[Development] Alternative Map during 1.17

[Leoreth]

Won't having a bad tile as city centre always encourage non canonical city placement. the puzzle game type UHV's can be pretty unforgiving if you take that extra couple of turns to push those early workers/sacrificial lambs out.

I think it would be the opposite. Building a city provides a minimum yield on that tile, which is usually not possible with improvements. And it leaves more “good” tiles to be worked and improved.

Right. When talking about making a city tile attractive it's usually by not putting floodplains on them (since they are removed by building a city, and you do not benefit from them), and making it unattractive is usually putting a resource (especially food resource) on the tile because building the city there costs the improvement bonuses.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

by not putting floodplains on them (since they are removed by building a city, and you do not benefit from them)

Huh? But you changed that ages ago, settling a city on floodplains in Dawn of Civilization keeps the floodplains intact, yielding you +3 food in the city center.

 

[merijn_v1]

Small reskin experiment for a better distinction between taiga (left) and snowy forests (right). Currently they both use the snowy forest art. As you can see, I made the taiga more covered with snow.

I think it would nice if there is another feature variety of the taiga. The trees have the same art, but the amount of trees is much smaller. (About the same amount of trees as the Savanna)

Spoiler :

 

[Leoreth]

Good idea! I am currently mostly refraining from using the snow covered forest art to make the difference clear, this could allow a more gradual transition.

 

[ozqar]

I really like how this looks, but it's inconsistent with what was discussed before about representing seasonal changes in the map.

There are no forests anywhere that are permanently covered in snow. Taiga (or boreal forests) are covered in snow only during the winter months and then they are super green during the summer. The trees would die out if there was snow all year round (and that would just be tundra or permafrost). So with more snow and with less snow, that only represents the same taiga landscape in two different seasons (winter and spring?).

I don't mind if they're both used for color and variety (as I said, I like how they look!) but I just wanted to point that out, and also, well, say that we can also have the same thing for the other ecosystems if we want this greater variety in the landscape (I'd love that, as mentioned in a previous post).

I do find it very useful to have the conifer forests without the snow because that represents evergreen conifer forests, which exist in many temperate and tropical places.

Something else that would be nice to see is mixed forests: those combine conifers and broadleaf trees in the same ecosystem and cover many areas of the planet, often as a transition between broadleaf forests in the lowlands and conifer forests in the highlands (that happens in Mexico, for example).

 

[merijn_v1]

What I got from the season discussion is that the engine is not capable of representing seasonal changes.

Do note that this time, I did not make a new feature variety, but I made art for a new feature type. Different feature types serve different gameplay roles, so they need to have unique art to be able to be distinguished clearly. It is the same reason why rainforests and jungles have different art.
EDIT: I changed the art for the only (default) variety of the existing Taiga feature, to make it distinct from the existing cold variety of the Forest feature.

So I tried to find the best way to make taigas have unique art. I think that covering them with more snow is the best way to do that. More snow vs. less snow doesn't represent seasons, but it represents a different feature type with a different gameplay role.

BTW, I already made a mixed forest variety.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/development-alternative-map-during-1-17.646586/page-8

 

[ozqar]

What I got from the season discussion is that the engine is not capable of representing seasonal changes.

Also a valid interpretation!

Do note that this time, I did not make a new feature variety, but I made art for a new feature type. Different feature types serve different gameplay roles, so they need to have unique art to be able to be distinguished clearly. It is the same reason why rainforests and jungles have different art.

So I tried to find the best way to make taigas have unique art. I think that covering them with more snow is the best way to do that. More snow vs. less snow doesn't represent seasons, but it represents a different feature type with a different gameplay role.

Oh, can you clarify? I'm a bit lost then on which varieties you're placing together as forest and which ones as this new taiga type; and then how do they act differently? I think I had previously assumed that the snowy forests would always represent the taiga (and never a temperate coniferous forest that happened to be in winter).

BTW, I already made a mixed forest variety.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/development-alternative-map-during-1-17.646586/page-8

Oh, that's right!

 

[Leoreth]

I'm confused by the middle part as well, I thought you changed the art for the only (default) variety of the existing Taiga feature, to make it distinct from the existing cold variety of the Forest feature. The wording of adding a new feature type makes it sound like that's not what you did.

