Feedback: Improvements

[Eucalyptus]

Prime Timber really enhances the game, and, as I have commented elsewhere, I'd like to be able to access it earlier, and then via a dedicated "Logging Camp" improvement that also applies to normal Forests and Jungles. Here is a new variant on my suggestion to split the currently-overloaded Camp into distinct components, forestry and hunting.

Create a new improvement: Logging Camp, that becomes available at Iron Working. The point of it is to produce timber, yielding production. It can only be established in Forests and Jungles. It grants +1, produces no pollution and accesses Prime Timber, if present. Let the Lumbermill provide +2 and be available with Machinery. The Logging Camp must be replaced with a Lumbermill to get its added benefits. If the Forest or Jungle is destroyed (fire, chopping), the improvement is also lost, and any Prime Timber is lost. Allow the discovery of Prime Timber (via both Logging Camp and Lumbermill) to compensate for this.

Replace the residue of the current Camp with a "Hunting Camp" that is available at Hunting. It is buildable on any terrain, including Forests and Jungles, but also Desert and even Ice. The point of it is to trap and hunt wild mammals, yielding, say commerce. The Hunting Camp gives +1, produces no pollution and provides Game Meat (better name for the resource now called Deer) or Furs (Pelts?) from any Deer or Beaver (rename from Fur!) present.

To be certain, accessing resources of herd animals such as Cattle and Bison should require Pastures, not Hunting Camps. The same holds for Elephants, Horses, and Camels (it would be nice if this resource were explicitly present!), although there is an argument that breeding of these animals requires a different type of improvement again --- and a Stable already has a game meaning.

Opinions?

 

[Eucalyptus]

The new-as-of-HR1.18 Fruit resource is pretty on the map, but the art (Lemons, yes?) is a little inappropriate. In the tropics, Bananas are in many places a staple food, and in the temperate zones, perhaps Apples are the most eaten fruit. Nobody I know subsists on Lemons ...

Could the resource be split into Tropical Fruit and Temperate Fruit, represented by, say Bananas and Apples? (OK, I'll accept Lemons instead of Apples if need be!) One extra food resource won't hurt ...

 

[Keinpferd]

"The lemon is a fruit that you simply cannot eat"

Let me see in my fridge.

 

[Keinpferd]

^ I'll likely do it in a mod-mod.

In the meantime I am making sure my 1940 scenario is compatible with this. This mod is still in an intensive development phase, so I do not want to upset the development too much.

I'm much looking forward to both your HR scenario and the modmod, hoping the latter will still be on the Mac compatible side!

 

[Eucalyptus]

Let me see in my fridge.

View attachment 329479

That's what happens when you try to remember citations ... I had the quote wrong! It's apparently:

"But the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat."

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+paul+mary/lemon+tree_20107749.html

 

[Simon_Jester]

The new-as-of-HR1.18 Fruit resource is pretty on the map, but the art (Lemons, yes?) is a little inappropriate. In the tropics, Bananas are in many places a staple food, and in the temperate zones, perhaps Apples are the most eaten fruit. Nobody I know subsists on Lemons ...

Could the resource be split into Tropical Fruit and Temperate Fruit, represented by, say Bananas and Apples? (OK, I'll accept Lemons instead of Apples if need be!) One extra food resource won't hurt ...

Lemons are an interesting choice because they represent citrus fruit. Citrus isn't a staple crop, but it's been traded on a huge scale for a long time, it's been transplanted all over the world. And it's got significant health benefits, as the Royal Navy can attest.

(Now I'm tempted to suggest a wonder that gives a navy-useful bonus with Lemons. )

 

[Xyth]

Prime Timber really enhances the game, and, as I have commented elsewhere, I'd like to be able to access it earlier, and then via a dedicated "Logging Camp" improvement that also applies to normal Forests and Jungles. Here is a new variant on my suggestion to split the currently-overloaded Camp into distinct components, forestry and hunting.

The Camp isn't overloaded anymore, it's only used to access Bison, Deer, and Furs.

Create a new improvement: Logging Camp, that becomes available at Iron Working. The point of it is to produce timber, yielding production. It can only be established in Forests and Jungles. It grants +1, produces no pollution and accesses Prime Timber, if present. Let the Lumbermill provide +2 and be available with Machinery. The Logging Camp must be replaced with a Lumbermill to get its added benefits. If the Forest or Jungle is destroyed (fire, chopping), the improvement is also lost, and any Prime Timber is lost. Allow the discovery of Prime Timber (via both Logging Camp and Lumbermill) to compensate for this.

Splitting the Camp would be more work than I think is worthwhile. Improvement art is not easy to work with and it would require a lot of rebalancing (improvements now each have a very specific purpose and it's no longer trivial to add another in the mix). If Prime Timber is to be accessible earlier then I'll do it by shifting the Lumbermill forward or by attaching it to regular Camps (but with a tech restriction). I'm still not sure I want to do this; there was too much production available in the early game compared to commerce, causing players and the AI to expand faster than they could afford. Still thinking about it.

