Are there fewer strategic resources in younger worlds?
- Thread starter VladTepes
- Start date
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
No, older maps would have more erosion and thus less hilly terrain.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I think we're getting confused about old/young map and old/young world. A map is basically a picture. If someone has an old picture of you, it is you when you were younger. The picture is old, the subject is young. However in the game the map is the world.
Regardless, choosing 5 billion has more mountains/hills and choosing 3 billion has less
Superstate
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2013
- Messages
- 18
Here's a short code example from the ContinentsPlus.lua which says that the younger a world is, the bigger clusters of mountains in it, whereas the older it is, some of these clusters of mountains effectively turns into hills. In other words, a young world contains larger clusters of mountain ranges, an older world contains more clusters of hills.
quantum42 is correct in that as for the real world, while erosion and sliding tectonic plates will flatten out areas of land and certain mountain ranges, others rise. For example, Mt Everest is increasing in height by about an inch every year due to tectonic plates sliding up against eachother.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
OK this option was never really explained that well. Just looking at the option while setting up you wouldn't even know what it did.
So my understanding now is it affects whether there are peaks in the middle of high altitude terrain or just more hills.
Superstate
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2013
- Messages
- 18
I definitely agree that a simple tooltip explaining the differences would've been nice.
