New DLL functionality: isFreshWater() [IMPLEMENTED]

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

WTP now knows how to identify land plots with direct fresh water access.
(From "Normal Rivers", "Large River", "Lakes" and "Ice Lakes".)

Currently I only use it for "Health Overhaul".
(Cities with direct sweet water access get a small health bonus.)

So additionally to isRiver(),
there is now also isFreshWater().

Maybe more things could be done with that.
So just in case anybody has other good ideas how to use it, it is there now.

Sweet Water from River:

Sweet Water from Lake:
(River or Ice Lake of course work as well.)

Just as double check to show that coast or normal plots are not wrongly considered:

Best regards
ray

 

[Raubwuerger]

For my taste, freshwater lakes produce a little too much food. They produce 10 food per fisherman without bonuses. An ocean field with the resource fish produces 11 food, with crabs it is 9. For my taste it should be something arround 9 or 8.
Can bonus resources actually spawn in freshwater lakes?
The city in screen below produces every ~3 Turns a new citizens

 

[raystuttgart]

@Raubwuerger
Well ok, I have no problem with lowering the base Food yield of Lake to 2.
(Before my change it was 3, see screenshot attached.)

Can bonus resources actually spawn in freshwater lakes?

In "Plains" they definitely can.
About 3.0.1 I am not sure, because I never played it.


Edit:
The base Food Yield of Lakes, Ice Lakes, Large Rivers has been lowered.
Here is the commit.

 

[FlaviusBelisarius]

Nice DLL feature Ray!

Sorry for continuing on the tangential topic: I was just thinking the same about lake food levels (too much). Especially since my map script work will make tons of lakes more than before.

My personal opinion would be to have distinct values. Perhaps:

• ice lakes 1,
• lakes 2,
• large rivers 3.

(All are 4 in release / development branch)
Rationale being that icy lakes are not so productive as temperate or tropical ones even simply due to winter ice cover (I know, you can fish trough holes even with nets but it is a lot of work to drill through 50+ cm of ice with 1600 century tools!) and large rivers being more rare than lakes, they would enjoy some benefit in comparison.

 

[FlaviusBelisarius]

@raystuttgart
And a linguistic comment: non-salty water is "fresh water" in English. Not sweet water (that means water with sugar OR glycerol!). Finnish has the same "sweetness" implication so I can understand where this might come from but not everyone will.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sweet water

 

[raystuttgart]

"fresh water"

Sorry, Germans in fact speak about "Saltwater" and "Sweetwater".
(We also know "fresh" and "rotten" but that would be possible for both types of water.)

So in German there is e.g. also:
"Fresh Sweetwater" (still drinkable) and "Rotten Sweetwater" (not drinkable anymore).

Summary:
I will correct the "Sweet" into "Fresh".
It was a translation mistake of me thinking German.

 

[raystuttgart]

My personal opinion would be to have distinct values.

• ice lakes 1,
• lakes 2,
• large rivers 3.

It is more for gameplay reasons that I want to have Ice Lakes give at least 2. (Just like normal Lake)
(They otherwise even with a Resource hardly create enough Food for a sustainable settlement in Permafrost.)

So I am ok with this:

• ice lakes 2
  
• lakes 2
• large rivers 3

Summary:
I will increase Food of Large River again.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

It is more for gameplay reasons that I want to have Ice Lakes give at least 2. (Just like normal Lake)
(They otherwise even with a Resource hardly create enough Food for a sustainable settlement in Permafrost.)

So I am ok with this:

• ice lakes 2
  
• lakes 2
• large rivers 3

Summary:
I will increase Food of Large River again.

Permafrost areas may be interesting for some wood and furs - but nowhere in history did any large cities emerge from settlements in permafrost.

Geographically that is the amountof permafrost and semi-permafrost in Canada and Alaska:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp.690#:~:text=About%2030
%25%20of%20the%20permafrost%20in%20the%20Northern,forest%20in%20the%20south%20to%20high%20Arctic%20tundra.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp.690#:~:text=About 30% of the permafrost in the Northern,forest in the south to high Arctic tundra.

