Civ designers know little about the Earth

[Elfdemon]

There are many bad designs in the game due to mis-conceptions, and the designers also have a lack of fundamental understanding of the Earth system, resulting in totally unrealitic maps.

Getting the terrain right is important because it is directly associated with civilization.

In this thread, I will address several myths and several mistakes, and leave the fundamental of earth system later (which is equally or more important).

Myth 1. Oil tend to spawn in desert, tundra, and marsh crazyeye.

Desert or tundra are no more likely to spawn oil than any other terrain. Just because the middle east happen to have large oil deposits, does not mean the terrain has something to do with abudance of oil. Same goes with tundra.

Rockfeller did not drill in desert, he became rich by drilling in grasslands, a terrain type that is forbidden to spawn oil in Civ5.

And seriously, marsh? wow just wow.

Myth 2. Flood plain

Just because a river flows through desert, does not make the terrain surrounding it "flood plain". And floodplain is not associated with deserts, the Nile being the only notable exception.

In civ3, the civilpedia says that the presence of a river brings the "fertile" soil of desert, thus making it productive. This is completely wrong. The Nile's fertile soil come from the Blue nile from Ethiopia highlands in East Africa, not the deserts in North Africa.

Myth 3. an older Earth produces smoother terrain

Wrong. The designers seem to be under the impression that erosion would "flatten" the terrain. Yes they do, but the earth is not dead. Mountains and hills are created all the time. There were no Himalayas when the dinosaurs roam, and each major earthquake in Wellington, New Zealand, rises the hills by many many inches, and that was how these hills formed in the first place, and that is how the current area of the CBD (urban Wellington) formed. The current CBD was under-sea when the Europeans first came, the 1855 earthquake lifted it into land.

In short, the designers have no idea how hills and mountains are formed.

Mistake 1. plains are more arid than grasslands

This is a total confusion of basic concepts. Plains refer to terrain that are relatively flat, and of low sea level. Grassland is a feature, it can be plains, it can also be on highland.

In short, plains is about "flatness" and altitude, grassland is about the vegetation. They are not muatually exclusive, not at all.

Mistake 2. Forests on tundra.

wow, do the designers know anything, i mean, anything about what tundra is? It is perma-frost soil, meaning the soil is permanently frozen, no tree can grow on tundra. NO TREE. Let alone forests.

Mistake 3. forests BEHIND tundra

If an area is too cold for the growth of trees, so cold that even the soil is permanently-frozen (tundra), then there certainly can be no forests if you go further north (assuming it's northern hemisphere). Yet, this thing happen in civ5....


There are more, but I'm stopping here. The civ designers are pretty much illiterate in science. Most of these mistakes can be avoided easily if they've done some basic research.

Anyone wish to point out more fallacies or myths you are welcome to post them.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Ah, ah, good ones.

definitely those games designers need a lesson.

There are more, but I'm stopping here.

Please go further !

 

[Optional]

Obviously with most things they've just been looking at game balance.
I think the developers very well know that their in-game reality of wheat in the desert but not on fertile (grassland) soil has nothing to do with the real world.
But they're making the same decisions here as with other aspects in the game. You can just as easily claim the developers know little about history.

It's okay to gather some examples of weird in-game topographical phenomenons, though, I'm sure we can find plenty.

 

[strijder20]

Mistake 2. Forests on tundra.

wow, do the designers know anything, i mean, anything about what tundra is? It is perma-frost soil, meaning the soil is permanently frozen, no tree can grow on tundra. N

I'm pretty sure 'tundra' in game is supposed to represent both taiga and tundra.

 

[Elfdemon]

Ah, ah, good ones.

definitely those games designers need a lesson.



Please go further !

Thanks. As I said, I haven't started writing anything about the fundamentals. Now I'm writing some.

Bascially, if you are given a fantasy planet, with random continents and topography (i.e flatness, mountains, hills), you can roughly work out the terrain type of the new planet.

