Geo Realism: Discussion on a new SDK based map generator

[primem0ver]

WOW i didnt even have a PDF reader

Any ways you mentioned right away about the Teutonic Features, is this related to mapscipts or what?

Not at all. Keep in mind that the GeoRealism engine will take what is created by the mapscripts and create a system of plates. At this time, mountains in the middle of continents will be turned to hills, their altitudes averaged. THEN plate tectonics will be simulated in the SDK creating a new landscape with mountains where they belong. Hence the name of this thread.

This allows map scripts to still influence the outcome of the map while at the same time allowing geologic processes to do a better job at creating geologically sound landscapes. Map scripts will basically determine the number, shape, and size of the tectonic plates but they will not handle the tectonic simulation or creation of tectonic features.

Ultimately, if we move all map creating to the SDK as some (including me) have advocated since it would make handling other worlds easier, then map scripts will ultimately take the form of XML files defining parameters and all maps will be created using an SDK version of the basic map creation process used by the map scripts.

 

[Laskaris]

Some thoughts on the terrains:

1. Tropical Rainforest floor, Deciduous forest floor, Temperate forest floor, Boreal. It looks to me like the distinction of these terrain types is conflating differences of latitude / climate ("tropical", "temperate") with differences in plant characteristics ("deciduous", "boreal"). I think that this is somewhat confusing, and that we should try to come up with a nomenclature that uses either latitude / climate or plant characteristics, but not both. I am especially unlcear on what soil type distinctions "temperate forest floor" and "deciduous forest floor" are supposed to represent.

2. Grass, Northern Grass, Seasonal Grass. Again, we are conflating two different things here, latitude ("northern") and seasonality ("seasonal"). I am also not quite clear on what the terrain distinction between "grass" and "northern grass" is supposed to be. I am not aware of "northern" grasslands having a significantly different soil type from other (southern?) grasslands in the real world. Then again, there might be a sense in the distinction - but from the mere terms, I simply don't know what you mean here.

3. One thing I think would be nice to have is a specific "red earth" / "terra rossa" terrain for regions with a Mediterranean climate. Historically, they were quite significant for the development of agriculture, because they were fairly fertile and allowed for the cultivation of grain and wine in early Mediterranean civilizations (Greece, Rome), while the soils in the temperate climates, because the earth was blacker and heavier there, were only properly cultuvates after the invention of the heavy iron plough. I think it would be fascinating to simulate this progression in the game.

4. Another thing I miss is a kind of mollisol aka "black earth" soil. They form in semi-arid to semi-humid regions under grasslands, and are exceptionally fertile (they need advanced agricultural tech like heavy ploughs for cultuvation, though). In the real world, mollisols are found in the Northern American Great Plains, the pampas of Argentina, and the "black earth belt" that stretches from central Europe across the Ukraine and into Central Asia - all of them are highly productive agricultural regions.

5. Lush. A terrain already in C2C. What kind of soil is it supposed to represent in our realism-driven model, and why does it produce so much food?

6. Plains. Plains isn't really a type of soil, it simply denotes flat terrain. Perhaps we could come up with a better name for this, which makes clearer what type of soil terrain "plains" is supposed to represent?

 

[primem0ver]

Some thoughts on the terrains:

1. Tropical Rainforest floor, Deciduous forest floor, Temperate forest floor, Boreal. It looks to me like the distinction of these terrain types is conflating differences of latitude / climate ("tropical", "temperate") with differences in plant characteristics ("deciduous", "boreal"). I think that this is somewhat confusing, and that we should try to come up with a nomenclature that uses either latitude / climate or plant characteristics, but not both. I am especially unlcear on what soil type distinctions "temperate forest floor" and "deciduous forest floor" are supposed to represent.

There are two differences between Deciduous and Temperature forest floors, though the end result is pretty much the same. The cause of both differences is that temperate forest floors are basically what I had in mind for evergreen forest floors. So they are different both in appearance and nutrients as I recall since evergreen forests are more acidic.

However, that difference is not noticeable in the end result of their statistics. The reason I called them "temperate" was because their color is also appropriate for the slightly less rich northern forests which would be called temperate forest floors. I think the best terminology would be deciduous and evergreen but I was of a mind to wait until we decided upon making another floor type. See also my comments on your next question.

Tropical rainforest soils on the other hand (as you probably know) are very different in nutrient content.

