Civ designers know little about the Earth

[Bibor]

That's the most unclever of a sorry excuse i've seen so far.

It seems you fall into the same category. So let me give you a task. Civ 5 features base terrain that can have up to 2 total value of food and production. Everyhing else is treated as "terrain feature".

You are tasked on creating various types of terrain that give distinctive look on 3 continents. Base values are 2F, 1F1P and 2P and should make the bulk of the terrain.

Here are the "Firaxis" terrain values and names:

0F 0P desert, ice
1F 0P tundra
0F 1P -vacant-
1F 1P plains
2F 0P grassland
0F 2P hills

Lets see what you'll come up with.

 

[historix69]

Terrain in Civ5 is strongly influenced by terrain types defined in Civ1. I copied the descriptions of terrain and ressources from the Civ1 manual for your information.
Please note that Civ1 supported terraforming for certain terrain-types which was later abandoned in the series.

Spoiler :

(From the Civ1 manual)

"A brief description of the terrain types follows.

Arctic:
Frozen glaciers of ice and snow found near the north and south poles. No food, resources, or trade can be obtained here.

Desert:
Very dry region that can be developed to be marginally productive. There are some resources present that can be mined, food can be produced if the desert is irrigated, and roads generate some trade.

Forest:
These woodlands produce a modest mixture of food and resources. If more food production is needed in the area, they can be converted into Plains.

Grassland:
These open lands have especially thick topsoil making them excellent food producing areas. Food production can be increased by irrigation. Roughly half of the Grasslands also have some resources (shield symbol), making them excellent city sites. Grasslands may be converted into Forests for increased resource production.

Hills:
An area of rolling hills that offers easy access to minerals, sources of water, pastures, and some possibility for agriculture. When mined, Hills produce excellent resources. They also produce some food and can be irrigated if necessary. Irrigating Hills allows the irrigation to pass on to further squares that may be otherwise cut off from water.

Jungle:
These areas of rain forest and dense jungle produce relatively poor amounts of food and no resources. However, they can be made much more valuable by conversion into either Grasslands or Forest. For this reason, the longterm potential of a city site containing several Jungles is good.

Mountains:
This very rugged terrain can only produce a small amount of resources but this can be increased by mining. Mountains make the best defensive terrain, but the production is so low that they make a poor economic choice for the site of a city.

Ocean:
Oceans produce small amounts of food, but substantial trade. Only ships or aircraft can enter Oceans. Landlocked Oceans are really lakes but are treated like other Oceans in all respects.

Plains:
These open areas differ from Grasslands in having poorer soil but better resources of timber and minerals. They are poor food producers unless irrigated. Due to the presence of resources, they make good choices for city sites. Plains may be converted into Forests.

Rivers:
Rivers are great sites for starting cities and civilizations due to the richness of riverbank soils and natural trade routes for boats. However, only about half of the River squares have resources. Rivers are as good as Grasslands for producing food and always generate trade. River terrain may be irrigated to increase food production. It was no accident that the first civilizations sprang up along rivers.

Swamp:
These coastal wetlands and flooded interior lands produce only a small quantity of food. Like Jungles, however, they can be converted into Grasslands or Forest.

Tundra:
These sparse lands of permafrost produce only a small amount of food from grazing animals. There is no agriculture or use for irrigation. These areas cannot be converted to other terrain and make very poor city sites.


Special Resources
Special resources can occur in many terrain types and add significantly to the
economic value of the terrain. The location of these resources is marked by
distinct symbols that are uncovered as the map is explored. More detailed
information about special resources can be found on the Terrain Chart in the
Technical Supplement or under the entry for their base terrain in the Civilopedia.

A brief description of the special resources follows.

Coal (Hills):
Coal deposits represent rich locations of coal or metal ores. These areas produce greatly increased resources, especially when mined.

Fish (Ocean):
Fish represent the location of underwater banks and reefs where currents and nutrients create excellent fishing grounds. Fishing grounds produce increased amounts of food.

Game (Forest and Tundra):
The presence of game indicates excellent food sources available or the potential for good grazing. Game areas produce additional food. A Forest-Game square can be converted into a Horse square.

Gems (Jungle):
Gems indicate the presence of precious stones, ivory, spices, salt, or other valuable commodities. These are good trade items and, therefore, the square generates substantial trade. A Jungle-Gems square can be converted into a Grassland square and then a Forest-Game square.

Gold (Mountain):
Gold represents a bonanza of gold or silver. The value of these deposits produces tremendous trade.

Horses (Plains):
Horses represent an increase in resources due to the benefits of using domesticated animals such as the horse or oxen to do work. For all but the most recent periods of history, animals were an important source of lifting and pulling power. A Plains-Horses square can be converted into a Forest-Game square.

Oasis (Desert):
The oasis is a very fertile island in the desert that takes advantage of the presence of some water and rich local nutrients. The result is an area that produces substantial quantities of food.

Oil (Swamp):
Oil represents the presence of mineral wealth, especially petroleum. The result is a substantial quantity of resources. Oil resources cannot be improved by mining. A Swamp-Oil square may be converted into a Grasslands square and then a Forest-Game square.

Note: If you convert terrain containing a special resource into another terrain
type, the original special resource is lost. In some cases mentioned above, a new
special resource may appear in the new terrain."

 

[Drakarska]

Didn't Civ2 have it as well? Been so long since i've played it. And agree, I also really miss the terra-forming.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It seems you fall into the same category. So let me give you a task. Civ 5 features base terrain that can have up to 2 total value of food and production. Everyhing else is treated as "terrain feature".

You are tasked on creating various types of terrain that give distinctive look on 3 continents. Base values are 2F, 1F1P and 2P and should make the bulk of the terrain.