Replace the residue of the current Camp with a "Hunting Camp" that is available at Hunting. It is buildable on any terrain, including Forests and Jungles, but also Desert and even Ice.

I'm not prepared to let Camps be extended to other terrain as that is at odds with the primary/secondary improvement scheme introduced in 1.18. Every terrain type has options, but you can't build whatever you want wherever you want.

The point of it is to trap and hunt wild mammals, yielding, say commerce. The Hunting Camp gives +1, produces no pollution and provides Game Meat (better name for the resource now called Deer) or Furs (Pelts?) from any Deer or Beaver (rename from Fur!) present.

I consider the Deer resource to represent other related, antlered animals as well: Elk, Moose, and especially Reindeer/Caribou. So it's not just about food. Other than the cumbersome 'Cervidae' or 'Antlered Ungulates', 'Deer' is the best choice of name.

'Furs' as a name bothers me a little as its the name of the commodity rather than the source of the commodity like most other resources. But furs come from many more animals than Beavers, and from many parts of the world that beavers are not found, and the resource does need to cover that. So 'Furs' it is.

To be certain, accessing resources of herd animals such as Cattle and Bison should require Pastures, not Hunting Camps. The same holds for Elephants, Horses, and Camels (it would be nice if this resource were explicitly present!), although there is an argument that breeding of these animals requires a different type of improvement again --- and a Stable already has a game meaning.

The Camp vs Pasture distinction is a bit vague for some animal resources. Game mechanics took precedence over strict realism in a few cases. I've wondered if it's worth allowing both for most animal resources - e.g, wild cattle vs domesticated cattle - but that's not something I want to tackle right now.

The new-as-of-HR1.18 Fruit resource is pretty on the map, but the art (Lemons, yes?) is a little inappropriate. In the tropics, Bananas are in many places a staple food, and in the temperate zones, perhaps Apples are the most eaten fruit. Nobody I know subsists on Lemons ...

Could the resource be split into Tropical Fruit and Temperate Fruit, represented by, say Bananas and Apples? (OK, I'll accept Lemons instead of Apples if need be!) One extra food resource won't hurt ...

Lemons are an interesting choice because they represent citrus fruit. Citrus isn't a staple crop, but it's been traded on a huge scale for a long time, it's been transplanted all over the world. And it's got significant health benefits, as the Royal Navy can attest.

(Now I'm tempted to suggest a wonder that gives a navy-useful bonus with Lemons. )

The choice of the lemon art was a practical one - it's the only fruit art I could find that interacts correctly with the art used for Orchards. Every other fruit variety I found was based on the Banana and looked terrible when improved as it was designed to work with Plantation graphics only.

I could change the colour of the fruit, but not the shape. The icon is fairly easy to change.

 

[Simon_Jester]

'Furs' as a name bothers me a little as its the name of the commodity rather than the source of the commodity like most other resources.

What, like Stone, Marble, Gold, Silver, Gems, Copper, Iron, Coal, Aluminum, Uranium, Wheat, Corn, Potato, Rice,...?

 

[Xyth]

What, like Stone, Marble, Gold, Silver, Gems, Copper, Iron, Coal, Aluminum, Uranium, Wheat, Corn, Potato, Rice,...?

Hehe yeah, I explained that pretty badly

 

[inasnapp]

Now I'm tempted to suggest a wonder that gives a navy-useful bonus with Lemons.

As do I.
Experience might be appropriate, or faster healing in port?

 

[Eucalyptus]

Let me see in my fridge.

View attachment 329479

A day later and it is clear:

Work Deer, get Deer.

Work Fur, get Fur.

Work Lemons, get Marmalade.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The Camp isn't overloaded anymore, it's only used to access Bison, Deer, and Furs.

What activity is being simulated by a Camp in a Tundra or Forest? Is it forestry? Is it hunting? I want to assume that its a mixture of both. But no, I have to assume that it's hunting because the only discoverable resources are Bison, Deer, and Furs. The current schema suggests that forestry is being ignored. My suggestion provides more variety.


In passing, 2 questions:

1. I note that I have seen Prime Timber on Tundra. This is an error, yes?

2. Why can't I Camp in a Jungle? (OK, I don't expect to discover Bison there, but maybe Elephants, which are bred in camps.)

 

[Simon_Jester]

I'm thinking: discoverable resources have to be at least vaguely logical in all the terrain types the improvement exists in. That's a problem if we add Prime Timber as a resource, because camps can be built on plains squares or barren tundra.

Can we select which resources are discoverable on which terrain? If not, then we may have to restrict things in places where discovering a resource there would make less sense than not discovering it elsewhere.

 

[Xyth]

I note that I have seen Prime Timber on Tundra. This is an error, yes?

It can appear in Tundra Forests but if you're seeing it on open Tundra then yes, that's a bug. What mapscript were you using at the time?

2. Why can't I Camp in a Jungle? (OK, I don't expect to discover Bison there, but maybe Elephants, which are bred in camps.)

