Discussion in 'Civ3 - Creation & Customization' started by Celeborn, Oct 27, 2003.
Rhye made a terrain set for Conquest too. Which I think deserves to be mentioned.
Well, that's color variation of Sn00py's with different irrigations, ruins etc. that we will use anyway. Personally I prefer saturated colors.
I know its just a color variation, but the basic terrain has a bigger LotR feeling than the normal Snoopy terrain(notice the plains, they are more grey, which looks more colder(cooler?)).
PCH, you should take a look at my sig sometime. As embryodead said, yes, I made a pollution set.
Why do post a very good and easy sollution, and then prefer a more difficult and illogical one?
I'm not convinced that the wilderlands are that important, but I think ashlands are, and I think it's fairly easy to make them out of jungle.
We could always use plains as wilderlands, the distinction between grassland and plain are quite vague. And I think that all "historically settled" lands (Gondor, Rohan, Shire and so on) should be mostly grassland.
The terrain values PCH posted:
I have a number of beefs here.
*I think we should do as in the WH mod, and NOT allow mining in grassland, maybe in plains too (depending on whether I can get you to accept to turn it into wilderlands).
* Why does tundra give commerce? I think it should give one food, no shields and no commerce. Mining and Road give one each, no irrigation.
* What does the * mean att the irrigation of Hills? Only for Dwarves?
About terrain sets:
If Snoopy's coast is used (the one in WH, with the "shelfs") I'll quit. I can't take that. No way.
I prefer desaturated terrain.
all units are Wheeled, yes?
I proposed standard Sn00py's, that is not totally desaturated and not oversaturated like the one in WH. Also, there are two versions, one with "shelfs" and one without.
Of course I agree about mining of grasslands/plains, didn't mentioned it since I was afraid that the idea might have been never liked. I'm glad it is
I also vote for the traditional approach to tundra
Sounds good to me, mrtns pollution it is.
We havent heard from everyone yet, this caused a lot of strife back when we were deciding on it. Mrtn has some problems with Snoopys (mainly the ridges, it seems) and I have some problems with the watercolor terrain (not that it doesnt look good). Do we know if Bane Star released his hand drawn graphics? You might want to ask Celeborn if he is still doing his ashlands, he may be able to give you the graphics, or finish the ones he was working on sometime in the future.
Mountains- because only Dwarves and Orcs (no workers or cavalry for orcs) can go on mountains. Dwarvish workers are not wheeled, thus they are the only ones that can adjust it. It shouldnt make such a big mix up at all. But if you want to lower shields to 2 after you build a mine, I willing to go with that.
Irrigation of hills. This works fine in MEM, but I would have to hear it from Yoda Power. I hadnt really noticed the AI being handicapped. But I sort of remember that in your WH forest never got mined? Which is strange, as it gives great shields, the AI should have caught on.
You will remember that you didnt want ashlands until a second ago? I didnt bring up Coast, Sea, Ocean, Jungle, Volcanos, or Marshes yet.
Personally, I would like to see a green plain. Plains are not cold, they are fertile afaik. Does Snoopys green version have greener plains?
And yes cooler doesnt always refer to myself, sometimes it means temperature.(j\k)
Its all to mentally stimulating for me! All the discussion of Chicken Bytes... A mentally lesser mind like mine just cant handle it!
I dont think ashlands are that common. I think Wilderland fits into it far more efficiently. A square or two of ashland would be quite good. And if we replace marshes, then we could have a clear ashlands option. Also, with Jungle we could have the wolves attack option (disease). If we did this for plains, we would have lots of un-settle able territory, that you cant get rid of(?), and causes disease? I mean come on
I think having mines not available to the less fortunate civilizations is too damaging. I dont remember this being a problem in WH, but then again, I dont even remember grassland not being able to contain mines. But I do remember it being balanced. I think we should keep this normal, but test it out in the beta. The * is just so you guys would notice it.
