Communitas map script

[Thalassicus]

National unhappiness per city is basically 2 with meritocracy (3 in Cep). The extra +1 on Cep arenas/colosseums mostly counteracts Cep's +1 anger per city, since we rarely have 2 cities. This basically makes entertainment buildings more important for happiness without changing overall happiness.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Can I just get some clarity here about the 'atolls'

Are we now using the 'atoll' graphic to represent a small islet just offshore of a habitable landmass?

That is, 'atolls' now may be used to show non-coral related uninhabitable islands?

So if a new graphic was provided the code would place existing atolls where they should exist and these 'atoll' islands would have the new graphic?

Sorry. A bit slow on the uptake.

 

[albie_123]

Atolls represent inhabitable islands, yes. It's a realistic way to increase the value of coasts.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

This happened. I have the save file, too, if it's important.

 

[Ahriman]

Are we now using the 'atoll' graphic to represent a small islet just offshore of a habitable landmass?

That is, 'atolls' now may be used to show non-coral related uninhabitable islands?

So if a new graphic was provided the code would place existing atolls where they should exist and these 'atoll' islands would have the new graphic?

Almost, they're to represent small islands that are big enough to provide some benefit but aren't really big enough to operate a military on or build a proper large city on. Think: some of the Mediterranean islands, the Falklands, many of the smaller Pacific islands, some of the various Indian ocean islands, etc.

So yes, if we had new graphics we could replace them, but that's probably easier said than done.

 

[ExpiredReign]

Atolls represent inhabitable islands, yes. It's a realistic way to increase the value of coasts.

This doesn't make sense to me.

'Inhabitable' (habitable?) islands should mean that a city could be founded on that tile.
Is this the case?

If a new graphic was available would these 'atolls' that occur just next to land be able to have cities founded on them? And the 'vanilla' atolls remain as they are? Uninhabitable coral reefs?

Or are these new 'islets' just giving another type of improvement to a city?

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Your original argument though was that terra maps didn't work well with civ5 mechanics, because the luxury incentive that is strong in Civ IV is not present in civ 5.

My counterargument is that there is a luxury incentive, and while not as strong as Civ IV, is still strong enough to allow for far world colonization so i don't see a problem with the terra map concept.

 

[albie_123]

No, they wouldn't ever have cities. They're supposed to be small islands when compared to a large city.

In the end it's the bonus to coasts, especially around actual islands that can have cities, that's important.

 

[albie_123]

Your original argument though was that terra maps didn't work well with civ5 mechanics, because the luxury incentive that is strong in Civ IV is not present in civ 5.

My counterargument is that there is a luxury incentive, and while not as strong as Civ IV, is still strong enough to allow for far world colonization so i don't see a problem with the terra map concept.

It allows new world colonization but it doesn't make it more beneficial than old world city founding whereas Civ IV did.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@Thalassicus -- from the updated OP

- Offshore islands with useful resources reward exploration and settlement.

So according to that description these small islands have "useful resources".

If so. What are they? Why not just have some other resource (Clams,Oysters,Lobsters,Seaweed) allocated to those tiles?
If there are resources, how are they used?
Do they require sending a worker or workboat?
Are units on those tiles on land or sea? Embarked?

I do hope this is not another case of 'oasis' misunderstanding.

I'm going to start a few small maps and check this.

From the description I am not liking the idea. But I will hold off judgment until someone clarifies this or I find the solution myself.

 

[stackpointer]

@Thalassicus -- from the updated OP


So according to that description these small islands have "useful resources".

If so. What are they? Why not just have some other resource (Clams,Oysters,Lobsters,Seaweed) allocated to those tiles?

From my experience, almost every small (1-4 tile) island tile is a special (stone/cow) or strategic (coal) resource. See my post and Thal's response below: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12642556#post12642556

It makes sense to me to buff small islands, the penalties for settling there are even more severe than settling in deserts.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I am specifically referring to these small 'islands' that are using the 'atoll' graphic.

As I see it, in an attempt to make coastlines provide more & these 'atolls' are now placed close to coasts. A lot of 'atolls'.

Just now checked and the standard 2 & 1 is given to these 'atolls'.
This now means some coasts, which were (I think) 1 & 1 are changed to give atoll values.

So a question arises. If in the future a new graphic is found to differentiate these small islands from the original atolls. How extensive a rewrite of the code is it to place everything properly.
Can the changes now be implemented to have the tooltips show "Islets" instead of "Atolls". Because having coral atolls all throughout the world is just a bit of a distraction.
I can see the reasoning behind making some coast provide a different set of yields, and I quite like the idea. However the half-measure fix is a bit jarring.

I had a look at what is involved with the atoll graphic. Some DDS files and GR2 file along with some data entries. The DDS I can understand, and at a pinch could probably put together a new graphic but I'm out of depth with the GR2 stuff.

Sukritract maybe?

Let me say it again. I'm not trying to be difficult, I like the improvements to coasts.
It just looks off.