When civ5 creates a new "random" map, I suppose it is assumed that the basic paramters are the same to the earth: e.g. rotation of west to east (huge difference if it's east to west), same tilted axis (which causes seasons), same atmosphere composition, etc. Practically another earth, just with different landmasses and topography.

Therefore, the new earth, follows the same physical rule that the true earth is under.

Example 1. the location of desert.

Because of the cold currents caused ultimately by the Coriolis effect (in turn caused by earth's west to east rotation), the western side of a continent tend to be more arid. Examples: southern africa (Namibia), south africa (peru), California, western Australia.

In civ5, this effect is not to be observed. Desert location seem to be pretty random.

For the same reason the Eastern side of continents tend to be wetter.

Example 2. The 30N desert zone

On 30N degree, the terrain is dominated by desert because of the high air pressure. Unless there are other sources of water, e.g. the monsoons in East Asia and India, the terrain would be very arid. e.g. Sahara, middle east, American west.

Of course, with Civ5 random map, we would expect the zone to be often other than 30N, but since there are always ice-caps in the poles just like the earth, I suppose it must exist, just not often in the same altitude on earth.

 

[Elfdemon]

I'm pretty sure 'tundra' in game is supposed to represent both taiga and tundra.

Then how do you explain the presence of forests BEHIND tundra with no forests on it.

You can't.

The designers simply don't know what tundra is. Heck, they probably have never heard of taiga. You are over-estimating them.

 

[Gedemon]

There are many bad designs in the game due to mis-conceptions, and the designers also have a lack of fundamental understanding of the Earth system, resulting in totally unrealitic maps.

Haaaa, the old realism vs gameplay debate again...

Civ is a game, not an earth simulator. But it can be modded, you can very simply apply your corrections and test them, and maybe release them, some people like more "realism" in their game (I do). But then you may find out that game designing is not so easy and sometime you've to make compromise to keep the game fun enough to play, and some choices are not made from ignorance but for gameplay.

 

[oliver]

I think they not all there facts but just do it because terminiolgy like plains are more commonly used than savannah or scrubland(what they mean). They also refer to public opinion fore most when you think of oil you think of a desert. It gives these otherwise weak terrains a strong boost.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Obviously with most things they've just been looking at game balance.
I think the developers very well know that their in-game reality of wheat in the desert but not on fertile (grassland) soil has nothing to do with the real world.
But they're making the same decisions here as with other aspects in the game. You can just as easily claim the developers know little about history.

I do not agree. I do think that most of the simple facts Elfdemon mentioned, there is a simple solution for gameplay. Maybe not for his last post, but for the first at least.

More, I believe that if developers cared more about realism, it could be very good for the game. For example, if they cared about plains that can't be put on the same level than grassland, we could have had more variety in the environment, and i don't see it as particularly difficult to implement nor play.

All in all I believe that reality is a great inspiration for game designer and particularly for Civilization ones. After all, if Sid have had this idea of a game, it's because he was pasionnated by History, which is reality as long as you prove me the contrary.

Gedemon : I don't think it's the debate gameplay VS reality, as mentioned above such an accuracy would not cost too much, and it would generate flavor.

 

[Glassmage]

If I want accurate Earth map I would play an Earth map...

 

[Gedemon]

Gedemon : I don't think it's the debate gameplay VS reality, as mentioned above such an accuracy would not cost too much, and it would generate flavor.

That will depend on how you implement it. I'm for more "realism", less "casual" gameplay, but there is always limits based on the core game mechanism.

for example, territory is gained near cities by culture, without incentive (smaller penalty compared to civ4, oil resources on those tiles only), why would someone put a city near desert or tundra ? That would make 1/3 or 1/4 of the map useless, with no ownership there even in late game. That could be counter-balanced with cheaper culture cost for desert/tundra tiles and raise city culture range, but it's just an example of the possible repercussions.

