Optimal climates

[civilizationfanatic2000]

These are the best to worst climates for building an agrarian culture, ordered. This is not definitive.

1. Humid Subtropical (Monsoon is better)
2. Mediterranean
3. Tropical Monsoon
4. Tropical Savanah
5. Semiarid
6. Oceanic
7. Continental
8. Subarctic
Wildcard. Cold/Hot desert with/without a river valley

The effects this would have for game play would be two fold.

1. Farms perform worse in colder climates with less sun. Also one must adapt crops to colder climates over time. To enhance this, food units should be concrete- measured in pounds of food produced per acre. It's impossible to farm in a subarctic or arctic climate pre industrial times.
2. It is harder to develop efficient farming technology. Your culture have less Desire.

If this is in Civ 7, how would you balance less 'optimal' climates?

 

[pokiehl]

I think this is sufficiently abstracted by the different terrain types, which are generated by map latitude.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I think this is sufficiently abstracted by the different terrain types, which are generated by map latitude.

no they aren't lol. According to Civ, Europe and Southern China are the same. Terrain types are just biomes, and simple ones at that.

It ignores most effects climates and biomes have on the development of civilizations. In a game that focuses on the development of civilization.

A gamified version of Koppen climates would take into account Buchi's climate list- and add a Sunlight mechanic.

 

[pokiehl]

I said “abstracted” and “sufficient.” I don’t think this level of extremely granular detail in the name of realism would serve the game well.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I said “abstracted” and “sufficient.” I don’t think this level of extremely granular detail in the name of realism would serve the game well.

I think it would. But we would need to test things out somehow.

 

[Evie]

Most of the meaningful difference between climate types that aren't covered by biomes tend to be things like specific seasonal breakdowns (eg, monsoon/Wet-dry cycles) that are on too narrow a time scale to be relevant in Civilization.

Moreover, excessive (starting) bonuses or penalties to food production would definitely be harmful to game play, creating far too wide a variance between civilizations as to make continuing to play pointless if you get the less good starts. This leaves us with a very narrow range of tile output that are actually workable without improvements, and therefore a narrow range of ways to differentiate between very optimal and less optimal areas.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

If this is in Civ 7, how would you balance less 'optimal' climates?

I don't think it belongs in the base game but I would like a mode that expanded the types and effects of climate. And the player should have a choice adapting to different types of climate.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Most of the meaningful difference between climate types that aren't covered by biomes tend to be things like specific seasonal breakdowns (eg, monsoon/Wet-dry cycles) that are on too narrow a time scale to be relevant in Civilization.

Moreover, excessive (starting) bonuses or penalties to food production would definitely be harmful to game play, creating far too wide a variance between civilizations as to make continuing to play pointless if you get the less good starts. This leaves us with a very narrow range of tile output that are actually workable without improvements, and therefore a narrow range of ways to differentiate between very optimal and less optimal areas.

You raise a fair point.

I think that there should be two options- Fun Climate variation and Realistic Climate variation. The former is the default, and acts as a slight nudge. If you live in a climate not so conductive to agriculture, you may invest more into pastures or fishing- which comes with its own variation.

The latter is as realistic as it can be. Western and Eastern European states managed to compete with Middle Eastern states despite the former having a worse climate than the latter (Oceanic/Continental vs Hot Desert with river valleys/Mediterranean).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Weather/climate, biome, terrain are only part of the equation of agricultural efficiency and productivity. Historically, botanical and technological advances have been far more important in increasing and maintaining yields in food and general agricultural product.

Starting early, the addition of simple flood/channel irrigation, the animal-drawn plow (even the light 'ard plow'), and then using milk from the animal doing the drawing (oxen/cattle) to produce cheese, all produced higher output and a better diet and distribution of food throughout the year. Later, genetic manipulation of plants to produce better yields, like the Song Dynasty discovery of rice varieties that grew fast enough to produce 2 harvests a year - direct result a relative Population Explosion in Song China. Likewise, the long-term development of relatively low-value plants into Maize and Potato in the Americas produced an agricultural system much more productive than anything in Europe: Colonial estimates were that the Native 'Three Sisters' planting of maize, squash and beans produced up to 6 Times more food per acre than a typical European grain field.

