Geo Realism: Discussion on a new SDK based map generator

Ah ok. That makes more sense now.

http://wiki.openttd.org/Heightmap

stumbled onto this, wish we had terrain heights like in smacx that'd be awesome.

Sgtslick said:

http://wiki.openttd.org/Heightmap

stumbled onto this, wish we had terrain heights like in smacx that'd be awesome.

Click to expand...

It would be nice graphically. Unfortunately it wouldn't work well with a moddable game to have an entire map based on a single heightmap. There would need to be some way of streamlining the heightmaps into repeatable cells so that the terrain would be unbroken. In reality, this method is already used in Civ IV in a limited fashion. These types of heightmaps are used for the 4 basic plots (ocean, plains, hills, mountains). We talked about modifying these earlier in this thread but the 4 types are hard coded in the executable and cannot be changed .

Not to mention unit animations would ALL have to be redone based on the level the terrain is at (I think).

Naw... the height map itself adjusts the 0 on the Z value the units are recognizing, thus its the units flow over the height map at exactly the same height relative to the map's level. Changing the Z on the unit itself will cause it to levitate over the height map relative to the height map. You can see how this is working when you watch units cross mountains and hills, particularly easier to notice when you watch a flier like a gunship do so.

One overall heightmap? hmm... I wonder if we could somehow twist things to recognize THAT heightmap rather than the tiles themselves.

@Primem0ver:

I thought we had said that there wouldn't be a need to add more terrains. I was under the impression that this would merely be a new method of map generation using existing C2C terrains, features, and resources. I think that you should detail exactly you want to add in terms of terrain and features, because that can probably be done without any new terrains or features (or terrains that are actually features, like you have SAVANNA).

Thunderbrd said:

Naw... the height map itself adjusts the 0 on the Z value the units are recognizing, thus its the units flow over the height map at exactly the same height relative to the map's level. Changing the Z on the unit itself will cause it to levitate over the height map relative to the height map. You can see how this is working when you watch units cross mountains and hills, particularly easier to notice when you watch a flier like a gunship do so.

One overall heightmap? hmm... I wonder if we could somehow twist things to recognize THAT heightmap rather than the tiles themselves.

Click to expand...

That part is too hard coded in the exe to do much about it.

AIAndy said:

That part is too hard coded in the exe to do much about it.

Click to expand...

I figured as much.

ls612 said:

@Primem0ver:

I thought we had said that there wouldn't be a need to add more terrains. I was under the impression that this would merely be a new method of map generation using existing C2C terrains, features, and resources. I think that you should detail exactly you want to add in terms of terrain and features, because that can probably be done without any new terrains or features (or terrains that are actually features, like you have SAVANNA).

Click to expand...

No. Both you and Hydromancerx asked about this in consecutive posts in the Graphics thread and I responded with this post making it pretty clear that I was adding them. I said I was doing this for two reasons:

1. There is a bad balance between wet and dry terrains in C2C. We have nearly twice as many dry terrains when a majority of the biomes require wet terrains.
2. Adding these terrains makes it easier to avoid stacking needless new features, instead relying on the more versatile (and less graphics intensive) terrains, making multi-feature landscapes unnecessary (or at least keeping them to a minimum by removing the need to represent multiple plants such as "ferns" and "forest").

I am adding several wet terrains, two dry ones, and two neutral wet/dry ones. The current terrain list includes all terrains from C2C except the barren terrain (although I may add it back as stated in this post.) It also includes the following terrains from the "terrains mod" for the soil profile given in parentheses:

The following terrains from C2C (and terrains mod) have "double duty":
Tropical Rainforest (Modified to be a volcanic island terrain, wet)

These have been added as new terrains from the terrain mod:

• Temperate Steppe (as an cool arid steppe soil for BSk, dry)
• Arid Desert (as a hot steppe soil for BSh, dry)
• Sub Tropical Rainforest (for monsoon, wet)
• Temperate Broadleaf (A cool forest soil, wet)
• Sub-Tropical Dry (used for tropical rain forests, wet)
• Mediterranean (used for non-tropical rainforests. Depending on affect I may recolor or duplicate this terrain for use as a separate "Mediterranean rain-forest" as well, wet).
• Savannah (for savannah, mediterranean, and grassy mid-western plains, wet)
• Monsoon Forest (for a polar, slightly less productive grass soil, wet)
• Permafrost (for permafrost, neutral)
• Alpine tundra (for boreal forests, especially northern highlands, wet/dry)

<EDIT> The only soil terrains above that I am willing to consider removing (because they theoretically could be considered a bit redundant and can be begrudgingly replaced with a different terrain while still being pretty accurate are the "Subtropical Rainforest"/Monsoon soil terrain (replaced by the Mediterranean terrain/rainforest soil terrain), the "Monsoon forest"/"polar grass" soil terrain (replaced with grass), and the "Alpine Tundra" soil terrain (which, depending on circumstances could be replaced by the tundra, permafrost, or temperate forest soils) </EDIT>

Here is a picture of the terrains listed above:

I'm 1million% for everything you're doing here. It'll take some reevaluation for combat issues, yes, but otherwise, the maps are going to blend together much better and there will be the sense of realism you're shooting for I'm sure.