2. Grass, Northern Grass, Seasonal Grass. Again, we are conflating two different things here, latitude ("northern") and seasonality ("seasonal"). I am also not quite clear on what the terrain distinction between "grass" and "northern grass" is supposed to be. I am not aware of "northern" grasslands having a significantly different soil type from other (southern?) grasslands in the real world. Then again, there might be a sense in the distinction - but from the mere terms, I simply don't know what you mean here.

Technically their isn't much of a difference between grass and northern grass other than a slight color difference (there ARE different varieties of grass). The main difference isn't in the grass but in the soil but that difference isn't really big which is why I say I am willing to do away with this particular soil terrain. It is really a deduction that soil up north in areas that are frozen for a significant part of the year are not going to have as much humus/organic nutrients since it takes longer for materials to decay. This is the same assumption I am making about temperate forest floor.

"Seasonal" grass on the other hand is quite different. (I called this "western" grass previously). Seasonal grass is grass like that found in the savanna. It is the grasses of California and semi-arid regions where it is only green for a few months of the year. As the matter of fact, I plan on using "seasonal grass" as the primary grass for at least three different vegetation sets (directly associated with three separate biomes): savanna, Mediterranean, and mid-western semi-arid (prairie grass).

3. One thing I think would be nice to have is a specific "red earth" / "terra rossa" terrain for regions with a Mediterranean climate. Historically, they were quite significant for the development of agriculture, because they were fairly fertile and allowed for the cultivation of grain and wine in early Mediterranean civilizations (Greece, Rome), while the soils in the temperate climates, because the earth was blacker and heavier there, were only properly cultuvates after the invention of the heavy iron plough. I think it would be fascinating to simulate this progression in the game.

4. Another thing I miss is a kind of mollisol aka "black earth" soil. They form in semi-arid to semi-humid regions under grasslands, and are exceptionally fertile (they need advanced agricultural tech like heavy ploughs for cultuvation, though). In the real world, mollisols are found in the Northern American Great Plains, the pampas of Argentina, and the "black earth belt" that stretches from central Europe across the Ukraine and into Central Asia - all of them are highly productive agricultural regions.

5. Lush. A terrain already in C2C. What kind of soil is it supposed to represent in our realism-driven model, and why does it produce so much food?

I am not familiar with the "red earth" soils, however it seems to be similar to the other two in this group; all these basically fit into the same category to me. Feel free to inform me about red-earth soils though.

I originally wanted to get rid of "lush" because this soil as portrayed in C2C does not technically exist. But some people were pretty insistent on keeping it and if we interpret "lush" to mean highly fertile, such a soil does exist but not in tropical/semi-tropical regions where it currently gets put now. So I have come up with a compromise though I would still prefer to use a different graphic since the most fertile soils technically exist in continental/semi-arid regions.

"Lush" refers to highly fertile soils which you are describing in #4; those that exist in humid continental/semi-arid climates where there is enough moisture to support a large biological component within the soil, yet not enough moisture to leech a significant amount of nutrients away. In the US this would be Kansas/Western Missouri/Oklahoma areas. Basically we are talking about your "black earth" soil here.

Personally, I would not mind removing "lush" from the game entirely (or completely converting it to make more sense graphically and in nomenclature by just calling it "black earth" soil), but I got a lot of flack when I suggested it before. So I just decided to work with it in a way that made sense (even if the graphic doesn't fit).

6. Plains. Plains isn't really a type of soil, it simply denotes flat terrain. Perhaps we could come up with a better name for this, which makes clearer what type of soil terrain "plains" is supposed to represent?

Either way. I don't really care about terminology as I have expressed before.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

Thanks for posting these. It may take me a bit to digest them.

EDIT:

Since I did not see it in your file I thought I would post existing stats of C2C Earth biomes for comparison.

= Food
= Production
= Commerce
= Movement
= Defense
= Improvement Time
= Commerce From Rivers
= Cannot Build Cities Here Unless Coastal or Freshwater

||||||||
Marsh|1|2|0|3|0%|+50%|1|X
Muddy|1|2|0|2|0%|+25%|1|X
Lush|3|0|0|0|0%|0%|1
Grassland|2|0|0|0|0%|0%|1
Plains|1|2|0|0|0%|0%|1
Barren|0|0|0|0|0%|+25%|1
Rocky|0|1|0|2|+25%|+25%|1
Scrub|1|0|0|2|0%|0%|1
Desert|0|0|0|3|-25%|+25%|1|X
Dunes|0|0|0|4|0%|+50%|1|X
Salt Flats|0|0|0|0|-25%|+25%|0|X
Tundra|1|0|0|2|0%|+25%|1
Permafrost|0|0|0|3|0%|+50%|1
Ice|0|0|0|4|0%|+75%|0|X

As you can see they are all slightly different. Note I mostly posted this to have a record of them posted somewhere if they are changed.

