Excuse me, is there any way to set this map up ( in the map script) to flood tiles with resource bonuses, like some options in Smartmap or the Full of Resources map scripts? I have looked at copying functions one to the other, but I know nothing about the ways of python unfortunately.


I really do want great clumps of potato fields.

It's something my friends and I would really enjoy.

There's the blessings of amatheon option, if that is still in the mod. I think the no reagents problem should be fixed now.

also your BTS version of this script basically never puts Oil anywhere on the map. Anywhere. At all. At most I've seen like one oil on the entire map in several games.

I didn't actually make a BtS version specifically, but I checked the version in this thread and there was plenty of oil. I think someone else did an adaptation for BtS, but I'm not sure how there change would have effected the oil. Did they get rid of deserts?

that version mostly spawns grassland

what about playing creation WITHOUT FFH and still wanting abundant bonus nodes?

that version mostly spawns grassland

what about playing creation WITHOUT FFH and still wanting abundant bonus nodes?

Well, Creation uses the default bonus placement, so I'd have to write a whole new scheme. :coffee:

How hard would that be to do? it would benefit the map anyways.

How hard would that be to do? it would benefit the map anyways.

Well, I wrote a new system for PerfectWorld so that forests wouldn't get in the way of important bonuses, so I wouldn't need alot of research time. I'd say about a week of my free time.

However, I'm currently working on a top secret new mod! So, I'll have to wait a bit before updating Creation. Hopefully this mod will be done by next week, but playtesting my prove that I still need to re-work stuff.

You break my poor, often-broken heart with this news.

How would I add drop down box to make this map wrap in custom game? I saw in an earlier post that some people made theirs wrap and it turned out good. I know how to make it wrap I just don't want to have to have a "wrapped creation.py" and a "creation.py".

BTW: good luck on the top secret mod! :thumbsup:

How would I add drop down box to make this map wrap in custom game? I saw in an earlier post that some people made theirs wrap and it turned out good. I know how to make it wrap I just don't want to have to have a "wrapped creation.py" and a "creation.py".

BTW: good luck on the top secret mod! :thumbsup:

I actually have very little experience with dropdowns, but there's a couple in PerfectWorld. There's basically a series of functions you have to write to specify how many options, what the defaults are, etc.

unbreak my heart Cephalo, add a bonus resources function to creation that works in non-ffh scenarios!

(make it wrap while you're at it too if you can hehe)

Could I bug you to place a special set of code in this script to keep Guardian from appearing in one of the pure-peak side of the map fills? No clue what he does yet, but it is a new Unique Improvement for .32 which only appears on peaks. So with this mapscript there is a HIGH chance of him being unreachable.

Could I bug you to place a special set of code in this script to keep Guardian from appearing in one of the pure-peak side of the map fills? No clue what he does yet, but it is a new Unique Improvement for .32 which only appears on peaks. So with this mapscript there is a HIGH chance of him being unreachable.

Ok, I'll guess I'll have to do that soon. Since there are some units that can walk on peaks in FFH, there is no chance that the behavior you mention might actually be desireable... correct?

I'll try to get to it soon, but my NEW COMPUTER FROM FIRAXIS CAME TODAY!!!! So, I'm not in a huge mood for modding this weekend. :D

Hey, I want a new computer.

new computer from Firaxis?

how/what/why/when?

new computer from Firaxis?

how/what/why/when?

PerfectWorld won the mapscript category in the mod contest! :clap:

Did 0.32 not break Creation for anyone else? Because suddenly I get maps with no Mountains at all except at the edges.

Did 0.32 not break Creation for anyone else? Because suddenly I get maps with no Mountains at all except at the edges.

Is that consistent behavior? Because Creation still has a crash bug that will cause that once in a while.

It seems to be working now after not working three times last night. I'm not sure what was wrong.

PerfectWorld won the mapscript category in the mod contest! :clap:

Congradulations.

If and when you update this could you make sure to include the scrub feature?

Congradulations.

If and when you update this could you make sure to include the scrub feature?

Definately.

So with the new options you don't always get 1 tile wide passages everywhere?

Hi great script! Thanks!!!

If possible could you tell me how it would be possible for all 19 civs to be the max distance away from each other in this script and how I could mod this in your script?

Thanks!

Ok, I'll guess I'll have to do that soon. Since there are some units that can walk on peaks in FFH, there is no chance that the behavior you mention might actually be desireable... correct?

I'll try to get to it soon, but my NEW COMPUTER FROM FIRAXIS CAME TODAY!!!! So, I'm not in a huge mood for modding this weekend. :D

huh? what did ya do to get a computer from Firaxis?

Anyways, gonna use this mapscript as it's about time I did, and should make games a little more interesting. Should also make proper desert areas and mountain ranges instead of it bieng fragmented.

any chance you could make a continuous land version of this map?

the water barrier and occasional mountain barriers break this map up.

regarding the water barrier, its cool to have it for one edge of the map, but it can be a pain when it goes from one edge to the other since it completely separates the map into two. ideally itd be nice if it created a situation more like earths mediterranean where one side is separated by water, but you can get to the other side by land (over by arabia/egypt)

regarding the mountain barriers, sometimes therell be civs on the other side of a mountain range, and theres no way to get to them even tho its not the water separation. like, the mountain range will extend all the way to the water.. maybe if you guarranteed that there was always atleast 2 tiles (non-impassible) between any mountain and water tiles.

cephalo

I was playing around with your map script (Well, as it turns out, the 1.04 fall further version) and added a bunch of parameters. With the way you did your script it was pretty easy to add. (I can see why some have 20 bazillion parameters)

I added them to be visible in the custom game only. I did this before I read the thread and saw your unease about over doing it with options. The numbers are rough and have only been tested on my copy, but they all default to your numbers. The first one is for me, the rest were all asked for in this thread.

0: "Starting Plot Size",
1: "Soften Peaks",
2: "Hill Frequency",
3: "Peak Frequency",
4: "Wrap"

If you want to see it I can give it to you and/or tell you how to do it.

Hemiptera, you got a download of the optioned version?

Hemiptera, you got a download of the optioned version?

Sure, as a reminder it's the Fall Further version. But if you want to modify the other script copy everything including and below the following line:

def getNumCustomMapOptions():

Any function that starts with:

def get<Something>():
map=CyMap()

Will corrispond to the old variable Something. Replace the variables Something with getSomething(). Then remove the definition of Something from the start of the script.

Hey guys. I downloaded the map but whenever I play it the whole map is just wide open plains with a few hills. The map also has no mountains anywhere or water. Did I just mess up the download or something.

Hey guys. I downloaded the map but whenever I play it the whole map is just wide open plains with a few hills. The map also has no mountains anywhere or water. Did I just mess up the download or something.

When that happens it means that a python exception was thrown. You could turn on the exceptions to see what it is.

