Gotm15-Russia Terrain/Forest Ratio Feedback thread

[cracker]

This thread is to support discussion and collect feedback from the player community on the experiences and feelings that players encountered with the quanitity of Forests in Gotm15-Russia.

Map testing of a number of randomly generated maps from the out-of-the-box civ3 map generator revealed that regardless what settings we chose for the maps in terms of temperature (cool, temperate, or warm) the percentage of forest tiles remained essentially constant for the entire world at about 15%. The highest level of forest coverage that we could randomly generate was 17%.

For Russia we did not want to try and copy a world map of Russia because this would eliminate much of the surprise and exploration elements of the game play. We did want to pick up some of the geographic character of the Russian terrain and the overwhelming characteristic that was picked up from our research was the 46% of Russian terrain being some type of Forest.

Another observation that was included in this design process is that the AI programming in Civ3 does not seem to place forests for the purpose of harvesting the resources, even after the prerequisite technology becomes available.

The Gotm15-Russia map had the forest content ratio increased to 26% of the total map to allow the Russian hinterland to be 45% forest.

This map effectively contained more natural forest squares than we have ever seen in any Gotm map in the history of the Civ3 GOTM of Civfanatics.

We would like to hear you comments as to how this terrain shift may have effected the feel and/or play of the game. Please vote in the poll and provide us with any specific constructive criticism or comments that you may have. You may freely discuss any issues about Gotm15-Russia that relate to the issue of Forests or the strategies or tactics that way have been required to deal with these special map features.

 

[Moonsinger]

Since I love the forest and swamp, I really like the extra forest in the GOTM15. After we cut down all the tree or clear the swamp, we end up with grassland. However, there is a downside to this. Since the AIs can't cut tree and clear the swamp like we do (they know how to do it, but they do it very poorly), they can't expand as fast as we can. Therefore, the AIs can't grow very fast in these type of map.

 

[MadScot]

Voted for the "something different" option because although I feel that they added character, per the first one, I wouldn't want that to mean we always have piles of forests, which is what's implied by #1.

It might have been more realistic (per Russia IRL) and have given the human less of a forestry management advantage if there hadn't been grassland under almost all the forests - a big chunk of forested tundra would have been "in character" but not so easily exploited by the human.

 

[ProPain]

I loved the trees, made it uch easier to build some key improvements in those far flung, totally corrupted parts of your empire.

I love to see more map changes like this.

 

[Karasu]

In general, I am in favour of changes. In this case, it did add a very specific strategic trait to the game -my fault for overlooking it...

So, I would say yes to these features -maybe not always, it is nice to see changes on a background of "normal" games; otherwise, there is the risk of overdoing things.

 

[BoBtheBUILDER]

I voted something different as well. I think that the thought and attention to detail that went into this map was not appreciated by many players at the time (including myself). I know that I did not make best use of the forest strategicly and it was a pain in the butt to build railroads through it, but ultimately it did give a more realistic character to gameplay and in hindsight I really did enjoy it.

BoB

 

[Nightfa11]

I voted for the second option. There really isn't an option that fits how I feel about it.

I prefer a unique feel to the game. That's why these GOTM's are the most fun I've ever had playing single player Civ. Nothing still compares to me and the wife taking on 14 other civs in Deity. But the wife has been bogged down with work and I've had some free time to Civ and so I've really enjoyed these games.

The thing is, I agree with MadScot. I don't always want a ton of forests. I want a ton of forests (and forested tundra) in a Russian Map because it's in character.

In short, altering the terrain to fit a given country's terrain is a good thing. Altering it for the sake of altering it is bad.

 

[Borealis]

I liked the change in terrain, and would like to see it again more often. As long as we don't try to model Egypt as 'all desert except area surrounding the Nile', and keep the modifications on this level, still allowing the game to be basically playable as usual, interesting terrain is fine with me.