 

[primem0ver]

NP Hydro.

From here on out I am going to make proposals from time regarding additions and changes to what I have included in these documents. I would like to hear feedback, or at least objections if any exist.

My first proposal based on DH's and Tbirds last comments is the addition of a new type of flood plain: A Mollisol ("black soil") floodplain that exists in deserts only.

Deserts have the highest amount of non-biological nutrients in their soils to begin with. The only thing they lack is humus. If you add humus to a desert soil you get the most fertile soil in existence. The addition of a floodplain presents ideal conditions for incredibly rich soils (Mollisols). While this was the idea behind the floodplain in the original game, the original game neglects that floodplains exist in places besides deserts and they always help soil in any terrain that is not a rainforest or already significantly humid because nutrients carried by rivers will settle in the floodplains.

With the addition of the GeoRealism mod, regular floodplains will exist by rivers in non-rainforest soil terrains including plains, "seasonal" grass, arid, rocky, scrub, tundra, boreal, (possibly temperate rainforest), and regular mollisol (lush). The only soil terrains that will not have floodplains of any kind are tropical rainforest, mud, grass, (northern grass if we include), and deciduous forest floor because these are already "wet" soils and too much wet is a bad thing for nutrients.

In the end, while regular floodplains offer +1 food and -1 health to cities, these proposed mollisol (desert) floodplains will have +2 food and NO health cost to cities.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

You say Tundra has no "Microvegetation". I disagree. Here is a quote from wikipedia ...

In tundra, the vegetation is composed of dwarf shrubs, sedges and grasses, mosses, and lichens.

Unlike say permafrost or ice, Tundra has some small vegetation.

I would also like to say that deserts have vegetation too. Its the Dunes and Salt Flats which don't have any.

Desert Vegetation
Tundra Vegetation

EDIT: Also Scrub would have even more Vegetation than Desert. If anything your "Arid" is the same as "Scrub".

 

[primem0ver]

Ooops... forgot about marsh. I need to go back and add that one. Also... salt flats are acceptable but we already discussed how they would be placed. Unfortunately for the first edition of the climate engine, rivers/drainage will not be re-calculated because no landscape changes will have been made. So we will have to randomly place a few salt flats at first.

Also... I can buy into the +2 work from muddy and plains. Just not the 1 food (for muddy).

 

[primem0ver]

@primem0ver
Unlike say permafrost or ice, Tundra has some small vegetation.

I can buy that at least to some extent. I can add permafrost. I have no problem with that.

I would also like to say that deserts have vegetation too. Its the Dunes and Salt Flats which don't have any.

Desert Vegetation
Tundra Vegetation

EDIT: Also Scrub would have even more Vegetation than Desert. If anything your "Arid" is the same as "Scrub".

What you are calling "desert" I am calling scrub. And as you say: what you are calling scrub, I am calling arid. So I agree with you when the terminology is straightened out. When I speak of desert, I am speaking of places where sand is pretty much all you see for miles and miles and miles. Not all of these places are dunes. Regions of California have very few (or very subtle) dunes and yet miles of empty sand.

EDIT: To give you some examples from real places:

Western Colorado, most of Utah, Idaho, northern New Mexico, eastern Oregon and Washington = Arid (where it isn't rocky).
Western Utah, Southern Arizona, Southern New Mexico, parts of Nevada, and parts of California I am calling scrub and you are calling desert.
Parts of Nevada, Death valley, and other parts of California I am calling desert.
Sahara, Mojave, and other high-wind deserts including some small parts of California and Nevada have lots of dunes.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

If I was following your system for existing biomes this is what I would say ...

Humidity Scale of +/- 5 Where + means Wet and - Means Dry.

