AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
Well, do we want anything living in the far north anyways? all i remember in the books after the land north of the iron hills became all cold was mostly dragons
Middle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (octa)
- Thread starter Celeborn
- Start date
That Forodwaith argument is actually an excellent argument for not allowing roads in tundra at all.
Build a harbor.I think tundra should have 1 food or 1 shield, and that you only can do the other thing, i e if it has one food you can only mine it, for one bonus shield.
And I prefer mined tundra before irrigated.
MightyPunkass: Actually PCH has been smoking too much of that pipeweed
![[pimp]](/images/smilies/pimp.gif "Pimp [pimp]")
, Mithril is a luxury.
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
Mithril should be strategic in my mind, but oh well
And is Longbottom Leaf a luxury resource? Old Toby? ANYTHING?
And is Longbottom Leaf a luxury resource? Old Toby? ANYTHING?
Mithril as a strat can be a prereq for one or two units. Mithril as a lux can make your people happy, and be prereq for one or two units. We want it to be as important as possible.
Pipeweed is a lux.
Doesn't anyone read that first page summary?
tjedge1
Writer of writerly things
I do
I agree with Mithril as a luxury. How many armies did you really see all suited up in mithril. That would have been a really expensive army.
Really? Then I must say it's far more interesting being on my side of the spectrum
.
I see a great reason to compensate for it. It cannot be settled, in real life Tundra has less food than plains, hills and mountains. By making it give no food unless irrigated, we thus give a huge punishment to that terrain, although historically correct. In a random map I generated, there were 4 patches(3-6 squares consecutively) of tundra, and only 1 of these 4 patches had access to a lake or river. Giving tundra no food to start with, and have to be irrigated to do any good is quite realistic.
Your saying polar desert mingled with tundra should give as much food as plains? As much food as a hill? As much food as a forest?!?!? The irrigation idea is perfect. It doesnt mess up the stats much at all. And it proves that to get anything out of 0f, 0s, and 0c tundra, you will have to develop the land. Makes perfect sense to me.
Really poor terrain that gives as much food as a hill or forest
.
There were the Forodwaith, but thats not so much the point. I think a extremely cold terrain is necessary, and as this is for the random map, unavoidable. In most maps you will never get more than 10-20 squares of tundra.
No it represents the polar ice capsmrtn-
That Forodwaith argument is actually an excellent argument for not allowing roads in tundra at all.
.
A harbor wont make a damn difference since no cities can be built on tundra, and any city with 3 squares of tundra probably will have the other 9 squares filled with grassland\bonus grassland, hills, plains and forest
. Moreover, coast also give 2 commerce. Furs could represent both the food and commerce of the region, except for one undeniable fact. Tundra gets no resources except wolves, which damages the commerce and food output.I already said that I am saving this feature for my personal adaption of this MOD. And seeing as how most of you guys are going to vote for the original adaption of tundra (1f, 0s, 0c). But you better come to a vote quickly, we need to talk about the other terrains
. Were there any other things with the current settings terrain that we didnt discuss?
First Bonusss ressourceres arent as good as luxurrries, and now you single out pipeweeeed! Bigot! All resources are the sameee, maaaan!mrtn-
MightyPunkass: Actually PCH has been smoking too much of that pipeweed
Sounds good.
Ideas for basic "background info" entries:
1. The "Ages" of Middle-Earth in relation to the "Eras" in our mod. If I recall correctly, there isn't going to be a "First Age of the Sun = Era One" correspondence in the mod. Plus, people might ask what the heck was going on before there was a sun. Maybe...
2. The two great struggles, the Wars of the Jewels and the War of the Ring...I guess?
3. From there, I guess we could go into smaller events, like the Dagor Bragollath or the Great Winter when wolves invaded the Shire, or whatever.
4. I think the rest of the info (like "what's the difference between Angband and Angmar?") would come out in standard civilopedia entries, e.g. PRTO_Angmar or something.
Hmmm. I thought we could just rename the "desert.pcx" to "grassland.pcx," the "grassland.pcx" to "plains.pcx," and the "plains.pcx" to "desert.pcx" and then everything would be tickety boo. I didn't realise that the borders would get all buggered up as a result. That's no good.Originally posted by PCHighway
I like the idea of grasslands as floodplains, and your overall greener Middle-earth scheme. But Im not so sure we should change it so drastically. If we do so, it would be beyond the reach of someone to add their own terrain pack. Not to mention it would be a massive undertaking for a talented artist, as the entire 'transition' from, say grassland to desert, would have to be reversed? And then the question becomes, "to what end"? Why do we want grassland to look like desert
Maybe we should add a good resource, only available to floodplains?.