Now, again, I'm not against such changes, I was reacting to the OP's statement about ignorance where I see game design's choice (which are based on gameplay vs realism).

Maybe I was a bit early on that, but I see this thread going in the "how much realism can we add to the game before it stops to be fun playing ?"

But if you know some of my mods, you know I'm willing to test that
(and looking for ideas here...)

 

[Lone Wolf]

In short, plains is about "flatness" and altitude, grassland is about the vegetation. They are not muatually exclusive, not at all.

Rename to "Prairies" or something.

Then how do you explain the presence of forests BEHIND tundra with no forests on it.

I'd blame the map generators, which just sprinkle forests randomly.

 

[Optional]

I didn't say you couldn't make the Civ 5 worlds more realistic. I probably sounded quite non-appreciative of Elfdemon's post, but the only thing I don't agree with is the implication that the designers are ignorant. All of Elfdemon's observations are fine and I like the thread, but this tone towards the developers isn't needed.

In most cases I really don't care about making things more realistic, in some I do, it's probably a matter of taste. The wheat fields on deserts disturb me, the forests on tundra don't. If I see those forests on tundra, I'm just imagining it's Scandinavia or Canada or so; northern areas that aren't great for growing crops, are cold, but do have plenty of pine wood, so I don't take the term 'tundra' serious. Actually, that's what I would like to see in the game: pine wood. It's a bit strange that we have 4 different tile art sets, but we don't have pines.

Some things are more difficult to reflect in a game. Snow for example. It's a terrain in Civilization. We all know that's not what snow is. But on the time scale Civ 5 works, it's difficult to implement snow in the game the way it works in real life.

 

[Optional]

I'd blame the map generators, which just sprinkle forests randomly.

Not quite. A lot less forest appears on tundra, according to rules set in the feature generator. Rules can differ per map script as well. The script for 'Ice Age' determines that a lot more forest appears on tundra, and that the central areas of the map are emptier.

 

[prince_caspian]

Suppose Civ maps got a little real, so west sides of continents are arid. Then whoever in OCC got lucky thinking about wild wild west had better be careful because you gonna have real problems growing your pop!

 

[That nerdy kid]

Russia and Sweden are both well known for their cold weather forests. however, these are not tundra. Tundra represents the area just south of an ice cap.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Russia and Sweden are both well known for their cold weather forests. however, these are not tundra. Tundra represents the area just south of an ice cap.

Heh, obviously in Civ they represent cold weather forests too. I'm fine with that.

 

[PhilBowles]

There are many bad designs in the game due to mis-conceptions, and the designers also have a lack of fundamental understanding of the Earth system, resulting in totally unrealitic maps.

Getting the terrain right is important because it is directly associated with civilization.

In this thread, I will address several myths and several mistakes, and leave the fundamental of earth system later (which is equally or more important).

Myth 1. Oil tend to spawn in desert, tundra, and marsh crazyeye.

Is this a myth or just a game mechanic? Most of the resources can in reality be found in environments they aren't found in Civ games (although I concede there are very few areas where whales can be found on hills). Large quantities of gold are extracted from panning in lowland river systems; in Civ gold is only found in them thar hills. Civ IV and V restricted the tiles where resources can be found so that each resource is associated with roughly the same number of terrain types; from memory Civ III was less restrictive.

In game terms, the point of associating desirable strategic resources with otherwise undesirable land types is to promote trade-offs as well as, in this case, motives for long-term planning late-game expansion - in the early game when you don't need these resources you're not likely to want to settle in desert or tundra. You have to make a decision about whether to do the obvious thing and drain that marsh, or keep it around in case. Because by the time you tech to oil wells you usually reach a stage where you don't need oil-hungry units any more, so those terrestrial sources are valuable.

And seriously, marsh? wow just wow.

Look into the reason the level of the Louisiana bayous has dropped - America was tapping into oil deposits beneath the swamps for years. Criticising Civ for lack of realism is fine (and, let's face it, very easy), but you lose credibility if you aren't aware of the facts yourself.