- And this huge difference occured in the same climate/biome, on similar fields in northeastern America. When transplanted to Europe, the Potato quickly became the crop of choice across northern Europe, and resulted in another Populatiopn Explosion in Ireland, Scandinavia, and Prussia in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Finally, the Mechanization of agriculture at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in another massive increase in productivity, using the same crops in the same biomes, but adding artificial mass-produced fertilizers (nitrates) and machinery to speed up planting and harvesting and general field preparation. In the Soviet Union, which invested huge resources into mechanizing her agriculture in the 1930s, including building massive Tractor Factories at Kharkov, Stalingrad and Chelyabinsk, the Germans who occupied the Ukrainian grainfields from 1941 to 1943 never got even a fourth of the pre-war production out of them - partly because they persecuted far too many of the farmers, but also because they didn't have the spare industrial capacity to build tractors for the farms and didn't have the fuel to run them if they had been able to produce them. The resulting De-mechanization accounted for at least half of the reduction in agricultural output. Germany's own agricultural base was almost entirely family farms with animal power in the 1930s, and as a result it accounted for almost 40% of the German work force, where at the same time the American farming sector accounted for less than 15% of their workforce - but was the most mechanized in the world.

IF the technological (botanical and mechanical) advances affecting agriculture were even semi-accurately modeled in the game it would be far more important in accurately depicting the changes in food production/output than trying to minutely model various climactic variations. The fact that it is now established that farming started not just in the Mesopotamian 'fertile crescent' and China, but also in north Africa, India, central and southern America, and southeast Asia in several very different physical/climate settings indicates that effective agriculture was not dependent on 'optimal' climate, biome, or weather.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Weather/climate, biome, terrain are only part of the equation of agricultural efficiency and productivity. Historically, botanical and technological advances have been far more important in increasing and maintaining yields in food and general agricultural product.

Starting early, the addition of simple flood/channel irrigation, the animal-drawn plow (even the light 'ard plow'), and then using milk from the animal doing the drawing (oxen/cattle) to produce cheese, all produced higher output and a better diet and distribution of food throughout the year. Later, genetic manipulation of plants to produce better yields, like the Song Dynasty discovery of rice varieties that grew fast enough to produce 2 harvests a year - direct result a relative Population Explosion in Song China. Likewise, the long-term development of relatively low-value plants into Maize and Potato in the Americas produced an agricultural system much more productive than anything in Europe: Colonial estimates were that the Native 'Three Sisters' planting of maize, squash and beans produced up to 6 Times more food per acre than a typical European grain field.

- And this huge difference occured in the same climate/biome, on similar fields in northeastern America. When transplanted to Europe, the Potato quickly became the crop of choice across northern Europe, and resulted in another Populatiopn Explosion in Ireland, Scandinavia, and Prussia in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Finally, the Mechanization of agriculture at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in another massive increase in productivity, using the same crops in the same biomes, but adding artificial mass-produced fertilizers (nitrates) and machinery to speed up planting and harvesting and general field preparation. In the Soviet Union, which invested huge resources into mechanizing her agriculture in the 1930s, including building massive Tractor Factories at Kharkov, Stalingrad and Chelyabinsk, the Germans who occupied the Ukrainian grainfields from 1941 to 1943 never got even a fourth of the pre-war production out of them - partly because they persecuted far too many of the farmers, but also because they didn't have the spare industrial capacity to build tractors for the farms and didn't have the fuel to run them if they had been able to produce them. The resulting De-mechanization accounted for at least half of the reduction in agricultural output. Germany's own agricultural base was almost entirely family farms with animal power in the 1930s, and as a result it accounted for almost 40% of the German work force, where at the same time the American farming sector accounted for less than 15% of their workforce - but was the most mechanized in the world.