Tundra, I think we both agree that it shouldnt be able to be settled. I am not anxious by any means to get rid of the commerce bonus, and add a food point back. It makes little to no sense to have 1 food, and no commerce in tundra. I am willing to put a compromise on the table, however. No commerce bonus, and allow tundra to be irrigated. However, instead of giving it 1 commerce, lets give it 2 commerce when a road is built there. We can modify the irrigated tundra graphics, to make it looks like some type of lodging\trade-house. And this will allow it to be easier to irrigate. If you only have a source of fresh water surrounded by tundra, now you can get it to your capital.
This will reward you only if you invest in the city. You get a good commerce bonus for building a road. (Remember tundra has 2 movement points) And you only get the food bonus if you work for it. (with workers)
No food bonus for tundra! Extra Commerce for a road! Let it be irrigated! Save the Wales!
A sort of "Short History of Middle Earth" sort of thing, with entries for major battles and things like that? That's a novel idea I haven't really given much consideration to. I think that the priority should be given to civilopedia entries that are directly linked to game-details (like "what the heck are Moriquendi?" etc.), but if there is time and energy, then sure, I think this larger-context-of-Middle-Earth is a good idea.
Hmm. I had in mind that we'd all contribute various civilopedia entries as interest took us (like I'd do the one on Moriquendi, for example), and the rest would be doled out as needed. Once that was complete, then I'd be happy to tinker away at the Middle-Earth Primer in my spare time. But I'm leery of comitting myself to doing it all, cuz I'd probably just let you guys down in the end (or else flunk out of doctoral school, which would be bad).
Or was there another idea of how we'd do the normal-civilopedia, and the meta-civilopedia entries?
I like Sn00py's terrain, I don't like the green-ized stuff, and I like the one without "shelves."
No to mining of grasslands and plains.
Yes to pretty much worthless tundra.
No clue if all units are gonna be wheeled.
I've always considered "grassland" to be temperate meadows, the sort of great agricultural land you'd get if you chopped down a temperate forest. "Plains" being a semi-arid grassland, like in the Dakotas or the Steppes (pretty much the same, IMHO), which you wouldn't get if you cut down a forest. (Cutting down a jungle should leave you with an ashland, mind you, cuz jungle soil sucks for anything other than swidden agriculture, don't it? Are we gonna have jungles on random maps? I'm forgetting the geographic scope of the random game, here.) Course none of that helps. I just think the temperate vs. semi-arid distinction is handy, and looks good too.
I don't see the point of flood plains in Middle Earth, but if there's a pressing gameplay reason (which I'm unaware of, as yet), then I guess we'd need em.
Maybe we could make "desert/floodplain" look like grasslands, so the grasslands would be a little less fertile away from rivers...
...and we could make "grasslands" look like plains or desert (which, I'm not sure), so that the "bonus grassland" would get scattered about one or the other of those terrains.
Volcanoes issue sounds more like a gameplay thing than a ME accuracy thing re: random maps. I have no opinion, cuz I haven't even played a C3C game yet. (Plus I'm a gameplay idiot.)
I like the ashland or wasteland bit, we could put that in Udûn for sure...
Could somebody clear up the concept behind "wilderland" for me? I'm thinking "forest" will do just fine, cuz I can't think of much in the way of "tame" vs. "wild" forests in ME.
Hmm hmm hmm, ME terrain modifications, huh? Hmmm...
I have never observed any problems with hill irigation in the MEM(DyP uses it too btw), OTOH I have never looked for it.
When I say cooler I dont mean "cold" I mean "not savana", since savana is what they looks like in the normal civ game.
Bane Star has finished his hand drawn terrain set, but I don't if he has/ will update it for C3C.
Have you guys got any ideas on what to do about Mithril? Are you going to have it as an extra resource?
Bane Star released "alpha" of his terrain, but sorry I think it's way too specific to be a default set for Middle Earth...
People don't want too much green nor the ridges, but the new version by Sn00py suits everyone, more or less, so I say lets go with this one (yes it has "normal" oceans). As for the ashlands, I'm doing them anyway for WH.
It might have changed since last time I was testing it then. Damn I never thought of irrigating hills in MEM As for the forest in WH, I never allowed it to be mined
I never said anything like that. I needed ashlands as landmarks for WH, and seen them as landmarks for LotM too.