But yes, I don't think the game is capable of representing seasonal changes. The impact that would have on the ability to clearly distinguish feature types is another reason why attempting to do this wouldn't be a good idea.

 

[merijn_v1]

I'm confused by the middle part as well, I thought you changed the art for the only (default) variety of the existing Taiga feature, to make it distinct from the existing cold variety of the Forest feature. The wording of adding a new feature type makes it sound like that's not what you did.

But yes, I don't think the game is capable of representing seasonal changes. The impact that would have on the ability to clearly distinguish feature types is another reason why attempting to do this wouldn't be a good idea.

That is exactly what I did. But the wording was a bit unclear. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But yes, I don't think the game is capable of representing seasonal changes.

Wasn't that a feature in Road to War, that WWII mod that shipped with BTS?

 

[merijn_v1]

Wasn't that a feature in Road to War, that WWII mod that shipped with BTS?

It would work similarly to the winter mechanic in The Road to War mod. It shouldn't be that hard to include.

There are still problems with that, seasonanility does not just influence tree leaves but overall vegetation peaks and water availability etc. not really stuff the game is equipped to represent, nor should it.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah plus what I just said.

 

[Publicola]

All right, here's my first halting efforts to contribute to the map.

Specifically, I wanted to adjust the region I'm most familiar with: the Pacific Northwest, in North America.

Spoiler Map :

Specifically, the Puget Sound used to be a two-tile coast feature: I changed it to a single water tile to represent the San Juan Islands, while the main part of the Puget Sound (that connects to Seattle and Olympia) is thin enough to be depicted as a river, as is the Strait of Juan de Fuca. (I also added in a river east of Seattle, to represent the massive complex of rivers and waterways that flow from the east and connect to the Puget Sound, including Lake Union, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, as well as the Snohomish and Duwamish Rivers).

I also added a mountain tile west of the Puget Sound to depict the Olympia Mountains, and covered it with a rainforest since that region is the only temperate rainforest in the world. (We could turn the tile into a hill, since people do live there and the mountain range is only part of the Olympic Peninsula, but the mountains are pretty notable, and if it's a mountain than the rainforest can't be removed by workers).

This allowed me to file in a few tiles south of the Olympia Mountains to represent the Pacific Coast, providing a more accurate 'bend' in the Columbia River (it veers north before reaching the Pacific) and adding the Willamette River that flows from Oregon to the Columbia River. Unfortunately, Oregon isn't tall enough to provide space for each of Portland/Salem/Eugene, and while Salem is the capital of the state, Eugene is comparable in size and a better match for the location.

I also moved the mountain tile north of the Columbia to more accurately represent Mt. Rainier, the most prominent mountain in the region. Mt. St. Helens is probably more famous for the volcano, but Mt. Rainier is also a volcano with regular (every ~400 year) eruptions, and more important to the history of the region.

I didn't change any of the resource distribution -- I just wanted to get the geography of the region clear and approved before I kept plugging away.

 

[trevor]

All right, here's my first halting efforts to contribute to the map.

Specifically, I wanted to adjust the region I'm most familiar with: the Pacific Northwest, in North America.

Spoiler Map :

Specifically, the Puget Sound used to be a two-tile coast feature: I changed it to a single water tile to represent the San Juan Islands, while the main part of the Puget Sound (that connects to Seattle and Olympia) is thin enough to be depicted as a river, as is the Strait of Juan de Fuca. (I also added in a river east of Seattle, to represent the massive complex of rivers and waterways that flow from the east and connect to the Puget Sound, including Lake Union, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, as well as the Snohomish and Duwamish Rivers).

I also added a mountain tile west of the Puget Sound to depict the Olympia Mountains, and covered it with a rainforest since that region is the only temperate rainforest in the world. (We could turn the tile into a hill, since people do live there and the mountain range is only part of the Olympic Peninsula, but the mountains are pretty notable, and if it's a mountain than the rainforest can't be removed by workers).

