Geo Realism: Discussion on a new SDK based map generator

[primem0ver]

In C2C buildings will also need to be adjusted... There are over 90 instances of the "PrereqTerrain" tag in the building info files.

Thanks. I will keep this in mind.

Resource (a.k.a. Bonus) placement frequently depends on terrains.

Already being handled. Maybe I should make an official post but here is the quick rundown: Bonus placement on a GeoRealism handled map will be handled by the GeoRealism engine. All bonuses will be removed from the map created by the map generator and placed independently by the GeoRealism engine based on GeoRealism XML.

Likewise if you plan to adjust the vegetation via new/different feature types, some buildings and resources have requirements for those too.

Thanks again.

You can differentiate them with other factors like movement cost, defensive bonuses, whether or not you can found a city on it (or if you can but only if it has a river or is on the coast) and the build cost modifier and suchlike, but other than founding cities those are minor factors compared to the yields. For each new terrain type you might want to ask yourself "other than being a slightly different color, is this functionally any different in the game than the others?" If the answer is "yes", then that is good. If it is "no" then you may have a problem, especially if it is more than once, or maybe twice.

Thanks for the reminder of values besides yields. The answer is "yes" for many of them.

As it is, C2C has a little issue with this from dunes and desert being visually distinctive but functionally almost the same, although they are a little different: all of the features and bonuses that can appear on dunes can also appear on desert, but not the other way around - only 6 bonuses can be on dunes, but 37 can be on desert; desert give a defensive penalty but dunes does not; dunes require +50% work to build things and desert only +25%, and such. But then you have to consider salt flats are in the same general category of "terrain with no yields" and ice terrain is in that category too. Barren and Permafrost too. Well, now we are up to 6 of these yieldless terrains. 6 out of 20 (not considering terrains for the moon and such, or hills and peaks which are not really terrain types), another 6 of which are water making it 6 out of 14 land terrains that have no yield. It seems like this might be excessive... Similar groups of very similar terrains might exist in your scheme.

LOL. Thanks for the complexity tutorial. I doubt there will be more than 3 tiles of any one set of yield stats (probably only 2 or fewer...). Many will be unique.

Don't forget that I am using terrains as soil types that include flora, fauna, and their uses. Each environment has varying usability of its soil, flora, and fauna. This combined with military differences and bonus differences will likely make all but the "non productive" terrains unique. The ONLY non-productive terrain I am adding is the "Arid Desert" terrain. And considering that I may be removing one as well makes it even. Truth be told, I should have lumped this particular terrain in with the "willing to remove" set of 3 (making 4). Desert and desert steppe have only their altitude as a main difference (though knowing that almost makes it worth it).

 

[primem0ver]

2. Well how many total terrains will you have then?

I haven't counted LOL. I will be adding between 6 and 11 to the current count.

 

[primem0ver]

I wanted to float an idea I have thought about. The GeoRealism mod will modify available views and text for plots. I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about making these sources of information tech dependent.

For example, information regarding plate boundaries, plate features, and climate features could be kept hidden until the player researches the tech required to know about the features. Just a thought!

 

[Thunderbrd]

@Hydromancerx

Cool! Thanks for the contribution! And yes... the GeoRealism mod takes the affect that height has on a biome into consideration (the reason for the highlands tags in the Biome file).

@Everyone



I appreciate the sentiment Thunderbird but I also understand ls612's concern. Lets not turn this into an argument or make it personal. I can take what he said as an insult or I can take it as a legitimate concern. I chose the latter since I sense a focus that is too diversified as well. We do have a lot of pet projects and we need to decide which ones are priority. I was originally going to focus on underwater cities and invisibility. But people (including SO) wanted me to focus on this so I did.

Regardless of the lack of focus, two facts remain:

1. As good as the C2C terrains are, one cannot get complete realism with the limited number of wet ones (even if we are just looking at yield stats). So either we get it with the new terrains or we don't get it at all.
2. This mod does not require a lot of massive revisions (except for the mod itself). Especially when compared to some of the other things being worked on. So I see it as an exception to the "lack of focus" as long as you don't mind that I work on it as opposed to other things. It is simply more of the same. Yes... a few tags will need to be added to promotions but that is all that I know of.

You're right... I'm taking his comment too personally because I don't want you to stop as a result of such concern because I'm REALLY interested to see how this pans out! Its also a little personal as we just got done arguing over similar things on my modding end.