Marsh =+5
Muddy = +4
Lush =+3
Grassland = +2
Plains = +1
Barren = 0
Rocky = -1
Scrub = -2
Desert = -3
Dunes = -4
Salt Flats =-5
Tundra =-3
Permafrost = 0
Ice = +3

Temperature

Marsh = Hot to Freezing
Muddy = Hot to Freezing
Lush = Hot to Mild
Grassland = Hot to Mild
Plains = Hot to Freezing
Barren = Hot to Freezing
Rocky = Warm to Freezing
Scrub = Hot to Mild
Desert = Hot to Mild
Dunes = Hot to Mild
Salt Flats = Hot to Mild
Tundra = Mild to Freezing
Permafrost = Cold to Freezing
Ice = Cold to Freezing

Vegetation
Note this is without a Terrain Feature

Marsh = Lots
Muddy = Lots
Lush = Uber Lots
Grassland = Moderate
Plains = Sparse
Barren = None
Rocky = Sparse
Scrub = Moderate
Desert = Sparse
Dunes = None
Salt Flats = None
Tundra = Sparce
Permafrost = None
Ice = None

Note all this info is based on how I originally made them. Hope this helps you.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I can buy that at least to some extent. I can add permafrost. I have no problem with that.



What you are calling "desert" I am calling scrub. And as you say: what you are calling scrub, I am calling arid. So I agree with you when the terminology is straightened out. When I speak of desert, I am speaking of places where sand is pretty much all you see for miles and miles and miles. Not all of these places are dunes. Regions of California have very few (or very subtle) dunes and yet miles of empty sand.

EDIT: To give you some examples from real places:

Western Colorado, most of Utah, Idaho, northern New Mexico, eastern Oregon and Washington = Arid (where it isn't rocky).
Western Utah, Southern Arizona, Southern New Mexico, parts of Nevada, and parts of California I am calling scrub and you are calling desert.
Parts of Nevada, Death valley, and other parts of California I am calling desert.
Sahara, Mojave, and other high-wind deserts including some small parts of California and Nevada have lots of dunes.

In the original layout I would say ...

- Barren = Varying temperature and moisture, keey feature is completely lack of vegetation. Thus to assume poor quality soil.

- Rocky = More focusing on the soil in that it has lots of rocks. Could be used with Pine Forests like Rocky mountains or even in warmer climates like a rocky outcrop in the desert.

- Scrub = Mediterranean, California (Csa, Csb) Semi-Arid with mostly scrubby plants.

- Desert = Arid, Hot and still vegetation. Sand or dry soil. But not dunes.

- Dunes = Very Dry, very Hot, no vegetation and mostly sand dunes.

- Salt Flats = Death Valley, Very Dry, Very Hot, no vegetation, no sand or soil, just salt.

Note these are jut explaining how I originally made them.

 

[primem0ver]

If you are going by the current system then I would agree with you. However, I need to point out again that I really don't understand what you mean by "lush." Such a fertile. environment does not exist in humid environments except near shield v. The only tropical environment that comes even close to being as fertile as your "lush" environment is the savanna.

Here is the same data in GeoRealism using the proposed terrains/biomes:

Marsh +4 to +0 (depending on where)
Tropical Rainforest +4
Muddy +2 to +4 (depending on where)
Monsoon +3
Grassland +2
Deciduous forest +2
Seasonal grass +1
Temperate forest +1
Mollisol (black soil... the real "lush" environment) +0
Arid -1
Rocky -1 to -2 depending on where
Scrub -2
Desert -3
Dunes -3
Salt flats -3

Tundra -2
Permafrost 0 to -3 depending on where
Ice +1

Temperature is fairly obvious with a few exceptions:
Mollisol seasonal (cool) to warm
Arid cold to warm
Scrub mild to hot

I am not so worried about vegetation since vegetation is its own category now.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Some thoughts on the terrains:

1. Tropical Rainforest floor, Deciduous forest floor, Temperate forest floor, Boreal. It looks to me like the distinction of these terrain types is conflating differences of latitude / climate ("tropical", "temperate") with differences in plant characteristics ("deciduous", "boreal"). I think that this is somewhat confusing, and that we should try to come up with a nomenclature that uses either latitude / climate or plant characteristics, but not both. I am especially unlcear on what soil type distinctions "temperate forest floor" and "deciduous forest floor" are supposed to represent.

2. Grass, Northern Grass, Seasonal Grass. Again, we are conflating two different things here, latitude ("northern") and seasonality ("seasonal"). I am also not quite clear on what the terrain distinction between "grass" and "northern grass" is supposed to be. I am not aware of "northern" grasslands having a significantly different soil type from other (southern?) grasslands in the real world. Then again, there might be a sense in the distinction - but from the mere terms, I simply don't know what you mean here.

