Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
I think it probably would be fixed, else you'll gt fortified infantry "walking on water" 
Map for Rise of Asia
- Thread starter Blue Monkey
- Start date
You might try making the resource graphic look like a fish in a small pond. Then if the workers clear the wetlands it will not look so out of place. The way the landform graphics work in C3C is that grassland is the default under wetlands (marsh) global warming then turns them into plains. Coastal squares are basically water squares and can be used to simulate large rivers and lakes and are always found along coastlines. I am curious though if you require a resource that is found on a water tile "ie strategic resource" for a build doesn't it then need to be connected by a road? I would think it would work the same way as placing oil in water with the same inherent problems.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
Several resource/improvement combinations are set up this way in Anno Domini, for example. There doesn't need to be a road, AFAIK. It's a good way to limit improvements to particular cities. "Fish Ponds", as a pre-industrial resource, would seem to be the kind that couldn't be exported, anyway.
You really did not need to go through the trouble of posting a visual. I have used the flag required goods needs to be within city limits myself. I wish you could split it though where 1 resource is required in city radius and a second is not. Too bad the units do not work like the improvements. Granted you can make a unit spawning improvement, I just wish it could be done without autospawning.
againsttheflow
unpolitically uncorrect
Seconded on both accounts.
timerover, like I suggested on the other thread and BK on this, I think a water-looking pond resource would be your best bet. And just so I don't have to reread the thread, was all this for RoA or some other project?
timerover, like I suggested on the other thread and BK on this, I think a water-looking pond resource would be your best bet. And just so I don't have to reread the thread, was all this for RoA or some other project?
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
To sum up 24 posts: RoA is defunct. The map itself is finished (no resources). It's posted for anyone to make use of with any mod or scenario. Timerover51 wanted to add resources; including a resource allowing the construction of fish ponds to represent the widespread use of aquaculture in Asia.
timerover51
Deity
Basically, I was trying for a Fish Pond resource for the Rise of Asia map. I think that I will go with your suggestion for a fish pond looking resource that is triggered by a civilization advance, most likely engineering, and set them to appear in marsh terrain and along rivers, the river terrain will need to be preset.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
Try setting it to appear in Flood Plains.
I think it is good that there are still so many ideas for mods that have not been made yet. After so long, and so many mods and graphics, there are always new ideas. We have a very good collection of talent and ideas to match it.
I also wanted to ask you abouts your " playability " comment on map size. I was asking Jeffery why he cut up his map into so many parts, and also why he stopped making maps, and he said on first question "playability" and on second question he said that when he made the maps playable, people complained they were too small. So he couldn't win either way.
What do you think a "playable" map size is?
I also wanted to ask you abouts your " playability " comment on map size. I was asking Jeffery why he cut up his map into so many parts, and also why he stopped making maps, and he said on first question "playability" and on second question he said that when he made the maps playable, people complained they were too small. So he couldn't win either way.
What do you think a "playable" map size is?
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
This is a complex issue that probably deserves its own thread.
I take it as a compliment that you tracked down this thread to post your comment. Most of my posts about maps are contained in threads where scenarios are being designed. One of the key things I ask early on when someone wants a map is "how big do you want it?"
Briefly the larger the map the more cities, units, resources, etc. Every turn the game engine has to carry out multiple calculations for each element. "What cities are connected?" for example. This involves the question of access to resources. The game engines basically checks every possible combination of routes. When harbors can connect the trade network across vast stretches of water the number of route permutations can bog the game down.
Various scenario designers have tried different ways to cope with the limitations of a 10 year old game engine. Some techniques to improve turn times have been demonstrated to be useful. But it's always a trade off. Removing the ability of harbors to connect trade routes. Severely limiting where cities can be placed. Requiring key resources to be within city limits rather than through the trade network. Even shutting off some of the animations in the preferences helps. Those are just a few examples.
"Playability" is somewhat subjective. I like large maps. I can tolerate long between-turn times because I'm usually playing civ while doing something else between turns. I also expect to play a single game over the course of several sittings - maybe even a couple of weeks of playing a few hours every day. Other people don't find the wait time is worth the game. If it's not enjoyable people don't play.
