There's a long thread going on on another forum about unusual maps so I wondered whether anyone here would be interested. This is Pangea with current borders. Strange neighbours!

(August 22, 2014 at 10:27 am)Diablo Wrote: There's a long thread going on on another forum about unusual maps so I wondered whether anyone here would be interested. This is Pangea with current borders. Strange neighbours!

Any idea how long it takes for a significant tectonic change? I'm pretty damn ignorant on the topic. I'd be interested to see a map from 150,000 or so years ago (or whenever the best estimate is for the emergence of homo sapiens).

(August 22, 2014 at 10:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Any idea how long it takes for a significant tectonic change? I'm pretty damn ignorant on the topic. I'd be interested to see a map from 150,000 or so years ago (or whenever the best estimate is for the emergence of homo sapiens).

Its wouldn't be hugely different from today I don't think. I could easily be wrong but my understanding of it is for big changes you're talking millions of years.

This one is a bit frightening:

---

(August 22, 2014 at 10:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 22, 2014 at 10:27 am)Diablo Wrote: There's a long thread going on on another forum about unusual maps so I wondered whether anyone here would be interested. This is Pangea with current borders. Strange neighbours!

Any idea how long it takes for a significant tectonic change? I'm pretty damn ignorant on the topic. I'd be interested to see a map from 150,000 or so years ago (or whenever the best estimate is for the emergence of homo sapiens).

As Insanity said, not much different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to have been cyclical through Earth's history. There may have been many others before Pangaea. The fourth-last supercontinent, called Columbia or Nuna, appears to have assembled in the period 2.0–1.8 Ga.[11][12] Columbia/Nuna broke up and the next supercontinent, Rodinia, formed from the accretion and assembly of its fragments. Rodinia lasted from about 1.1 billion years ago (Ga) until about 750 million years ago, but its exact configuration and geodynamic history are not nearly as well understood as those of the later supercontinents, Pannotia and Pangaea.

I've been using the Civ 5 world builder for hours on end trying to get a nice looking world, it's not as easy as you think. I'd just try to replicate the real world but it doesn't translate that well to Civ 5 gameplay :/

(August 22, 2014 at 10:51 am)Napoléon Wrote: I've been using the Civ 5 world builder for hours on end trying to get a nice looking world, it's not as easy as you think. I'd just try to replicate the real world but it doesn't translate that well to Civ 5 gameplay :/

But they already have a world map?

(August 22, 2014 at 10:52 am)Insanity Wrote: But they already have a world map?

Yeah, and it doesn't translate well. In fact it's fairly fucking awful. Especially if you try to put the civs in their actual start positions. Europe becomes ridiculously crowded and every other civ just has a massive amount of space to expand into, leading to it being ultra unrealistic in terms of who the major powers will be. There's a few mods out there (check out "the world extended") that try to scale things a bit differently, so for instance it makes Europe bigger and gives it more space. But it still doesn't work that well when you try to play an actual game. I much prefer making my own worlds and giving each civ a fair balance of space and resources. Problem is, if you try to make a world similar to Earth it fucks with my OCD because things will always be slightly out of place, if I put things in place then it will make an unbalanced and unrealistic game. I try to make a world from scratch and make it fair, my OCD fucks with me even more because the civs aren't interacting with the right civs. For instance, I just find it weird if Japan spawns next to Germany. But if I try to make a realistic looking world, the game usually sucks. It's virtually impossible to find the balance between having civs where they should be and not having an unbalanced, crappy game world.

I've got a framed space shuttle mission chart framed hanging above my desk at home. It looks something like this one.

(August 22, 2014 at 10:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Any idea how long it takes for a significant tectonic change? I'm pretty damn ignorant on the topic. I'd be interested to see a map from 150,000 or so years ago (or whenever the best estimate is for the emergence of homo sapiens).

I think you mean Plate tectonic change, not just tectonic change. Tectonic change is any large scale change involving the structure of the crust. Plate tectonics is a particular type of tectonics that involves continents moving around horizontally.

You will likely see a fair bit of tectonic change in 150,000 years. For example, coming of glaciers would depress the ground it sits on, and cause large areas of earth to subside. When glaciers melt, land will rebound. Look at Hudson Bay in Canada. It is there because during the ice age the weight of ice in northern canada pressed down on the land until the land subsided below sea level. If ice age does not return in 150,000 years, maybe thanks to global warming, Hudson Bay would likely be all gone, because the land would gradually rebound to their original preglacial altitudes. Before glaciers, Hudson Bay was a large plain. Also, a new island is likely to emerge in the Hawaii.

Results from plate tectonics will be less obvious. North America will move about 2 miles further from Europe and closer to Asia. Australia will move closer to Indonesia by an like amount. India will drive itself about 3 miles further into Tibet. Los Angeles will move about 2 miles closer to San Francisco.