And nowhere in that area did any city grow to match the size of cities in temperate regions. Not during the 15th to18th century ingame time, nor later with better insulation and heating. At most small tradingposts and some tribal villages.

In a historic setup map that means the danish (Iceland, Greenland) and the russian (Alaska) players have (and should have) a problem harvesting enough food grown from their lands and have to either look out for bonus resources like Walrus or go fishing or accept longer travel times and settle further south in direct competition with the others.

If we equalize regional advantages (e.g. more food in New England than in Iceland from agriculture) then we could just as well
- equalize the Founding Fathers that give more crosses and encourage immigration and make them generic too, or
- create a Northwestpassage through the ice in the north because - hey there is Magellans street in the south and the north would be at an disadvantage.
I do not seriously suggest that - that is just an example where trying to make the game equally winnable for every starting position diverts from history, geography and takes away the challenge to colonize the frozen north as compared to settling the lush grasslands hundreds of miles further south.

If a player would want a large city within permafrost, then it should depend on the import of food from agriculture cities further south - just like Rome at 1.000.000 people depended on grain imports from Africa and Egypt.

 

[raystuttgart]

@ConjurerDragon

Comment for understanding:
All of this is talking about "Plains" (internal feature branch) not the public release already out.

Permafrost Terrain itself has 0 Food. (So no live by itself with nothing interesting around.)
The only chance for a settlement there is by Food Bonus Ressources or Ice Lakes.

And yes, I really want an Ice Lake to allow to sustain a settlement and maybe even a second colonist (with a Ressource around).
Do I really ask for so much considering immersion that an Ice Lake should allow just one colonist to stay alive?

When I say "sustainable" I am talking about 1 settler (Ice Lakes without Ressources) or 2 settlers (Ice Lake with Resource).
Nowhere did I talk about "Large Cities". For gameplay purposes 2 settlers is simply a "tiny settlement."

And yes, I really want to allow the player for gameplay and Natives to found small settlements in Permafrost or Deserts.
I know it will completely damage immersion and irreversably destroy the mod, but I still think it is worth a try ...

----

Summary:

Currently these are discussions about an internal release you have simply never played.
Please everybody have some patience unitl we actually go into beta testing.
Because currently I really do not have the time for such detail discussions.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

@ConjurerDragon
...
When I say "sustainable" I am talking about around 2 settlers. (With Ice Lakes and Bonus Ressources.)
Nowhere did I talk about "Large Cities". For gameplay purposes 2 settlers is simply a "tiny settlement."

In that we agree. While I can´t see cities (large settlements) in permafrost without food having to be imported, I have nothing against villages (small settlements of 1 or 2 colonists) utilizing a fur or gold bonus resource who have stagnant growth due to lack of food.

I know it will completely damage immersion and irreversably destroy the mod, but I still think it is worth a try ...

I really do love your patience and calm demeanor that completely prevents you from ever exaggerating a mentioned possible problem.

 

[raystuttgart]

I really do love your patience and calm demeanor ...

------
Probably just as much as I love to get lectured about things I already know.

... but nowhere in history did any large cities emerge from settlements in permafrost.

------
Or maybe just as much as I love players assuming that all I want is to destroy gameplay and immersion.

If we equalize regional advantages ... then we could just as well ...

-----

So sorry if I react to posts like that a bit annoyed and try to prevent myself from further wasting time with endlessly having to repeat answers.
If I get annoyed by a discussion, my post are intentded to be pretty obvious about it. So yes that effect is absolutely my intention.
It is better to signal that a discussion is pointless early on before getting frustrated and losing motivation for actual modding.

Summary:

I accept flaws of other peoples posting style.
So please also accept mine.

