Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Doesn't matter anyway, I can't get the granite resource to work - some graphical problem.
[GeoRealism] The two core Geography files
- Thread starter primem0ver
- Start date
Taxman66
King
Actually we have 3 including Dragon Glass... uhh... Obsedian 
You can get 'lesser' stone via a gatherer. I don't think we need to make distinctions between such lesser stone.
You can get 'lesser' stone via a gatherer. I don't think we need to make distinctions between such lesser stone.
primem0ver
Emperor
I tend to agree with those of you who do not want the different bonuses. There seems to be a certain resistance to other things manipulating plot yields/commerce. I am not sure why. It isn't that difficult to do and it will make plot value more interesting, and variable. The thing about granite is that it has more specific uses than "stone" so I am not as opposed to separating this particular type of rock.
But in general I think keeping the bedrock changes to commerce and yields separate from bonuses is preferable and useful.
We don't have to add granite. We can simply add a percent chance of creating the stone bonus from all bedrock on that little list.
But in general I think keeping the bedrock changes to commerce and yields separate from bonuses is preferable and useful.
We don't have to add granite. We can simply add a percent chance of creating the stone bonus from all bedrock on that little list.
But all we are really doing is adding a whole new mechanic that would function exactly the same as Bonuses currently do. I think that maybe if we don't want to add more map resources that we could make these invisible features (using the Multi-Feature Mod), and then have buildings require those features and generate bonuses. Is it possible to make a feature that has no graphics?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I think it's easier to do that than it is to make one that has graphics. But I don't think its necessary. I think AIAndy had it right when he spoke of buildings giving manufactured resource access being available based on bedrock definitions of the terrains in the city radius.
I like the idea of having all the various stone types indicated. I can see it playing into the integrity of the buildings its used to build eventually... somehow anyways.
Currently all features have a graphics representation and bedrock probably won't.
Besides, Yield and Commerce influences on the plot are rather easy to add, so I don't really see that as a significant new mechanic.
God-Emperor
Deity
A problem I see with bedrock, and such, directly changing the yields of plots is that there is no direct way to see what is causing it.
Currently, if you are looking at the map and see that a plot is a Plains plot then you know what the base yield will be. If there is a resource that modifies the yield you can see it (before you get the tech that lets you see the resource it does not modify the yield). If there is a feature that modifies the yield you can see it. If it is a hill plot you can see it. If there is a river you can see it. What you see is what you get.
But with bedrock (and such) modifiers active, if there is a bedrock modifier to the yield it will be invisible on the regular map. It is no longer a case of "a plains plot is a plains plot", it is "some plains plots are better than others and there is no way to tell just by looking at the graphics which is which". You'd need to actually turn on the yield indicators to see what the yields are.
That could get irritating. Especially if in the early game (probably for quite a long time) there is no way to bring up the special layers that provide the details that explain why - assuming you can't immediately do so since it would be highly unrealistic. (How, exactly, does a caveman get detailed geological information when the technologies to know what that stuff is won't be invented for another 50,000 years or so?)
It also leads to a whole new balance issue for starting locations. We may both have started on a mix of plains and grassland with a couple of hills and a peak and a river and most covered by forest, and we may have practically identical resources once they are revealed, but twice as many of my plots get extra yields from mysterious sources since I happen to have "better" bedrock in my area than you do. In the early stone age even one extra commerce per turn from that one plot you can work with your 1 population gives a considerable increase to the rate at which you research techs. Yet another thing to try to balance (and it is already pretty badly balanced).
In theory it sounds good and makes sense, but the practical aspects of it may make the direct plot yield changes undesirable.
Currently, if you are looking at the map and see that a plot is a Plains plot then you know what the base yield will be. If there is a resource that modifies the yield you can see it (before you get the tech that lets you see the resource it does not modify the yield). If there is a feature that modifies the yield you can see it. If it is a hill plot you can see it. If there is a river you can see it. What you see is what you get.
But with bedrock (and such) modifiers active, if there is a bedrock modifier to the yield it will be invisible on the regular map. It is no longer a case of "a plains plot is a plains plot", it is "some plains plots are better than others and there is no way to tell just by looking at the graphics which is which". You'd need to actually turn on the yield indicators to see what the yields are.
