[Map script]Creation.py for FFH2
- Thread starter cephalo
- Start date
cephalo
Deity
Regarding the options:
Still, not having any options (except for map size) is terrible! I absolutely don't get why you wont make the variables that you specifically list as modifiable at the top of your script (that's less than 20, right? so not much work at all and limiting the "cry for more options" in itself) into drop-down options.
You could just set 3 or 5 values for each in the drop-down and I bet that EVERYONE would be happy. Those that don't like the values can still edit the mapscript if they want to, but it's a real pain for those that aren't comfortable editing scripts. And for those that are, too, since it has to be done before loading FfH.
So, please, please think about it again, Cephalo. We'd all love you even more for that!
Alright everyone, what options should be in the dropdown list? Be disciplined in your requests! I'd like to limit options strictly to things that a player would want to change from game to game. Things that are a matter of taste I prefer to leave in the script. I'd rather not have to come up with a scheme that saves options in a config file, and the more options you have the more that becomes needed. 3 or 4 options should be the most. I don't want option choice to be like homework for those who just like the default options.
I'm not entirely sure what your variables are in the script, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt.
First, an option for deciding the sizes of the region openings. I personally don't like when every region has a 1 tile bottleneck to it's neighbor region.
Maybe an option for X # of regions per player.
Maybe an option for water percentage on the map.
Maybe an option for average size of regions.
Can't think of anymore right now. Default settings should of course be whatever you have now.
First, an option for deciding the sizes of the region openings. I personally don't like when every region has a 1 tile bottleneck to it's neighbor region.
Maybe an option for X # of regions per player.
Maybe an option for water percentage on the map.
Maybe an option for average size of regions.
Can't think of anymore right now. Default settings should of course be whatever you have now.
Arctic Circle
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
- Messages
- 473
To show complete ignorance in how it works:
Interconnectivity.
- By Sea
- By Land
- Mixed
- Not garanteed
Aka .. how can you reach the other players areas. But it is most likely not that easy.. so ignore.
Its a great thing, as it is. But my wife wants 30-50% bigger regions.
Interconnectivity.
- By Sea
- By Land
- Mixed
- Not garanteed
Aka .. how can you reach the other players areas. But it is most likely not that easy.. so ignore.
Its a great thing, as it is. But my wife wants 30-50% bigger regions.
Blackmantle
King
@ Cephalo: 
Never reach out to them with your small finger even...
lest them ripping off your arm for it.
But seeing the replies after your comment does give your point quite some serious credibility even if you did heed our nagging calls... (Which many will be very thankful for. Rest assured.)
I can understand that to a certain level but seriously have at least to agree that sea level, (average) climate and perhaps even Peak percentage (even though that last one radically alters the feel of the map and as you said the look to the negative so i can understand your strong dislike for that last one and wont use that for my part...) whould really add very much to an already outstanding mapscript.
I tried one game with lower sea level lately and it really adds alot to the experience / replayability of the script without changing the overall feel at all (as whould i belive climate. Though i can understand your dislike in regards to peaks as mentioned.)
The other things are in in the file and can be edited with some work, so you won't have put them in by force (also a comment via tooltip / at play now description pointing to the options in the file / the file itself might go a long way...). Just reply: You can change it in the file like you have done here a number of times.
But at least climate and sealevel are part and parcel of nearly all other map scripts and new players might be very much puzzled by those beeing greyed out.
With those 2 / 3 you whould cover the vast majority of players wanting some changibility.
I'll venture a guess and say many players who have not used or even heard of your mapscript will soon be very much confronted with it (even if half the players have tried it thats still very many who haven't). Soon the questions why there are no further options will come along quite in number.
The easy way to appease them and prevent such calls is to implement above 2 / 3 Options. The rest is marginal imo (and mostly players who whould want to customize further are indeed likely to know how to code so they might know how. At least after knowing how go ahead / where to look.).