3. One thing I think would be nice to have is a specific "red earth" / "terra rossa" terrain for regions with a Mediterranean climate. Historically, they were quite significant for the development of agriculture, because they were fairly fertile and allowed for the cultivation of grain and wine in early Mediterranean civilizations (Greece, Rome), while the soils in the temperate climates, because the earth was blacker and heavier there, were only properly cultuvates after the invention of the heavy iron plough. I think it would be fascinating to simulate this progression in the game.

4. Another thing I miss is a kind of mollisol aka "black earth" soil. They form in semi-arid to semi-humid regions under grasslands, and are exceptionally fertile (they need advanced agricultural tech like heavy ploughs for cultuvation, though). In the real world, mollisols are found in the Northern American Great Plains, the pampas of Argentina, and the "black earth belt" that stretches from central Europe across the Ukraine and into Central Asia - all of them are highly productive agricultural regions.

5. Lush. A terrain already in C2C. What kind of soil is it supposed to represent in our realism-driven model, and why does it produce so much food?

6. Plains. Plains isn't really a type of soil, it simply denotes flat terrain. Perhaps we could come up with a better name for this, which makes clearer what type of soil terrain "plains" is supposed to represent?

1. I am on the fence on this topic.

2. I agree that a different terminology should be reached since in the Southern hemisphere the Northern Grass would be the southern grass right? Are we talking about "Prairie" or "Steppe"? Because I could go with that name since its less geographically specific.

3/4. That's actually a cool idea to have them separated by soil color.

5. Lush I would like to keep even if its only possible to create to terraforming. Thus an artificial terrain that doesn't appear on maps naturally.

6. Plains I assume represent things like the Great Plains or African Savanna. Something a bit more dry than Grasslands but more wet than Scrublands.

 

[primem0ver]

In the original layout I would say ...

- Barren = Varying temperature and moisture, keey feature is completely lack of vegetation. Thus to assume poor quality soil.

THIS is probably what I am calling desert. Because it really is. There is no "barren" soil as you describe it. Desert soil is actually quite nutrient rich. The only problem is that it is not HUMUS rich (bio-matter nutrient rich) for obvious reasons.

Scrub = Mediterranean, California (Csa, Csb) Semi-Arid with mostly scrubby plants.

AHA... NOW I GOT YOU! This is actually not scrub at all. These climates consist of a very specific type of tall grass and this grass exists in climates that range from semi-arid to nearly tropical. The key here is that the rain is extremely seasonal which is why it is brown(actually tan) most of the year. In my system I am calling this "Seasonal grass". However, from around January to April (at least in Mediterranean climates) this grass is very green and very beautiful.

Salt Flats = Death Valley, Very Dry, Very Hot, no vegetation, no sand or soil, just salt.

Salt flats are not a major component of Death valley if at all. Actually Death valley isn't very much what I am calling desert either... only in certain parts. Much of death valley is what I would call "scrub" and you would call desert

Note these are jut explaining how I originally made them.

Ok... I think we understand each others terminology now with that last clarification of what you were calling "scrub."

 

[primem0ver]

1. I am on the fence on this topic.

2. I agree that a different terminology should be reached since in the Southern hemisphere the Northern Grass would be the southern grass right? Are we talking about "Prairie" or "Steppe"? Because I could go with that name since its less geographically specific.

3/4. That's actually a cool idea to have them separated by soil color.

5. Lush I would like to keep even if its only possible to create to terraforming. Thus an artificial terrain that doesn't appear on maps naturally.

6. Plains I assume represent things like the Great Plains or African Savanna. Something a bit more dry than Grasslands but more wet than Scrublands.

@Hydro

Take a look at my post above that specifically addresses Laskaris' concerns. I will summarize here.

(Keep in mind that terminology can be what you want it to be. I don't care much about terms. I care more about concepts. The only term I want to change is "Scrub"... to be honest. Because it give the wrong impression (as you seem to have). See below.)

2. Northern grass is essentially grassland that borders on boreal/tundra/permafrost. It may be less confusing if we just remove this one. Technically it is less productive and less humid than regular grass but not much so it would be ok to remove. I proposed it because it was unique. However, it seems to be creating too much confusion and looks almost the same as regular grass.

3/4 THESE are the only soils that fit the fertility that you give to "lush"

5. So you are thinking of a "Gaia" type eco system for lush. If you want to keep as an artificial terrain that might be doable.