Playing with the 'taiga' gave a disadvantage to the AI, which couldn't expand as well, but also to the player- you had to be very, very careful with your scouts to make sure they were getting the maximum speed possible through it at the beginning, which was key to making the most of the expansionistic trait.
It also put a premium on attacking China rather than Germany first, with the lusher lands and easier roads facilitating invasion. (That, and China's distinct lack of iron and horses.)

 

[BoBtheBUILDER]

I don't understand why everyone used China's lack of resources as the criteria for an early invasion... my preference in the game was to hobble/dismantle Germany first, for the reason that they did have these critical resources...

 

[Justus II]

One interesting result, in addition to the China/Germany debate, was that because Egypt did NOT have to face the forest challenge, they quickly became the superpower in most maps.

I did try to use the forest as much as possible in rushing improvements along the german border. I went after China first, and built my FP there, so the German cities were a struggle, but with forests and lots of disbanded longbows/artillery/etc I was able to rush most improvements I needed. It was good when railroad came about, I had big stacks of workers that could cut forests down in 3 turns, then road in one and rail in two (and mine in 2 if needed). Then they would move on. I would use a combinationt that would get me 3.5 worker equivalents (1 regular and 5 slave, or 2 regular and 3 slave) to do this. Unfortunately, I couldn't automate them, but I don't trust the automation much anyway, except for pollution. Even then, if there is no pollution, they come up for new assignments, then I forget they are no longer on pollution when it reappears, but that's another story.
So yes, I enjoyed it, I got to really practice some 'forestry' operations, which I don't do that often.

Also, in my initial offensive against the germans (early middle ages), I found good uses for the Longbow. I usually skip over them and build only knights, but against the Germans, the forest restricted movement to 1/turn regardless, and the longbowmen were cheaper. I had 2 cities (Moscow and Smolensk) that could build a longbow every 2 turns, and quickly had a SOD for much less than that many knights would have cost. When the war was over, they were 10 shields each toward rushing my libraries and courthouses!

 

[SirPleb]

I voted "added substantial character", but I second MadScot's note about the implication in the poll's phrasing. Once can read it as "increased forests ... should be used more often". I decided to interpret the first choice in the poll as meaning something like "customized terrain, outside the scope of what can happen in randomly generated maps, should be used more often" and I picked that answer in that spirit.

I think that the high level of forests on this map were neat both in the mood of the game and in making us think about different choices than usual. Should I build more workers because of them? Should I forest tiles first and road them second because the total worker time is less, or should I road first because I need the roads asap? Should I try to time the forestry carefully to gain the maximum shields from it or should I just rush the job as quickly as can be done? I thought about these things a bit more than I have before and that was fun.

 

[planetfall]

I enjoyed the extra forests as it gave more of a feel that I was playing Russia, than would have been the case if we would have used a regular map.

If we were playing the Mongols, I would expect more plains. If we were playing Carth, I would expect more desert tiles.

== PF

 

[DANGERBOY]

I like it when GotM has a unique feel that ties in some way with the civ we're playing. Terrain is definately one way to do it. Hmmm... a waterworld for the next English game to max their seafaring potential? Or how about a lot of arctic, alpine, forest and coast for the Viking? Attention to these type of details are extremely welcome as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Iver-P]

On a related note:

I asked (but never got an answer) over in the After Submit Spoiler thread if placement of resources was adjusted so that russia did not have coal, rubber, or aluminum in what might be considered its "homeland".

Any thoughts?

 

[civ_steve]

I like the idea of adjusting the Terrain mix for specific effect. This is one more element that forces the player to adjust their play to match the circumstances. And having all that forest to chop down helps to make improvements faster in remote cities. (Although, I'd hate to have to slog through a lot of Jungle. )

 

[zagnut]

I like not knowing what is coming. Therefore, you can make whatever changes you want to the standard game. The idea of not knowing what is coming reminds me of what the game was like when I first started playing. Remember how overwhelmed you felt as a newbie? Well, surprises can bring back that feeling.

I vote for change.