Install Steam
login

language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español  España (Spanish  Spain)
Español  Latinoamérica (Spanish  Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese  Portugal)
Português  Brasil (Portuguese  Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The effect will likely be slightly longer turn times and impact on frame rate as more stuff is drawn. For me the turn times are nice and fast on huge (i have 8gb and 2gb rx560) but I don't want to be taxing my frame rate too much. Think my setup would handle next size up, just not sure I want the longer game time.
good, that's pretty much what i wanted to know. i can live with "it's laggy like old 4x games latesgame", i just didn't want "you will crash to desktop and turns will take 20 minutes" as an answer. if its only about keeping turn times very fast like early game i don't care if a turn takes up to a minute to process.
but still, like madzai said...they shouldn't have cut the map sizes so short ....especially after all the optimization and "superior 64 bit engine" talks lately. like on one hand i hear "i talked to stellaris devs and told them well next iteration you will have to make the jump to a newer engine too...we did it now" ....but on the other hand stellaris ain't cutting down on map sizes after every patch!
The map sizes listed in the thread are the v2.8 ones, which are different from the current, v3.0, ones. The patch notes released last week show the map size changes (I'm unsure how sectors relate to tiles):
Edit: The values listed in that link contain the new map sizes in v3.0, albeit at, apparently, the wrong tile total.
Cheers
That (bold) is not correct. The map sizes in that thread *are* the 3.0 ones. I've done the math, converting # of tiles (= area) to hexsectorsize (= "sectors" = length of a side of the hexagon).
Tiny equals 2,037 tiles equals 28 sectors
Small equals 4,157 tiles equals 40 sectors
and so on
So that chart is good as it stands today.
Also, a better version of that chart exists here[forums.galciv3.com]; somehow the "Map Size" column got clipped off of Frogboy's/IslandDog's Steam post.
Hope this helps!
Oh? by using OldSpider's formula?
That said. As mentioned in the linked article, the largest civ 5/6 map sizes have tile counts equal to the smallest map sizes in this game.
Regarding the ludicrious map size. That and excessive have not been touched cause "The insane people will murder me" as the patch notes said (Me being one of those insane people). I play on ludicrious with 97 civs at times (despite the above specs).
IF i save and exit the game on ludcrious with 97 civs, i often crash upon trying to load my save in the later stages. If i leave the game running constantly, (Never close or load), the game can be completed.
No. I'm using the same formula that Frogboy/IslandDog uses in the table at those links above, which is the formula for the area ("A") of a hexagon whose side is length "s", which is A = s^2*3/2*3^0.5.
Hi,
I want to correct and clarify my posts above.
I think it's important or at least valuable to note (although only as an aside) that, in the GalCiv3 forum post that I linked to above (at "here"), Frogboy never followed up regarding OldSpider's contention that Frogboy had used the wrong formula to calculate the number of hexes. If, as seems to be true from the research (Websearching) I've done, hexsectorsize (e.g. 28, 40, 70, etc.) is essentially the radius of the hexagon, then Frogboy's formula is the wrong one, and OldSpider's is the right one. Frogboy's (and my, above) formula uses the length of a *side* of the hexagon, whereas OldSpider's uses, apparently correctly, essentially the *radius* of the hexagon.
HOWEVER  and this is important to realize  *none* of that matters regarding my method of determining which specific hexsectorsize numbers Frogboy used in creating his chart. I simply used the same (wrong) formula that Frogboy in fact did use in going from hexsectorsize to area, and reverseengineered it, to go backwards from (stated) area to hexsectorsize.
To do this, I simply created a spreadsheet with two columns. First column has the numbers from 1 to 500. Second column has the formula that I've mentioned above (Frogboy's, the "wrong" one). Then I simply scanned down the second column and found numbers that matched Frogboy's "tiles" (area) numbers, and noted the corresponding numbers in the first column. These firstcolumn numbers matched *exactly* with the *current* "map sizes" (again, 28, 40, 70, etc.), and not with the prior ones.
TL;DR version: I used the same "wrong" formula as Frogboy did, worked backwards, and found the numbers that he'd plugged into that "wrong" formula.
I hope this clears that up, and I'm sorry I didn't explain it all from the getgo. Thanks for your interest!
Also, the HexSectorSize is not the number of hexagons that make up a side. It is the number of rings around the center hexagon, which is 1 less than the number or hexes on a side. Using it as if it was the length of a side is wrong. It also gives an answer that is not a whole number, which is ridiculous.
I tried to figure out how to calculate the number of hexes in a galaxy long ago. It didn't take long to found out that using the area of a hexagon was wrong. I eventually came up with a formula that used the number of hexes on a side. It required counting the hexes, which was very tedious and subject to counting errors.
Then I read this post: https://forums.galciv3.com/478279/thisidiotcannotdomath. In Reply #1, zuPloed gave all the information needed to do the calculations correctly, especially about HexSectorSize and that they were in the MapSizeDefs.xml file. After using his formula for a while, I realized it could be simplified and have been using the simplified version since then.
I even made a small "galaxy" in Paint to be sure what I was calculating agreed with what I was counting. It does a good job of showing what is right and what is wrong. If you want it, you can get it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/40iugd2jl7ary6b/GC3%20Hexes.png?dl=1.
I hope this settles the questions of how to calculate the number of hexes in a galaxy and how many they actually contain.
Edit: nemodomi posted his comment while I was working on this one.
In any event, I believe that that sidebar is settled.
Thanks for pitching in here. I share your seeming frustration; the "info out there" about GalCiv3 is sparse and often unreliable. For example, I'm embarrassed to have to admit that I wasted *way* too much time trying to figure out what, exactly, a "sector" is, as used in, e.g., the v3.0 Change Log ...

Map Sizes
Update to map sizes for better balance:
Tiny: 20 to 28 sectors
Small: 36 to 40 sectors
Large: 90 to 70 sectors
Huge: 120 to 90 sectors
Gigantic: 180 to 120 sectors
Immense: 250 to 150 sectors

... only to eventually have to conclude on my own that a "sector" in GalCiv3 is actually  as you've indicated  one of the "rings" of hexes around the center hex. Go figure.
I guess that's what I get for having taken the word so literally. Live and learn, I reckon?!