This allowed me to file in a few tiles south of the Olympia Mountains to represent the Pacific Coast, providing a more accurate 'bend' in the Columbia River (it veers north before reaching the Pacific) and adding the Willamette River that flows from Oregon to the Columbia River. Unfortunately, Oregon isn't tall enough to provide space for each of Portland/Salem/Eugene, and while Salem is the capital of the state, Eugene is comparable in size and a better match for the location.

I also moved the mountain tile north of the Columbia to more accurately represent Mt. Rainier, the most prominent mountain in the region. Mt. St. Helens is probably more famous for the volcano, but Mt. Rainier is also a volcano with regular (every ~400 year) eruptions, and more important to the history of the region.

I didn't change any of the resource distribution -- I just wanted to get the geography of the region clear and approved before I kept plugging away.

Wouldn't Seattle not be a port in this case? Likewise, while it might be slightly more geographically realistic I feel like Portland being landlocked is bad for gameplay.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Wasn't that a feature in Road to War, that WWII mod that shipped with BTS?

I'm pretty sure I brought up the long turn times in that mod when this was mentioned. I haven't played that mod in ages, but distinctly remember long winter turns, because all of the terrain had to change.

 

[Publicola]

Wouldn't Seattle not be a port in this case? Likewise, while it might be slightly more geographically realistic I feel like Portland being landlocked is bad for gameplay.

Due to the connection with the San Juan tile, Seattle can still build harbor/lighthouse/etc., and thanks to the river has trade access to the ocean, but Seattle itself has never really been a dominant producer of ships. The famous 'Kaiser Shipyards' were mostly in California and Oregon.

You're right that Portland being landlocked is an issue. The problem is, it really is landlocked, and we don't really have a mechanism for navigable rivers.We could change the tile 1 NW of Portland to coast, so it would have direct access to the Pacific, and pretend that tile represents the mouth of the Columbia. That region has a really small population anyway.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

Due to the connection with the San Juan tile, Seattle can still build harbor/lighthouse/etc., and thanks to the river has trade access to the ocean, but Seattle itself has never really been a dominant producer of ships. The famous 'Kaiser Shipyards' were mostly in California and Oregon.

You're right that Portland being landlocked is an issue. The problem is, it really is landlocked, and we don't really have a mechanism for navigable rivers.We could change the tile 1 NW of Portland to coast, so it would have direct access to the Pacific, and pretend that tile represents the mouth of the Columbia. That region has a really small population anyway.

I really think that both Seattle and Portland should be on the actual coast. That would be the most accurate that a civ map on this scale can get. Trying to depict them as inland to show that they are on an inlet and large river doesn't look so good to me. And I get what you're trying to do with the rain forest, but I don't think the aesthetic matches very well. And the west coast of Vancouver Island as well as the north coast of BC also qualify as temperate rain forests. It's sort of the whole northwest coast. Sorry to be so negative; I do appreciate what you're trying to do!

 

[trevor]

Due to the connection with the San Juan tile, Seattle can still build harbor/lighthouse/etc., and thanks to the river has trade access to the ocean, but Seattle itself has never really been a dominant producer of ships. The famous 'Kaiser Shipyards' were mostly in California and Oregon.

You're right that Portland being landlocked is an issue. The problem is, it really is landlocked, and we don't really have a mechanism for navigable rivers.We could change the tile 1 NW of Portland to coast, so it would have direct access to the Pacific, and pretend that tile represents the mouth of the Columbia. That region has a really small population anyway.

This link disagrees with you (to the tune of building the third-most destroyers during WW2).

 

[Steb]

How about making the tile 1SW of Seattle a coast tile, representing the river mouth and various bays in the area, and moving the canonical location of Portland 1N? That way both cities gain access to the sea (not from the right direction in Seattle’s case but that matters little). There seems to be too much space between the cities anyway (they should roughly be as distant as Seattle and Vancouver BC are, and Vancouver WA seems to be a suburb of Portland so it can be omitted). Portland would be on the wrong side of the river but that’s not a big concern. The deer tile can then be Salem or Eugene depending on where California starts.

 

[1SDANi]

One interesting note about cities on desert: They add 2 Food, 1 Production, and 1 Commerce to the tile. This is quite useful in optimizing core population.