Middle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (octa)

[MightyPunkass]

Am I wrong, or was there a great stretch of ice between Beleriand and the island that Valinor is on? I've lost my copy of The Silmarillion so I'm resorting to asking dumb questions.

sorry to change subject.

 

[tjedge1]

There was at one time. I remember reading about elves traveling across it or something.

 

[MightyPunkass]

Yeah, I'll have to read it again when I buy a new copy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The Helkaraxë was an ice-covered sea areas between the northernmost bits of Middle-earth and Aman. In the ships the Noldor stole in Alqualonde, there wasn't enough room for everybody, so Fëanor took only his most loyal followers with him in them. The other departing Noldor, under the leadership of Fingolfin, crossed over the Helkaraxë instead, suffering grevious losses in the process. The entire affair became one of the chief reasons for the mistrust between the various Noldorin princes in Beleriand.

The Helkaraxë likely dissappeared at the end of the First Age, when most of Beleriand and the lands to the north sunk. If not, it must have been destroyed when the world was made round and Aman removed from the circles of the world in the late Second Age.

 

[MightyPunkass]

So...when I've set my scenario...Helkaraxë is still around.

That raises another question. How should I simulate the fact that if forces tried to cross it, they would find themselves with huge losses

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Originally posted by MightyPunkass
So...when I've set my scenario...Helkaraxë is still around.

That raises another question. How should I simulate the fact that if forces tried to cross it, they would find themselves with huge losses

Make a LM version of tundra called Inceshelf or Glacier (I prefer the latter). To make new graphics for this terrain will take a lot of time and trial and error though, so you may want to instead just leave the original terrain.

Next create a whole heap of barbarians with names such as 'deep cold' (or did some barbaric people live on Helkaraxë?) and make sure they can only travel on the glacier (or if you can't assign movement on LM terrain just tundra) and put them on the glacier. If they are strong enough, no one will get across the ice without heavy losses.

 

[PCHighway]

The Last Conformist, as I mentioned earlier, tundra irrigation graphics can be easily changed. We can go as far as to make them look like a few small huts, or some type of trading lodge.
Sorry for my slow tab-updates, I will post the rest of the terrain the day after tomorrow and hopefully we will be wrapping the terrain up at that date also. Been busy over these few days leading up to the weekend. Once we get the terrain down, we can focus on the worker jobs more readily.

Funny you mention that Mongoloid Cow. I was just talking to Mrtn earlier about him placing immobile and invisible barbarians with a ZOC on every other square (along his chasm for MM). You could only see them with a detect visible option, and hopefully detect invisible won’t be necessary.

Helcaraxë had no native peoples, they feared to cross it, let alone live it. It was important for two reasons and both of them were immortal people crossing it. First it was Morgoth, then soon to be followed by Noldor, as The Last Conformist says. But other than that, and pardon my bluntness, I see little to no reason why it should be on a map! I can’t even imagine a giga map that includes both parts of Aman and Middle-earth. I like the idea, but I don’t think it could be implemented very well, unless you seriously distort the distance between Helcaraxë and Beleriand. From the end of Helcaraxë to the very top of Beleriand, is half the distance between the Shire and Mordor. And more importantly, from the beginning of Helcaraxë to the end of Beleriand, you would have at least the whole distance of the Sea to Barad-dur, and quite possibly exceeding.

 

[MightyPunkass]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Make a LM version of tundra called Inceshelf or Glacier (I prefer the latter). To make new graphics for this terrain will take a lot of time and trial and error though, so you may want to instead just leave the original terrain.

Next create a whole heap of barbarians with names such as 'deep cold' (or did some barbaric people live on Helkaraxë?) and make sure they can only travel on the glacier (or if you can't assign movement on LM terrain just tundra) and put them on the glacier. If they are strong enough, no one will get across the ice without heavy losses.

One Problem, I've never made Terrian before, and I have no idea how. Woo, now I really look like a 'tard. Heh. I'll have a look around for Glacier terrian before I attempt to make my own.