So I'm sorry for overreacting ls612, I realize you're just voicing concerns that are in fact rational. I just get frustrated with any effort to clamp down on diversification in this mod that, for me, embodies the first real movement to endlessly diversify in a mod at all. This is the mod I'd always imagined when playing CivIV before I ever found this site.

I remember Hydro saying he came to develop on C2C due to so many in AND trying so hard to make sure new ideas were being kept out and I just don't want to see that happen all over again in C2C, not to my contributions, nor to those of others attempting to bring their own skills and ingenious ideas to the table. I really don't feel like we've even begun to scratch the surface of where this mod will end up so it disturbs me to see the sentiment of resistance emerging already.

But I do know your heart's in the right place, which is to try to keep things under a developmental course that maintains a certain balanced pace. Nevertheless, THIS concept addresses what my wife and I both feel is a huge issue in C2C now, that with our current terrain set, its next to impossible to get a very good city anywhere as there are an overwhelming number of bad plots in relation to the number of good ones. A bit more realism and diversity would fix that up quite nicely I think.

 

[AIAndy]

I wanted to float an idea I have thought about. The GeoRealism mod will modify available views and text for plots. I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about making these sources of information tech dependent.

For example, information regarding plate boundaries, plate features, and climate features could be kept hidden until the player researches the tech required to know about the features. Just a thought!

Interesting thought. It adds to the sense of explorations as you learn more and more about the world.

Btw, I agree with Thunderbrd that adding more terrains is fine. Mainly consider them from the visual standpoint. I assume we will change a lot of the dependencies anyway.
If you would not have started this, I would likely have added a climate simulation myself to the DLL at some point. The main reason is that we need one for the prehistoric time. There were several glacials and interglacials if we start 300000BC and one glacial to interglacial transition if we start 50000BC as it is set now.
Is your simulation incremental as in can it simulate the transition from the last glacial to the current interglacial somewhat smoothly?

 

[ls612]

@Thunderbrd:

I'm not opposed in principle to adding these new terrains. In fact, I love the work he's done, especially with the graphics (they purdy). I am opposed to adding them now, as I think the priorities of the team for the near future should be first stability, balance, tweaks, and AI, and second Multi-Maps. Primem0ver has made a great contribution, but I was just saying that I don't think it should be added to C2C for a few months. He has done some great work, and he said he wants to release it for vanilla BtS first, so that should end up working out OK. It's just a prioirites issue.

@primem0ver:

I apoligize if I came off as rejecting your idea. I was not doing that, only pointing out that we have some issues independent of terrain that need addressing first. I would love for this to be added to C2C after the stability cycle and Multi-Maps. Great Job on this.

 

[Laskaris]

I am nearly finished the rough draft of the XML files dealing with the Climate part of the GeoRealism engine. I only have to redo 2 lost climates (accidentally overwrote a file I meant to merge) and add the "SpawnsBonuses" tags to the CIV4VegetationInfos.xml file. I will do some touching up over the weekend and probably post early next week. Here is the list of the 19 Koppen Climate Zones that I plan to use (up from 17) as well as their designations. In general, the list goes in a equator-ward to pole-ward order.

• Tropical Rainforest (Af)
• Monsoon (Am)
• Savannah (Aw)
• Tropical Desert (BWh)
• Tropical Steppe (BSh)
• Cool Desert (BWk)
• Arid Steppe (BSk)
• Dry Mediterranean (Csa)
• Wet Mediterranean (Csb)
• Humid Subtropical (Cfa)
• Marine (Cfb)
• Sub-Arctic (Cfc)
• Humid Continental (Dfa)
• Cool Continental (Dfb)
• Dry Continental (Dw_ including a through c)*
• Hemiboreal (Dwd)
• Boreal Forest (Dfc)
• Tundra (ET)
• Polar (EF)

* The "Dry Continental" climate actually includes 3 Koppen climates, probably too close to distinguish. However their placement may necessitate me splitting this into 2 climates to make placement easier to define. Hopefully this list makes it easier to see why using more terrains is advantageous even if their is some overlap in the vegetation types. There are significantly more wet climate types than dry ones. (A,C, and D climate types for the most part are considered "wet")

You cite Dfb as "cool continental" climate, but in the Köppen system as I know it, Dfb is "humid continental" (with merely warm summers instead of hot summers like Dfa), and Dsc is "cool continental". Could there be a mistake there?

Aside from that: okay, as I understand it, you combined climate types Dwa, Dwa and Dwc into one, and you leave out the following climate types:

Humid Subtropical (Cwa)
Oceanic (Cwb)
Continental Mediterranean (Dsa and Dsb)
Cool Continental (Dsc)
Cold Continental (Dsd)
Subarctic (Dfd)

The omission of all Cw and Ds climates seems like a pretty significant one, so I am curious about your reasons for it?