Oil is derived from ancient fossil deposits - the terrestrial landscape changes much more rapidly, with the result that oil can be associated with practically any terrain type you see on the surface today.

Myth 2. Flood plain

Just because a river flows through desert, does not make the terrain surrounding it "flood plain". And floodplain is not associated with deserts, the Nile being the only notable exception.

No, regular flooding makes the terrain around it a floodplain, a formation characterised by regular silt deposition. As you point out, this can happen in deserts - the Nile may be the only "notable" example you're aware of, but then how many 'notable' rivers are you aware of in desert landscapes? Rivers like the Niger don't have few flood plains because they're in deserts, but because their source is in older rocks that don't break down readily into the fine sediment needed for siltation. And the Niger doesn't form flood plains either in its desert areas or non-desert areas.

Your own point above demonstrates there's no realism barrier to having flood plains in deserts; Civ maps are not world maps, and there's no reason for there to be only a small number of rivers with flood plains. I'd agree that not all rivers should automatically have flood plains along their length, but gamewise this is pretty much necessary to allow viable settlement in desert areas. More of a realism issue is the way Civ rivers start in the middle of nowhere, they don't need sources in hills or mountains.

Myth 3. an older Earth produces smoother terrain

Wrong. The designers seem to be under the impression that erosion would "flatten" the terrain. Yes they do, but the earth is not dead. Mountains and hills are created all the time.

But not in geologically dead areas that have no contact with the rest of the world. Australia has no ongoing tectonic activity, no vulcanism, and has been isolated from other landmasses since it drifted away from Gondwana - it hasn't actually collided with other landmasses, and hence formed new mountains, for much longer, perhaps not since the formation of Pangaea.

Imagine a world with widely-separated continents, or a pangaea that has existed for many millions of years by the time civilisation comes along. You'd have a planet that to its occupants looks like a world-wide Australia, in which there isn't a lot of evidence of recent geological activity. The geological timescale is very different from the human one; the Earth looks dynamic to us only because we happen to live in a period only a few million years after major continental reformation events like the collision of India with Eurasia and the subduction of the Nazca plate beneath South America. The more stable geology of Pangaea would probably have looked much more worn down over much of its area.

Mistake 2. Forests on tundra.

wow, do the designers know anything, i mean, anything about what tundra is? It is perma-frost soil, meaning the soil is permanently frozen, no tree can grow on tundra. NO TREE. Let alone forests.

As others have mentioned, Civ is too broad-brush to make a distinction between tundra and boreal forest. If forests were restricted to temperate and tropical tile types in Civ, you'd likely be among the first complaining that the boreal forest - the second-largest forest biome on Earth - is missing.

Mistake 3. forests BEHIND tundra

If an area is too cold for the growth of trees, so cold that even the soil is permanently-frozen (tundra), then there certainly can be no forests if you go further north (assuming it's northern hemisphere). Yet, this thing happen in civ5....

Civ V doesn't seem to have well-developed latitudinal zonation generally; I can run across jungle in random places as well that aren't necessarily equatorial (and can occasionally abut tundra). Since you mention it, I'm fairly sure previous Civ games handled this better (the same previous games that had mutually exclusive grasslands and plains and eroded older maps, even).

 

[Ajuga]

The real question is, does it negatively affect gameplay?
I tend to feel it does not, so there is no real need to change the terrain generation.

 

[historix69]

Thanks for this nice thread. I enjoy the discussion.

Here is a picture from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate to illustrate the discussion :

Spoiler :

The problem with all Civ-games is definetely that they stick to the original simple tile-set from Civ1 :
arctic, tundra, forest, grasland, plains, desert, jungle, swamp, river, hills, mountains.

