Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
What you need to know
Published on February 14, 2018 By Frogboy In GalCiv III Dev Journals

One of the biggest challenges we have faced in developing Galactic Civilizations III has been map sizes and the memory they require.

On a number of occasions, we have tried to reduce the the largest map sizes down to improve performance and shrink memory requirements.  And each time we have attempted to do that, we have ended up with a very vocal outcry of anger.

But large map sizes come with a significant memory cost to be aware of.

Galactic Civilizations, like its inspiration, Sid Meier's Civilization, is a tile based game.   Virtually every space strategy game is point based (you travel across the galaxy from point A to point B without going in-between). There's a good reason why they do that: scale.  If you want your space game to appear to have an epic scale, then you need to have stars that appear to be very far from one another.  For Galactic Civilizations to pull off the same thing, as a tile based game, means a lot more tiles and a lot faster (late game) ships.

For reference, here are the map sizes for Civilization VI:

Size Dimensions Players (Default/Maximum) City-States (Default/Maximum) Total Tiles
Duel 44×26 2/4 3/6 1144
Tiny 60×38 4/6 6/10 2280
Small 74×46 6/10 9/14 3404
Standard 84×54 8/14 12/18 4536
Large 96×60 10/16 15/22 5760
Huge 106×66 12/20 18/24

6996

The largest map size would require around 2GB of memory (on average). So, the largest map size in Civilization VI has around 7,000 hexes. 

Let's take a look at Galactic Civilizations III:

Map Size Players (rec) RAM Req (MB) Tiles
Tiny                       3                       967                   2,037
Small                       4                    1,483                   4,157
Medium                       5                    1,939                   6,495
Large                       7                    2,903                12,731
Huge                       9                    3,925                21,044
Gigantic                     12                    5,544                37,412
Immense                     16                    7,246                58,457
Excessive                     32                  16,647              233,827
Ludicrous                     50                  30,729              649,519

That's right, the Ludicrous map size has 100 times more tiles than the largest Civilization VI map.  More tiles isn't better, it just means the maps are much bigger and more to the point, and the memory requirements go way up.

Until you get to HUGE map sizes, you don't really need a crazy system to play Galactic Civilizations III.  But what frequently happens is that people with perfectly good gaming systems will paly on the Ludicrous size and find it very slow. Why? Because you need 32GB of memory to play it well (or else you'll be swapping out memory constantly to disk).

Even if you have enough memory, picture the pathfinding for 50 players (and GalCiv III supports 128 players) if there's 650,000 tiles to potentially go through.  Path finding is what most of your turn time gets consumed by. 

Luckily, GalCiv III has a multicore AI which means that each pathfinding task can be distributed to your CPU.  But again, even if you have 32GB of memory, if you have 50 players but only a 4 core processor, you're going to be in for a world of hurt.

For optimal performance, you shouldn't have more than 2 players per logical processor (usually 2X your cores).  So if you have an 8 core machine with 16 logical threads, you're probably fine with 32 players.

However, I frequently get saved games from players who have 4 core machines with 8GB of memory trying to play on these ludicrous maps with 100 players who have given us a negative review because "obviously" we have a memory leak.

Going forward, I highly recommend not going beyond Gigantic unless you meet the specs above.  In version 3.0, we will be listing these requirements when you pick the map size to help players keep themselves out of trouble.

So now you know why we keep trying to roll back those big maps.


Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 30, 2020

Because of Galactic Civ 3's unique size, both in terms of the map and number of AIs, I would actually love a GC3 benchmarking tool for hardware reviewers. Perhaps it would run 500 turns with the maximum number of AIs on a user defined map size. Occasionally you'll see GPU reviews include Civilization 6, but as mentioned it's just not on the scale of GC3. Turn based strategy games don't get much love in reviews because they're not seen as being demanding enough to get that sort of consideration, and I would love for Stardock to give reviewers something to chew on.

on Nov 06, 2020

Here's an example, I would love to see a Gal Civ 3 turn time benchmark alongside Civ 6 in this review: https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_9_5900x_and_ryzen_9_5950x_review/19

 

Expanding on why, it seems that turn time is very dependent on single threaded performance with Civ 6, whereas Gal Civ 3 specifically recommends more cores as you add more players on a bigger map. Would we see a big contrast here, with Civ 6 not scaling with more cores, but Gal Civ 3 doing so?

on Nov 12, 2020

Playing on a huge map, 22 civs, my turn times are close to 2 minutes.

I have:
Ryzen 7 1700x (overclocked at 3.9ghz)

Radeon 5700xt

32gb RAM

Asus Crosshair VI Hero

Samsung SSD 960 EVO.

 

During a turn change, the game uses 17-18% of the CPU and between 5-8gb of ram.

The GPU can be used as much as 68-69%, according to task manager.

 

What I'm wondering is if there's anyway to scale the use of the hardware to give faster turn time in the game? I mean, if there's more hardware than is required by the map size, use it?  I know nothing of coding, sorry, just wondering if it's something possible in the near-average time frame?  I know the game is demanding, but it feels like, even if I increase my hardware capabilities, the game ain't using it.  It's midly depressing.  I love the game, but I spend more time reading the web during a turn change than playing the actual game

on Nov 12, 2020

Falconeer, how many gigs of ram does your video card have?

I have a similar setup and play only on insane maps with 30 civs. My turn times on turn 453 are about 15-18 seconds as it cycles through each civ. 

I also have 32 gig ram but the most important thing I found is that your card has to have at least 6 gigs of ram on it or you will drag. 

EDIT> I see your card has 8gig of ram which should be fine for large maps. My next thought is amd vrs intel and I think intel has the edge with game right now especially on some 4x games.