I'm also wondering whether you have considered using the Trewartha system (a modified, and arguably improved Köppen system) instead of the Köppen system? Troll / Paffen, with its emphasis on vegetation days to determine climate types, also seems like an interesting alternative.

 

[primem0ver]

@Thunderbrd:

I'm not opposed in principle to adding these new terrains. In fact, I love the work he's done, especially with the graphics (they purdy). I am opposed to adding them now, as I think the priorities of the team for the near future should be first stability, balance, tweaks, and AI, and second Multi-Maps. Primem0ver has made a great contribution, but I was just saying that I don't think it should be added to C2C for a few months. He has done some great work, and he said he wants to release it for vanilla BtS first, so that should end up working out OK. It's just a prioirites issue.

About multi-maps taking precedence: If Multi-maps is that close to being complete then I can agree... but honestly, this doesn't just affect the switching of maps. If we plan on making an "underground" layer it could seriously affect pathfinding, AI, plot yields, and the like. I can't see that being something we could implement soon if we just overcame the map switching problem. Otherwise this is right in line with my own thinking on the matter.

@primem0ver:

I apoligize if I came off as rejecting your idea. I was not doing that, only pointing out that we have some issues independent of terrain that need addressing first. I would love for this to be added to C2C after the stability cycle and Multi-Maps. Great Job on this.

NP and thanks.

 

[primem0ver]

You cite Dfb as "cool continental" climate, but in the Köppen system as I know it, Dfb is "humid continental" (with merely warm summers instead of hot summers like Dfa), and Dsc is "cool continental". Could there be a mistake there?

No mistake. "Cool continental" was the first thing that came to mind when I was improvising a name to describe its characteristics. I merely saw the need to differentiate it because it is a separate climate. But yes... it is true it is a cooler humid continental climate.

Aside from that: okay, as I understand it, you combined climate types Dwa, Dwa and Dwc into one, and you leave out the following climate types:

Humid Subtropical (Cwa)
Oceanic (Cwb)
Continental Mediterranean (Dsa and Dsb)
Cool Continental (Dsc)
Cold Continental (Dsd)
Subarctic (Dfd)

The omission of all Cw and Ds climates seems like a pretty significant one, so I am curious about your reasons for it?

LOL... my reason for leaving them out is because I guess my climate understanding has a few gaps for climates that are not in the US. You are right. I should include the Cw climates as one or two types. And they might solve a problem when it comes to solving the "plains" problem in the US (even though the midwest is still considered Cfa and Cfb). As far as Ds, I am not sure it is different enough and widespread enough to include. I will consider it though.

I'm also wondering whether you have considered using the Trewartha system (a modified, and arguably improved Köppen system) instead of the Köppen system? Troll / Paffen, with its emphasis on vegetation days to determine climate types, also seems like an interesting alternative.

Never heard of it. I will have to check it out when I get the chance. Keep in mind though that too much detail will just be extra work without much payoff. I feel like I am being incredibly detailed as it is with 19-21 climate types and their subzones

 

[ls612]

About multi-maps taking precedence: If Multi-maps is that close to being complete then I can agree... but honestly, this doesn't just affect the switching of maps. If we plan on making an "underground" layer it could seriously affect pathfinding, AI, plot yields, and the like. I can't see that being something we could implement soon if we just overcame the map switching problem. Otherwise this is right in line with my own thinking on the matter.

It has nothing (well maybe a little) to do with your system messing up multi-maps, it has to do with the focus issues we've been having as a team on where the mod is going, and the balance and stability issues that have crept in over the past few months. I've been pushing for the next release cycle (a month or so) to be Balancing, Stability, AI, Multi-Maps code (but not the maps themselves), and not much else, including new content. We really need to take a breather, go through, and spend a good amount of time making C2C through the TH era a much more balanced, stable, and competitive mod.

That is the reason that I was hoping to delay the implementation of this. It is not really in those priorities, although it would be nice. However, the restraint I talked about above would have to apply to this as well, which would work out OK I think because you said you wanted to release this as a vanilla modcomp, right?

 

[primem0ver]

UPDATE: I have moved on to the Geography/Geology info files. As I started to create these files, an important idea (and feature) occurred to me:

The CIV4BedrockInfos.xml file contains details about the types of bedrock that can underlie the soil on a plot. These bedrock types are also the final state of the currently depositing soil if the Geography type is a depositional environment (detailed in the CIV4GeographyInfos.xml file).