IF the technological (botanical and mechanical) advances affecting agriculture were even semi-accurately modeled in the game it would be far more important in accurately depicting the changes in food production/output than trying to minutely model various climactic variations. The fact that it is now established that farming started not just in the Mesopotamian 'fertile crescent' and China, but also in north Africa, India, central and southern America, and southeast Asia in several very different physical/climate settings indicates that effective agriculture was not dependent on 'optimal' climate, biome, or weather.

Extremely useful post from Boris. Thanks.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I'm definitely in favour of introducing more biomes, if for no other reason than to prevent the map from looking too samey. As for direct mechanics, I feel like that'd apply more to in relation with world wonders, unique abilities, unit promotions etc, rather than base yields

 

[dagriggstar]

I've always found it weird that rainforest clears to become plains. Plains I've always imagined as drier grasslands or wetter desert, where agriculture is possible but doesn't produce as much food. So that makes me want to add savannah as a terrain type.
But the follow up problem is that if grassland is 2 food, plains 1 food 1 production, tundra 1 food, what are the yields for savannah ? 3 food seems too powerful (unless we say can't build improvements on savannah until later due to constant rain damage/flooding)....

I do think there should be an early game 'nomad camp/hut' improvement that gives you something like +1 food for every 3 adjacent unimproved tiles. Something you might build on tundra/desert/low yield tiles but not in higher yield areas where you get more for improving and working two adjacent tiles instead.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've always found it weird that rainforest clears to become plains.

I suspect this is to indicate that most rainforest soils are extremely poor, having had most of the nutrients leached out of them by the excessive plant growth. Basically, they can't provide the same amount of fertility for agriculture until they are Improved - which, apparently, the native Americans in the Amazon rainforest knew how to do but we are still trying to figure out exactly how they did it!

 

[BuchiTaton]

I am trying to arrange a terrain system that could represent a little better the diversity of biomes while it also keeps gameplay signifcance and it is easy to be learned. So this led to the next picture as the base example of this abstraction:

Spoiler [I][B]Terrain[/B][/I] :

View attachment 659737

Basically the climate is the main aspect and the biomes come from it, the three horizontal lines represent the range of temperature as cold, mild and warm, while the five vertical columns cover the average humidity/precipitation but since this determine the resulting vegetation the names are related to this as wasteland, scrubland, grassland, woodland and wetland. Technically each of the resulting 15 combinations represent a particular biome (as represented in the next table) BUT in game they do not need to have 15 names, the player just need to recognize the combination of temperature X vegetation (humidity).

Spoiler [B][I]Biomes[/I][/B] :

Temperature/Humidity	WASTELAND	SCRUBLAND	GRASSLAND	WOODLAND	WETLAND
COLD	Ice sheets	Tundra	Steppe	Taiga	Bog
MILD	Badlands	Maquis	Prairie	Temperate Forest	Swamp
WARM	Sand dunes	Xeric Shrubland	Savanna	Jungle	Mangrove

About the gameplay and yields some (preliminar) ideas to differentiate them are:
X) Temperature:

• COLD, +1 production. Represent the imperative necesity to build shelters to survive winter.
• MILD, +1 food and +1 production.
• WARM, +1 food. Histoircally even hot desert have been more densely populated than the taiga, that just recently is being urbanized.

Y) Vegetation (soil humidity):

• WASTELAND, 0 yield from true deserts. It can not built there (with some exceptions), neither be traversed (also subject of changes). Visually have no plants.
• SCRUBLAND, +1 food and +1 production. Kind of replaces the "hills" variant of terrain. Visually have bushes, some sparse trees and exposed rocks.
• GRASSLAND, +2 food. Visually is covered in tall grasses and some tiles could have also isolated trees.
• WOODLAND, +2 production. Reduce mobility. Visually is densely forested.
• WETLAND, +2 food. Reduce mobility and have negative appeal. Visually is flooded.