Plus, I always play with deserts unsettlable anyway, so that issue hadn't popped into mind. (Hadn't thought about players wanting to switch to their own terrain sets, either.) We want to allow deserts to be settlable in order for people like the Haradrim to survive, yes? Maybe then we could just strategically plant plains squares in the middle of deserts for them to settle on? But that wouldn't work for the random map, would it?
Plains should certainly not be green. Grasslands are green, and semi-arid plains DO exist in Middle-Earth (and they would be tan/brown dominant with grey/green undertones like most semi-arid plains). We'd just have to make sure Rohan was green, not tan like it was in the movie. Standard Civ (or regular Sn00py?) plains are just fine, I think.
Hmm, I would go for this if I could send my worker into a "Wilderland" tile and tell him to "clear forest" and when he's finished, a nice new tile of "Forest" would appear. But I don't think we can pull that off, unless we even go into more insane depths with our terain.pcx swapping.Originally posted by PCHighway
Its not so much to represent a forest, as to represent an desolate, untamed land. Think Mirkwood, then think Greenwood. The only place that was tamed in the darker Greenwood, was where the Elves were. This would thus be adequately represented by clearing wilderland. The idea behind wilderland isnt to be a dark forest, indeed my idea originally was to have a steppe like country, with a few thickets ([steppe-thicket]oxymoron, I know). But then embryodead had to bring up Snoopys great alterative forest, which is too good to pass up.
I've no problem with "steppe-thickets" (there are plenty of thickets in the steppes of my habitat -- that's where all the deer hide); "scrub" comes to mind. A wilderland with scattered cut-n-pasted Sn00py trees would be to my liking.
Would we be interested in distinguishing "sand desert" from "broken rock/scrubby/desert"? Sort of like the difference between the Sahara and the Mojave, mabye (or the Sahel?)? (Can a LM terrain be settlable, while it's corresponding vanilla terrain be unsettlable? Thataway, the scrub desert could be settlable, but not the sand desert.)
Re: Tundra
There aren't many roads in tundra. I think there's about 10km of roads in all of the territory of Nunavut, for example. Tundra's beatiful land, and it is rich and bountiful, if you know how to receive what it can give. Being civilized is typically being utterly ignorant of what an ecosystem can or cannot give; civ tries to force an ecosystem to "produce" more than it naturally gives. Hence the phenomenon of "marginal environments," such as tundra. Tundra is recalcitrant to civilization. I think one problem with roads is the permafrost (it's a major problem for building houses; you've got to drill through the permafrost to get a secure foundation, and then insulate the pilings so the permafrost doesn't melt...I think), and the same with roads I do believe. The "ice road" is a major phenomena in Northern Canadian trade; there is no wheeled transport available during the summers, because the ground is too soft for trucks. I think that's because the ground that thaws above the permafrost is pretty soft, though not quite as bad as muskeg, which you get in the taiga. (We are having a "Marsh" terrain, aren't we?)
So unless we have strategic or luxury resources in tundra, I don't think we'll need roads up there. Bonus resources we could just soup-up a little bit, then. Appologies if I haven't met all of PCH's points, but I'm not completely read-up on the tundra debate going on here.
Edit: looks like PCH was typing at the same time as me, just a lot faster than me. Hmm, now what do I say about this tundra thing?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Couple of points on tundra:
i) Normal tundra does indeed produce as much food as plains and forest, which is not entirely realistic. But unless one ups the amount of food a citizen eats per turn, it's simply not possible to have terribly much variation in food yields, and what's true of all those terrains is that they, in their natural form, produce too little food to sustain sizeable urban populations. The difference is that plains can be irrigated (which I take to represent any sort of intensive agricultural development) and forests chopped down; tundra is and remains what it is.
ii) You don't get polar desert mixed with tundra - polar desert is found where it's too cold and dry to have a tundra. But since there, outside of Antarctica, which is represented by a polar ice cap in the game, there's alot more tundra than polar desert, wherefore it seems most reasonable to base a terrain-type representing both on the former.
iii) Tundra being "marginal" has little to do with civilization not understanding its ecosystem. The biological production simply is quite low, and that's not going to change this side of substantial global warming.
iv) This is mainly aesthetical, but irrigated tundra just looks wrong! You shouldn't be able to do any agriculture there.
i) Normal tundra does indeed produce as much food as plains and forest, which is not entirely realistic. But unless one ups the amount of food a citizen eats per turn, it's simply not possible to have terribly much variation in food yields, and what's true of all those terrains is that they, in their natural form, produce too little food to sustain sizeable urban populations. The difference is that plains can be irrigated (which I take to represent any sort of intensive agricultural development) and forests chopped down; tundra is and remains what it is.
ii) You don't get polar desert mixed with tundra - polar desert is found where it's too cold and dry to have a tundra. But since there, outside of Antarctica, which is represented by a polar ice cap in the game, there's alot more tundra than polar desert, wherefore it seems most reasonable to base a terrain-type representing both on the former.
iii) Tundra being "marginal" has little to do with civilization not understanding its ecosystem. The biological production simply is quite low, and that's not going to change this side of substantial global warming.
iv) This is mainly aesthetical, but irrigated tundra just looks wrong! You shouldn't be able to do any agriculture there.