6. What you are calling "scrub" lands are actually wetter than plains (what I call "seasonal grass." I think using just plains is better because while some seasona grasses do exist there, they are less frequent than in Mediterranean and Savanna climates.

Plains = prairie dog land/prairie. Actually... Laskaris I think this is the answer to your objection to plains. Lets call "plains" "Prairie".

 

[Hydromancerx]

If you are going by the current system then I would agree with you. However, I need to point out again that I really don't understand what you mean by "lush." Such a fertile. environment does not exist in humid environments except near shield v. The only tropical environment that comes even close to being as fertile as your "lush" environment is the savanna.

Well I would say in the original set up "Lush" was moisture wise between Muddy and Grassland. However it was made to have super soil fertility. Meaning from a game perspective and not necessarily a scientific perspective it was the type of tile that gave the most food. A "super grassland" if you will.

Note that terrain features such as Forest or Jungle were not considered in the leaching of soil so say a Rainforest + Lush mean that it was a "Lush Jungle" filled with an abundance of food sources and not necessarily what the soil quality was.

If anything it ment that there were lots of types of food sources. Barren on the other hand was at the other extreme with no food sources or any vegetation.

Marsh = Basically the wetlands
Muddy = not quite as wet as the Marsh
Lush = More food than grass (opposite of barren)
Grassland = normal BTS
Plains = normal BTS
Barren = the anti-lush (opposite of lush)
Rocky = The production tile with some defense without needing a hill.
Scrub = Personal favorite due to the climate I live in.
Desert = Warm (opposite of Tundra)
Dunes = Warmer (opposite of Permafrost)
Salt Flats = Warmest (opposite of Ice)
Tundra = Cold (opposite of Desert)
Permafrost = Colder (opposite of Dunes)
Ice = Coldest (opposite of Salt Flats)

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Yes I too was having problems with the names which said they were about soil but included vegetation in the names. Red soils, yes we in Australia have a lot of those. Just not the water to go with them sometimes. We also have soil types not found elsewhere in the world - the Russian soil scientists had to add t least one to the soil types when they were doing the difinitive work on world soils. Also we don't have many indigenous deciduous trees in any of our climate zones - this makes some of your discussion confusing.

 

[primem0ver]

Yes I too was having problems with the names which said they were about soil but included vegetation in the names. Red soils, yes we in Australia have a lot of those. Just not the water to go with them sometimes. We also have soil types not found elsewhere in the world - the Russian soil scientists had to add t least one to the soil types when they were doing the difinitive work on world soils. Also we don't have many indigenous deciduous trees in any of our climate zones - this makes some of your discussion confusing.

LOL. Keep in mind that I am including "microvegetation" as part of the soil terrains. This is where many of the soil names come from. Many names I just grabbed from what was already being used. Some are also just named after the climates or types of vegetation in the climates. I keep them this way because I don't even know the names for all the soils. I can just describe them... and know their mineral components.

I would like to keep the names non-technical so that they are easier to decipher. That is my only significant request. So far the only suggested names that I disagree with and would prefer to reassign is "barren" (which is essentially the same as a flat desert) and "scrub" since to me this word refers to vegetation that is very dry and small and this does not equate to the type of vegetation found in Mediterranean and savanna climates. To me this describes the minimal vegetation that can be found in certain types of desert environments (hence why I call "vegetated" deserts scrub).

 

[Laskaris]

I think the best terminology would be deciduous and evergreen but I was of a mind to wait until we decided upon making another floor type.

I think "evergreen forest floor" would be a clearer term than "temperate forest floor", then, because it makes clearer the difference to "deciduous forest floor". In addition, we might consider renaming "deciduous forest floor" to "seasonal forest floor", which I think is a term that would be more easily understood by players.

Northern grass is essentially grassland that borders on boreal/tundra/permafrost. It may be less confusing if we just remove this one. Technically it is less productive and less humid than regular grass but not much so it would be ok to remove. I proposed it because it was unique. However, it seems to be creating too much confusion and looks almost the same as regular grass.

Yeah, I think we are probably better off if we remove "northern grass". The difference to regular grass is pretty small, anyway.

My first proposal based on DH's and Tbirds last comments is the addition of a new type of flood plain: A Mollisol ("black soil") floodplain that exists in deserts only.

