hours, but I don't have stardock installed there. Is there a way I can have it on 2 machines to test?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Is there a way I can have it on 2 machines to test?

Buy another copy?

Successfully updated karma reason!