Since certain types of bedrock have economical value, since some plots have absolutely no soil value whatsoever, and since I have heard complaints about current plot economic benefits (which will be further complicated by this mod since biome landscapes generally tend to be similar in their economic value), I think making use of this economic benefit can have enormous implications to a plots intrinsic economic value.

Therefore I am announcing that the BedrockInfos file will contain yields that can be tapped natively, by building mines, and by discovering technology.

Personally, I think that bedrock should maintain this economic value in its own right. However, bedrock has the potential to spawn bonuses (and that is already going to be part of how bonuses are placed on maps created by the GeoRealism engine). The question is where do I draw the line.

For example. Fossils is a bonus. The tendency of a bedrock type to have fossils is already affecting the bonus to science that the plot brings. However, at which point do I turn it into a separate fossil bonus? Making fossils available just because a certain bedrock type exists on a plot doesn't sound good since every adjacent plot that has the siltstone bedrock type (created in floodplains) will have fossils on it. Yet the fossils can still exist (hence the science bonus).

Another example is Anthracite (basically a coal forming bedrock type which is often already usable as coal). Coal would be all over the place in former swamp areas if anthracite bedrock is accessible.

So do we make these bonuses automatically? Personally, I think it should be chance based. Certainly, a geologist type unit that finds new bonuses (when resources are depleteable...) can be made more likely to find a resource of a certain type in a place where the right bedrock is found. (This ability to find new resources was part of the Genetic Era renewable resources addition. Does this exist in C2C?).

 

[primem0ver]

It has nothing (well maybe a little) to do with your system messing up multi-maps

I wasn't worried about that. In fact, Geologic process happen on all world types, including moons. So this could aid those maps as well. No, I am simply stating that I am not sure I like the idea of making multi-maps a second priority if we will be implementing an underground layer because that will affect so many areas of the game I can't see it being done in less than 6 months.

However, the restraint I talked about above would have to apply to this as well, which would work out OK I think because you said you wanted to release this as a vanilla modcomp, right?

Correct. Then it will be added to C2C. The main reason is because BtS vanilla will be so much easier to debug in. Load time for C2C (just to get to the main screen) takes about 5 min on my computer.

 

[Laskaris]

I will have to check it out when I get the chance. Keep in mind though that too much detail will just be extra work without much payoff. I feel like I am being incredibly detailed as it is with 19-21 climate types and their subzones

I agree, we should not go overboard with detail. However, I think including all the climate types of the Köppen system would be a good idea. If anything, the Köppen system has been criticised for having climate types that are too broad, especially the C types which lump together areas that really have quite different climates and vegetations. That's why people came up with improved systems, like Trewartha, which is basically a slightly expanded and refined Köppen system.

I can try and help you with some of the work if you like. I've been thinking about creating a map script with a more realistic climate model myself, but was reluctant to attack it all on my own.

Basically, what all of these climate classification systems - Köppen, Trewartha, Troll / Paffen and so on - have in common is that they operate with certain thresholds, like average temperature of warmest month, average temperature of coldest month, precipitation, vegetation days per year etc. If an area falls within a certain threshold, it is assigned a certain climate type.

I'm not quite sure yet, from your description, how the generation process of your map generator will look like. But I assume that, at some point, you will calculate the temperature and precipitation for each square of the map, maybe a few more factors. To use the Köppen climate classification properly, I think you would need

1) the average mean temperature of every month of the year, and
2) the precipitation for every month of the year

Once you have that, it is a pretty straightforward process of assinging the squares the appropriate climate zone, and from there making the correct terrain and features. Is this in fact how you envision this to work?

What I could help with, if you like, is the climate science stuff, like the thresholds, because I've done some work on that myself.

In any case, I really like what I'm seeing so far, keep up the great work!

 

[ls612]

I wasn't worried about that. In fact, Geologic process happen on all world types, including moons. So this could aid those maps as well. No, I am simply stating that I am not sure I like the idea of making multi-maps a second priority if we will be implementing an underground layer because that will affect so many areas of the game I can't see it being done in less than 6 months.



Correct. Then it will be added to C2C. The main reason is because BtS vanilla will be so much easier to debug in. Load time for C2C (just to get to the main screen) takes about 5 min on my computer.

I am actually thinking that in the grand scheme of things Multi-Maps for the Moon, Mars, Solar System, and Galaxy would come before Underground, simply becuase that has been our intent for multi-maps since we first found out about them, to have them complete the Galactic Era. That could take several months. I'm expecting that C2C won't be ready for the merge until early 2013 if my time estimates on other projects are correct. I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done though, and expect it to make a large splash in the greater Civ 4 mod community when you release it as a modcomp.