It could be that you have random.py in your public maps directory. (See page 6 of this thread) It should be safe to delete. Other than that you'll have to turn on exceptions and tell us what the exception was.

any chance you could make a continuous land version of this map?

the water barrier and occasional mountain barriers break this map up.

regarding the water barrier, its cool to have it for one edge of the map, but it can be a pain when it goes from one edge to the other since it completely separates the map into two. ideally itd be nice if it created a situation more like earths mediterranean where one side is separated by water, but you can get to the other side by land (over by arabia/egypt)

regarding the mountain barriers, sometimes therell be civs on the other side of a mountain range, and theres no way to get to them even tho its not the water separation. like, the mountain range will extend all the way to the water.. maybe if you guarranteed that there was always atleast 2 tiles (non-impassible) between any mountain and water tiles.

if you turn down WaterRegionsPerPlot to a lower number, you should be likely to get contiguous land. You will need at least one water region though or the map will crash.

ah cool thanks, ill give that a try :p

I just downloaded it again and it works, but before I checked and didn't see a random py.

it works for me, but not all the time, occasionally ill get a python error on map generation and itll have no mountains, or sometimes its all grassland with rivers.. but for the most part it works

Hemiptera, I love the options you added. this script is even better with the options. only thing I could think to add for an option would be the amount of water.

Hemiptera, I love the options you added. this script is even better with the options. only thing I could think to add for an option would be the amount of water.

How should I do it? Right now it's done based on the number of plots so that's staying in. The default values will always be cephalos' values, I want to keep the forking to a minimum. Should the options be based on just the number of tiles, or the number of players, an absolute or something else as well as the number of tiles.

i played around with the water tiles settings a bit, the regular amount (0.002) creates a lot of water, breaking the map into 2 or 3 pieces, i lowered it to 0.0009 and that makes a decent amount of water, usually one side of the map has a decent sized body of water, occasionally with an island the size of 1 valley. if you lower it to around 0.0002 it makes it so theres a body a water contained in the middle of the map, kinda like inland sea.

so id recommend
Sea Level:
High 0.005
Normal 0.002
Low 0.0009
Lower 0.0002

I agree with sure shot options like his should be fine.

i played around with the water tiles settings a bit, the regular amount (0.002) creates a lot of water, breaking the map into 2 or 3 pieces, i lowered it to 0.0009 and that makes a decent amount of water, usually one side of the map has a decent sized body of water, occasionally with an island the size of 1 valley. if you lower it to around 0.0002 it makes it so theres a body a water contained in the middle of the map, kinda like inland sea.

so id recommend
Sea Level:
High 0.005
Normal 0.002
Low 0.0009
Lower 0.0002

I like the settings. On lower I had a sliver of water with 4 separate areas, on High I had 8 islands with 10 separate areas.

any chance you could provide a non-FF one? i looked through it and tried your instructions before but got confused heh

any chance you could provide a non-FF one? i looked through it and tried your instructions before but got confused heh

Here you go.

cool thanks :D

This is awesome work....

How can I set defaults for a custom game?
Like Agressive AI, etc...

So that they are enabled when I start it.

edit:
Ffh\Assets\XML\Gameinfo\CIV4GameOptionsInfos.XML
and change the <bDefault>0</bDefault> from a 0 to a 1 for whichever options you want to be default.

Your a champ... thanks sureshot

Someone could make a put scrubs script? I'm pretty sure that it would be something like line 2516 def addFeatures():

Someone could make a put scrubs script? I'm pretty sure that it would be something like line 2516 def addFeatures():

Hopefully if I'm not too busy, the next version of Creation will be out next week. It's next on my to do list.

I'm still thinking on what the rules should be for placement. They look horrible on hills. I sure do wish someone could figure out how to make plant life that forms to the terrain like the forests in Civ do. It should be easy to just copy that behavior.

Hopefully if I'm not too busy, the next version of Creation will be out next week. It's next on my to do list.

I'm still thinking on what the rules should be for placement. They look horrible on hills. I sure do wish someone could figure out how to make plant life that forms to the terrain like the forests in Civ do. It should be easy to just copy that behavior.

IMHO, scrubs should be confined to desert plains, somewhere around 15%.

Version 1.05 is out!

I fixed the bug that caused the 'region has no gate' error, so we should never ever see that again. Let me know if you do.

Deserts plains will now sometimes have 'Scrubs' on (actually floating above) them.

Also, I changed peaks to have tundra under them instead of desert so that hellfire doesn't end up all over the map. Peaks near flatlands will have the terrain under them that matches the surroundings however, including desert. Really, flames should never appear on peaks anyway no matter what the map does, I'd like to see that fixed in the mod.

Thanks!!! If it isn't asking too much... There is new world improvements in FFH, like "Guardian of Pristinus Pass" and "Ring of Carcer", shouldn't they be included in the script? At least Brigit prison...

or if I include this:
pref = ImprovementPreference(GetInfoType("IMPROVEMENT_RING_OF_CARCER"))
pref.idealMoisture = 0.8
pref.idealAltitude = 0.95
pref.altitudeWeight = 2.0
pref.distanceWeight = 0.75
pref.needCoast = False
pref.needWater = False
pref.needHill = False
pref.needFlat = True
impPreferenceList.append(pref)

Would it work? Since it needs snow.

would it be possible to have a setting on the improvements for how often they appear in each game?

would it be possible to have a setting on the improvements for how often they appear in each game?

All I do with the improvements is move them. If they aren't in the preference list, then they will simply not be moved.

I am unfamiliar with the terrain preferences for the new world improvements. Are there any really important preferences?

Ring of Carcer appears in snow/tundra, since Brigit is an Arch-Angel of Fire and that was somewhat required to manage to entrap her, and since the Ring is the "Northern Lights" of Erebus.

Guardian of Pristinus Pass appears on Mountains, not sure why yet or what it'll do. I don't recall any limitation on the general area around the mountains.

It might be cool if you could place the Guardian of Pristinus Pass one square north of a mountan pass so it is looking over it.

First of all many thanks for the great script :goodjob: ,but I was a little confused when always "player area" is much bigger than other civs..I was playing on some specific options because for standard map I choose 12 civs as opponents and always have a situation that my nation is alone with big terrain and other civs have 1 or 2 cities.I'm very like played with many opponents but i haven't good computer for that kind of game :( on later stage with big stacks of unit ,buildings and cities on Large or Huge map my computer made turn about 5-6 minutes :(.

The most important:

Script also determine huge mass of terrain without any civs surrounded with unpassable mountains :(

It will be very easier that mountains always have possibility for 3-4 gates also for huge mass of barbarians and better contact with other civs.It will be nice to added option "more gates" at panel in custom game start.

It is good to have the ability to over populate a map, eg;
smalll map with 12 civs

I like the way this plays out...
Not sure if this is the case now (haven't D/L the new version yet) but it used to be possible. I know some maps tend to rescale when more civ's are added, I hate it when it does that.

Great script. I just got to downloading it and I am really impressed. Thanks for doing such a wonderful job cephelo.

I downloaded but it says cant find the map script when i try to play it

It will be very easier that mountains always have possibility for 3-4 gates also for huge mass of barbarians and better contact with other civs.It will be nice to added option "more gates" at panel in custom game start.

There's a constant in the script that lets you control this, called SoftenPeakPercentage. Look on page 8 of this thread.