Please, however, consider how to make sure we don't get TOO much arctic landmass thanks to our squared off maps. That seems to be the big mistake I see map designers make at times. My only request is to try to make sure this has been appropriately mathematically accounted for.

I think that going through another set of new terrain and the issues that brings right now is a bad idea, and would distract from more pressing concerns. Especially considering the issues being brought up about us not having central focus, I think that adding a new set of terrains should not be done.

ls612 said:

I think that going through another set of new terrain and the issues that brings right now is a bad idea, and would distract from more pressing concerns. Especially considering the issues being brought up about us not having central focus, I think that adding a new set of terrains should not be done.

Click to expand...

This is not something that is going to be finished overnight. This project will take some time (my guess is 3-4 months) and I will not be adding the terrains to C2C until it is complete for BtS "vanilla". When I convert it to C2C I will care of the accommodation for the new terrains for animals (was always a part of the plan). The only additional thing that I am aware of (please let me know if this is incorrect). that will need to be "balanced" or adjusted is promotions. The AI shouldn't need adjusting since it makes judgements based on work, money, food values.

I realize there are "focus" issues but I can work at your pace. Personally, I think multi-maps should be secondary (or less) to all other focuses because it is such a major change to the game itself, the AI and all aspects of the interface. but that is someone else's pet project and/or worry. This mod is not that big of a change. Simply more of the same (except the engine itself and that is completely up to me).

I focused on this mod because people seemed to want me to focus on this more than anything else I have offered. SO requested that I work on this first and has confirmed that request in this thread (see above). If I am going to do this, I am going to do it right. It is all or nothing.

One other important thing I forgot to mention above. Several of these terrains need to be added anyway regardless of the extra graphics simply because the yields are different. So why not add the graphics as well?

Here are some nice diagrams ...





As you can see that elevation and latitude produce nearly identical biomes.

Thus I don't think we need a seperate alpine biome. However if you did the only reason could be for alpine specific species. However we do already have peaks so they double as a biome too.

ls612 said:

I think that going through another set of new terrain and the issues that brings right now is a bad idea, and would distract from more pressing concerns. Especially considering the issues being brought up about us not having central focus, I think that adding a new set of terrains should not be done.

Click to expand...

Why is it that any time someone wants to contribute something to our mod that adds an extra layer of detail and realism that you want to step up to say something against it? What I LOVE about this mod is how deeply intricate, complex, and specific it is.

You can't please everyone. At the origin of this mod was the idea to get as realistic and developed from every angle possible. We've never before been too concerned about the voices that complain we have an 'everything but the kitchen sink' mod because that's exactly what we're TRYING to do, which appeals to our target audience, those who WANT that!

What Prime here is trying to do is next to divine in its intention and intelligence and I'm really getting weary of hearing him getting flak for it. I was thrilled with the new terrains based on modern scientific categorizations and even more thrilled to think we'll be getting more detail along those lines, along with a map generator that works to create a 100% rational map, something I don't think we've ever seen in any game of civ.

Saying this is a bad idea is not just looking a gift horse in the mouth, its spitting on him, slapping him and cursing him for deigning to disrupt your original intentions with something better. Unlike myself, he's a top notch coder and I'm quite confident he'll be able to design a clean modification without need for an extensive audit.

@Hydromancerx

Cool! Thanks for the contribution! And yes... the GeoRealism mod takes the affect that height has on a biome into consideration (the reason for the highlands tags in the Biome file).

@Everyone

Thunderbrd said:

Why is it that any time someone wants to contribute something to our mod that adds an extra layer of detail and realism that you want to step up to say something against it? What I LOVE about this mod is how deeply intricate, complex, and specific it is....

Saying this is a bad idea is not just looking a gift horse in the mouth...

Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment Thunderbird but I also understand ls612's concern. Lets not turn this into an argument or make it personal. I can take what he said as an insult or I can take it as a legitimate concern. I chose the latter since I sense a focus that is too diversified as well. We do have a lot of pet projects and we need to decide which ones are priority. I was originally going to focus on underwater cities and invisibility. But people (including SO) wanted me to focus on this so I did.

Regardless of the lack of focus, two facts remain:

1. As good as the C2C terrains are, one cannot get complete realism with the limited number of wet ones (even if we are just looking at yield stats). So either we get it with the new terrains or we don't get it at all.
2. This mod does not require a lot of massive revisions (except for the mod itself). Especially when compared to some of the other things being worked on. So I see it as an exception to the "lack of focus" as long as you don't mind that I work on it as opposed to other things. It is simply more of the same. Yes... a few tags will need to be added to promotions but that is all that I know of.

@primem0ver

1. Will any of your new terrains involve terrain damage like the 3 polar and 3 arid terrains currently do?

2. What will be the names of all the terrains?

Hydromancerx said:

@primem0ver

1. Will any of your new terrains involve terrain damage like the 3 polar and 3 arid terrains currently do?

2. What will be the names of all the terrains?

Click to expand...