"People complained ..." is very telling. It can get discouragingly lonely to work on something for a long time without support. As you've seen with your own cities there are always some who will denigrate your work. Those of us that keep creating despite that have learned to make what we find satisfying rather than having acclaim and popularity as our goal. A pm'd comment on this map meant far more to me than the number of votes it got in a poll. We learn to value more the comments of people whose work we respect. It's one way to spot the difference between a critique (suggestions for improvement) and criticism (expressing contempt). Whether they make the same kind of thing we do is not as important as appreciation of their work. Those tend to be the best people to ask for advice as well.
Some of that may seem a little off-topic. The point is to find your own definition of playability. Make a map you enjoy playing on. Make the units you want to use. Make the cities that improve how much you enjoy your own personal mod. If you do that there are likely to be others that enjoy them as well. Who knows? You may even be invited to create something for someone whose work inspires you.
When we create what we enjoy sometimes there are happy coincidences. I was already making the steampunk tech icons before I knew anyone was interested in a steampunk scenario. Joining their efforts has led to various stages of work on at least three completely different maps. Some of that involves a major effort to understand and apply the quirks of LM terrain. I took on the challenge to make the Rise of Asia map as my first major project in part to hone my skills for another (personal) project. I've been working on that epic mod about ancient India for quite a while. The research into South Asian geography & how to translate that into a playable map is now getting put to use by helping with the Asoka scenario. When I get back to work on my own more extensive map it will be the better for all those collaborations.
I take it as a compliment that you tracked down this thread to post your comment. Most of my posts about maps are contained in threads where scenarios are being designed. One of the key things I ask early on when someone wants a map is "how big do you want it?"
Briefly the larger the map the more cities, units, resources, etc. Every turn the game engine has to carry out multiple calculations for each element. "What cities are connected?" for example. This involves the question of access to resources. The game engines basically checks every possible combination of routes. When harbors can connect the trade network across vast stretches of water the number of route permutations can bog the game down.
Various scenario designers have tried different ways to cope with the limitations of a 10 year old game engine. Some techniques to improve turn times have been demonstrated to be useful. But it's always a trade off. Removing the ability of harbors to connect trade routes. Severely limiting where cities can be placed. Requiring key resources to be within city limits rather than through the trade network. Even shutting off some of the animations in the preferences helps. Those are just a few examples.
"Playability" is somewhat subjective. I like large maps. I can tolerate long between-turn times because I'm usually playing civ while doing something else between turns. I also expect to play a single game over the course of several sittings - maybe even a couple of weeks of playing a few hours every day. Other people don't find the wait time is worth the game. If it's not enjoyable people don't play.
"People complained ..." is very telling. It can get discouragingly lonely to work on something for a long time without support. As you've seen with your own cities there are always some who will denigrate your work. Those of us that keep creating despite that have learned to make what we find satisfying rather than having acclaim and popularity as our goal. A pm'd comment on this map meant far more to me than the number of votes it got in a poll. We learn to value more the comments of people whose work we respect. It's one way to spot the difference between a critique (suggestions for improvement) and criticism (expressing contempt). Whether they make the same kind of thing we do is not as important as appreciation of their work. Those tend to be the best people to ask for advice as well.
Some of that may seem a little off-topic. The point is to find your own definition of playability. Make a map you enjoy playing on. Make the units you want to use. Make the cities that improve how much you enjoy your own personal mod. If you do that there are likely to be others that enjoy them as well. Who knows? You may even be invited to create something for someone whose work inspires you.
When we create what we enjoy sometimes there are happy coincidences. I was already making the steampunk tech icons before I knew anyone was interested in a steampunk scenario. Joining their efforts has led to various stages of work on at least three completely different maps. Some of that involves a major effort to understand and apply the quirks of LM terrain. I took on the challenge to make the Rise of Asia map as my first major project in part to hone my skills for another (personal) project. I've been working on that epic mod about ancient India for quite a while. The research into South Asian geography & how to translate that into a playable map is now getting put to use by helping with the Asoka scenario. When I get back to work on my own more extensive map it will be the better for all those collaborations.