I think the idea of having a kind of "super flood plain" for very fertile desert river regions like the Fertile Crescent in Egypt / Mesopotamia is a good one, but these are NOT mollisols. Mollisol is a kind of soil that forms in temperate, semi-arid to semid-humid grasslands, not deserts. Here is a map of where mollisol regions of "black earth" exist in the real world:

And here is what they look like:

Maybe we could have a kind of "fertile grass" or "black earth" soil for such regions, which are more fertile than normal grasslands?

I am not familiar with the "red earth" soils, however it seems to be similar to the other two in this group; all these basically fit into the same category to me. Feel free to inform me about red-earth soils though.

Well, as I already mentioned, there is a significant difference between the "red earth" of the Mediterranean and the "black earth" of the Ukraine and Central Asia, in terms of what is required to cultivate them for agriculture. The black earth is much heavier, so it requires heavy iron ploughs to cultivate, and strong draft animals like horses. Red earths, by contrast, are lighter and only require a wooden plough and an ox (or even just human power) to cultivate. Thus they were cultivated earlier in history. Obviously, that is an important aspect for the game.

Red earths are an iron-rich soil that exists in Medterranean climates. They are pretty dry and light near the surface, but save enough moisture in the deeper soil to be good for agriculture, and excellent for the cultivation of wine. Here is an example of what the red earth looks like, from Croatia:

In the original layout I would say ...

- Barren = Varying temperature and moisture, keey feature is completely lack of vegetation. Thus to assume poor quality soil.

- Rocky = More focusing on the soil in that it has lots of rocks. Could be used with Pine Forests like Rocky mountains or even in warmer climates like a rocky outcrop in the desert.

- Scrub = Mediterranean, California (Csa, Csb) Semi-Arid with mostly scrubby plants.

- Desert = Arid, Hot and still vegetation. Sand or dry soil. But not dunes.

- Dunes = Very Dry, very Hot, no vegetation and mostly sand dunes.

- Salt Flats = Death Valley, Very Dry, Very Hot, no vegetation, no sand or soil, just salt.

Note these are jut explaining how I originally made them.

"Rock desert" and "sand desert" could be used to distinguish between such different types of deserts. You could break stone to make tools or buildings in the former, but not in the latter, so there would be a meaningful gameplay difference.

I am not so sure on whether a distinction between "(sand) desert" and "dunes" is necessary. One is sand desert without dunes, the other with dunes - but is there really a compelling reason to distinguish them in the gameplay?

With "plains", "scrub" and primem0ver's proposed "seasonal grass", we have three terrains that describe very similar things: a kind of semi-desert with scattered shrubs and patches of grass / seasonal grass vegetation. My suggestion would be to reduce these to two.

My suggestion for "barren" would be to use it as a terrain for polar deserts: regions that are so cold that no vegetation will grow there (not even tundra), and so dry that no ice caps will form. Polar deserts exist in the "dry valleys" of Antarctica and in some of the northernmost regions of Russia and Canada.

Lush I would like to keep even if its only possible to create to terraforming. Thus an artificial terrain that doesn't appear on maps naturally.

A terraformed terrain. I like that suggestion! My vote would be for using "lush" for that purpose.

So, all things considered, how about:

Forest soils:
Tropical Rainforest Soil
Evergreen Forest Soil
Seasonal Forest Soil
Boreal Forest Soil

Grasslands:
Black Earth Grassland
Red Earth Grassland
Regular Grassland
Seasonal Grassland (my preferred term for this would be "dry grassland" or "semi-dry grassland", which I think is clearer)

Deserts:
Semi-desert (former "scrub" and / or "plains" terrain)
Rock desert
Sand desert
Salt Flat
Polar Desert (former "barren")

Others:
Marsh
Muddy
Tundra
Ice
Lush (terraforming only)

And maybe a few others I have forgotten. This is just a rough list, but I hope it outlines my thinking.

(All pictures courtesy of Wikipedia and free for distribution.)

 

[primem0ver]

Yeah, I think we are probably better off if we remove "northern grass". The difference to regular grass is pretty small, anyway.

Ok... so we scrap "northern" grass. People will like the 2 food instead of 1 anyway and visually its too similar. Agreed.

I think the idea of having a kind of "super flood plain" for very fertile desert river regions like the Fertile Crescent in Egypt / Mesopotamia is a good one, but these are NOT mollisols. Mollisol is a kind of soil that forms in temperate, semi-arid to semid-humid grasslands, not deserts. Here is a map of where mollisol regions of "black earth" exist in the real world:

And here is what they look like:

Yes... I am very familiar with this type of soil and I know where it is located in Asia and America (though I was not as familiar with other continents). I have added it and am currently calling it "black soil." I agreed to keep the "lush" as a terraformed only soil rather than converting or removing it.