There are different gradients :

from cold to warm : arctic, tundra, grasland, plains, desert
from wet to arid : swamp, grasland, plains, desert
from low to high altitude : (grasland, plains, ...), hills, mountains

Food yield in Civ-games is usually 0, 1, 2 Food + Bonus by Food ressources + Farm / Plantation Bonus depending on Science Level.
The base yield of 0, 1, 2 Food limits the number of tiles to 3 groups :
0 Food : arctic (too cold), desert (too dry)
1 Food : Forest, tundra (cold), plains (dry)
2 Food : Grasland
(Jungle depends on Civ version)

(Rivers and Coast gave 1 Trade-Point (for Science, Luxuries, Tax) in Civ1 which has been transformed to 1 Gold Coin in Civ5.)

For scientific climate classification see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification or in brief :

"The Köppen classification depends on average monthly values of temperature and precipitation. The most commonly used form of the Köppen classification has five primary types labeled A through E. These primary types are A, tropical; B, dry; C, mild mid-latitude; D, cold mid-latitude; and E, polar. The five primary classifications can be further divided into secondary classifications such as rain forest, monsoon, tropical savanna, humid subtropical, humid continental, oceanic climate, Mediterranean climate, steppe, subarctic climate, tundra, polar ice cap, and desert."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate)

For Forestry and Agriculture, soil / humus, water and insolation (solar energy) / temperature are most important factors. Solar energy per year (insolation) is corelated to latitude. A tile close to the pole will have much less solar energy per year compared with a tile close to equator. Therefore plants and trees close to the poles usually grow slower and stay smaller than plants near equator. So Forestry and Agriculture close to the poles in arctic or tundra climate is nonsense. (Remember tundra farms in Civ4 / Civ5.)

Temperature is more complicated since it is affected by latitude but also by altitude and distance to the ocean and other climate factors.

In Civ4 / Civ5 forest tiles all have the same yield, independent where on earth they are located. As mentioned, due to low insolation, boreal forests will grow smaller and more slowly and are not suited for forestry. You can chop them down once and then wait for a couple of hundred years to regenerate, but you usually can't use them for a permanent forestry.

Arctic, Tundra and Boreal Forests usually only support small populations, often nomads or hunter societies. Modern day outposts usually import all their food and supplies from friendly City States (joke).

Crops very much depend on soil, water and insolation.

- There is a certain high quality soil called black earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernozem found in Ukraine / Russia and Canada. I think this black earth is the reason why we find wheat in plains in Civilization.
- Plains in Civ originated probably from Great Plains in Northern America but also include all kind of medium arid, flat land as (cold) steppe in mongolia, plains, (dry) savanna (like serengeti in africa). Only in combination with good soil, water, appropriate latitude and the right temperature these plains are suited for agriculture. Usually plains or steppe are just used for nomadic animal husbandry.

In Civ late game farms are spreading water without limit, even into the desert. Due to lack of water ressources and high evaporation, this is unrealistic. Even a river or oasis should only support nearby tiles with water. There are farms operating with fossile water but these water reservoirs are limited and may be exhausted in a few years. Even today most of the deserts on earth are still deserts and no green paradise. Deserts are growing due to desertification which is mostly caused by Deforestation. (On the other side I heard that China was successfull in stopping desertification by planting millions of trees close to Peking. But this is just one exception to desertification.)

Land close to the equator usually has the potential to provide 3 crops (or more?) a year due to insolation if water and soil are sufficient. But usually soil in tropical regions is rare. The ground has only a small layer of fertile soil since most of the nutrients is located in the fast growing vegetation. If you cut down the vegetation (jungle), you usually get soilless ground which is exausted after a few years of farming. Civ transforms jungle tiles to plains which is a misleading simplification.

In general the jungle in Civ represents the tropical climate zone. If you cut down all the jungle, the tiles feature plains and grasland and can't be distinguished any more from tiles in other climate zones. (In Civ4 I modded the game so that jungle had not to be removed from tiles but allowed farms and plantations, etc..)