This forum has many threads where amd users have a bit longer turn times vrs intel users. 

my cpu is 8700K oc'd to 5.0. 

on Nov 13, 2020

Yeah, 8gb DDR5 for my video card.  I haven't touched the game in over a year, I thought the AMD problems had been resolved

The newest Ryzen have better single-threaded performances than Intel, I might upgrade during next winter if things go well.

It bugs though that this game is supposed to make use of multi-threaded performance (multi-core) more so than other games, yet, this being supposedly AMD's advantage compared to Intel, we're getting consistantly slower speed.


Maybe it's the API, DX11 instead of DX12/Vulkan like Ashes of the Singularity.  It's probably too much work to change the API

on Nov 23, 2020

Falkoner

Yeah, 8gb DDR5 for my video card.  I haven't touched the game in over a year, I thought the AMD problems had been resolved

The newest Ryzen have better single-threaded performances than Intel, I might upgrade during next winter if things go well.



It bugs though that this game is supposed to make use of multi-threaded performance (multi-core) more so than other games, yet, this being supposedly AMD's advantage compared to Intel, we're getting consistantly slower speed.


Maybe it's the API, DX11 instead of DX12/Vulkan like Ashes of the Singularity.  It's probably too much work to change the API

Threads can't solve everything with turn times.  Each player has to move on its own.  We don't have simultaneous turns.  So the more players you have, the longer it will take regardless of CPU cores.

on Dec 02, 2020

Thanks for clarifying that.  I'm still sad it's a chore to play with many race on my system, but I understand it can't be helped at this moment.

on Feb 10, 2021

marigoldran

Play on smaller maps but console in more habitable planets.  What matter isn't the size of the map but the number of planets people can colonize.  

Totally agree! Map size means nothing when there are so few habitable planets.

on Feb 11, 2021

From being someone who wanted the absolute maximum of everything in every game - I spent more than my wife knows on my PC so it could handle it.... - I'm now very much of the 'less is more' school of thought. Fewer colonies, fewer civs and fewer resources make for much better gameplay (IMHO), and turn times, loading, all the rest of it are so much faster and smoother. Stars and planets common, but habitable planets and pretty much everything else uncommon, with slow game pace and research has become my preferred setting. Still like those Ludicrous map sizes though   ....

 

Finding a habitable planet is significant moment, and the race to take it and that Durantium deposit with the Thulium right next it? O.M.G. Whereas when they're all abundant, it's just "meh, another one, I'll pick that up later. Maybe."

Just feels to me like each decision matters more when there are fewer decisions to make. And the game flow and immersion is so much better when you're not waiting, waiting, waiting each turn. But each to their own, YMMV.

 

on Feb 11, 2021

colinm1305

I'm now very much of the 'less is more' school of thought. Fewer colonies, fewer civs and fewer resources make for much better gameplay (IMHO)

colinm1305

Finding a habitable planet is significant moment, and the race to take it and that Durantium deposit with the Thulium right next it? O.M.G. Whereas when they're all abundant, it's just "meh, another one, I'll pick that up later. Maybe."

Just feels to me like each decision matters more when there are fewer decisions to make.

I agree.  I play with everything set to "Occasional", usually with Immense galaxies.  I like having fewer things so that I have to make better decisions or suffer the consequences.

on Feb 11, 2021

All I am saying is I prefer a small map with 50 habitable planets to a large map with the same 50 habitable planets. What does empty space contribute to gameplay? Nothing.

Galaxy size should be defined by available real estate, not hexes.

on Feb 11, 2021

Carneades

All I am saying is I prefer a small map with 50 habitable planets to a large map with the same 50 habitable planets. What does empty space contribute to gameplay? Nothing.

Galaxy size should be defined by available real estate, not hexes.

IMHO It's a Space game, and Space is 99.9999% empty space. Things are a long, long way away from each other. What's the point of basing a game in space if everything is close together? Might as well be based in a country or on a continent. Empty space makes the game what it is. The distance to resources and other civs and the time it takes to get there through that  'empty space' is a strategic consideration that requires planning and coordination well in advance, and for me it increases the depth and immersion. But I like a slower pace of play, so I enjoy the early game where you have to wait for ships to get to their destinations and plan which areas of the map you're going to scout. Lots of other players would find that tedious, I get that.  By mid game I've always got some hyperlanes in place, and well before the end its a comprehensive network that gets ships to any corner of the map in no time.

I like my Galaxy defined by size. And even at the lowest settings, there's always ample planets to rush for and  - eventually! - fight over.

 

on Feb 11, 2021

Realistically, I give you that most of the universe is empty space. But realistically, the average galaxy has 100 billion stars with likely billions of habitable planets. It´s not realistic at all that habitable planets are a scarce resource. They are not.

It simply doesn´t feel right that, even with hyperspace, finding a habitable planet should be a big issue. In GalCiv I and II, it wasn´t iIrc. Super planets were scarce, but class 10 or 12 planets, not so much.

on Feb 11, 2021

There's no right or wrong, just different preferences.

  1. Massive and sparse leads to more realistic game with control done by an almost purely star system level.
  2. Smaller but denser is more continuous and pressured game - fights can happen anywhere, and you have to be more defensive since enemies can come from anywhere. This isn't so true for point 1 because it is far less time efficient.

JJust different styles of games. Personally, I'm finding the whack-a-mole style a it frustrating.

on Feb 28, 2021

Fundamentally, what I wish we could have done is found a way to have our cake and eat it too: Clusters of stars with a sort of fast travel to different clusters.  

Under the current system, it's very memory intensive because every tile, even blank ones, use just as much memory as a tile with a planet on it.  They don't use a lot of memory but when you're talking about many thousands of tiles, they do add up.  And don't get me started on the pathfinding times.

 

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5