MightyPunkass
The Burninator!
You could briefly mention the creation of the world, the big music thing, where Melkor rebels against the big god...Uru I think his name is, know what I'm on about?
Anyway, I'll be starting work on the map for Beleriand tomorrow for my Silmarillion scenario...if you think it's good enough, I'm willing to share.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
You'd be thinking about The One; Eru.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Damn! Now I have to wallow in abject sadness for several minutes!
MightyPunkass
The Burninator!
Thanks for the corrections people
Hello guys,
Hmm, i leave for several days and get over 40 posts. good work!
my takes on the:
Terrain. I reccommend as few as possible changes from the regular civ3. the only one that i would really feel good with is dissallosing mining on grasslands and making planting forests both easier and earlier. therefore the main thing that would happen is that forests would be the main source of shields for cities. this is of course rather debatable.
Re: tundra. recommendation, just leave it like it is. it can never suupport cities of corse. however, we should still be able to plant forest on it. Therefore it would only be as good as the forest on top of it. this is the same as vanilla civ3..
Re terrain mods: I would reccommend no changes. perhaps a name change for jungle, but thats all. desert looks good for the ashlands. check what I did on my map. jungle I used for thick, "evil" forests, like mirkwood, the Dark Forest, the inner Reaches of Fangorgn. therefore, perhaps with a new name, I think that we can use all the original terrain types. I don't think that we should use, or even reccommend any terrain modpack, as that will just be something else for somebody to download. just leave it at that. however, perhaps Snoopy's wild trees would be good for jungle. that's my vote.
something else re: terrain. I think that there should be some way to acess ereas completely sorrounded by mountains, common on 3 billion maps. my reccommendation for this is to make a 2nd age worker that is not wheeled and available to all civs. the dwarves, and perhaps the orcs could have workers that aren't wheeleed even from the beginning. I'm also not sure, perhaps jungles should be acessible to wheeled.
Re: civilopedia. This is a good idea. However, it is a lot of work, and i recommend significant outsourcing. however, I will work, but it is better if somebody assigns somehitng.
PCH, didn't you say that you had some sketches of resource entries? if you post them I'll work on them and make them more LOTR compatible.
RRnut
Hmm, i leave for several days and get over 40 posts. good work!
my takes on the:
Terrain. I reccommend as few as possible changes from the regular civ3. the only one that i would really feel good with is dissallosing mining on grasslands and making planting forests both easier and earlier. therefore the main thing that would happen is that forests would be the main source of shields for cities. this is of course rather debatable.
Re: tundra. recommendation, just leave it like it is. it can never suupport cities of corse. however, we should still be able to plant forest on it. Therefore it would only be as good as the forest on top of it. this is the same as vanilla civ3..
Re terrain mods: I would reccommend no changes. perhaps a name change for jungle, but thats all. desert looks good for the ashlands. check what I did on my map. jungle I used for thick, "evil" forests, like mirkwood, the Dark Forest, the inner Reaches of Fangorgn. therefore, perhaps with a new name, I think that we can use all the original terrain types. I don't think that we should use, or even reccommend any terrain modpack, as that will just be something else for somebody to download. just leave it at that. however, perhaps Snoopy's wild trees would be good for jungle. that's my vote.
something else re: terrain. I think that there should be some way to acess ereas completely sorrounded by mountains, common on 3 billion maps. my reccommendation for this is to make a 2nd age worker that is not wheeled and available to all civs. the dwarves, and perhaps the orcs could have workers that aren't wheeleed even from the beginning. I'm also not sure, perhaps jungles should be acessible to wheeled.
Re: civilopedia. This is a good idea. However, it is a lot of work, and i recommend significant outsourcing. however, I will work, but it is better if somebody assigns somehitng.
PCH, didn't you say that you had some sketches of resource entries? if you post them I'll work on them and make them more LOTR compatible.
RRnut
embryodead
Caliph
That's one horrible idea
Original graphics don't look at all fantasy, while other do. Another thing is that all the landmarks made ie. wild trees, do not fit the original graphics at all. Desert good for ashlands??? 
For most people, visual aspect of the game is importnant. We have access to graphics, we can do more, so why leave the game with it's boring look?
tjedge1
Writer of writerly things
Originally posted by embryodead
That's one horrible idea
I second that motion.
Has anyone thought about maybe adding more terrain, like have both desert/ashland as one and change the landmark version to some kind of wasteland that produces more food for the interior of Mordor?
I've been trying to follow you guys on this topic, but I don't know if this has come up.
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
Pipeweed isn't precise enough for me
Similar threads