I downloaded but it says cant find the map script when i try to play it

I can't remember the cause of this error. I've seen it before. The game let's you select Creation from the list? Then it tells you it can't be found?

Wasn't it the error with random.py?

EDIT: oh, probably not. did you unzip the file you downloaded to "your civ folder"\BTS\PublicMaps ?

Love this script and its all I ever play. One thing it lacks however, are proper oceans. I'd love to see a version/option that generates a large sized map with about as much land as a standard, and a large ocean with scattered islands. Teching optics needs to get the peninsula'd Lanun somewhere.

Love this script and its all I ever play. One thing it lacks however, are proper oceans. I'd love to see a version/option that generates a large sized map with about as much land as a standard, and a large ocean with scattered islands. Teching optics needs to get the peninsula'd Lanun somewhere.

PerfectWorld works with FfH, and it will give you a nice planetary type circumnavigable world. Check my sig.

Yeah, that's what I used before Creation suplanted it. But, I kind of want to play something thats go the creation valleys in parts but a large central ocean with islands. Hmm, Maybe I'll take a look at the code myself.

Still no new version in sight with at least a few drop-down choices available?
This is killing me! :/

Yeah, that's what I used before Creation suplanted it. But, I kind of want to play something thats go the creation valleys in parts but a large central ocean with islands.

Now THAT would be awesome!

Al

Yeah, that's what I used before Creation suplanted it. But, I kind of want to play something thats go the creation valleys in parts but a large central ocean with islands. Hmm, Maybe I'll take a look at the code myself.

You might try increasing the map size slighty, and turning up the number of water regions. That won't give you islands, but it will be closer to what you want I think.

@ Hemiptera or Cephphalo: Could you include / share some dropdown-options for the new version like done before with the ammount of water and the likes (which is not for the the newest version of the mapscript sadly. And i like having scrubs and well-placed unique features. ;))? Without FF whould be appreciated on my part (alot ;)) as whould an FF version for sure by those who play with FF.

Whould really look forward to playing with one landmass and just some inland-sea or lots of islands for a change (without tempering with xmls here and there.).

As for water: Another option whould be perhaps to force the tiles bordering the maps edge to be water instead of mountains if thats possible in some way. I belive, that whould achieve what was suggested. Even though spheric world seems a bit unthematic for FFH 2 as Erebus is said to be flat if i remember correctly.

Ok, a new version is up. Mostly subtle under-the-hood type changes, but when the guardian of pristinus pass goes into 0.33 it should work very well ;)

Ok, a new version is up. Mostly subtle under-the-hood type changes, but when the guardian of pristinus pass goes into 0.33 it should work very well ;)

Very awesome, playing with it now. Thanks Cephalo!

sorry guys,

newbie question!! :confused:

i've copied the file into the public maps folder. But don't know how to open it in game! what options i have to take to use the map?

thx for your help

sorry guys,

newbie question!! :confused:

i've copied the file into the public maps folder. But don't know how to open it in game! what options i have to take to use the map?

thx for your help

It should come as one of the choices for a random map. It's called 'Creation'.

Love your creation map script. One thing that i noticed in the 5 games I have played on it is that I haven't seen any Graveyards placed down on the map.

I occasionally get python errors loading. The initiating error appears to be:

line 2884, in generatePlotTypes
line 971, in createRiverMap
line 1122, in calculateWetAndDry
AttributeError: RiverMap instance has no attribute 'wetSpot'

Is it possible that occasionally the self.wetSpot in line 1114 isn't defined for a region?

I occasionally get python errors loading. The initiating error appears to be:

line 2884, in generatePlotTypes
line 971, in createRiverMap
line 1122, in calculateWetAndDry
AttributeError: RiverMap instance has no attribute 'wetSpot'

Is it possible that occasionally the self.wetSpot in line 1114 isn't defined for a region?

Hmm, self.wetSpot is actually defined in the loop just above that. In theory, it should not be possible to not be defined. I have never seen this pop up. Are you getting this often? Are you using a future version of FfH that might be exposing a problem perhaps?

Logically, the only way for that to not be defined is if all the regions have an altitude of zero, which is all water. Is there a python error that precedes that which might have caused an all water map?

To use this map, put the file in your Civ4\PublicMaps or BTS\PublicMaps folder.
Emmm .. where?
"My Games/BtS/Public Maps/" or "Program Files/Firaxis G/Civ4/BtS/Public Maps/" ??

Emmm .. where?
"My Games/BtS/Public Maps/" or "Program Files/Firaxis G/Civ4/BtS/Public Maps/" ??

The latter.

Hmm, self.wetSpot is actually defined in the loop just above that. In theory, it should not be possible to not be defined. I have never seen this pop up. Are you getting this often? Are you using a future version of FfH that might be exposing a problem perhaps?

Logically, the only way for that to not be defined is if all the regions have an altitude of zero, which is all water. Is there a python error that precedes that which might have caused an all water map?

I get it maybe 5-10% of the time. It is with 0.33 so its possible there is a problem there (soudns like it is if no one else is running into this). I'll get you an early copy of 0.33 on August 4th so you can play with it a bit.

I get it maybe 5-10% of the time. It is with 0.33 so its possible there is a problem there (soudns like it is if no one else is running into this). I'll get you an early copy of 0.33 on August 4th so you can play with it a bit.

Hmm, 5-10% is alot, I wonder what it could be. I'm thinking that some earlier crash is either causing an all land map, all water map, or no regions. I'll keep looking into it.

Just wanted to drop a quick note. Love this map generator. I use it pretty much exclusively.

Thanks again!

I'm keep getting an exception when starting the game. I think it is because I'm running small maps and have modded the game to always place all unique improvements, so the script runs out of regions to place them. Not a big deal but possibly you should put in a guard to keep the script running.

I'm keep getting an exception when starting the game. I think it is because I'm running small maps and have modded the game to always place all unique improvements, so the script runs out of regions to place them. Not a big deal but possibly you should put in a guard to keep the script running.

There is a very similiar one, telling you about running out of regions, if you try to play with too many civs on the map. It's easy to reproduce.

Yeah, there's a lot of convoluted code that puts one civ or world improvement per region. First it finds an available region with the right climate, then it finds an acceptable plot in that region only. I didn't realize people would play that way. I'll try to find a solution in a future version.

The problem at that point is that after the carefully crafted placement routine fails, what do I do with the rest of the civs or improvements? It's probably better to crash the map than to come up with some reeeally goofy half measure. :lol:

You just get Woodelf or P_L to design you a Unique Terrain, "Fighter's Cage Wall," and set all the extra Civs or improvements to spawn in one of the areas that was filled in with Mountains due to non-water-connection. Replace the border mountains of the region with the new Fighter's Cage, and you are set :p

When is the projected release date for the next version of creation?

Look at 0.33 Changelog, first page in the FFH2 main forum. ;) (so its not utterly unrealistic to assume that from now on erebus will be updated along with the main download / updates it think. But i guess it will still be available here as well.)