That could get irritating. Especially if in the early game (probably for quite a long time) there is no way to bring up the special layers that provide the details that explain why - assuming you can't immediately do so since it would be highly unrealistic. (How, exactly, does a caveman get detailed geological information when the technologies to know what that stuff is won't be invented for another 50,000 years or so?)
It also leads to a whole new balance issue for starting locations. We may both have started on a mix of plains and grassland with a couple of hills and a peak and a river and most covered by forest, and we may have practically identical resources once they are revealed, but twice as many of my plots get extra yields from mysterious sources since I happen to have "better" bedrock in my area than you do. In the early stone age even one extra commerce per turn from that one plot you can work with your 1 population gives a considerable increase to the rate at which you research techs. Yet another thing to try to balance (and it is already pretty badly balanced).
In theory it sounds good and makes sense, but the practical aspects of it may make the direct plot yield changes undesirable.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Perhaps the answer to this should be an optional condition (bug option perhaps) as to whether you wish to retain rationally being unable to know anything about the bedrock etc... until techs are earned that show that info VS being able to get the full breakdown immediately. I personally wouldn't mind being 'in the dark' as to why some territories produce more than others - to me, that's what the map setting that brings up the base yields on every plot is for. With the last update on terrains, I had to let go entirely of being able to judge a plot just by knowing what terrain type/feature it had (I'm learning it back up to that point again but its still often mysterious now and I LIKE that.)
primem0ver
Emperor
GE has some good points. It is understandable that one would want a visual clue as to why a plot has a yield advantage, especially when you don't have plot yields visible (though I almost always do). And yet I still agree with Thunderbrd liking the mystery of it (and the randomness of it). I also now get the balancing issues.
I have been planning on changing plot text to "explain" the difference, yet making that text tech specific. Maybe that is the answer here. Maybe all bedrock types should not affect yields until the techs to discover/access them are discovered. Some types are more readily obvious and discovered earlier (like granite and sandstone). Some less so (like basalt and siltstone). I still don't like the idea of making them all bonuses. Every plot would have a bonus (this would be true for making them features as well) and not all of them are market trade-able.
As for a visual clue? That is a tough one. Perhaps a small icon could be displayed above each plot similar to the yields...?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Here are some possible trigger techs ....
- Cave Dwelling
- Stone Building
- Megalith Construction
- Mining
- Masonry
- Sculpture
- Construction
- Surveying
- Cartography
- Geology
- Explosives
- Archeology
- Paleontology
- Nitroglycerin
- Modern Siemology
- Volcanology
- Astrogeology
- Subterranean Exploration
- Planetary Terraforming
- Lunar Terraforming
- Cave Dwelling
- Stone Building
- Megalith Construction
- Mining
- Masonry
- Sculpture
- Construction
- Surveying
- Cartography
- Geology
- Explosives
- Archeology
- Paleontology
- Nitroglycerin
- Modern Siemology
- Volcanology
- Astrogeology
- Subterranean Exploration
- Planetary Terraforming
- Lunar Terraforming
God-Emperor has good points. Unless we make the bedrocks with yield changes resources (with or without graphics) we will have the issue of the yield displays being off. I don't how how much of that is hardcoded, but worst case scenario the only way of modifying the displayed yield is making it a resource. Which would be my vote, given that PM has shown himself capable of making terrain graphics, if we can't find graphics for granite, shale, or what have you he could make them.
The displayed yield is not hard coded.
Oh good, then that shouldn't be a problem. But I still like the resource solution for the other benefits it provides.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
opps wrong thread
I'd rather not have resources everywhere on the map.
If you want a graphical representation, use features as that way you can have more than one on a plot.
That is the price of the type of map projection used in Civ games. Changing that would confuse people a lot.
If changing it is even possible. But yes, that would cause issues for people if it was done.
primem0ver
Emperor
Funny you should bring this up now since I just started this thread on the issues presented by map projections as they relate to the GeoRealism mod.