Plains in snoopy's are brownish-yellow, green-yellow or more-green-yellow, depending on the version
If you have it normal, then what test is it? In WH I never allowed mines on grassland/plains. No one ever complained nor I noticed any problems. I rather see it as more realistic, and visually attractive (fertile lowlands and mined hills, as opposite to checkboard pattern )
As for the tundra, I completly don't understand why 2 commerce? what's so commercial about tundra?
Animal fur is the only thing I can see that brings in commercial for tundra. Then I don't live near any tundra and have never actually seen any myself.
Exactly, I think it would add lots of information to the game, especially for those who have not read the books. However I agree, its far too large of a job for one man alone. And should be put on the bottom of our list. Even after city aerial views (and since they are disabled in c3c, thats saying something). We could do like TAM, and put If you would like to write a civilopedia entry for this building\event\unit, please send it to (insert e-mail here).
I do think we need to plan it out first. Maybe sometime we can start discussing which events are worthy of entries. Then I can add a nearly blank log to the civilopedia.txt .
I like the idea of grasslands as floodplains, and your overall greener Middle-earth scheme. But Im not so sure we should change it so drastically. If we do so, it would be beyond the reach of someone to add their own terrain pack. Not to mention it would be a massive undertaking for a talented artist, as the entire 'transition' from, say grassland to desert, would have to be reversed ? And then the question becomes, "to what end"? Why do we want grassland to look like desert? Unfortunately we cannot adjust it so regular grassland is unsettle-able, and bonus is.
Well, if we make it so desert is unsettle-able, just like mountains, these would be very important. Aside from that, we cant get rid of them. No terrain is able to be deleted, so we have to do something with it.
Maybe we should add a good resource, only available to floodplains?.
Its not so much to represent a forest, as to represent an desolate, untamed land. Think Mirkwood, then think Greenwood. The only place that was tamed in the darker Greenwood, was where the Elves were. This would thus be adequately represented by clearing wilderland. The idea behind wilderland isnt to be a dark forest, indeed my idea originally was to have a steppe like country, with a few thickets ([steppe-thicket]oxymoron, I know). But then embryodead had to bring up Snoopys great alterative forest, which is too good to pass up.
I get you, but the problem I have with it, is I would rather have green plains, to make it look more like Middle-earth. The only reason I would want a lighter colored plain, is so it would blend with desert. The problem with Rhyes is that the frosted plains arent green, and look either like frosted ground, or sandy scrub-land. I do like it for MEM btw, as it would work perfectly in both those instances. But my question is, if we arent going to use a greener plains, and plains will still represent the transition from grassland to desert, why have any changes at all?
Thanks. I see you revived the thread, maybe we will find out soon.
It will be a bonus resource, (a good one at that) and it will allow for some extra unique units, and a wonder if I am not mistaken. SoCalian suggested the 'Mines of Moria' which can have a nuclear meltdown.
Of course the 'we just had a meltdown' message would be called something else. Like "A Balrog just kicked our ass!" . The 'Fixed map' of ME will have other, more original stuff in it also.
My bad, I swear I was mining forest though, I made a game and played as Loren. I remember being able to mine forest, very distinctly. If I cut down a forest, then replant one, would I be able to mine it? Is it like that in regular civ3?
You did say something that I interpreted as that:
however I'd keep the swamps or marshes, they seem more important than the ashlands, which can be added as landmark easily.
Do you not want swamps or marshes anymore? Or are we going to make ashlands replace marshes in the Ransom Map?
Do you like the general idea of green plains? If not, which one would you suggest?
It wouldnt be normal when we tested it! But once we had decided on all the other terrain statistics, we could see if it was unbalancing. I have no problems with no mines on plains or grassland, but I do have some worries.
1.) In WH anyone can mine on mountains, which are fairly common and give lots of good shields. No one but dwarves can do this in Lotm.
2.) If we get rid of Grassland, and Plains, then the only land that can be mined by normal civilizations is Tundra, Desert, and hills. Which essentially leaves you with hills.
