Mithadan-
A sort of "Short History of Middle Earth" sort of thing, with entries for major battles and things like that?
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 .
Mithadan-
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
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.
afaik.
Mithadan-
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.
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?.
Mithadan-
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.
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.
Yoda Power-
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.
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?
Coke_Cola-
Bane Star has finished his hand drawn terrain set, but I don't if he has/ will update it for C3C.
Thanks. I see you revived the thread, maybe we will find out soon.
MightyPunkass-
Have you guys got any ideas on what to do about Mithril? Are you going to have it as an extra resource?
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.
embryodead- 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
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?
embryodead- I never said anything like that. I needed ashlands as landmarks for WH, and seen them as landmarks for LotM too.
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?
embryodead- Plains in snoopy's are brownish-yellow, green-yellow or more-green-yellow, depending on the version.
Do you like the general idea of green plains? If not, which one would you suggest?
embryodead- 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 
)
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.
embryodead- As for the tundra, I completely don't understand why 2 commerce? what's so commercial about tundra?
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!
tjedge1-
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.
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?
I think it should give one food, no shields and no commerce. Mining and Road give one each, no irrigation.![[Ant]Wimp](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/35/35417.jpg?1475248323){kind=avatar}