Z) Elevation (relief):

• HIGHLANDS, can have only cold biomes except bog.
• MIDLANDS, can have all biomes excluding wetlands.
• LOWLANDS, can have all biomes.
• SHALLOW WATERS, include coast and lakes, but each of these also have their own particularities.
• DEEP WATERS, in general all sea tiles also have differentiation of cold, mild and warm forms (visual, features and resources).

About elevations, the defensive value of CIV's traditional "hills" is replaced by a bonus to the units/building on the highground tile while the ones on the lowground have a penalty when a movement/attack action is done in contiguous tiles with different height. Also impassable cliffs are put in the border sides of those hexagons that have a difference of more than one height level between adjacent tiles.

Others features:
- Mountains, are basically impassable (some exceptions) visually taller than highlands. Bonus by proximity to science and culture.
- Rivers, this time are added to each tile instead of be borders, still have a defensive bonus with mobility penalty for land units, but are navigable and provide trade route bonus. Also add +2 food extra yield and housing but could suffer floods.
- Unique crops and domestic animals not only could be found in different combinations of these "terrains" but also new varieties can be breeded and propagated in them.

Here is my suggestion for a "terrain" system based in the combination of two main factors (some additional variables are also explained). With the table of combinations for three categories of temperature and five of humidity we get a clear systematic way to represent 15 biomes.
Also under this system we have different kinds of crops and livestocks that could have advanteges in different terrain variables/types. For example:
- Sorghum, scrubland/grassland + warm.
- Rice, woodland + warm/mild.
- Potato, grassland + mild/cold.
- Buffalo, wetland + warm/mild.
- Reindeer, scrubland/grassland/woodland + cold.
- Camel, scrubland + warm/mild/cold.
So as the game advance and civs get more crops and livestocks these can be used to improve the productivity of the different terrains.

 

[Evie]

I'd probably still remove the wastelands and have vegetation work out to arid/open/forested/flooded That streamline the arid to move sand dunes to hot/arid, scrubland to normal/arid, and tundra to cold/arid, which is much better than having the truly obscure maquis (a name more associated with Resistance group that terrain types) and xeric scrubland.

I'd on the other hand divide elevation into its own separate grid featuring ruggedness and elevation.

Ruggedness:
Flat: The region present a flat relief. Movement occurs at full speed. Roads are easier to build.
Rugged: The region present a hilly relief. Movement is slowed.
Broken: The region present rugged that form a significant obstacle to movement and exploration. Movement require moving between river tiles, or particular promotions.

These would combine with your elevation to provide

High Elevation: Plateau (Flat), Mountains (Rugged), Massif (Broken).
Medium Elevation: Tableland (Flat), Hills (Rugged), Badlands (Broken).
Low Elevation: Plain (Flat), Valley (Rugged), Canyon (Broken)
Shallow Elevation: Coast (Flat), Islets (Rugged), Reefs (Broken)
Deep Elevation: Sea (Flat), Seamounts (Rugged), N/A

Glaciers would be a tile modifier, that does make movement impossible, but that has normal terrain underneath (which can be exposed by glacier melt at various points in the game).

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

BuchiTalon and Evie provide good ideas. I'd add Sunlight.

The farther away from the equator, the less Sunlight you get. The less Sunlight you get, the less of a food bonus you get (It starts at +3 right at the equator and ends at 0 at the poles- everywhere else is +2 to +1). It also effects the skin color of units.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'd probably still remove the wastelands and have vegetation work out to arid/open/forested/flooded That streamline the arid to move sand dunes to hot/arid, scrubland to normal/arid, and tundra to cold/arid, which is much better than having the truly obscure maquis (a name more associated with Resistance group that terrain types) and xeric scrubland.

I'd on the other hand divide elevation into its own separate grid featuring ruggedness and elevation.