One question remains though: With the incorporation of creation.py into main FFH2 as erebus, will the variables be settable via dropdown menues (for climate, water level and more passages between regions) while setting up a custom game with said mapscript.
Any comment on that one Kael? Or Cephalo?

I've been trying hard to like this mapscript, but I find it more frustrating than playable. Since you left customization options in, however, if you can tell me what I could do about the following I'd probably enjoy it more - the overall idea is solid!

First, is there anything I can do to reduce the number of mid-region peaks?

Second, what setting would I need to alter in order to make the regions a little bit wider? I can often fit only one or two towns into one without overlap and it irks me.

I've been trying hard to like this mapscript, but I find it more frustrating than playable. Since you left customization options in, however, if you can tell me what I could do about the following I'd probably enjoy it more - the overall idea is solid!

First, is there anything I can do to reduce the number of mid-region peaks?

Second, what setting would I need to alter in order to make the regions a little bit wider? I can often fit only one or two towns into one without overlap and it irks me.

For mid region peaks there are two variables:
PeakChanceAtZero = .0
PeakChanceAtOne = .20

The idea is that you get more peaks as you get higher in altitude. Zero being the lowest altitude, One being the highest. Turn PeakChanceAtOne lower for fewer peaks in the middle of regions.

Region size is highly variable. You can have fewer regions, but while they will be larger on average, some will still be small, and others will be huge.
RegionsPerPlot = 0.009

One question remains though: With the incorporation of creation.py into main FFH2 as erebus, will the variables be settable via dropdown menues (for climate, water level and more passages between regions) while setting up a custom game with said mapscript.
Any comment on that one Kael? Or Cephalo?


Lemme give you an example that illustrates perfectly why I fear options. Look at the thread for Sto's "Full of resources" map script. He has made this very cool, separate user interface that gives easy access to probably over 200 different options for multiple kinds of map scripts. You would think that would be enough! But as I have been keeping up with the thread, the realization arises that the posts requesting new and different options keeps rolling in, and in fact the thirst for options can never be quenched!:rotfl:

I wanna grab Sto and say "For your own sanity man, just say no!" :lol:

For mid region peaks there are two variables:
PeakChanceAtZero = .0
PeakChanceAtOne = .20

The idea is that you get more peaks as you get higher in altitude. Zero being the lowest altitude, One being the highest. Turn PeakChanceAtOne lower for fewer peaks in the middle of regions.

Region size is highly variable. You can have fewer regions, but while they will be larger on average, some will still be small, and others will be huge.
RegionsPerPlot = 0.009

Tried it. Just smoothing out the interiors of the various valleys and things has made me a lot happier; didn't even have to fiddle with the RegionsPerPlot value. Thanks.

Regarding the options:

Still, not having any options (except for map size) is terrible! I absolutely don't get why you wont make the variables that you specifically list as modifiable at the top of your script (that's less than 20, right? so not much work at all and limiting the "cry for more options" in itself) into drop-down options.
You could just set 3 or 5 values for each in the drop-down and I bet that EVERYONE would be happy. Those that don't like the values can still edit the mapscript if they want to, but it's a real pain for those that aren't comfortable editing scripts. And for those that are, too, since it has to be done before loading FfH. :(

So, please, please think about it again, Cephalo. We'd all love you even more for that!

just having the 3-5 most important variables as options would make this script 1000% better, imo. ;)

Regarding the options:

Still, not having any options (except for map size) is terrible! I absolutely don't get why you wont make the variables that you specifically list as modifiable at the top of your script (that's less than 20, right? so not much work at all and limiting the "cry for more options" in itself) into drop-down options.
You could just set 3 or 5 values for each in the drop-down and I bet that EVERYONE would be happy. Those that don't like the values can still edit the mapscript if they want to, but it's a real pain for those that aren't comfortable editing scripts. And for those that are, too, since it has to be done before loading FfH. :(

So, please, please think about it again, Cephalo. We'd all love you even more for that!

Alright everyone, what options should be in the dropdown list? Be disciplined in your requests! I'd like to limit options strictly to things that a player would want to change from game to game. Things that are a matter of taste I prefer to leave in the script. I'd rather not have to come up with a scheme that saves options in a config file, and the more options you have the more that becomes needed. 3 or 4 options should be the most. I don't want option choice to be like homework for those who just like the default options.

I'm not entirely sure what your variables are in the script, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt.

First, an option for deciding the sizes of the region openings. I personally don't like when every region has a 1 tile bottleneck to it's neighbor region.

Maybe an option for X # of regions per player.

Maybe an option for water percentage on the map.

Maybe an option for average size of regions.

Can't think of anymore right now. Default settings should of course be whatever you have now.

Top of my head:

Sea Level
Peak Percentage

More size options, preferably explicit one. Small, Large, Huge; they tell me nothing about the actual size of the map, only their internal relation. And I often want something in between sizes.

To show complete ignorance in how it works:

Interconnectivity.

- By Sea
- By Land
- Mixed
- Not garanteed

Aka .. how can you reach the other players areas. But it is most likely not that easy.. so ignore. ;)

Its a great thing, as it is. But my wife wants 30-50% bigger regions.

Top of my head:
Sea Level
Peak Percentage

Exactly this!

Greyfox's options are already a bit (too?) advanced I'd guess...

@ Cephalo: :D
Never reach out to them with your small finger even... :p lest them ripping off your arm for it. ;)


But seeing the replies after your comment does give your point quite some serious credibility even if you did heed our nagging calls... :D (Which many will be very thankful for. Rest assured.)


I can understand that to a certain level but seriously have at least to agree that sea level, (average) climate and perhaps even Peak percentage (even though that last one radically alters the feel of the map and as you said the look to the negative so i can understand your strong dislike for that last one and wont use that for my part...) whould really add very much to an already outstanding mapscript.

I tried one game with lower sea level lately and it really adds alot to the experience / replayability of the script without changing the overall feel at all (as whould i belive climate. Though i can understand your dislike in regards to peaks as mentioned.)

The other things are in in the file and can be edited with some work, so you won't have put them in by force (also a comment via tooltip / at play now description pointing to the options in the file / the file itself might go a long way...). Just reply: You can change it in the file like you have done here a number of times.
But at least climate and sealevel are part and parcel of nearly all other map scripts and new players might be very much puzzled by those beeing greyed out.
With those 2 / 3 you whould cover the vast majority of players wanting some changibility.

I'll venture a guess and say many players who have not used or even heard of your mapscript will soon be very much confronted with it (even if half the players have tried it thats still very many who haven't). Soon the questions why there are no further options will come along quite in number.
The easy way to appease them and prevent such calls is to implement above 2 / 3 Options. The rest is marginal imo (and mostly players who whould want to customize further are indeed likely to know how to code so they might know how. At least after knowing how go ahead / where to look.).


So all in all that whould be about 3-5 options (listed all possibly needed imo by personal opinion of importance, decreasing):

Sea level (must have imo, biggest gain for replayability / tactics, no losses to the feel of the script really.)