So all in all that whould be about 3-5 options (listed all possibly needed imo by personal opinion of importance, decreasing):
Sea level (must have imo, biggest gain for replayability / tactics, no losses to the feel of the script really.)
Temperature
Humidity
Altitude (which is already adressed in the mapscipt itself, so it might be redundant and Highlands is always an option for maps with much more hills and intersections.)
those three add up to terrain conditions fair and square imo but temperature and humidity perhaps even combined in one dropdown (like climate) are by far more important than altitude imo if 4/5 options are to much.
(Although i could live without those since they are a small infringement on the feel of the mapscript already they whould add alot. Especially for builders of scenarioes and maps using your script as a base / perhaps even the team for ice a bit now that its part of the main mod
. Providing the rest of the community without having to fiddle with the mapscript file to much.)
Peak Percentage / Number of passages to other regions (i don't find that one particularly needed for me since i whould play another mapscript when i want a more open landscape. But overall interest is poised to be there and strong for that point so i list it.).
Perhaps let some players who edit the script here and there test and brainstorm what the options for the dropdwns could be after outlining what dropdown topics will be in. (with you giving the outlines which topics you will indeed opt in.) Im sure you will find enough volounteers heeding that call easiely.
Then you whould just have to take a short peek/test and put in the values the testers agee on thus spareing yourselves the work of testing hundreds of maps if thats too much fuss for your tastes.
Sea level testing has been done here some pages ago allready i reckon. But further testing surely won't be bad...
@ the ones who wan't bigger regions:
Thats done nicely allready by overall map-size. If you want bigger regions play bigger maps and change the number of competitors if thats to much AI running around for your tastes (large and huge offer valleys of considerable size. Enough for sometimes as much as 5 cities placed in good spots apart from each other in each valley. 3 for average starting regions mostly. In case of a "bad draw" just consider moving. The starting settler has good vision / movement for a reason.). With 0.33. FFH2 will speed up overall hopefully. So that shouldn't be a problem soon even for slower comps.
If your comps are to slow (even with the changes in 0.33) for anything above small perhaps really consider changeing it in the file itself as other things which offer an more suitable map for slower comps. (I don't think that is of large overall interest needed without modifying the file to be honest and it could really help you have a better gaming-experience in terms of speed as well so just a few compromises might be to few to help out.)
Perhaps another contributor besides cephalo can provide a more suitable file-setup (by linking their version of creation.py here)? Offering things like regions of large/huge-map scale / less mountain-space on the edges on small mapsizes among other things which enhance performance / playability and usable terrain for slower comps. That group won't be so big i reckon and have special needs. (But important enough to be adressed imo. Even though i think bothering cephalo with that might be a bit of a stretch. Its not his mapscripts fault after all that FFH2 has some performance issues on very large maps. And he even went out of his way and gave very detailed variables to customize.)
Never reach out to them with your small finger even...
lest them ripping off your arm for it. But seeing the replies after your comment does give your point quite some serious credibility even if you did heed our nagging calls...
(Which many will be very thankful for. Rest assured.)I can understand that to a certain level but seriously have at least to agree that sea level, (average) climate and perhaps even Peak percentage (even though that last one radically alters the feel of the map and as you said the look to the negative so i can understand your strong dislike for that last one and wont use that for my part...) whould really add very much to an already outstanding mapscript.
I tried one game with lower sea level lately and it really adds alot to the experience / replayability of the script without changing the overall feel at all (as whould i belive climate. Though i can understand your dislike in regards to peaks as mentioned.)
The other things are in in the file and can be edited with some work, so you won't have put them in by force (also a comment via tooltip / at play now description pointing to the options in the file / the file itself might go a long way...). Just reply: You can change it in the file like you have done here a number of times.
But at least climate and sealevel are part and parcel of nearly all other map scripts and new players might be very much puzzled by those beeing greyed out.
With those 2 / 3 you whould cover the vast majority of players wanting some changibility.