I am less sure about the type of soil that would be found in the nile delta or along the nile river. So apparently it is different but you agree with the "super flood plain" idea. Will do.

Well, as I already mentioned, there is a significant difference between the "red earth" of the Mediterranean and the "black earth" of the Ukraine and Central Asia, in terms of what is required to cultivate them for agriculture. The black earth is much heavier, so it requires heavy iron ploughs to cultivate, and strong draft animals like horses. Red earths, by contrast, are lighter and only require a wooden plough and an ox (or even just human power) to cultivate. Thus they were cultivated earlier in history. Obviously, that is an important aspect for the game.

Red earths are an iron-rich soil that exists in Medterranean climates. They are pretty dry and light near the surface, but save enough moisture in the deeper soil to be good for agriculture, and excellent for the cultivation of wine. *photo snip*

Ok... so basically my "Seasonal grass" is planted in red soil and the stats for seasonal grass match your description. Also, my use of the "deciduous forest" floor for forests in mediterranean climates and possibly redwoods will add to this look since it has a red-brown tint.

"Rock desert" and "sand desert" could be used to distinguish between such different types of deserts. You could break stone to make tools or buildings in the former, but not in the latter, so there would be a meaningful gameplay difference.

Essentially "rock desert" is more along the lines of what I consider "scrub" as such deserts tend to be overrun with small brushes and cacti.

I am not so sure on whether a distinction between "(sand) desert" and "dunes" is necessary. One is sand desert without dunes, the other with dunes - but is there really a compelling reason to distinguish them in the gameplay?

Ok... we can remove it if everyone else agrees. I would just want to call it "desert" though instead of dunes.

With "plains", "scrub" and primem0ver's proposed "seasonal grass", we have three terrains that describe very similar things: a kind of semi-desert with scattered shrubs and patches of grass / seasonal grass vegetation. My suggestion would be to reduce these to two.

Actually a better way to put this is to use the terms "plains", "scrub" "arid" the way I am using them. Mediterranean and savanna grasses (what I am calling seasonal grasses) are not patchy and don't belong in this category. They are consistently omnipresent within those regions. I suggested combining arid and scrub into one soil before and people did not like it. I am willing to go either way. But plains is something different. As I mentioned earlier, plains are "Prairie" and they are distinct and separate from "Arid"/"Scrub".

My suggestion for "barren" would be to use it as a terrain for polar deserts: regions that are so cold that no vegetation will grow there (not even tundra), and so dry that no ice caps will form. Polar deserts exist in the "dry valleys" of Antarctica and in some of the northernmost regions of Russia and Canada.

Oooh... I like this idea. Basically though you are saying that "barren" replaces "permafrost" (or vice versa). I was wondering what I would use for permafrost because I think the graphic being used for permafrost works better for boreal forests.

 

[primem0ver]

So, all things considered, how about:

Forest soils:
Tropical Rainforest Soil
Evergreen Forest Soil
Seasonal Forest Soil
Boreal Forest Soil

Grasslands:
Black Earth Grassland
Red Earth Grassland
Regular Grassland
Seasonal Grassland (my preferred term for this would be "dry grassland" or "semi-dry grassland", which I think is clearer)

Deserts:
Semi-desert (former "scrub" and / or "plains" terrain)
Rock desert
Sand desert
Salt Flat
Polar Desert (former "barren")

Others:
Marsh
Muddy
Tundra
Ice
Lush (terraforming only)

And maybe a few others I have forgotten. This is just a rough list, but I hope it outlines my thinking.

(All pictures courtesy of Wikipedia and free for distribution.)

Given my last posted agreements here is the updated version of the list above.

Forest Soil Terrains:
Tropical Rainforest Soil
Evergreen Forest Soil
Seasonal Forest Soil
Boreal Forest Soil (Polar)

Grassland Soil Terrains
(Regular/Monsoon) Grassland
Seasonal/Red Soil Grassland
Black Earth Grassland
Prairie (Plains)

Non-Polar Arid Soil Terrains
Arid
Rocky
Scrub* (I have suggested removing but will leave up to others).
Sandy/Dunes
Salt Flats

Polar Soil Terrains (non-forested)
Tundra
Barren/Permafrost (Polar Desert)
Ice

Others:
Volcanic
Marsh
Muddy
Lush (Terraform only)