Temperature
Humidity
Altitude (which is already adressed in the mapscipt itself, so it might be redundant and Highlands is always an option for maps with much more hills and intersections. :p)
those three add up to terrain conditions fair and square imo but temperature and humidity perhaps even combined in one dropdown (like climate) are by far more important than altitude imo if 4/5 options are to much.
(Although i could live without those since they are a small infringement on the feel of the mapscript already they whould add alot. Especially for builders of scenarioes and maps using your script as a base / perhaps even the team for ice a bit now that its part of the main mod :). Providing the rest of the community without having to fiddle with the mapscript file to much.)


Peak Percentage / Number of passages to other regions (i don't find that one particularly needed for me since i whould play another mapscript when i want a more open landscape. But overall interest is poised to be there and strong for that point so i list it.).


Perhaps let some players who edit the script here and there test and brainstorm what the options for the dropdwns could be after outlining what dropdown topics will be in. (with you giving the outlines which topics you will indeed opt in.) Im sure you will find enough volounteers heeding that call easiely.

Then you whould just have to take a short peek/test and put in the values the testers agee on thus spareing yourselves the work of testing hundreds of maps if thats too much fuss for your tastes.


Sea level testing has been done here some pages ago allready i reckon. But further testing surely won't be bad...


@ the ones who wan't bigger regions:
Thats done nicely allready by overall map-size. If you want bigger regions play bigger maps and change the number of competitors if thats to much AI running around for your tastes (large and huge offer valleys of considerable size. Enough for sometimes as much as 5 cities placed in good spots apart from each other in each valley. 3 for average starting regions mostly. In case of a "bad draw" just consider moving. The starting settler has good vision / movement for a reason.). With 0.33. FFH2 will speed up overall hopefully. So that shouldn't be a problem soon even for slower comps.

If your comps are to slow (even with the changes in 0.33) for anything above small perhaps really consider changeing it in the file itself as other things which offer an more suitable map for slower comps. (I don't think that is of large overall interest needed without modifying the file to be honest and it could really help you have a better gaming-experience in terms of speed as well so just a few compromises might be to few to help out.)

Perhaps another contributor besides cephalo can provide a more suitable file-setup (by linking their version of creation.py here)? Offering things like regions of large/huge-map scale / less mountain-space on the edges on small mapsizes among other things which enhance performance / playability and usable terrain for slower comps. That group won't be so big i reckon and have special needs. (But important enough to be adressed imo. Even though i think bothering cephalo with that might be a bit of a stretch. Its not his mapscripts fault after all that FFH2 has some performance issues on very large maps. And he even went out of his way and gave very detailed variables to customize.)

Here are my thoughts on some of the possible options mentioned so far:

Sea Level/amount of water. - This one I think is very useful. If you want to play as Lanun or against Lanun, it's nice to have plenty of coastal land, more than you might want playing a different civ maybe.

Peak percent. - I don't like this as an option because it's a matter of taste. Can someone give me a reason why you would want a game today with fewer peaks and a game tommorow with full peaks? The segmented nature of this script is kinda it's reason for existing. If you don't like that about it, their are other map scripts as has been mentioned that will probably serve you better. Also, without alot of peaks the map starts to look really bad because of the way the climate is divided by regions. If you're simply uncomfortable editing the map script, I will say that getting over that discomfort is the best solution for everyone. Set the appropriate variables how you like them once, rather than every game, and also then people who don't want to mess with that option don't have to be confronted with it.

Climate settings. - This one is doable, but currently the focus is to get all the diversity of climate that the game offers, from the dryest desert to the wettest jungle to the snowyest peaks for every map. When do you not want that? Is there a reason why you'd want to not have jungle or not have desert for one game, and then bring it back the next? I'd like to limit dropdown options to only things that should change from game to game, not general preferences.

My take on climate settings: As i stated i mostly see scenario-builders / modmodders getting a lot from that since some civs have strong preferences (like Doviello, Illians for cold or Malakim for dry terrain.) and i think its likely that in a certain civ-setup / religion-setup / custom settings a certain terrain is prefered (so for example a map where hippus are playing an important role in the storyline taking place in large steppes.) while still wanting the separated valleys which add alot to ffh2 gameplay.
Since your mapscript looks like a very good base for FFH 2 premade scenarioes i do consider that one an important point.

But players might wan't to use it as well since that makes a huge difference in gameplay (even with terraforming beeing rather readily available in FFH2). And at times a clear game roleplaying a certain situation / setup without a pre-made map might appeal. (giving the merits / feel of premade maps and still preserving the replayability of random maps is one big reason for that.)
And while scenario-builders / modmodders might really get down to handcrafting their maps in Worldbuilder you surely won't find many regular players who do that. So you deliver both goups with something they don't have acess to right now even with this outstanding mapscript.

So i very certainly see plenty of reasons not wanting to see the whole diversity but a certain focus for a map instead. (not so much completely ignoring certain terrains but giving the map an overall feel of beeing in a certain climate-zone / location mostly.)
Especially if one has played 10-20 maps on the usual diversity of climates already.
For example a jungle-heavy region if you want to play a game where the Bannor fight the Orcs near Labruscum or a Map with tundra, ice and plains mostly for a feel of beeing near Letum Frigus (hopefully spelled right by me... ;)).
Taking a peek at the scenarioes teasers in the scenarioes-screen gives a good inspiration of how the regions of Erebus could be like. (+ Keal could offer much more for sure if we bug him enough once we need it... :p)
If cutting off certain terrain more or less completely creates issues on map-generation (because of civ-placement / unique features) one could still let 1 or 2 small regions with such a terrain in without destroying the overall feel of a focused map.


If the options in that dropdown give a good description (like: Jungle Bassin / Taiga / Greath Desert or even more flashy / flavorful / fitting for FFH2) one could get fast what is meant by it (that clearly speaks for combining the climate settings in one dropdown.) so whould still be player friendly and with the normal settings getting a good and decriptive name you won't have players switch all the time. :p
+ it whould very much be possible to add other options to that category if someone comes up with a very solid and fun setup / climate settings even after you add them in the first place sharing them with the whole community. Possibly broadening the options over time.


So honestly i think the incentive to go non-diverse climatewise / landscapewise is even stronger with the world + background of Erebus / context + features of FFH 2 than in standart civ. (As can allready be seen in many recommendations to use different mapscripts from the regular continents / pangea in the FFH2 forums).


That said this one is the area that whould require the most playtesting on our behalf since thats really down to playing with many of the variables and testing out those games firsthand to create a good feel. And just doing that by looking at the code and guessing on your behalf is poised to lead to plenty of work and perhaps not so good results as extensive testing by the community.


To play the devils advocate on peaks: It changes gameplay alot so that might be one of the reasons even though it seems a bit unthematic and kills the looks.
And im sure you will get alot of calls for that one. Better adress that one before its gets overboard in the main forums. (The rest ill leave to those ones who really campaign for that setting since i can't really get any more warm on that one to really fight for it. Im sure enough people want that to make a stronger point than what i offer here.)

I've been trying to decide on any options I would regularly change, and the only thing I tend to tweak is to make the map wrap in the X & Y directions, and that is something I set and never change back, so wouldn't need an option for.


