One thing to note is that I cannot restrict discovery by terrain type.
Are you sure? Couldn't you create multiple improvements with the same official name and graphics, to cover all possible terrain types; such that a player would see Camps on Forest, Jungle, and Tundra tiles as identical; but in the code, they would be identified as CampA, CampB, and CampC, and linked to different resources? It might not be worth the effort, I grant you. Personally, I would accept Elephants on Tundra as simply a variety of mammoth. But is it technically possible?
So we could end up with Forest Bison and Tundra Elephants.
Maybe Bison should be discovered in Pastures; the idea being that the bison would be bred in captivity and when their population reached a critical mass, they could be hunted commercially in camps. By the same token, Elephants and Fur could be discovered in Nature Preserves, while Fish, Shellfish, Crab, Seal, and Whale would be discovered in Marine Preserves. Once discovered, the original improvements could be replaced with Camps, Fishing Boats, or Harvest Boats.
I wonder if the terrains are the wrong way around here? To me, 'Grasslands' implies good land for grazing, 'Plains' implies wide flatlands perfect for growing grain. Probably just a semantics thing.
I was going by the random map generator. Three Pasture resources (Cattle, Sheep, and Horse) but only two Farm resources (Wheat and Potato) normally appear on Plains. I'm not too fussed about it, either way.
It does make me wonder if we need to be quite as restrictive on the terrain though. Could the scheme still work with some crossover? No plains farms or savannah plantations or jungle camps, etc, feels like we could be limiting player choice a bit too much.
There is certainly room for more crossover, yes. My only worry is that, with too many options, some options will become redundant. Now, I can see the case for allowing at least three different improvements on every terrain type, each emphasizing either food, hammers, or commerce. (Of course, some would argue that even this much variety could get boring: the base terrain around a city won't matter much if it can be improved in any direction.) The food/hammers/commerce options for Grassland would be Farm/Workshop/Cottage; for Jungle, they would be Camp/Lumbermill/Plantation. Beyond that, more crossover might not create more options; Farms and Pastures have identical yields for most of the game, after all.
That said, there are certain possibilities. Watermills are an interesting hammers-commerce hybrid only available along rivers. I envision Orchards as a food-commerce hybrid also available only along rivers. Not to mention: Farms, Pastures, Plantations, and Orchards might all require irrigation; but only Farms would spread it! Tell me: is there any way you could design an improvement to affect the yield of an adjacent improvement? For example, would it be possible for Mines to increase the yields of all adjacent Workshops by 1
, or Windmills to increase the yields of all adjacent Farms by 1
?
With that many resources it would be good to split the Mine too but nothing sensible comes to mind.
Again, the only thing I can suggest is that you code separate Mine improvements based on terrain type behind the scenes, such that Jade can only be discovered in Grassland Hills, Silver in Tundra Hills, and Gold in Desert Hills, etc.
I quite liked Wetlands being a mostly unusable terrain for much of the game, seem a shame to lose that aspect. We would need the ability to discover Peat though.
So long as resource-less Quarries have a low yield, Wetlands will remain mostly unusable. After all, once you have one source of Peat, you don't need any more Wetland Quarries; the health penalty alone is a headache.
Stone or Marble from Wetlands feels odd. We'd definitely have to allow the Quarry on another terrain type as well.
We could allow Quarries on hills or Desert. The problem is that no one would work Desert Quarries if they produced only 1
. Is it possible to adjust yields by terrain type, such that Quarries produce +1
, and an additional +1
on Desert?
Unhealthiness from Cottages was something I was considering. I think it makes sense. I'm less happy with removing pollution from Mines and Quarries, I'd prefer to see that stay.
I'm glad you approve of a health penalty for Cottages. In principle, I have no objection to retaining a health penalty for Mines and Quarries; I simply think their yields should reflect it. For balance purposes, 1
is equivalent to -1
. With that in mind, -1
/+2
Mines with +1
at Railroad compare very unfavourably with Workshops that can reach +4
/+3
. Might I suggest a health penalty for Workshops instead?
This is something else I was considering. It would certainly go a long way towards addressing the production/commerce imbalance in the early game. I share Nightstar's concerns about breaking the 'niche' of the civic categories though, will have to think on it.
Depending on how Orchards are implemented, this civic might change. How does +1
for Orchards and Windmills strike you?
We also need to consider that Agrarianism was set up as an alternative to Slavery, and how that civic affects things as well.
I think the same basic relationship will hold. Agrarianism is better for inland empires that need many Farms and Pastures to support their Mines and Quarries. Slavery is better for coastal empires that cannot devote as many tiles for hammers, and prefer to convert food directly to production via sacrifice.
At the moment Mines are set at 10000, and Farms are set at 5000, meaning they'll discover a resource twice as often (on average) as Mines. We'll have to extrapolate suitable values from those. I may need to lower the amount of resources placed during map generation slightly for this all to balance.
Hmm. On the whole, I would prefer slightly fewer resources placed during map generation and a slightly higher chances of resource discovery. Good thinking.
I'd definitely like to replace Wineries with Orchards, to shift some of the resources away from the Plantation. I'd need to find or adapt some art though.
What resources would you link to Orchards? Grapes and Olives, presumably. What else? Bananas, renamed simply Fruit? Spices? Incense? You could also make a case for moving Flax and Tobacco over to Farms. Also, is the current Winery graphic unsuitable? I have no idea what it looks like without the Wine resource underneath. Well, I don't think new art will be hard to find. I seem to remember The Ancient Mediterranean (TAM) mod had an Orchard improvement. It's available for Mac. Maybe you could trace the art back to its source?
Yes, this is coming in 1.18. For Wealth it's 3 for 1 at Property, 2 for 1 at Guilds, and 1 for 1 at Corporation. The other commerces are similar.
I should mention: I fully support this change. I think it will help solve the problem of overexpansion, though I think a change to Agrarianism is still necessary to address overproduction. (Otherwise, mature cities will still run out of things to build and be left producing Wealth, even if less efficiently.)
Yep. A relevant resource will still enable the appropriate improvement, regardless of terrain.
Yep. That was the plan all along.
gold: from priests and settled Great Prophets), Kilns, Monarchy (+50%
in all cities