Ruggedness:
Flat: The region present a flat relief. Movement occurs at full speed. Roads are easier to build.
Rugged: The region present a hilly relief. Movement is slowed.
Broken: The region present rugged that form a significant obstacle to movement and exploration. Movement require moving between river tiles, or particular promotions.

These would combine with your elevation to provide

High Elevation: Plateau (Flat), Mountains (Rugged), Massif (Broken).
Medium Elevation: Tableland (Flat), Hills (Rugged), Badlands (Broken).
Low Elevation: Plain (Flat), Valley (Rugged), Canyon (Broken)
Shallow Elevation: Coast (Flat), Islets (Rugged), Reefs (Broken)
Deep Elevation: Sea (Flat), Seamounts (Rugged), N/A

Glaciers would be a tile modifier, that does make movement impossible, but that has normal terrain underneath (which can be exposed by glacier melt at various points in the game).

I think these alternatives are nice and valid, still let me explain some points.
The names inside are guides to understand what each of these combinations are supposed to represent, they are not mean to be in-game names that players would need to remember isolatedly. One reason for the two variables is for the players to recognize their bonus visually, so Wetland have clearly trees on water, Woodland is densely forested, Grassland tall grasses, Scrubland rocks and bushes and Wasteland is barren of vegetation. Then the temperature gradiant would be presented by a combination of colorations and tones (of soil/rocks and plants) and the kind of vegetation (conifers for cold, broadleaf for mild and palms for warm).
For wastelands this are not far from what are snow, ice, mountain or even deep sea already on game. We can still figure if these would be transversable or not, but I am of the idea that some (mostly) no usable and hindering tiles are needed for both gameplay and immersion.

About Maquis, this is supposed to represent Mediterranean Climate/Vegetation (of course not perfectly) but these enviroment where olives and wine thrive and some of the greatest civs developed well worth it to be represented as different to the grasslands of the Central Plains or the English countryside, and hills are not the only place with rock outcrops, many times plain but semi-arid areas allows to find minerals as good as hills.
Xeric Scrubland is another underated enviroment, not all cultures from arid regions are big river or oasis dwellers. Just to name some of the bigger like Aridoamerica, the Cerrado, the Sahel, southern Central Asia and inner Australia provided enough resources to live in a way it is not possible in the wasteland of the proper deserts.

 

[BuchiTaton]

So, here is an idea of the base yield for land biomes.

Then giving agriculture a significative role we can have Staple Crops as resources that improve the food yield in certain biomes, these appears naturaly but the players can also spread them to others cities. So which approach do you prefer a complex one like in the next tables:

Spoiler Staple Crops :

Or a straightfoward approach were each crop provide bonus to a whole category like this:

* Wheat, bonus to Grasslands.​

* Rice, bonus to Wetlands.​

* Maize, bonus to Mild climate.​

* Potato, bonus to Cold climate.​

* Cassava, bonus to Warm climate.​

* Sorghum, bonus to Shrublands.​

The first model is more "realistic" in terms of crop yield by biomes and the cumulative value of these terrains for gameplay. While the second is easier to memorize and reduce the difference between biomes yield. Anyway in both models when a crop is to be introduced to a city(or tile) it will be shown to the player both a small info display with the number of beneficed tiles at the same time that these tiles are highlighted on map, so the player would have clear information about the gains.

 

[Evie]

I'd keep it simple, as usual, so plan B. I'd also probably consider the bonuses from these crops to only apply on tiles where a farm is built. No farms, no large-scale agriculture.

How that all works in trade terms, I prefer not to even think about.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Yep, about the application of the bonus. It was my bad since the way I wrote it certainly sounds like it apply to unworked tiles. But the idea is to apply only for the improved tiles(farms) in the city where the crops is being introduced.

About trade Im not sure what is the problem. On this regard crops are similar to bonus resources in CIV6, mean to provide local yield bonus.