The one thing that does bug me sometimes, but I like at other times is how each region tends to be VERY heavily 1 terrain type. I wouldn't mind a "Realism" set of options. You can choose Blended Terrains (you'll get the occasional 1 plain tile and 1 desert tile sitting all alone in the middle of Grassland, or the checkerboard plains/Grassland), or Natural Terrains (what it is now).

Another small thing that bugs me sometimes is the sheer number of hills. They make sense because you are in a very mountainous area, but they sure to hamper gameplay in strange ways if you aren't dwarves. So something to allow you to soften the hill percentage would be more appealing in my eyes than softening the peak percentages.

The only reason I don't play this map is cause of the 1 tile bottlenecks, thats why I proposed that option.
What xienwolf said above too, and to adjust the sea level (tho this is not a must, there are other maps with more/less water so...).

If the options in that dropdown give a good description (like: Jungle Bassin / Taiga / Greath Desert or even more flashy / flavorful / fitting for FFH2) one could get fast what is meant by it (that clearly speaks for combining the climate settings in one dropdown.) so whould still be player friendly and with the normal settings getting a good and decriptive name you won't have players switch all the time.

Something like this might be fun, and I think not too hard to do.


The one thing that does bug me sometimes, but I like at other times is how each region tends to be VERY heavily 1 terrain type. I wouldn't mind a "Realism" set of options. You can choose Blended Terrains (you'll get the occasional 1 plain tile and 1 desert tile sitting all alone in the middle of Grassland, or the checkerboard plains/Grassland), or Natural Terrains (what it is now).

This stuff can be difficult. I really don't like the way some maps give you a nonsensicle random mix of terrains, so there has to be rules to govern the climate. How the rules work currently within a region is that the more water flowing through the nearby river also means that the altitude there is lower and moisture there is greater than the parts of the region near the headwaters. As for the different climates in each region, the surrounding mountains help to 'explain' visually why this region is plains and it's neighbor is forest. For more variation within a valley, it would be very challenging to come up with some new rules that always look believable and good. A great deal of thought has to go into that. I think that if you just try to randomize, it's just not going to be satisfying.


Another small thing that bugs me sometimes is the sheer number of hills. They make sense because you are in a very mountainous area, but they sure to hamper gameplay in strange ways if you aren't dwarves. So something to allow you to soften the hill percentage would be more appealing in my eyes than softening the peak percentages.

This is another 'taste' thing, and I have an easy solution for you. Find these tuning variables:
HillChanceAtZero = .15
HillChanceAtOne = .90

Zero being lowest altitude, One being highest. With a combination of these two, you should be able to get exactly what you're looking for.

Everyone is connected to everyone else via gates. However, if you are touching water the script considers that a gate, so in effect you cannot reach everyone by land. Perhaps if you could change it so that water cannot be considered a gate.

I suggest this because the map plays more like continents, where you will always have to go by sea at some point to reach everyone. I would prefer it if it played more like a inland sea/pangaea, where boats are completely optional in order to reach all the players.

Naval combat sucks and ferrying your army across the high seas is just too time consuming. I think if there was a section of code like in the highlands script that forces a path between all valleys it would improve the map for multiplayer. Maybe it could be a drop down options too since that's the current discussion.

That's actually a nice option. (Watergates on/off)

Last game I played I shared a continent with quite a few other Civs, but I was on a penisula and there was a string of 4 Mountains which cut me off from them completely. So I could spot them from a hill across the way, but couldn't reach anyone until I had some Naval power, which was not a tech line I had been inclined to chase otherwise :(

Everyone is connected to everyone else via gates. However, if you are touching water the script considers that a gate, so in effect you cannot reach everyone by land. Perhaps if you could change it so that water cannot be considered a gate.

I suggest this because the map plays more like continents, where you will always have to go by sea at some point to reach everyone. I would prefer it if it played more like a inland sea/pangaea, where boats are completely optional in order to reach all the players.

Naval combat sucks and ferrying your army across the high seas is just too time consuming. I think if there was a section of code like in the highlands script that forces a path between all valleys it would improve the map for multiplayer. Maybe it could be a drop down options too since that's the current discussion.

I just tested with low sealevel and it does adress this issue almost completely.
Thats why i campaign for it so hard. If 4 or 5 settings for the Sealevel dropdown is included you are virtually guaranteed not to be forced to naval with the lowest of those (if its really very low without breaking the script. I play a sort of inland-sea one at the moment with a low but not very low setting. And it allready feels like an all-land map.).
And it adresses a number of other issues. (Like generating lots of additional land. Enough for really putting the number of players up even on smaller maps. I play large with that setting and it feels like a huge map on a normal mapscript. That might be another good option for slower comps. Just ramp up the number of civs and lower the water-level + map size.)
you might still get the odd map in a perhaps hundred where that might be a problem (with one civ starting in a small seculed valley next to the small lake in the center) but i guess that might not be worth an extra dropdown (and even that might be ok in non-multiplayer or noncempetative multiplayer.).

As for naval combat sucking: That will perhaps be worked on in the near future via AI-improvement (if it will be adressed at all. Unless you have issues with it as a player and not because AI can't handle mainly. Which is understandable naturally.)

So if you want to test that right now before Cephalo updates the script / before 0.33. try going into the creation.py file and turning sealevel down (something like water level or simmilar). Its just one variable you have to change and very easy to understand + rather foolproof. The other settings are harder to find and modify to make them works solidly i reckon.

That's actually a nice option. (Watergates on/off)

Last game I played I shared a continent with quite a few other Civs, but I was on a penisula and there was a string of 4 Mountains which cut me off from them completely. So I could spot them from a hill across the way, but couldn't reach anyone until I had some Naval power, which was not a tech line I had been inclined to chase otherwise :(

That can be kindof rough, and I've also seen that the AI tends to choke on that set of circumstances. :lol:

That's definately something that should be optional in some way, although, It could be argued that then the seas, and the Lanun, would have almost no importance at all if the lands were guaranteed to be connected. I can understand why some people really don't like dealing with navies, so I should have a routine that optionally checks coastal peaks for possible hillification.:D

That can be kindof rough, and I've also seen that the AI tends to choke on that set of circumstances. :lol:

That's definately something that should be optional in some way, although, It could be argued that then the seas, and the Lanun, would have almost no importance at all if the lands were guaranteed to be connected. I can understand why some people really don't like dealing with navies, so I should have a routine that optionally checks coastal peaks for possible hillification.:D


I've noticed it in my current game too, it would definitely make the map script better. I do like valleys with bottlenecks, but a little variation in the number of those bottlenecks in each game will make it much more fun and replayable imho ;)

When U put option: more mountain gates (when I play, always have a terrain with one or maximum two gates -it made game a little boring to get only one or two ways diplomacy or war strategy )

When U put :more sea gates or some island will be great and more interesting

When U change sth with start position with variable numbers of civics on each map.When I start always about 30% of map are closed for anyone and when I choose more nation than usually on each kind of map size this terrain is homeless also and I have less terrain to build my empire.