I'll venture a guess and say many players who have not used or even heard of your mapscript will soon be very much confronted with it (even if half the players have tried it thats still very many who haven't). Soon the questions why there are no further options will come along quite in number.
The easy way to appease them and prevent such calls is to implement above 2 / 3 Options. The rest is marginal imo (and mostly players who whould want to customize further are indeed likely to know how to code so they might know how. At least after knowing how go ahead / where to look.).
So all in all that whould be about 3-5 options (listed all possibly needed imo by personal opinion of importance, decreasing):
Sea level (must have imo, biggest gain for replayability / tactics, no losses to the feel of the script really.)
Temperature
Humidity
Altitude (which is already adressed in the mapscipt itself, so it might be redundant and Highlands is always an option for maps with much more hills and intersections.
)those three add up to terrain conditions fair and square imo but temperature and humidity perhaps even combined in one dropdown (like climate) are by far more important than altitude imo if 4/5 options are to much.
(Although i could live without those since they are a small infringement on the feel of the mapscript already they whould add alot. Especially for builders of scenarioes and maps using your script as a base / perhaps even the team for ice a bit now that its part of the main mod
. Providing the rest of the community without having to fiddle with the mapscript file to much.)Peak Percentage / Number of passages to other regions (i don't find that one particularly needed for me since i whould play another mapscript when i want a more open landscape. But overall interest is poised to be there and strong for that point so i list it.).
Perhaps let some players who edit the script here and there test and brainstorm what the options for the dropdwns could be after outlining what dropdown topics will be in. (with you giving the outlines which topics you will indeed opt in.) Im sure you will find enough volounteers heeding that call easiely.
Then you whould just have to take a short peek/test and put in the values the testers agee on thus spareing yourselves the work of testing hundreds of maps if thats too much fuss for your tastes.
Sea level testing has been done here some pages ago allready i reckon. But further testing surely won't be bad...
@ the ones who wan't bigger regions:
Thats done nicely allready by overall map-size. If you want bigger regions play bigger maps and change the number of competitors if thats to much AI running around for your tastes (large and huge offer valleys of considerable size. Enough for sometimes as much as 5 cities placed in good spots apart from each other in each valley. 3 for average starting regions mostly. In case of a "bad draw" just consider moving. The starting settler has good vision / movement for a reason.). With 0.33. FFH2 will speed up overall hopefully. So that shouldn't be a problem soon even for slower comps.
If your comps are to slow (even with the changes in 0.33) for anything above small perhaps really consider changeing it in the file itself as other things which offer an more suitable map for slower comps. (I don't think that is of large overall interest needed without modifying the file to be honest and it could really help you have a better gaming-experience in terms of speed as well so just a few compromises might be to few to help out.)
Perhaps another contributor besides cephalo can provide a more suitable file-setup (by linking their version of creation.py here)? Offering things like regions of large/huge-map scale / less mountain-space on the edges on small mapsizes among other things which enhance performance / playability and usable terrain for slower comps. That group won't be so big i reckon and have special needs. (But important enough to be adressed imo. Even though i think bothering cephalo with that might be a bit of a stretch. Its not his mapscripts fault after all that FFH2 has some performance issues on very large maps. And he even went out of his way and gave very detailed variables to customize.)
cephalo
Deity
Here are my thoughts on some of the possible options mentioned so far:
Sea Level/amount of water. - This one I think is very useful. If you want to play as Lanun or against Lanun, it's nice to have plenty of coastal land, more than you might want playing a different civ maybe.
Peak percent. - I don't like this as an option because it's a matter of taste. Can someone give me a reason why you would want a game today with fewer peaks and a game tommorow with full peaks? The segmented nature of this script is kinda it's reason for existing. If you don't like that about it, their are other map scripts as has been mentioned that will probably serve you better. Also, without alot of peaks the map starts to look really bad because of the way the climate is divided by regions. If you're simply uncomfortable editing the map script, I will say that getting over that discomfort is the best solution for everyone. Set the appropriate variables how you like them once, rather than every game, and also then people who don't want to mess with that option don't have to be confronted with it.
Climate settings. - This one is doable, but currently the focus is to get all the diversity of climate that the game offers, from the dryest desert to the wettest jungle to the snowyest peaks for every map. When do you not want that? Is there a reason why you'd want to not have jungle or not have desert for one game, and then bring it back the next? I'd like to limit dropdown options to only things that should change from game to game, not general preferences.
Sea Level/amount of water. - This one I think is very useful. If you want to play as Lanun or against Lanun, it's nice to have plenty of coastal land, more than you might want playing a different civ maybe.
Peak percent. - I don't like this as an option because it's a matter of taste. Can someone give me a reason why you would want a game today with fewer peaks and a game tommorow with full peaks? The segmented nature of this script is kinda it's reason for existing. If you don't like that about it, their are other map scripts as has been mentioned that will probably serve you better. Also, without alot of peaks the map starts to look really bad because of the way the climate is divided by regions. If you're simply uncomfortable editing the map script, I will say that getting over that discomfort is the best solution for everyone. Set the appropriate variables how you like them once, rather than every game, and also then people who don't want to mess with that option don't have to be confronted with it.
Climate settings. - This one is doable, but currently the focus is to get all the diversity of climate that the game offers, from the dryest desert to the wettest jungle to the snowyest peaks for every map. When do you not want that? Is there a reason why you'd want to not have jungle or not have desert for one game, and then bring it back the next? I'd like to limit dropdown options to only things that should change from game to game, not general preferences.
Blackmantle
King
My take on climate settings: As i stated i mostly see scenario-builders / modmodders getting a lot from that since some civs have strong preferences (like Doviello, Illians for cold or Malakim for dry terrain.) and i think its likely that in a certain civ-setup / religion-setup / custom settings a certain terrain is prefered (so for example a map where hippus are playing an important role in the storyline taking place in large steppes.) while still wanting the separated valleys which add alot to ffh2 gameplay.
Since your mapscript looks like a very good base for FFH 2 premade scenarioes i do consider that one an important point.
But players might wan't to use it as well since that makes a huge difference in gameplay (even with terraforming beeing rather readily available in FFH2). And at times a clear game roleplaying a certain situation / setup without a pre-made map might appeal. (giving the merits / feel of premade maps and still preserving the replayability of random maps is one big reason for that.)
And while scenario-builders / modmodders might really get down to handcrafting their maps in Worldbuilder you surely won't find many regular players who do that. So you deliver both goups with something they don't have acess to right now even with this outstanding mapscript.
So i very certainly see plenty of reasons not wanting to see the whole diversity but a certain focus for a map instead. (not so much completely ignoring certain terrains but giving the map an overall feel of beeing in a certain climate-zone / location mostly.)
Especially if one has played 10-20 maps on the usual diversity of climates already.
For example a jungle-heavy region if you want to play a game where the Bannor fight the Orcs near Labruscum or a Map with tundra, ice and plains mostly for a feel of beeing near Letum Frigus (hopefully spelled right by me...).
Taking a peek at the scenarioes teasers in the scenarioes-screen gives a good inspiration of how the regions of Erebus could be like. (+ Keal could offer much more for sure if we bug him enough once we need it...)
If cutting off certain terrain more or less completely creates issues on map-generation (because of civ-placement / unique features) one could still let 1 or 2 small regions with such a terrain in without destroying the overall feel of a focused map.
If the options in that dropdown give a good description (like: Jungle Bassin / Taiga / Greath Desert or even more flashy / flavorful / fitting for FFH2) one could get fast what is meant by it (that clearly speaks for combining the climate settings in one dropdown.) so whould still be player friendly and with the normal settings getting a good and decriptive name you won't have players switch all the time.
+ it whould very much be possible to add other options to that category if someone comes up with a very solid and fun setup / climate settings even after you add them in the first place sharing them with the whole community. Possibly broadening the options over time.
So honestly i think the incentive to go non-diverse climatewise / landscapewise is even stronger with the world + background of Erebus / context + features of FFH 2 than in standart civ. (As can allready be seen in many recommendations to use different mapscripts from the regular continents / pangea in the FFH2 forums).
That said this one is the area that whould require the most playtesting on our behalf since thats really down to playing with many of the variables and testing out those games firsthand to create a good feel. And just doing that by looking at the code and guessing on your behalf is poised to lead to plenty of work and perhaps not so good results as extensive testing by the community.
To play the devils advocate on peaks: It changes gameplay alot so that might be one of the reasons even though it seems a bit unthematic and kills the looks.
And im sure you will get alot of calls for that one. Better adress that one before its gets overboard in the main forums. (The rest ill leave to those ones who really campaign for that setting since i can't really get any more warm on that one to really fight for it. Im sure enough people want that to make a stronger point than what i offer here.)
Since your mapscript looks like a very good base for FFH 2 premade scenarioes i do consider that one an important point.
But players might wan't to use it as well since that makes a huge difference in gameplay (even with terraforming beeing rather readily available in FFH2). And at times a clear game roleplaying a certain situation / setup without a pre-made map might appeal. (giving the merits / feel of premade maps and still preserving the replayability of random maps is one big reason for that.)
And while scenario-builders / modmodders might really get down to handcrafting their maps in Worldbuilder you surely won't find many regular players who do that. So you deliver both goups with something they don't have acess to right now even with this outstanding mapscript.
So i very certainly see plenty of reasons not wanting to see the whole diversity but a certain focus for a map instead. (not so much completely ignoring certain terrains but giving the map an overall feel of beeing in a certain climate-zone / location mostly.)
Especially if one has played 10-20 maps on the usual diversity of climates already.
For example a jungle-heavy region if you want to play a game where the Bannor fight the Orcs near Labruscum or a Map with tundra, ice and plains mostly for a feel of beeing near Letum Frigus (hopefully spelled right by me...
).Taking a peek at the scenarioes teasers in the scenarioes-screen gives a good inspiration of how the regions of Erebus could be like. (+ Keal could offer much more for sure if we bug him enough once we need it...
)If cutting off certain terrain more or less completely creates issues on map-generation (because of civ-placement / unique features) one could still let 1 or 2 small regions with such a terrain in without destroying the overall feel of a focused map.
If the options in that dropdown give a good description (like: Jungle Bassin / Taiga / Greath Desert or even more flashy / flavorful / fitting for FFH2) one could get fast what is meant by it (that clearly speaks for combining the climate settings in one dropdown.) so whould still be player friendly and with the normal settings getting a good and decriptive name you won't have players switch all the time.
+ it whould very much be possible to add other options to that category if someone comes up with a very solid and fun setup / climate settings even after you add them in the first place sharing them with the whole community. Possibly broadening the options over time.
So honestly i think the incentive to go non-diverse climatewise / landscapewise is even stronger with the world + background of Erebus / context + features of FFH 2 than in standart civ. (As can allready be seen in many recommendations to use different mapscripts from the regular continents / pangea in the FFH2 forums).
That said this one is the area that whould require the most playtesting on our behalf since thats really down to playing with many of the variables and testing out those games firsthand to create a good feel. And just doing that by looking at the code and guessing on your behalf is poised to lead to plenty of work and perhaps not so good results as extensive testing by the community.
To play the devils advocate on peaks: It changes gameplay alot so that might be one of the reasons even though it seems a bit unthematic and kills the looks.
And im sure you will get alot of calls for that one. Better adress that one before its gets overboard in the main forums. (The rest ill leave to those ones who really campaign for that setting since i can't really get any more warm on that one to really fight for it. Im sure enough people want that to make a stronger point than what i offer here.)
xienwolf
Deity
I've been trying to decide on any options I would regularly change, and the only thing I tend to tweak is to make the map wrap in the X & Y directions, and that is something I set and never change back, so wouldn't need an option for.
The one thing that does bug me sometimes, but I like at other times is how each region tends to be VERY heavily 1 terrain type. I wouldn't mind a "Realism" set of options. You can choose Blended Terrains (you'll get the occasional 1 plain tile and 1 desert tile sitting all alone in the middle of Grassland, or the checkerboard plains/Grassland), or Natural Terrains (what it is now).
Another small thing that bugs me sometimes is the sheer number of hills. They make sense because you are in a very mountainous area, but they sure to hamper gameplay in strange ways if you aren't dwarves. So something to allow you to soften the hill percentage would be more appealing in my eyes than softening the peak percentages.
The one thing that does bug me sometimes, but I like at other times is how each region tends to be VERY heavily 1 terrain type. I wouldn't mind a "Realism" set of options. You can choose Blended Terrains (you'll get the occasional 1 plain tile and 1 desert tile sitting all alone in the middle of Grassland, or the checkerboard plains/Grassland), or Natural Terrains (what it is now).
Another small thing that bugs me sometimes is the sheer number of hills. They make sense because you are in a very mountainous area, but they sure to hamper gameplay in strange ways if you aren't dwarves. So something to allow you to soften the hill percentage would be more appealing in my eyes than softening the peak percentages.
The only reason I don't play this map is cause of the 1 tile bottlenecks, thats why I proposed that option.
What xienwolf said above too, and to adjust the sea level (tho this is not a must, there are other maps with more/less water so...).
What xienwolf said above too, and to adjust the sea level (tho this is not a must, there are other maps with more/less water so...).
cephalo
Deity
Blackmantle said:
Something like this might be fun, and I think not too hard to do.
This stuff can be difficult. I really don't like the way some maps give you a nonsensicle random mix of terrains, so there has to be rules to govern the climate. How the rules work currently within a region is that the more water flowing through the nearby river also means that the altitude there is lower and moisture there is greater than the parts of the region near the headwaters. As for the different climates in each region, the surrounding mountains help to 'explain' visually why this region is plains and it's neighbor is forest. For more variation within a valley, it would be very challenging to come up with some new rules that always look believable and good. A great deal of thought has to go into that. I think that if you just try to randomize, it's just not going to be satisfying.
This is another 'taste' thing, and I have an easy solution for you. Find these tuning variables:
HillChanceAtZero = .15
HillChanceAtOne = .90
Zero being lowest altitude, One being highest. With a combination of these two, you should be able to get exactly what you're looking for.
kobo1d
Chieftain
Everyone is connected to everyone else via gates. However, if you are touching water the script considers that a gate, so in effect you cannot reach everyone by land. Perhaps if you could change it so that water cannot be considered a gate.
I suggest this because the map plays more like continents, where you will always have to go by sea at some point to reach everyone. I would prefer it if it played more like a inland sea/pangaea, where boats are completely optional in order to reach all the players.
Naval combat sucks and ferrying your army across the high seas is just too time consuming. I think if there was a section of code like in the highlands script that forces a path between all valleys it would improve the map for multiplayer. Maybe it could be a drop down options too since that's the current discussion.
I suggest this because the map plays more like continents, where you will always have to go by sea at some point to reach everyone. I would prefer it if it played more like a inland sea/pangaea, where boats are completely optional in order to reach all the players.
Naval combat sucks and ferrying your army across the high seas is just too time consuming. I think if there was a section of code like in the highlands script that forces a path between all valleys it would improve the map for multiplayer. Maybe it could be a drop down options too since that's the current discussion.
xienwolf
Deity
That's actually a nice option. (Watergates on/off)
Last game I played I shared a continent with quite a few other Civs, but I was on a penisula and there was a string of 4 Mountains which cut me off from them completely. So I could spot them from a hill across the way, but couldn't reach anyone until I had some Naval power, which was not a tech line I had been inclined to chase otherwise
Last game I played I shared a continent with quite a few other Civs, but I was on a penisula and there was a string of 4 Mountains which cut me off from them completely. So I could spot them from a hill across the way, but couldn't reach anyone until I had some Naval power, which was not a tech line I had been inclined to chase otherwise
Blackmantle
King
I just tested with low sealevel and it does adress this issue almost completely.
Thats why i campaign for it so hard. If 4 or 5 settings for the Sealevel dropdown is included you are virtually guaranteed not to be forced to naval with the lowest of those (if its really very low without breaking the script. I play a sort of inland-sea one at the moment with a low but not very low setting. And it allready feels like an all-land map.).
And it adresses a number of other issues. (Like generating lots of additional land. Enough for really putting the number of players up even on smaller maps. I play large with that setting and it feels like a huge map on a normal mapscript. That might be another good option for slower comps. Just ramp up the number of civs and lower the water-level + map size.)
you might still get the odd map in a perhaps hundred where that might be a problem (with one civ starting in a small seculed valley next to the small lake in the center) but i guess that might not be worth an extra dropdown (and even that might be ok in non-multiplayer or noncempetative multiplayer.).
As for naval combat sucking: That will perhaps be worked on in the near future via AI-improvement (if it will be adressed at all. Unless you have issues with it as a player and not because AI can't handle mainly. Which is understandable naturally.)
So if you want to test that right now before Cephalo updates the script / before 0.33. try going into the creation.py file and turning sealevel down (something like water level or simmilar). Its just one variable you have to change and very easy to understand + rather foolproof. The other settings are harder to find and modify to make them works solidly i reckon.
cephalo
Deity
That's actually a nice option. (Watergates on/off)
Last game I played I shared a continent with quite a few other Civs, but I was on a penisula and there was a string of 4 Mountains which cut me off from them completely. So I could spot them from a hill across the way, but couldn't reach anyone until I had some Naval power, which was not a tech line I had been inclined to chase otherwise
That can be kindof rough, and I've also seen that the AI tends to choke on that set of circumstances.
That's definately something that should be optional in some way, although, It could be argued that then the seas, and the Lanun, would have almost no importance at all if the lands were guaranteed to be connected. I can understand why some people really don't like dealing with navies, so I should have a routine that optionally checks coastal peaks for possible hillification.
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
That can be kindof rough, and I've also seen that the AI tends to choke on that set of circumstances.
That's definately something that should be optional in some way, although, It could be argued that then the seas, and the Lanun, would have almost no importance at all if the lands were guaranteed to be connected. I can understand why some people really don't like dealing with navies, so I should have a routine that optionally checks coastal peaks for possible hillification.
I've noticed it in my current game too, it would definitely make the map script better. I do like valleys with bottlenecks, but a little variation in the number of those bottlenecks in each game will make it much more fun and replayable imho
Marchwik
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 60
When U put option: more mountain gates (when I play, always have a terrain with one or maximum two gates -it made game a little boring to get only one or two ways diplomacy or war strategy )
When U put :more sea gates or some island will be great and more interesting
When U change sth with start position with variable numbers of civics on each map.When I start always about 30% of map are closed for anyone and when I choose more nation than usually on each kind of map size this terrain is homeless also and I have less terrain to build my empire.
When u do this Cephalo U will be Amatheon for me man
When U put :more sea gates or some island will be great and more interesting
When U change sth with start position with variable numbers of civics on each map.When I start always about 30% of map are closed for anyone and when I choose more nation than usually on each kind of map size this terrain is homeless also and I have less terrain to build my empire.
When u do this Cephalo U will be Amatheon for me man
Agreed to first, agreed to second - very much!