Originally posted by PCHighway
Helcaraxë had no native peoples, they feared to cross it, let alone live it. It was important for two reasons and both of them were immortal people crossing it. First it was Morgoth, then soon to be followed by Noldor, as The Last Conformist says. But other than that, and pardon my bluntness, I see little to no reason why it should be on a map! I can’t even imagine a giga map that includes both parts of Aman and Middle-earth. I like the idea, but I don’t think it could be implemented very well, unless you seriously distort the distance between Helcaraxë and Beleriand. From the end of Helcaraxë to the very top of Beleriand, is half the distance between the Shire and Mordor. And more importantly, from the beginning of Helcaraxë to the end of Beleriand, you would have at least the whole distance of the Sea to Barad-dur, and quite possibly exceeding.

I don't believe it will exceed, I'd like to have it and if it doesn't work, I'll remove it. It could be a Civ's only way of conquering Valinor, if they don't do boats. Which could be quite interesting AI wise, as I guess the computer will ALWAYS dare Helcaraxë over using boats. Whereas players will probably do the intelligent thing and leave it, but it would be quite a nice looking landmark for my map.

 

[Mithadan]

A civ conquering Valinor?!?

 

[MightyPunkass]

I'm making the player so free to do what they want that there could be a Friendly peaceful Angband and a bitter and twisted Elf realm.

And since the Valar will not interfere unless Valinor has built a Wonder to them, they will be as vunerable or strong as everyone else. This also means that Valinor could decide to conquer as well.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by PCHighway
The Last Conformist, as I mentioned earlier, tundra irrigation graphics can be easily changed. We can go as far as to make them look like a few small huts, or some type of trading lodge.

Sure, but what's it supposed to represent? The only way to get food from a tundra is hunting-and-gathering, and that needs no infrastructure.

 

[RRnut]

Hello,

Started the rest of the resource civilopeda entries. Have a bit of time left in this month after I finished the GOTM, so instead of starting a sp game will work on the rest ot the entries.

RRnut

 

[Mithadan]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Sure, but what's it supposed to represent? The only way to get food from a tundra is hunting-and-gathering, and that needs no infrastructure.

Good call.

MightyPunkass: best of luck with your project, but I gotta say I won't be terribly interested in it. Sounds like more of a counter-factual Silmarillion scenario, than a Silmarillion scenario per se. I guess I'm more into the latter than the former, but hey, more power to ya.

 

[MightyPunkass]

Originally posted by Mithadan

MightyPunkass: best of luck with your project, but I gotta say I won't be terribly interested in it. Sounds like more of a counter-factual Silmarillion scenario, than a Silmarillion scenario per se. I guess I'm more into the latter than the former, but hey, more power to ya.

I guess, but I don't like the idea of a Civ game were you HAVE to be a good guy or you HAVE to be a bad guy, and once you've picked, you can't change.

 

[PCHighway]

The Last Conformist-
Sure, but what's it supposed to represent? The only way to get food from a tundra is hunting-and-gathering, and that needs no infrastructure.

You yourself admitted that having forest give as much food as tundra was unrealistic, yet there is no way to change it unless changing how much food a citizen eats. I say there is a way to change this, make it have to be irrigated first, you said it was wrong for aesthetical purposes.

I heartily disagree, first you say it ‘just looks wrong!’ and now it would disrupt the whole citizen food infrastructure!. I realize you don’t want any changes from the original civ3 tundra, you can simply say that as it is itself argument enough.
As for my belief behind the subject, again, I revert to the 3 other terrains with that only give 1 food. I see no reason whatsoever why some citizen should be able to gather enough from a tundra than from a hill. Farming (irrigation) of plains represents new flood canals and better tilled land. Farming of tundra however would represent trapping of animals and some type of impressive system for any city to get as much food as a hill would allow.

The Last Conformist-
iv) This is mainly aesthetical, but irrigated tundra just looks wrong! You shouldn't be able to do any agriculture there.

Rrnut, sure, the resource civilopedia entries that I have are rather primitive, just as the citizens and the terrain.