----

Just looked again at the way the atolls are constructed in Civ.
This is the code:

	<LandmarkArtInfo>
		<Era>Any</Era>
		<State>Any</State>
		<fScale>2.4</fScale>
		<ImprovementType>ART_DEF_IMPROVEMENT_NONE</ImprovementType>
		<ResourceType>ART_DEF_FEATURE_ATOLL</ResourceType>
		<LayoutHandler>RANDOM</LayoutHandler>
		<FXSXML>assets/DLC/Shared/Features/Feature_Atoll/Atoll_1.fxsxml</FXSXML>
		<bTerrainContour>True</bTerrainContour>
	</LandmarkArtInfo>

And the Atoll_1.fxsxml is just:

<Asset>
	<Mesh file="Atoll_1.gr2"/>
	<Texture file="FX_Blk_Blk4x4.dds"/>
	<Texture file="FX_Atoll_1_Base.dds"/>
</Asset>

Now if the 'islets', or whatever they are called, had their own <LandmarkArtInfo> and the <fScale>2.4</fScale> was changed. Does that scale the graphic down or up depending on the value? Thus giving a different appearance and making the 2 different types of terrain/features distinct.

Any ideas?

 

[Thalassicus]

Tiny islands were already weak in G&K, and BNW reduced the value of coast tiles, so the bonuses are more essential now (isles and resources). I recently added more randomization so the resources are less predictable than back in Gem. The atolls should be seen as "isles" for people using Cep. I included that modification in Vem about two years ago when Firaxis added them to the game. They should have called them islets or isles in the first place... but oh well.

We could replace some isles with fish, but fish can get really powerful when they randomly cluster together. Isles have more limited power in clumps.


@Gothic_Empire
That's very odd. I don't have a clue how I'd figure out what might cause a weird terrain square like that. I haven't seen it happen in the hundreds of test maps I've created, so it's probably rare enough we don't need to worry about it.

 

[stackpointer]

Now if the 'islets', or whatever they are called, had their own <LandmarkArtInfo> and the <fScale>2.4</fScale> was changed. Does that scale the graphic down or up depending on the value? Thus giving a different appearance and making the 2 different types of terrain/features distinct.

Any ideas?

This was the clearest information I could find about scaling.

@Gothic_Empire
That's very odd. I don't have a clue how I'd figure out what might cause a weird terrain square like that. I haven't seen it happen in the hundreds of test maps I've created, so it's probably rare enough we don't need to worry about it.

I've seen this once or twice. it's a graphical glitch that doesn't have anything to do with your mod.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@stackpointer

Thanks mate but that doesn't really help.

I did find some info in this thread.

Although the discussion was more about buildings and units. I am really unsure whether it applies to the map graphics.

You and Thal were talking about the small islands. I understand about that. Pretty obvious really.

It is just this atoll graphic that has stuck in my mind and won't let me move on.

Still looking.

 

[albie_123]

Any replacement to graphics is a big, big problem because of the so-called 'farm' bug (which I can't be bothered explaining, there are plenty of threads about it, simply put, it breaks the game when you have new improvement or feature graphics).

We've had Isles for a very very long time in this mod and I have never seen a call to change or get rid of them until now.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@albie_123

I reckon you have the wrong end of the stick.

I am not talking about changing the 'islands' that are in Civ V.

Thal has added code to improve coasts by placing atolls along the coast. In doing so the 'atoll' graphic is now all over the place.

It is only a graphic thing but it somehow has got stuck in my brain and is now annoying me.

On a side note I believe the 'farm bug' relates to changes made after the game has been initiated. Whereas any additional 'coastal' improvement graphic, like the sort I am talking about, would happen on map creation.

 

[albie_123]

No, we've had Isles - renamed atolls that appear frequently along coasts - for a long time. Basically since they were introduced in Vanilla (I think we changed their frequency pretty soon after, anyway).

I don't see what the graphic problem is. They look like islands to me. Maybe you're under the impression that Isles and Atolls are different in some way? They're not, they're the same thing just renamed. Atolls are incredibly rare in the real world. Small islands are basically all over the globe.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@albie_123

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think we are talking about different things.

Anyway I am not going to pursue this graphic thing for the following reasons:

1) Any graphic change would likely have to be made within CEP or make the simple Communitas Map mod into something other than a different map by including the database change in the package.

2) I am just going to go back to vanilla maps. Call me irrational but to me this look of atolls everywhere is just as jarring as the oases placement was earlier in this thread.
That 'graphical' situation caused a lot of discussion where it seemed everyone disliked it.
Atolls, which could be likened to the maritime equivalent of oases, don't seem to have the same impact, except for me.

So I will not hammer this point anymore.
A shame really, I liked the map up to that point.

 

[stackpointer]

2) I am just going to go back to vanilla maps. Call me irrational but to me this look of atolls everywhere is just as jarring as the oases placement was earlier in this thread.

I do agree that the number of atolls can be an eyesore and Thal has agreed earlier to lower it by another 20%. Also feel free to edit the number of atolls yourself at line 4688:

	local atoll_target = numCoast * 0.10

You can lower the value to 0.01 (1%) or even zero it out if you don't want them to generate at all.