Hey folks,
We gotten your feedback on our map sizes changes and we'll be pushing a patch that will undo some of the changes larger maps. I don't have an eta yet, but it will be "soon".
Thanks for the response. But even the 'Normal' map feels awful claustrophobic now so hopefully there is an option to revert it on all map sizes?
Best option imho would be to give players a slider at startup to determine sector count themselves (in steps to ascertain a symmetrical map, e. g. 7 / 19 / 37 / 61 / 91 / 127 ...).
Perhaps a second slider to determine average star density per sector would also be nice. But for meaningful values of that I have no proposal because I don't know what the game is capable of.
But I fear that would be too much of a change to be implemented ad hoc ...
I have another comment about map size: Maybe you might also consider doing something to make the map "feel" larger subjectively, and that would be to rework engines, and reduce the speed you can design ships with.
Right now, in my opinion there are several problems with engines. First, engine size and cost don't scale (enough) with hull size. It's simply way more efficient to use big hulls than small ones, because for many small ships you pay way more for engines and life support, both in mass and in cost, than for a few large ones. It would be completely logical to expect engines and life support to be both larger and more expensive for a bigger hull (more mass, more personnel).
The second problem is engine stacking. Stacking linearly adds the speed of the components, while the reachable area per turn (i.e., amount of space one fleet can defend) grows as a square function. I would recommend you consider one of two solutions to this: Either, completely remove engine stacking, and just allow a single engine per ship (with increased movement value), or change the movement value of stacked engines to the square root, so the reachable area grows linearly.
In my recent experience, the AI doesn't really use engines all that well. If there was a single engine per ship rule (and consequently, reachable top speeds on the order of 10-12 per turn), AIs should be both much more competitive, and maps actually feel larger, because it takes longer to travel all the way through them. It really is true that ship speed matters, if your fleets are way faster than the AI, you can defeat even a stronger enemy with relative ease, since you can achieve local concentration of forces and your enemy cannot.
By the way, I thought your recent solution to sensor stacking spot on, congratulations
I was just about to post a thread about this. What was the point of making 'Huge' maps smaller? If someone's PC can't play it, couldn't they just choose 'Large' or something smaller? And the density is really claustrophobic. What I like to see when I start a new game is a vast, daunting galaxy that makes me doubt my ability to win. And since movement wasn't scaled, everything is explored that much quicker. The first X is the best X!
Looking forward to reverting back.
FYI, in the meantime, you can use this mod to revert back to the previous map sizes and densities.
Question for pshaw (Stardock):
The standard Insane galaxy size (prior to v1.9) contains 434,341 total hexes. Is this the maximum number of hexes that the engine can support? If not, what is the maximum number, or is there no hard limit?
I just discovered something with another much older game that got added to Steam recently (and must have been updated for delivery by steam) called Caesar IV. While it still had the same default settings for resolution I decided to see if there was an .ini file that had resolution settings that I could manipulate. I found that the game heated up my GPU to higher values when I used higher screen sizes (1710*1020 --with no changes to the other graphics settings). Of course, I was running it in windowed mode so I could watch the CPU and GPU monitors I have running in my sidebar, so maybe that had an affect as well. Anyway, I had to change the graphics settings down a notch to keep it from setting off the alarm I had set to 78 degrees centigrade from "best" to the next lower (unnamed) setting. This lowered the temp of my GPU to the 70-72 degree range.
I think there may be a clue in this.
Thanks for listening to the feedback. And also for acting upon it. A small matter for some, a big change for others. I am into the bigger maps, because it puts "space" into well... space, and exploration into the journey. In some ways, this is where the practical and philosophical worlds clash perhaps. Merry Christmas, while I am here, and best of wishes for the next year!
Increasing the size tends to decrease performance, but I'm not aware of any hard limit for the number of hexes on the map.
Does increasing the map sizes also increase the heat generated by CPUs and GPUs?
Simply unzip the mod (including the mod folder) into your 'My Games/GalCiv3/Mods/' directory. After that, the mod will automatically get loaded when you launch the game.
I think you have to check 'Enable Mods' in the Game Settings too.
Also, Stardock has not yet enabled custom mods in multiplayer, so if you're playing multiplayer, you'll need to actually replace the files in the install directory ({Steam install dir}\steamapps\common\Galactic Civilizations III\...). I assume that since this only modifies map creation, only the game host needs to do this.
When going this route, I suggest making a backup copy of the vanilla files, before replacing them.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