 

[Mithadan]

Originally posted by MightyPunkass
I guess, but I don't like the idea of a Civ game were you HAVE to be a good guy or you HAVE to be a bad guy, and once you've picked, you can't change.

Fair enough!

PCH, do you view the food obtained from an unirrigated hill/forest in Civ to represent the food obtained by hunting and gathering that tile, or the food obtained by exploiting that hill with low-intensity horticulture and pastoralism? If it's the former, then I don't see why tundra would be any less "productive" than any other foraged terrain; if it's the latter, then of course I see why tundra doesn't fit any more -- there ain't much receptivity of tundra to pastoralism or horticulture (excepting, maybe, the Lapplanders who herd semi-domesticated caribou/reindeer).

 

[PCHighway]

Neither.
My view is that each citizen represents a larger number of people, say 1,000. I view that each square represents the territory of that city. I view that by moving laborers, you are in effect using the land, somewhat like ‘mini-settlers’ or workers going from square to square. Each square of course has pros and cons. Supposing 1,000 people, lets be nice and reduce it to 100, could support themselves adequately enough to stockpile food in so many square miles of tundra, is quite ridiculous in my book.

Desert is the perfect example. Desert also does not give food, unless irrigated. Someone would say this is a bad example as when they mean desert, they mean no food whatsoever, similar to the Sahara. But if this is true, irrigation would have no effect in the endless waves of sand. I do not know tundra perhaps, but I have spent some time in ‘desert’ land, namely Arizona and New Mexico. The desert there has sparse life here and there, enough so you could live if you had some type of domesticated animal.

From both of your definitions of tundra, this sounds fairly similar. By irrigating desert you are developing the land to make it fit for farming. I see no reason why tundra is any different, only besides making halfway decent soil, you are forming hunting and foraging squads.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by PCHighway
You yourself admitted that having forest give as much food as tundra was unrealistic, yet there is no way to change it unless changing how much food a citizen eats. I say there is a way to change this, make it have to be irrigated first, you said it was wrong for aesthetical purposes.

But that does not help! Once you've "irrigated" the Tundra tile, the realism problem is back in full force!

I heartily disagree, first you say it ‘just looks wrong!’ and now it would disrupt the whole citizen food infrastructure!. I realize you don’t want any changes from the original civ3 tundra, you can simply say that as it is itself argument enough.

But I do not consider keeping to the epic-game values a goal in itself. I just consider them to be the most sensible this side of changed citizen turn consumption in the case of Tundra.

As for my belief behind the subject, again, I revert to the 3 other terrains with that only give 1 food. I see no reason whatsoever why some citizen should be able to gather enough from a tundra than from a hill. Farming (irrigation) of plains represents new flood canals and better tilled land. Farming of tundra however would represent trapping of animals and some type of impressive system for any city to get as much food as a hill would allow.

I do not understand the sentence "I see no reason whatsoever why some citizen should be able to gather enough from a tundra than from a hill." - either my English is letting me down, or something is missing.

But having irrigation represent trapping does not seem to make much sense, since trapping does not require any infrastructure to speak about; it's normally done in "uncivilized" areas.

But a Tundra tile giving as much food as an (unirrigated) Hill one should be seen as a rounding error, not a statement that they actually do produce the same amount of foodstuffs. If you cannot live with that, the only sensible thing is to set Tundra at 0f, without the possibility of increasing it.

 

[PCHighway]

The Last Conformist-
But that does not help! Once you've "irrigated" the Tundra tile, the realism problem is back in full force!

Then why even bring up the aesthetic problems? Huts look unrealistic on tundra? Am I missing something there?

The Last Conformist-
But I do not consider keeping to the epic-game values a goal in itself. I just consider them to be the most sensible this side of changed citizen turn consumption in the case of Tundra.

I gathered as much, why I was offering solutions to “uber-food giving tundra”. But neither of these seem to phase you, I want tundra to be the desert of the North, you want it to be the plains of the North.

The Last Conformist-
I do not understand the sentence "I see no reason whatsoever why some citizen should be able to gather enough from a tundra than from a hill." - either my English is letting me down, or something is missing.