Here are the "Firaxis" terrain values and names:

0F 0P desert, ice
1F 0P tundra
0F 1P -vacant-
1F 1P plains
2F 0P grassland
0F 2P hills

Lets see what you'll come up with.

Well, you forgot the 2F 1P and 1F 2P, and gold.

Additionnally, you can make various improvements on various lands. For example, in Civ5 you can't farm on hills. (except if they are near a river) you can extend this idea in order to allow various worker actions on various terrains. For example, if you have a Savannah tile, you can have a little wood chop from it, and the farming last 1 turn longer. Things like that. You have a lot of possibilities. (like allowing choping in various wood areas, and not on other areas. That's why you can have "doublons" in outputs)

 

[Bibor]

Well, you forgot the 2F 1P and 1F 2P, and gold.

There is no base terrain that offers more than a total yield of 2. Riversides, marshes, oasis etc. are "features".

 

[Nevyn]

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.

Fallacy 1 - Some players assume that civ designers are illiterate in science for making a game and not a real world simulation.

Myth 0 - Those players all suffer from Asbergers and cannot drop the topic even after being informed that the game is not a real world simulation. Moderator Action: Such flaming is not appropriate for this forum.

Actually, they can!

 

[CoolLizy]

Didn't Civ2 have it as well? Been so long since i've played it. And agree, I also really miss the terra-forming.

It went up through Civ III. It was dropped starting in Civ IV because Soren Johnson didn't like the fact that it basically made every tile and terrain the same. I have to agree with him on this one.

 

[Naokaukodem]

There is no base terrain that offers more than a total yield of 2. Riversides, marshes, oasis etc. are "features".

Well I guess Savannah would be a "feature" of plains then. But you said it : "features".

Other way nothing prevents to give base tarrain more than 2 outputs of diverse sorts. And by it, increasing their number.

 

[Naokaukodem]

For variety, it's sensible to have a variety of starts. I agree though that this doesn't necessarily mean "every river desert flatland should be a flood plain" (in fact, that works against the variety since you might as well be on grasslands). If desert starts meant more gold or faith (in G+K), or defense against opponents that are not accustomed to desert, or a population that can adapt and generate more with less (while fertile starts create a "lazy" or even rebellious population), those could make up for a desert start, if done in a way that is easy to understand and strategically satisfying.

Currently, the quality of starts varies quite a bit, flood plains or not.

For variety of what, color ? If yes, you have color variety (less contrasted, granted) from plains and grass. If no, variety of what ? Outputs ? Then you have ice/toundra starts that could be challenging also. Outputs are what they are, 0/1/2 and nothing more. The geographical variety you have from starting in a no man's land near the pole or on the middle of the planet is not sharp enough IMO. By the way it's more interesting to begin near the poles. The role playing variety like playing Arabia ? As long as roleplay means anything in a game where pretty everything is determined by the difficulty mode.

 

[Disgustipated]

Personally, rather than having a forced game balance, I would prefer every game map to be unique, which would be helped by realism. There's nothing worse than every game being almost exactly the same, except with cosmetic differences. It makes things incredibly boring.

As people should know from my other posts, I'm a big promoter of realism in game in general for the same reason; I feel it makes Civilization more organic, and less mechanistic. It creates more variety, more complexity, more player choices, and more challenges.

More important than terrain types to me, though, has been the fact that Civ historically has had poor terrain generation, the maps it produces are much more featureless than what exists in the real world. There are no real things on Civ maps identifiable as peninsulas, ithimuses, bays, straights, etc., continents tend to be big "blobs". The end result is that the terrain has much less strategic value and strategic use than in the real world. I think figuring out a way to make this more realistic would improve the quality of gameplay.

This

I prefer variety as well. Perhaps it lessens the strategical side of the game. For pure strategy every civ should be equal in every respect. Like how in chess both sides are equal. But is that fun? Some people like pure strategy, but most of us like variety.

So what if some civs don't ever amount to much. They are in there for flavor.

Personally I'd like to see bigger maps that are playable without huge time in between turns. Then if you did get some useless terrain tiles, it wouldn't ruin your chances of victory.

 

[historix69]

Well I guess Savannah would be a "feature" of plains then.

I would prefer different tile-types for Plains (Prairie, Great Plains) and Savannah, even if they have the same look and yields. Special ressources as horses or elephants are usually tied to tile-types. A map-script or user-made map can place the plains and savannah tiles in correct location and random ressource-generation at game-start will place the correct ressources. No more elephants in Mongolia.

 

[IcyFrozen]

I expect their assigned resources to terrains typically/commonly associated to them for the purposes of gameplay. You know when you locate a large desert its liable to have incense and oil for example. Naturally any resource can generally be found anywhere, but the human mindset DOES associate certain terrains to particular resources based on where the majority of the particular resource has been found on earth. Ex. stereotypically when you think oil, you think Middle East and Texas.. although its found in other places, notable Canada and the Balkans.

 

[cain3456]

Wow. 50 posts and all you can talk about is unrealistic land tiles. How about the sea? All we get are coast and ocean. No Gulf Streams, no trade winds that were so important in Pirates!, no hurricanes, at least land combat is tactical due to various hill bonuses. Naval combat is a sad puppy in comparison.

 

[IcyFrozen]

Naval combat is being touched up in G&K and for some reason Civ has never included weather effects/disasters. I expect they feel that sudden events may disrupt strategies and feel too much like a random element. I would love to see them as an option though.

I would advocate Aquaculture being added in the Modern Era to create Fishfarms in Coastal tiles.. although I think at that point its kinda pointless to produce food.