1. I am not familiar with the Terrain damage concept. Please fill me in.

2. The names are pretty arbitrary and can be changed. I am currently using names that are meaningful to me. But a simple "Replace All" can change that in an instant. So the names are subject to change. I don't mind renaming them to some of your suggestions when I am through with everything else.

Also: I haven't actually modified the terrain file yet. I will do that after I get the new files done. Then I will start on the actual engine.

In C2C buildings will also need to be adjusted. Some buildings can only be build if terrain type X is within the city's vicinity. Examples: the Leech Catcher requires marsh terrain, the Agave Plantation requires desert terrain, many of the wonders that provide cultures require a terrain - like Culture(Mongolian) requires plains or grassland (a pair that will probably need adjusting). You may need to change some, and others should probably a have their lists expanded to include some of the new terrains. There are over 90 instances of the "PrereqTerrain" tag in the building info files.

Resource (a.k.a. Bonus) placement frequently depends on terrains. Examples: Barley can be placed on grassland, plains, and also desert but only with a floodplain feature too. Corn can be placed on scrub, plains, and grassland.

Likewise if you plan to adjust the vegetation via new/different feature types, some buildings and resources have requirements for those too.

I would also like to point out that having 5 (or whatever) different terrains that are all 1 food, 1 production, 0 commerce (or whatever) is not incredibly interesting from anything other than a visual standpoint. From a gameplay perspective they are essentially identical except for any variations added by the allowed features and resources for each terrain type. Given the small range of numbers used for the base yields for terrain types (0-2 for food, except lush which you don't like and is 3, and 0-1 for production and only 0 for commerce unless next to a river, although you could probably get away with setting this to 1 for a terrain type or two), your options for things that make sense in that respect but do not make one wonder why there is yet another functionally identical terrain are rather limited. You can differentiate them with other factors like movement cost, defensive bonuses, whether or not you can found a city on it (or if you can but only if it has a river or is on the coast) and the build cost modifier and suchlike, but other than founding cities those are minor factors compared to the yields. For each new terrain type you might want to ask yourself "other than being a slightly different color, is this functionally any different in the game than the others?" If the answer is "yes", then that is good. If it is "no" then you may have a problem, especially if it is more than once, or maybe twice.

As it is, C2C has a little issue with this from dunes and desert being visually distinctive but functionally almost the same, although they are a little different: all of the features and bonuses that can appear on dunes can also appear on desert, but not the other way around - only 6 bonuses can be on dunes, but 37 can be on desert; desert give a defensive penalty but dunes does not; dunes require +50% work to build things and desert only +25%, and such. But then you have to consider salt flats are in the same general category of "terrain with no yields" and ice terrain is in that category too. Barren and Permafrost too. Well, now we are up to 6 of these yieldless terrains. 6 out of 20 (not considering terrains for the moon and such, or hills and peaks which are not really terrain types), another 6 of which are water making it 6 out of 14 land terrains that have no yield. It seems like this might be excessive... Similar groups of very similar terrains might exist in your scheme.

primem0ver said:

1. I am not familiar with the Terrain damage concept. Please fill me in.

2. The names are pretty arbitrary and can be changed. I am currently using names that are meaningful to me. But a simple "Replace All" can change that in an instant. So the names are subject to change. I don't mind renaming them to some of your suggestions when I am through with everything else.

Also: I haven't actually modified the terrain file yet. I will do that after I get the new files done. Then I will start on the actual engine.

Click to expand...

1. If you have the setting on terrains such as Desert or Tundra will damage your unit. Currently we have; Desert, Dunes, Salt Flats, Tundra, Permafrost and Ice that give terrain damage. Of which you can get a promotion for each one to allow you to be immune to terrain damage on that terrain. I was wondering since if you did have a new terrain that gave damage we would have to make a new promotion for it.

2. Well how many total terrains will you have then?

As it is, C2C has a little issue with this from dunes and desert being visually distinctive but functionally almost the same, although they are a little different: all of the features and bonuses that can appear on dunes can also appear on desert, but not the other way around - only 6 bonuses can be on dunes, but 37 can be on desert; desert give a defensive penalty but dunes does not; dunes require +50% work to build things and desert only +25%, and such. But then you have to consider salt flats are in the same general category of "terrain with no yields" and ice terrain is in that category too. Barren and Permafrost too. Well, now we are up to 6 of these yieldless terrains. 6 out of 20 (not considering terrains for the moon and such, or hills and peaks which are not really terrain types), another 6 of which are water making it 6 out of 14 land terrains that have no yield. It seems like this might be excessive... Similar groups of very similar terrains might exist in your scheme.

Click to expand...

Also the movement cost is slower on Dune and Ice.

- Ice = -4 Movement
- Dunes = -4 Movement
- Permafrost = -3 Movement
- Desert = -3 Movement
- Marsh = -3 Movement
- Tundra = -2 Movement
- Scrub = -2 Movement
- Rocky = -2 Movement
- Muddy = -2 Movement