 

[AIAndy]

I am actually thinking that in the grand scheme of things Multi-Maps for the Moon, Mars, Solar System, and Galaxy would come before Underground, simply becuase that has been our intent for multi-maps since we first found out about them, to have them complete the Galactic Era. That could take several months. I'm expecting that C2C won't be ready for the merge until early 2013 if my time estimates on other projects are correct. I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done though, and expect it to make a large splash in the greater Civ 4 mod community when you release it as a modcomp.

I'd rather we don't do it in one big merge but rather earlier at least a partial merge (infos mainly) as the foundation will also influence how we make the other maps (mainly moon and mars).

 

[ls612]

I'd rather we don't do it in one big merge but rather earlier at least a partial merge (infos mainly) as the foundation will also influence how we make the other maps (mainly moon and mars).

Yes, but that would be after Koshling writes the ability for Multiple Maps to actually exist.

 

[Koshling]

Yes, but that would be after Koshling writes the ability for Multiple Maps to actually exist.

Actually that is already there. It's just that right now each map is it's own separate universe in effect, and only one is active at once. Howeve, multiple can already be present, and the DLL exposes functions to Pyton to switch between them.

 

[primem0ver]

If anything, the Köppen system has been criticised for having climate types that are too broad, especially the C types which lump together areas that really have quite different climates and vegetations.

I know what you mean. I refer to this problem in this Terrain/Feature graphic thread post. This could be valuable because right now there is a bit of a question I have over how to handle this disparity.

I can try and help you with some of the work if you like...

I'm not quite sure yet, from your description, how the generation process of your map generator will look like. But I assume that, at some point, you will calculate the temperature and precipitation for each square of the map, maybe a few more factors. To use the Köppen climate classification properly, I think you would need

1) the average mean temperature of every month of the year, and
2) the precipitation for every month of the year

Once you have that, it is a pretty straightforward process of assinging the squares the appropriate climate zone, and from there making the correct terrain and features. Is this in fact how you envision this to work?

Yes... for the most part. However, your post here has gotten me thinking about the month to month precipitation. My original plan was to just use average precipitation per annum. However, that may be inadequate. I don't think that per month is necessary but per season might be useful. Especially since season types are part of the xml schema.

As far as how it all will work, I will be posting a good number of those details some time this week as I start posting the draft versions of the XML files.

What I could help with, if you like, is the climate science stuff, like the thresholds, because I've done some work on that myself.

Actually I appreciate the offer. I would like to take you up on it as well. Sometimes I don't like getting down with minutia of detail because I like fitting it all together into the big picture. So since you are interested in this sort of thing, perhaps you can research the "seasonal" thresholds and fill them into the XML files once I get the format ironed out (for this new addition).

In any case, I really like what I'm seeing so far, keep up the great work!

Thanks

 

[Thunderbrd]

So do we make these bonuses automatically? Personally, I think it should be chance based. Certainly, a geologist type unit that finds new bonuses (when resources are depleteable...) can be made more likely to find a resource of a certain type in a place where the right bedrock is found. (This ability to find new resources was part of the Genetic Era renewable resources addition. Does this exist in C2C?).

Well... we have the resource depletion game option that would play into this kind of thinking well enough for me to possibly find it useful to play with then.

And I've proposed both Prospector and Great Prospector units that would be able to search for viable resources on a plot. The Prospector would have a chance of finding something useful, a chance of simple failure, but also a chance of a disastrous result as well. The Great Prospector, on the other hand, would be certain to find SOMETHING of value in the plot with his mission.

They wouldn't be looking for any type of resource of course, but for whatever the Earth should yield in terms of minerals at that spot so would make a very nice concept to interact with what you're talking about there!

Along those lines of thinking, we could adapt the Great Farmer too. He could be used more to discover the most valid crop type of an area among those we have available.

I also think we need a Great Fisherman, Great Rancher and a Great Forester to flesh that set out, operating along similar lines.

And perhaps we could have Farmers, Fishermen, Ranchers, and Foresters to make attempts at these things like the basic Prospector.

The way all of these could interact with your designs here would be absolutely incredible!

AIAndy suggested we could use the Outcome Missions system he developed to generate these kinds of various missions. As for unit arts... we'd have to find appropriate unit models.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

Some resources appear in approprate geological areas such as Sulphur and Obsidian can be spawned after volcanoes go away. And volcanoes can spawn from such resources too.