Home | Recent Posts New Topic
ender1983
ender1983
Join Date 02/2006
+1

Gigantic Universe actually TINY

February 22, 2006 3:53:19 AM from GalCiv II ForumsGalCiv II Forums
The game looks simply awesome! However, I immediatly noticed upon starting a new game, that selecting Gigantic or Huge universe gives a tiny playground compared to GalCiv 1. What happened?? Are the real battlegrounds comming back??
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
ender1983
Join Date 02/2006
+1
Reply #1 February 22, 2006 4:03:21 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
Ah I just checked: GalCiv2 on gigantic has 16x16 sectors, while GalCiv1 had 24x24, that means this game is less than HALF the size of its predecessor... what a pitty!!! I hope this will be changed!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
Peace Phoenix
Join Date 01/2004
+25
Reply #2 February 22, 2006 4:20:38 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
Ah I just checked: GalCiv2 on gigantic has 16x16 sectors, while GalCiv1 had 24x24, that means this game is less than HALF the size of its predecessor... what a pitty!!! I hope this will be changed!

Well, count the number of squares per sector in GC1 and GC2
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
dctrjons
Join Date 02/2006
+2
Reply #3 February 22, 2006 4:44:56 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
Oye I just spent a 1/4 day on a small map and a few races. And for quite a few turns I was just spamming the turn button. Gigantic? oyeveh!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
dctrjons
Join Date 02/2006
+2
Reply #4 February 22, 2006 4:51:12 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
12*12*24*24=82944
15*15*16*16=57600

I think that sector count is right. So GC1 was 1.44 larger. BUT there is essentially less dead space. And the game is far more dynamic. I'm willing to bet on the same settings GCII will take much longer to play a Gigantic game.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
ender1983
Join Date 02/2006
+1
Reply #5 February 22, 2006 5:33:05 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
I played a bit further, and you guys are right, it is still pretty large and takes a long time to finish. But still, the feel of the universe and its visible size, lead me to think it is actually more suited to a large universe. What harm is there in doubling the sectors, say 32x32?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
established
Join Date 05/2003
+2
Reply #6 February 22, 2006 6:27:52 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
12*12*24*24=82944

The gigantic galaxy in GC1 was even 28x28 IIRC, giving you 12*12*28*28 = 112896 which is almost the double of 57600.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
Groundup
Join Date 02/2006
0
Reply #7 February 22, 2006 11:11:48 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums
I'm in to emense games like this to be extremly huge. i dont like to play turn based games and have them last only one day. To me, the fun is spreading the game over weeks/months. more in depth and fun IMO. Like Civ3 (drool) civ 4 sux btw.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
ender1983
Frogboy
Join Date 03/2001
+2415 sdemperor
Reply #8 February 22, 2006 11:19:12 AM
from Stardock ForumsStardock Forums

1) GalCiv I did not ship with 28x28 galaxies btw.

2) The planets being on the map changes the dynamic considerably.

3) Range is now by tile, not by sector reducing the need for empty buffer sectors.

4) Starbase effects are by tile, not be sector reducing the need for empty buffer sectors.

5) There are more potential colonies to manage in GalCiv II than GalCiv I (typically).

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time: