[Map script]Creation.py for FFH2

[[to_xp]Gekko]

seconded, this would be nice

 

[Demus]

i thought this was tied to the "peak percentage" option in the script (if i recall correctly). Lowering this should increase the amount of passages (just open it with notepad)

 

[cephalo]

would it be possible to add an option dictating the connectedness of landmasses? No matter how much I tweak the settings (i'm no coder) I can't manage to get maps with all valleys connected via land.

I would have to come up with an algorithm to guarantee land connectedness. I can do that but it would not be trivial, and right now I don't have alot of time for modding unfortunately, so it might be a month or so.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

awesome, thank you!

 

[Psycho_Ivan]

I've been looking around for some maps to try out, and this is certainly going to be the first one I attempt a match at out of the ones I downloaded...

Looks fantastic, really, and I can't wait for a chance at it.

 

[Blakmane]

I would have to come up with an algorithm to guarantee land connectedness. I can do that but it would not be trivial, and right now I don't have alot of time for modding unfortunately, so it might be a month or so.

Thanks a ton

 

[Blackmantle]

I got a likely rather simple to code idea for the climate-dropdown:
largely nonforested (with more of those flatland grassland+plains valleys. Some valleys with forests for elves to spawn in naturally.).
(might even verify a drop-down from a players perspective but i don't think that would be worth the effort...)

Might appeal to quite a lot of players who hate going for bronze-working to be able to cut forests and dislike the mapscript precisely for that (the AI also has some issues with that part). Its rather hard to find good maps with separated areas but few vegetation. So there might be a real need / gain for that. (not that i would use it much but i read especially that point in the forums quite often...)

Since i doubt Kael will change the way chopping works so late in development (one can still hope but who knows?) of features that might be a good idea...

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

seconded, the AI has a real issue when it comes to heavily forested starts, and those are very common in Erebus

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

would it be possible to add a dropdown option to modify the average size of the valleys? I know it's a relatively change in the script, but most of us are scared of messing around with python files thanx in advance

 

[cephalo]

would it be possible to add a dropdown option to modify the average size of the valleys? I know it's a relatively change in the script, but most of us are scared of messing around with python files thanx in advance

No way mister. That's a one variable change and you can do it. One of the reasons I don't like dropdowns is that I believe people should not be afraid to get under the hood and technical. If you are worried about it, make a backup first, and then you can't hurt anything.

change the RegionsPerPlot variable to a higher number, and they will be smaller on average. Fewer valleys will obviously be larger on average.

 

[cephalo]

I got a likely rather simple to code idea for the climate-dropdown:
largely nonforested (with more of those flatland grassland+plains valleys. Some valleys with forests for elves to spawn in naturally.).
(might even verify a drop-down from a players perspective but i don't think that would be worth the effort...)

Might appeal to quite a lot of players who hate going for bronze-working to be able to cut forests and dislike the mapscript precisely for that (the AI also has some issues with that part). Its rather hard to find good maps with separated areas but few vegetation. So there might be a real need / gain for that. (not that i would use it much but i read especially that point in the forums quite often...)

Since i doubt Kael will change the way chopping works so late in development (one can still hope but who knows?) of features that might be a good idea...

Right now that's not adjustable in the script, and it really should be. I'm not sure I'd want a dropdown for that, but a tuning variable would be very helpful with this issue.

 

[Blackmantle]

Oh, i guess you might! have got my intention a bit wrong.
I think that overall the most useful thing to get it selectable whould be one option in! the existing climate-dropdown list whould be one that creates a much less forested one (can't come up with a really good sounding name right now though. Greath Plains like the name of the respective script just doesn't fit because of lots of hills. But I'm sure someone will come up with a good name if needed. In case of a map with less hills on the other hand i doubt that something like this is much needed. I rather like the balance / feel of that part...).

Thats one of the reasons why something like the climate-dropdown was very useful / important in the first place.
To have the players /community come up with settings that make a really decent play... In that case because its not at all right now you might figure out a good spot while testing. (If you include something like this, but it very much sounds like. In such case it also shouldn't create to much additional work on your behalf.).
Given time it might very well be, one day, that we'll have some 2-digit number of options under that category without all to much work on your behalf (just take the variables of players who have found a very nice set and you are set. )

A dropdown in its own right might! be interesting purely from a players! perspective but it would definitely not be used all that intensively beyond that what a single option under climate would offer.
And thus fall under your understandable rule of not including fringe options beyond a variable...
For the rest a variable very likely should suffice...

But you can be sure that the option under climate for a much less forested map (save for some valleys for the elves) would be used quite often, given how much this is a point of complaint by some about the script...

But i might have gotten your reaction wrong in which case i guess we don't have much dissent.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

this is still the only mapscript I play first of al I gotta say that it works great even with both wrappings set to true, so that's a good candidate for a dropdown option imho.

anyway, I gotta say that all those 1-tile-wide mountain chains look kinda weird. I think that if most of them were wider ( like 3/4 tiles wide ) they would look a lot more "natural" instead than walls meant to separate territories

same with the chokepoints: too many 1-tile chokepoints right now imho. everyone loves them but it does kinda feel like they are being handed to you by the mapscript. I guess if they were made more rare and most passages between valleys were wider ( again, 3/4 tiles wide ) the map would look and play better ( btw, the AI does have an issue with pathfinding with chokepoints. most notable one is that if you block a chokepoint with a unit, the barbs stop targetting you cuz they can't find a patch leading to your cities )

these changes would make the maps look more like a fantasy world and less like a maze imho

 

[Skobrin]

Use Orbi's mod, it moves chopping forests all the way up to Agriculture. Also it totally rebalances the flow of the game and the entire tech tree. But it's a good thing, trust me.

 

[Blakmane]

I've been ferreting around in the code trying to find some way of removing oceans/making them much smaller, but even cutting huge sections of the ocean generation code seems to have no effect. Any easy way of just totally disabling or drastically reducing ocean regions?

 

[cephalo]

I've been ferreting around in the code trying to find some way of removing oceans/making them much smaller, but even cutting huge sections of the ocean generation code seems to have no effect. Any easy way of just totally disabling or drastically reducing ocean regions?

You need at least one ocean region on this map, so the climate generator knows what to do. To adjust ocean use the WaterRegionsPerPlot variable.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

first of all thanx for the sea level dropdown: high sea level makes for some very pretty maps

a couple suggestions about the mountain chains: there's too many small, totally enclosed valleys right now... having very long mountain chains with just a couple chokepoints, that separate large portions of the map is ok, but the average size of the valleys should be bigger imho, and possibly scale with map size ( bigger map = bigger valleys ) . I think very small valleys should be an exception, not the norm. a dropdown to quickly choose average valley size would be great as well

 

[cephalo]

first of all thanx for the sea level dropdown: high sea level makes for some very pretty maps

a couple suggestions about the mountain chains: there's too many small, totally enclosed valleys right now... having very long mountain chains with just a couple chokepoints, that separate large portions of the map is ok, but the average size of the valleys should be bigger imho, and possibly scale with map size ( bigger map = bigger valleys ) . I think very small valleys should be an exception, not the norm. a dropdown to quickly choose average valley size would be great as well

Set the RegionsPerPlot variable to a smaller number, and you will get fewer, and thus usually larger valleys.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

thanx for the info, I'll give it a try

 

[giddion]

I was reading through the python, specifically the WrapX, I notice this was hard set to false. You evaluate this later in the script regarding how it wraps the map, but when the setting is true the wrapping works but the map still draws a line of mountains, rather than connecting the mass as if it was a continuous section.

Any pointers on how to adjust this?