Communitas map script

[Ahriman]

Right, they're good for gameplay, I don't think we should remove them, it's just something for a very longterm wishlist.

 

[Anastase Alex]

@Thal: I do not under-valuate deserts starts, but it just happened that my last 2 games had been desert starts, so when I loaded the game with France three times in a row and got a desert start each time again it seemed a bit strange. But I guess it is just dumb luck. The maps a re great otherwise.

 

[Qwynn]

Oh no, I think you misunderstand. Having them in the island chains looks great, and a few offshore of larger landmasses is also great.

I'm just getting so many of them. It's probably because I tend to get maps that have chains linking larger landmasses which then have more chains, and the atoll just piles up. Maybe a slight reduction would be in order? Or at least an easy way to tweak them in the script itself. I tried playing with the atoll settings in the lua, but it seemed to have no effect. :<

Also, I seem to be getting a lot of inland oceans. Are they supposed to be lakes, or?

Screenshots in the spoiler.

Maybe just 15% less?

Spoiler :

And by the icecaps. :<

Spoiler :

And then inland oceans rather than lakes. I know the AI bugs out on those.

Spoiler :

 

[stackpointer]

I'm just getting so many of them. It's probably because I tend to get maps that have chains linking larger landmasses which then have more chains, and the atoll just piles up. Maybe a slight reduction would be in order? Or at least an easy way to tweak them in the script itself. I tried playing with the atoll settings in the lua, but it seemed to have no effect. :<

Which atoll function are you modifying? The Communitas mapscript has two and one of them (PlacePossibleAtoll) is a legacy function and is never used.

EDIT: And I just checked, the code you want is at line 4688:

	local atoll_target = numCoast * 0.10

You want to lower the multiplier at the end there.

 

[Qwynn]

Which atoll function are you modifying? The Communitas mapscript has two and one of them (PlacePossibleAtoll) is a legacy function and is never used.

EDIT: And I just checked, the code you want is at line 4688:

	local atoll_target = numCoast * 0.10

You want to lower the multiplier at the end there.

Great, I'll give that a try. Thank you.

 

[Zeppelin4]

I'm using your map only and playing Portugal. It starts me on the coast every time which is good. The problem is the water is empty of resources after 7 restarts. I'm either getting very unlucky or maybe it has something to do with the map. If I'm going to start on the coast it should at least give me one special resource don't you think?

Update: My eighth time I got one fish.

 

[Brannock]

Given the number of lakes in the new map script, will there be any issues with Great Admirals spawning in a lake? Is there a check to confirm that Great Admirals can access the ocean when they spawn?

 

[Tomice]

It's fantastic how the map is devoloping! Great work, Thal! Especially how "terra" finally develops into a mode worth playing.

There's one thing we have to keep an eye on IMHO:

Citystates mostly appear off the main continent.

I've checked the lua code and it seems like 75% of the city states are in "the new world" while only 25% are in "Eurasia". I'm not sure if that's an ideal distribution.

I've tried Terra quite a few times before giving it up due to dissappointment with the unfinished state of the concept in vanilla. What I found frustrating about the midgame settling wave that should be the main attraction of Terra maps:

1. Almost every (luxury) ressource is available in the old world already - no need to found new cities to grab exotic luxuries!
2. Most good spots in the new world blocked by city states.

With the map distribution assigning only 30% of the landmass as new world and much of the space occupied by CS's, we might be discouraged from founding new cities. Or in other words: We might have enough space in the old world to never feel the need to settle offshore.

I know that we could easily change a variable in the lua code (thanks for the awesome documentation inside the file!) to adapt this, I just wanted to share my experience.

I'll try to create a few games with various settings and see how it turns out.
_____________________________

@Brannock:

I agree small inland oceans are problematic. But it's very simple to change the maximum number of tiles seen as lake, I think it's 10 in vanilla. Changing it to 20 or so shoud avoid many problems, especially regarding the AI (guess they wouldn't build ships on a lake, if that's even possible).
I don't think changing this should disturb the balance much. We would have to think about lighthouses and lakes, however.

 

[Thalassicus]

I can make inland seas connect to oceans. It shouldn't be too hard. Lake cities can't build ships so this should only be necessary for seas. A lake is any body of water of size 1-9. I don't think maps can change what counts as a lake. The vanilla game dynamically assigns water to lake or ocean status, and that status changes if we alter the size of the body of water ingame with a tool like the tuner.

Lighthouses don't affect lakes anymore in BNW. Lakes have unchanging yields (with the exception of Aztec Chinampas).


@Qwynn
I reduced the isle frequency by 20% for the next version. I like to think of them as generic small islands, but they do have the graphics of an atoll, so I will add a check to prevent them from appearing next to ice or snow. I will add extra fish to those regions instead.

@Zeppelin4
This map currently uses standard vanilla placement of coastal resources. I can override that so coastal civs get more sea resources than vanilla normally creates.

@Tomice
25% of citystates appear in uninhabited territories with the terra option, not 25% in the old world. This is very different. If the biggest continent has 12 territories in an 8 player game, it gets half the citystates. I will generate a terra map to show more.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't think "settling the new world for luxuries" is ever going to be appealing in the Civ5 engine.