3.) Since so much is relying on Hills, we wont want the worker to be tempted to irrigate them. This means we wont have the practical irrigated (or farmed, in lotm) hills.
Either something is fundamentally wrong with me, or I can see things differently than the rest of the world. (the two are not unrelated, Im sure)
Am I the only person who gets the (seemingly) entire idea behind mines, roads, and irrigation? Its not so much a matter of Which terrain it looks good on Or even; Which Terrain it would be realistic on. It is a matter of trying to improve a square, so that citizen will get a equal distribution of shields, food, and commerce. Thats why you mine a horse on grassland, because grassland already gives enough food, you dont need to irrigate it unless the city is low on food. (usually surrounded by mountains or hills)
Now, you ask why I want tundra to give 2 commercial? That ones pretty easy. I think this should be the case with both desert and tundra. But more so with tundra, as now Im absolutely positive you guys arent going to go for 2 commerce Desert.
Roads give commerce, because they represent trade. I believe that a player should get rewarded for building a road through territory, which has a movement penalty. It is easy enough for a band of soldiers to walk from roadless town to roadless town in fertile France(grassland). But walking through Siberia(tundra) is a completely different matter. A road in grassland means much, much less than one over a mountain, or through a very inhospitable, cold (or hot) terrain.
Making tundra give two commerce after you build a road is not unbalancing, as few, if any cities will have more than 4 squares of tundra in its workable radius(not settle-able). I mean come on! Having 3 wines (2commerce) with a road on it (3 commerce) will give you more commerce than tundra ever will! The only resource that Tundra allows (as we have it now) is wolves!! Which give -1f -1c!
I suppose there is far more food to be found in tundra than commerce from a road?
Never been in tundra? Ye a'fered o' de gret Nort ar ye? Jest lik ol'Fergo. Ye ne?
Why would one want to reward people for building roads in tundra areas? No-one except the Lossoth would want to go there anyway, and I seriously doubt they had much use for roads.
Spontaneously, I'd think 1f 0s 0c sounds about right for Tundra. It's one of the least productive terrain-types on the planet, and in Civ3 is appears to include polar desert, which wins that contest, above the sea level at least.
yip I agree tLC. Tundra should suck as it does irl. 1f 0s 0c sounds right.
From my understanding Forodwaith was largely sustained by the sea, and more or less was an land of ice.
I see no reason why a trade route there should not be important. Many luxuries arent worth as muhch in there native habitat, and only become important when they are traded.
This is the part thats killing me, why on earth would you want, in your words, the polar desert to have more food than anything else? It makes no sense.
On the other hand I can see Im out voted, Ill leave what makes sense to me, for my own edition.
However, if tundra starts with one food, if thats what everyone want, then it should not be able to get irrigated.
No/No. It's not possible to mine forest in WH, it was not even possible to cut it down or replant it until a patch I released 2 weeks ago (and still, it was never available for elves). There is a bug in civ3 that allows to use disabled actions such as clear forest by keyboard shortcuts for automation, but it won't allow you to mine forests anyway.
I still prefer swamps to ashlands on random map, but that's not so important to die for.
But why do you want to boost squares that are worthless both in real and fictional world? Desert and Tundra suck, and I see no reason to "compensate" that by commerce.
And actually a road over inhospitable terrain usually means less than in one that goes through grassland, if it leads to nowhere... in deserts/tundras there are no dense villages and places to go, so building a road there that gives double commerce seems ridiculous to me. If such road actually leads to somewhere, the game reflects that in other ways (travel, trade route).
Thanks for replying, have you got a Civilopedia entry for it yet?
If Polar Desert was its own terrain type, I'd make it 0f 0s 0c, with the option for getting +1s with a mine, and perhaps +1 commerce with a road just because everything else gets it.
But now, it's lumped together with Tundra, and tundra does yield sufficient food to sustain an sparse population, so I think it makes perfect sense it yields a bit of food. So, I still suggest 1f 0s 0c, with the option for +1s with a mine and +1c for road. That gives cities near tundra some hope, and gives some incentive to develop the place, but it remains really poor terrain.
Separate names with a comma.