Let’s throw in a couple of ‘much(s)’ and a few comma’s, then we should be good to go:
"I see no reason, whatsoever, why some citizens should be able to gather as much from a tundra tile, as from a hill tile.". Nothing mind blowing, pretty much the same thing I’ve been saying for the last few days.

The Last Conformist-
But having irrigation represent trapping does not seem to make much sense, since trapping does not require any infrastructure to speak about; it's normally done in "uncivilized" areas.

I would imagine hunting parties, trapping, forage parties, skinning, deboning, and fishing parties would be enough to warrant irrigation. Even the North American Native Indians had admirable systems for such things set up. A simple example is the common hunting expeditions by the Sioux in South Dakota. The gathered much from the Buffalo, and I quote
"...hunters relied on the beasts for everything from meat, clothing, and fuel for fire (from dung), to tools, toys, and weapons."
I would imagine such expeditions would require the whole of the tribe to be involved in pre-determined roles.
I imagine much the same thing for 1,000 the people of a village trying to live on tundra. We aren’t simply talking of each household going off and killing small game to keep his family fed, as then the actual number of people on the tundra would not be sufficient to warrant an ‘entire laborer’. It would then just be a piece of land, with no use.
Keep in mind, this would be realistic as ‘miners’ on a tundra tile (meaning a laborer tending to a mined tundra tile) could not support their own food without the irrigation. Thus you could only have one or the other. A mine or lodgings, shields or growth.

Let me ask you this (yes or no question), is there any possible way I can convince you of wanting tundra 0f, but an irrigation bonus of 1f?

[b][u]Coast						Sea[/b][/u]
Defensive Bonus: 15(originally 10)		Defensive Bonus: 10
Movement Cost: 1				Movement Cost: 1
Tile Values-				Tile Values-
Food: 1					Food: 1
Shield: 0					Shield: 0
Commerce: 1 (originally 2)			Commerce: 1
Terraform Bonuses-				Terraform Bonuses-
Irrigation: -				Irrigation: -	
Mining: -					Mining: -
Road: -					Road: -
Other-					Other-
None					None


[b][u]Ocean					Wilderland(Originally Jungle)[/b][/u]
Defensive Bonus: 5(originally 10)		Defensive Bonus: 10(was 25)
Movement Cost: 1				Movement Cost: 2
Tile Values-				Tile Values-
Food: 0					Food: 1
Shield: 0					Shield: 0
Commerce: 0				Commerce: 0
Terraform Bonuses-				Terraform Bonuses-
Irrigation: 0				Irrigation: 0
Mining: 0					Mining: 1 (was 0)
Road: 0					Road: 1
Other-					Other-
None					Does Not Allow Forts. Causes 'attacks'.


[b][u] Volcano					Ashland (was Marsh)[/b][/u]
Defensive Bonus: 100(was 80)		Defensive Bonus: 10(was 20)
Movement Cost: 3*				Movement Cost: 2
Tile Values-				Tile Values-
Food: 0					Food: 1
Shield: 1 (was 3)				Shield: 0	
Commerce: 0				Commerce: 0
Terraform Bonuses-				Terraform Bonuses-
Irrigation: 1				Irrigation: 0
Mining: 0					Mining: 1
Road: 1					Road: 1	
Other-					Other-
Impassable by Wheeled.			Does not Allow Cities.

 

[embryodead]

You can't convince me with the tundra. 1f and no irrigation is much better than 0f and 1 from irrigation.

But on to other things:

Can you explain how better a ship can defend when it's near the coast, compared to being in the open sea? And again, why it's easier to defend in the open sea, than in the open ocean?

Why no shields and a mine on Wilderlands? You make it a wasteland. And why 10% def.? You tell me that's it's so diffucult to defend there, much more diffucult than in tundra or forest? Combat there can be sure much more diffucult, but not only for the defenders. And they can hide there too.

WHY VOLCANO CAN BE IRRIGATED? I hope that's a mistake