When u do this Cephalo U will be Amatheon for me man :D

When U put option: more mountain gates (when I play, always have a terrain with one or maximum two gates -it made game a little boring to get only one or two ways diplomacy or war strategy )

When U put :more sea gates or some island will be great and more interesting
Agreed to first, agreed to second - very much!

Wow, you guys are trying to put me to work! I will try to experiment with some of these options, but I'm right in the middle of a new map script with a new climate model intended to replace PerfectWorld that will be the base for map scripts for both Colonization and BtS. I'm up to my ears in some complicated code right now, but when I get to a comfortable stopping point, I'll try to get this done.

Is this script working fine for the current version? FFH2 is updated quite often =).

Is this script working fine for the current version? FFH2 is updated quite often =).

Right now this version is the same as the 'Erebus' mapscript that comes with .33. It works pretty well... There are still some minor bugs I haven't tracked down yet. Soon I'll have a version with some basic pulldown options.

hey there cephalo, first of all thanx for giving us FFH2 freaks a map that fits the theme perfectly :D

it took a while to get used to all the enclosed valleys, but now I love it. although sometimes it makes you wish that you could actually have access to that lush frasslands valleys right next to your starting spot... while you're stuck in a desert :lol: but that's not important really.

what does look and play bad imho, is the peak-chains enclosing coasts... it looks bad and unrealistic and block you from 1) having quick access to the sea, something that's really important in this mapscript , and 2) accessing all those seafood resources right beyond those peaks :( . I really think that all the peakchains enclosing valleys are already more than enough and there's no need for mountains blocking coasts. Creation doesn't have lots of water on it anyway, so it would be a lot better imho if all the coasts you have are actually useful. furthermore, it would make ships and naval strategies a lot more worthwhile, which should add a deeper layer of strategy and therefore fun. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts about this, thanx in advance for your reply :)

See Sto's "Full of Resources" for a great front end with every map option you could want.

thanx for mentioning - would that work with the "peaks on coasts" issue mentioned above? :)

edit: checked it and it doesn't seem like full of resources includes the erebus mapscript, or am I doing something wrong here?

Everyone is connected to everyone else via gates. However, if you are touching water the script considers that a gate, so in effect you cannot reach everyone by land. Perhaps if you could change it so that water cannot be considered a gate.

I suggest this because the map plays more like continents, where you will always have to go by sea at some point to reach everyone. I would prefer it if it played more like a inland sea/pangaea, where boats are completely optional in order to reach all the players.

Naval combat sucks and ferrying your army across the high seas is just too time consuming. I think if there was a section of code like in the highlands script that forces a path between all valleys it would improve the map for multiplayer. Maybe it could be a drop down options too since that's the current discussion.

Those are the reasons why I sometimes end up using the world editor to change a few peaks to hills. Too bad I can't un-remember what I see in the world editor.

I would love a more/less Watergates option.

Gekko;7243669']hey there cephalo, first of all thanx for giving us FFH2 freaks a map that fits the theme perfectly :D

it took a while to get used to all the enclosed valleys, but now I love it. although sometimes it makes you wish that you could actually have access to that lush frasslands valleys right next to your starting spot... while you're stuck in a desert :lol: but that's not important really.

what does look and play bad imho, is the peak-chains enclosing coasts... it looks bad and unrealistic and block you from 1) having quick access to the sea, something that's really important in this mapscript , and 2) accessing all those seafood resources right beyond those peaks :( . I really think that all the peakchains enclosing valleys are already more than enough and there's no need for mountains blocking coasts. Creation doesn't have lots of water on it anyway, so it would be a lot better imho if all the coasts you have are actually useful. furthermore, it would make ships and naval strategies a lot more worthwhile, which should add a deeper layer of strategy and therefore fun. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts about this, thanx in advance for your reply :)

The reason that some valleys are separated from a neighboring sea by peaks is for fictional continuity, if you will... A valley with an altitude level of 3 or higher is actually on a plateau high above sea level. It takes a bit of imagination to see it that way though. The rule is that a valley that drains into the sea is at altitude level 1, the valley that drains into that is at altitude level 2, and the one that drains into that is at altitude level 3, etc. In order to explain why a valley next to the sea does not drain into that sea, I need it to be surrounded by something that would prevent that. Level 2 is surrounded by hills, providing access to the sea while explaining the alternate drainage route, but then I need something more for level 3 so you can 'see' the altitude difference. The only thing above hills is peaks, so to sell the illusion of greater altitude, I need peaks to differentiate level 2 from level 3.

So when you see a valley next to the sea that's all snowy and separated from the sea by peaks, think of it as a plateau that is several thousand feet above the sea level on top of sheer cliffs.

Those are the reasons why I sometimes end up using the world editor to change a few peaks to hills. Too bad I can't un-remember what I see in the world editor.

I would love a more/less Watergates option.

There is a tuning variable at the beginning of the script that will open up more gates between regions, if you get too crazy with it it will ruin the atmosphere of the map, but with some subtlety it will greatly increase the likelyhood that everything will be connected by land.

thanx for the reply cephalo :) for the next version of the mapscript it would be awesome to have a boolean value to easily turn off/on chains of peaks on coasts if that's not a lot of work for you. :D

Just a careful little question: have you already advanced in the next version of this nice script?

Thanks and keep up the awesomeness! ;)

It's migrated to the main mod/game. :)

Erebus(.py) is the mapscript you might like to chose if you like creation(.py). No need for an extra download and the most up to date version comes right with each new patch of FFH2 :). No need to wait... :)

Erm, still, it doesn't change just because there's a new FfH version coming out UNLESS cephalo creates a new version. And that's exactly what I was asking about. ;)

some more suggestions to improve THE mapscript for ffh : ;)

enclosed valleys are cool, but the map generator should make sure that there always is at least one passage to get the hell out of there by foot. we all know that the AI can't handle ships. I have a game going on where the scions spawned in a valley that had room for 2 cities only. they were on top for the first 100 turns or so. then I explored and realized that the valley they were in had no way out, 100% enclosed. and sure enough, they never set a settler on a ship to build a third city and after a while they were way below everyone else in score . so yeah, enclosed valleys are great and flavourful, but I think they should all have at least one "pass" between the mountains, otherwise tha AI is doomed :D

this could apply well to those regions that now get filled with peaks to make sure hyborem doesn't spawn there: instead of filling them with peaks, make the map generator open up a passage to the valley somewhere, so that there is more available land on the map to have fun with ;)

and I still think that all those peakchains on shores look bad. I'd LOVE an option to turn those off/on :)

about the enclosed area thingy: make it so that, if the valley's only exit is by water, the mountains directly linked to the water next to that valley are turned to hills.

Cephalo, the patch notes for 0.34 say that a new map script version is included.
What are the changes? :)

Cephalo, the patch notes for 0.34 say that a new map script version is included.
What are the changes? :)

Ah yes, I didn't update here yet because the new version won't work with .33

There is a new Marsh terrain.

I fixed a bug that created unreachable oceans in the map corner sometimes.