Partly because it would make Bison and Furs discoverable in Jungles, and partly because we're trying to keep the primary improvements from overlapping too much. I agree that Jungle Camps make more sense than most other unused combinations though, I'll probably review this at some point.

I'm thinking: discoverable resources have to be at least vaguely logical in all the terrain types the improvement exists in. That's a problem if we add Prime Timber as a resource, because camps can be built on plains squares or barren tundra.

Can we select which resources are discoverable on which terrain? If not, then we may have to restrict things in places where discovering a resource there would make less sense than not discovering it elsewhere.

No, an improvement will have a chance to discover a resource if it is set to do so, and the terrain it's on isn't a factor. So if Camps were extended to Prime Timber then they wouldn't be able to have a Prime Timber discovery chance.

From technical and design points of view it is much, much easier to have Prime Timber managed by Lumbermills only. As mentioned earlier, bringing Camps or a Camp variant into the equation causes all sorts of additional art manipulation and redesigning/rebalancing that I'd prefer not to do.

To make Prime Timber available earlier it's drastically easier to just unlock Lumbermills earlier in the techtree. Ship and siege costs would need to be adjusted but that's minor tweaking in comparison. Changing the tech requirements of Prime Timber itself will fix the problem where it is unlocked by building a city atop the resource.

 

[Eucalyptus]

It can appear in Tundra Forests but if you're seeing it on open Tundra then yes, that's a bug. What mapscript were you using at the time?

I saw Prime Timber in a Tundra Forest, thus a feature not a bug. (It was an Archipelago map, I believe.)

But ... I'm pretty sure that this feature isn't physically realistic. Allowing Tundra Forests to sometimes support Prime Timber suggests that they can sometimes be as productive as temperate or tropical forests. But, tundra in general contains at most scattered trees and can't yield enough timber to support sawmills, let alone hardwood from which ships and siege engines can be built. To be certain, I'm talking tundra and not taiga. The Wikipedia tells me that the word tundra is based on a Russian/Sami word meaning "treeless mountain tract".

Can someone correct me on this if I am wrong?

 

[Little Faith]

By the same token we should consider plains forests and grasslands jungle strange as well.

The basic terrain (grasslands/plains/tundra/desert/ice) is supposed to represent a climate more than a specific type of landscape.

Grasslands: verdant lands with plenty of rainfall.
Plains: Dryer but still supporting plenty of plant life.
Deserts: Dry barren rocks/sands where only rivers and oases support local abundances of vegetation.
Tundra: Arctic/subarctic wilderness.
Ice: Dead frozen terrain that only supports extremophile bacteria and predatory animals who get their food in the nearby sea.

 

[Xyth]

Forested Tundra in-game is meant to represent taiga/boreal forest, so it's not really a problem. We can't interpret the terrain and feature names too strictly; 'Plains Hills' is pretty oxymoronic when you think about it. They represent climate and biome as much as the physical terrain.

Also, note that softwoods (pine, cedar, etc) are much more practical and widely employed for constructing ships than most hardwoods are. This is why I chose 'Prime Timber' as the name for the resource; 'Hardwood' would be quite inaccurate.

 

[Eucalyptus]

By the same token we should consider plains forests and grasslands jungle strange as well.

We do! Perhaps this is a signal that the terrain classes should be revised.

 

[Xyth]

We do! Perhaps this is a signal that the terrain classes should be revised.

There are base terrain types (Grasslands, Plains, Desert, Tundra, etc) and there are terrain features that can be placed atop them (Forest, Jungle, Savannah, Wetlands, etc). We can allow or disallow certain combinations, add new varieties or rename them, etc, but we can't change this fundamental system. Hills and Mountains are a separate mechanic that pretty much can't be changed at all.

So if Jungles on Grasslands isn't suitable, what can they go on? They have to be placed atop something as they cannot be converted to base terrain.

It's a good system in terms of game mechanics; not completely realistic as a simulation of geography but not unreasonable either. I'm not sure there's anything we can do to improve it without rendering every mapscript incompatible.

 

[Eucalyptus]

There are base terrain types (Grasslands, Plains, Desert, Tundra, etc) and there are terrain features that can be placed atop them (Forest, Jungle, Savannah, Wetlands, etc). We can allow or disallow certain combinations, add new varieties or rename them, etc, but we can't change this fundamental system. Hills and Mountains are a separate mechanic that pretty much can't be changed at all.

So if Jungles on Grasslands isn't suitable, what can they go on? They have to be placed atop something as they cannot be converted to base terrain.

It's a good system in terms of game mechanics; not completely realistic as a simulation of geography but not unreasonable either. I'm not sure there's anything we can do to improve it without rendering every mapscript incompatible.

Can names be applied to combinations of terrain and features? For example, in the (wet) tropics, we could have:

Grassland Flat -> Tropical Grasslands
Jungle Grassland Flat -> Lowland Jungle
Wetlands Grassland Flat -> Tropical Swamp
Jungle Grassland Hills -> Upland Jungle
Mountains

Would this damage the map scripts?