In Civ3 or Civ4, there was a lot of value in getting a new luxury, since it would help all your existing cities. So it really made sense to try to colonize a new world. But in Civ5, a new luxury only gives you a few points of happiness, and founding the new city itself consumes a few points of happiness, so founding a new colony is never going to give a net happiness increase.

Yes, new luxuries makes you slightly more likely to want to pick a location for a new colony, but it doesn't do much to encourage you to build a new city if you didn't already want a new city.

Civ5 mechanics just don't work so well for the Terra script.

But it's very simple to change the maximum number of tiles seen as lake, I think it's 10 in vanilla. Changing it to 20 or so shoud avoid many problems

I do not think we want 15+ tile lakes (which all give 3 food). If anything I think we have slightly too many lakes in the script at the moment. If there is a huge inland sea, we're probably better off changing a land tile to water so as to open the inland sea to the rest of the ocean, so we can have Black Sea/Mediterranean Sea type features with choke points.

*edit* Ninja'ed:

I can make inland seas connect to oceans.

Yes please!

 

[Tomice]

A lake is any body of water of size 1-9. I don't think maps can change what counts as a lake.

		<Row Name="LAKE_MAX_AREA_SIZE">
			<Value>9</Value>
		</Row>

It's in GlobalDefines.xml. You mean you can't change this setting in the standalone version?

Agree that connecting isolated medium-sized bodies of water to the main ocean might be the better solution.



@Ahriman:
You're probably right. But a different ressource-distribution could surely make terra games more interesting. And don't forget: If we are the only civ with access to an exotic ressource, we'll earn a load of money from trading it (If we have multiple copies).

 

[mitsho]

Creating the Mediterranean Sea? Yes, sir!

I've started one game so far and in that, Natural Wonders were quite easy to get, though that may be connected to the expansionism issue.

I'd leave Terra balance for later on, but I'd like to see it as well

 

[shaken]

But in Civ5, a new luxury only gives you a few points of happiness, and founding the new city itself consumes a few points of happiness, so founding a new colony is never going to give a net happiness increase.

Not commenting on the Terra problems, but this isn't true. Founding a new city is -3 happiness, the luxury resource would give +4 happiness, so there is a net benefit almost immediately. If you get multiple copies of that new resource, they could be traded for other luxuries you don't have, given an even bigger net benefit.

Though... that is in base game. It has been a while since I've played with the Communitas mod itself (waiting for it to stabilize for BNW), so I forget if there were changes made to the luxury happiness in Communitas that would affect this.

 

[Qwynn]

Connecting inland seas to the ocean is a great idea, both for chokepoints and for aesthetics. There's something very appealing about having this in, I think. :3

 

[Thalassicus]

@Tomice
Mods can include maps, but I don't think maps can include mod data like "lake size" or "name of an atoll." Mod data and map scripts are two different parts of the game.

Here's a Communitas map with the terra option. Terra starts the major civs on the largest continent (Eurasia).

If you play the normal Continents-style game, the Atlantic splits the world in two. Terra shifts the Atlantic so a third of the land is in one part, and two thirds are in the other part, more like Earth.

"Eurasia" on this map has 8 civs and 4 citystates. "Africa" and "Australia" have 5 citystates, and an isolated landmass has 2 citystates. The "Americas" have 5 citystates, 3 natural wonders, 2 of every luxury resource that appeared on the map, and many strategic resources.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

It would be nifty if copies of resources sent one or two of a currency to the capital.

EG, sugar copies throw one food each to the capital. This is something that Exploration and Commerce trees could enhance, too.

 

[Ahriman]

Founding a new city is -3 happiness, the luxury resource would give +4 happiness, so there is a net benefit almost immediately.

GEM (and I believe CEP, if not yet then soon) increase per-city unhappiness, so no, even a size 1 city will not give you net happiness from a luxury.

so I forget if there were changes made to the luxury happiness in Communitas that would affect this.

 

[shaken]

GEM (and I believe CEP, if not yet then soon) increase per-city unhappiness, so no, even a size 1 city will not give you net happiness from a luxury.

Sorry for being out of date on my info then!

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think "settling the new world for luxuries" is ever going to be appealing in the Civ5 engine.
... But in Civ5, a new luxury only gives you a few points of happiness, and founding the new city itself consumes a few points of happiness, so founding a new colony is never going to give a net happiness increase.

While your second point is true, I disagree with your premise.

Sure, getting bonus happiness may not be my primary reason to expand. But if i intend to expand, for all the benefits it gives me, i would much rather do it near luxuries so that my expansion doesn't hurt my happiness.

So if i'm playing tall on a terra map, i might never go across the pond as they say. But if i'm going wide, i will want those luxuries to keep me going

 

[Ahriman]

While your second point is true, I disagree with your premise.

Sure, getting bonus happiness may not be my primary reason to expand. But if i intend to expand, for all the benefits it gives me, i would much rather do it near luxuries so that my expansion doesn't hurt my happiness.

So if i'm playing tall on a terra map, i might never go across the pond as they say. But if i'm going wide, i will want those luxuries to keep me going

To repeat myself:
"Yes, new luxuries makes you slightly more likely to want to pick a location for a new colony, but it doesn't do much to encourage you to build a new city if you didn't already want a new city."


I don't think we disagree here.