I created a drop down sea level option that also adjusts the map size to keep a similar amount of playing area. :eek:

I added a drop down climate option for arid, tropical, and cold options. :eek: I didn't know what to do with Rocky, so that one is ignored. This map is pretty darn rocky as it is. :D

Yipiyeah Cephalo! :)

What does sea level do if not increase/decrease the land area if lower/higher? Probably it affects the altitudes somehow I'd guess?
Is the temperature modifier effective on all areas in an equal manner (iE if cold is selected all deserts turn to plains, grass to tundra, tundra to snow -> the map is the same, just colder)?

Yeah, on high sea level altitude differences are smaller. It still works, but in my opinion it's a bit goofy. Low sea level looks better in that regard.

Climate modifiers just slide the thresholds for different terrains. There will still be deserts on a tropical map, but far fewer. Likewise there will still be jungle on an arid map. On a cold map the snow and ice will creep further out of the high altitude areas.

would it be possible to add an option dictating the connectedness of landmasses? No matter how much I tweak the settings (i'm no coder) I can't manage to get maps with all valleys connected via land.

seconded, this would be nice :)

i thought this was tied to the "peak percentage" option in the script (if i recall correctly). Lowering this should increase the amount of passages (just open it with notepad)

would it be possible to add an option dictating the connectedness of landmasses? No matter how much I tweak the settings (i'm no coder) I can't manage to get maps with all valleys connected via land.

I would have to come up with an algorithm to guarantee land connectedness. I can do that but it would not be trivial, and right now I don't have alot of time for modding unfortunately, so it might be a month or so.

awesome, thank you!

I've been looking around for some maps to try out, and this is certainly going to be the first one I attempt a match at out of the ones I downloaded...

Looks fantastic, really, and I can't wait for a chance at it. :goodjob:

I would have to come up with an algorithm to guarantee land connectedness. I can do that but it would not be trivial, and right now I don't have alot of time for modding unfortunately, so it might be a month or so.

Thanks a ton :)

I got a likely rather simple to code idea for the climate-dropdown:
largely nonforested (with more of those flatland grassland+plains valleys. Some valleys with forests for elves to spawn in naturally.).
(might even verify a drop-down from a players perspective but i don't think that would be worth the effort...)

Might appeal to quite a lot of players who hate going for bronze-working to be able to cut forests and dislike the mapscript precisely for that (the AI also has some issues with that part). Its rather hard to find good maps with separated areas but few vegetation. So there might be a real need / gain for that. (not that i would use it much but i read especially that point in the forums quite often...)

Since i doubt Kael will change the way chopping works so late in development (one can still hope but who knows?) of features that might be a good idea...

seconded, the AI has a real issue when it comes to heavily forested starts, and those are very common in Erebus :)

would it be possible to add a dropdown option to modify the average size of the valleys? I know it's a relatively change in the script, but most of us are scared of messing around with python files :) thanx in advance :goodjob:

Gekko;7379542']would it be possible to add a dropdown option to modify the average size of the valleys? I know it's a relatively change in the script, but most of us are scared of messing around with python files :) thanx in advance :goodjob:

No way mister. :D That's a one variable change and you can do it. One of the reasons I don't like dropdowns is that I believe people should not be afraid to get under the hood and technical. If you are worried about it, make a backup first, and then you can't hurt anything.

change the RegionsPerPlot variable to a higher number, and they will be smaller on average. Fewer valleys will obviously be larger on average.

I got a likely rather simple to code idea for the climate-dropdown:
largely nonforested (with more of those flatland grassland+plains valleys. Some valleys with forests for elves to spawn in naturally.).
(might even verify a drop-down from a players perspective but i don't think that would be worth the effort...)

Might appeal to quite a lot of players who hate going for bronze-working to be able to cut forests and dislike the mapscript precisely for that (the AI also has some issues with that part). Its rather hard to find good maps with separated areas but few vegetation. So there might be a real need / gain for that. (not that i would use it much but i read especially that point in the forums quite often...)

Since i doubt Kael will change the way chopping works so late in development (one can still hope but who knows?) of features that might be a good idea...

Right now that's not adjustable in the script, and it really should be. I'm not sure I'd want a dropdown for that, but a tuning variable would be very helpful with this issue.

Oh, i guess you might! have got my intention a bit wrong.
I think that overall the most useful thing to get it selectable whould be one option in! the existing climate-dropdown list whould be one that creates a much less forested one (can't come up with a really good sounding name right now though. Greath Plains like the name of the respective script just doesn't fit because of lots of hills. But I'm sure someone will come up with a good name if needed. In case of a map with less hills on the other hand i doubt that something like this is much needed. I rather like the balance / feel of that part...).

Thats one of the reasons why something like the climate-dropdown was very useful / important in the first place.
To have the players /community come up with settings that make a really decent play... In that case because its not at all right now you might figure out a good spot while testing. (If you include something like this, but it very much sounds like. In such case it also shouldn't create to much additional work on your behalf.).
Given time it might very well be, one day, that we'll have some 2-digit number of options under that category without all to much work on your behalf (just take the variables of players who have found a very nice set and you are set. :))

A dropdown in its own right might! be interesting purely from a players! perspective but it would definitely not be used all that intensively beyond that what a single option under climate would offer.
And thus fall under your understandable rule of not including fringe options beyond a variable...
For the rest a variable very likely should suffice...

But you can be sure that the option under climate for a much less forested map (save for some valleys for the elves) would be used quite often, given how much this is a point of complaint by some about the script...

But i might have gotten your reaction wrong in which case i guess we don't have much dissent. :)

this is still the only mapscript I play :D first of al I gotta say that it works great even with both wrappings set to true, so that's a good candidate for a dropdown option imho.

anyway, I gotta say that all those 1-tile-wide mountain chains look kinda weird. I think that if most of them were wider ( like 3/4 tiles wide ) they would look a lot more "natural" instead than walls meant to separate territories ;)

same with the chokepoints: too many 1-tile chokepoints right now imho. everyone loves them but it does kinda feel like they are being handed to you by the mapscript. I guess if they were made more rare and most passages between valleys were wider ( again, 3/4 tiles wide ) the map would look and play better ( btw, the AI does have an issue with pathfinding with chokepoints. most notable one is that if you block a chokepoint with a unit, the barbs stop targetting you cuz they can't find a patch leading to your cities :D )

these changes would make the maps look more like a fantasy world and less like a maze imho ;)

Use Orbi's mod, it moves chopping forests all the way up to Agriculture. Also it totally rebalances the flow of the game and the entire tech tree. But it's a good thing, trust me. :P

I've been ferreting around in the code trying to find some way of removing oceans/making them much smaller, but even cutting huge sections of the ocean generation code seems to have no effect. Any easy way of just totally disabling or drastically reducing ocean regions?

I've been ferreting around in the code trying to find some way of removing oceans/making them much smaller, but even cutting huge sections of the ocean generation code seems to have no effect. Any easy way of just totally disabling or drastically reducing ocean regions?

You need at least one ocean region on this map, so the climate generator knows what to do. To adjust ocean use the WaterRegionsPerPlot variable.