Best regards
ray

 

[raystuttgart]

@FlaviusBelisarius

1. "sweet Water" is now "fresh Water"
(both code and text have been corrected)

Method is now called
isFreshWater()

2. balancing of new Water Terrains has now been ajdusted to this
(explanation see above)

• ice lakes 2
• lakes 2
• large rivers 3

 

[FlaviusBelisarius]

Large lakes are a fact at the moment with the map script I work with. That is why I suggested ice lakes to have food 1 base (still better than ocean!). So you would actually need to have a pro fisher (or pro hunter if there is game) to sustain itself in the icy wastelands. Makes sense to me. Piers and docks will turn the tables and allow big cities next to a substantial lake even in the permafrost area.

Let's count this out. Permafrost city next to a large lake that allows e.g. 10 squares to be within the city potential range. Non pros fishing: (2+3)*10 -> 50 food, i.e., 25 pop with 10 criminals or whatever fishing. Now pro fishers: (2+3+3)*10 -> 40 pop city right there before other bonuses. In my opinion, this is an issue. Reducing icy lake base food to 1 will not even solve this but at least makes it so that you absolutely need to bring professional first settler unit even to survive.

 

[raystuttgart]

That is why I suggested ice lakes to have food 1 base (still better than ocean!)

Ok agreed.
(I will reduce it to 1.)

------

Could we now however please go back to actually finishing todos still completely open to get a playable release for testing?
Detail balancing of features that already work without issues, can really be done in beta testing phase.

Once my todo list has gotten a tiny bit shorter and all features actually work as supposed to, I will happily discuss balancing.
But at the moment, I simply do not have the patience for such discussions, because a tiny XML balancing value is like priority 107 on my list.

Thus, let us please postpone further balancing discussions until we can actually test full gameplay and see how it feels.
Otherwise we are balancing on assumptions because a lot of things will still change anyways. "Plains" is still an alpha.

 

[Mate-86]

Fresh water is an important concept in the Civ series mainly because farms can be placed next to it due to the need of irrigation. It could be considered to change the farm yields somehow when they are placed next to fresh water sources. I'd rather penalize the lack of fresh water because I - as a novice WTP player - feel cities have too much food yield by default but pros may feel this differently.
There is also a logic in Civ that watermills can only be placed next to rivers.

 

[FlaviusBelisarius]

Ok agreed.
(I will reduce it to 1.)

------

Could we now however please go back to actually finishing todos still completely open to get a playable release for testing?
Detail balancing of features that already work without issues, can really be done in beta testing phase.

Once my todo list has gotten a tiny bit shorter and all features actually work as supposed to, I will happily discuss balancing.
But at the moment, I simply do not have the patience for such discussions, because a tiny XML balancing value is like priority 107 on my list.

Thus, let us please postpone further balancing discussions until we can actually test full gameplay and see how it feels.
Otherwise we are balancing on assumptions because a lot of things will still change anyways. "Plains" is still an alpha.

Alright, I hear your frustration Ray. Plains being so huge I am afraid there are too many things to even keep track of if everything should be balanced only at the end. That is why I wanted to point my observations right at the spot, especially since it binds into my work. However, I will respect your wish and keep notes of stuff I want to later comment and discuss on to not forget them (instead of voicing my opinions).

 

[raystuttgart]

@FlaviusBelisarius
I have not yet played a single game in "Plains" because I am so busy modding it. Thus I have no real feeling for its balancing now.
So before I start changing balancing please give me the chance to have at least played / tested current blancing myself a single time.

However, I will respect your wish and keep notes ...

Great, once we started internal beta-testing phase with our supporters and testers, we can collect all balancing suggestions.
Then I will also have the chance to play myself and get a feeling which parts of the balancing need to be changed and which do not.

Otherwise all that will happen is that I bounce around between different balancing opinions.
I need to know what I am talking about before I really go into these discussions instead of acting on assumptions.

 

[raystuttgart]

It could be considered to change the farm yields somehow when they are placed next to fresh water sources.

That is already happening with a normal River and I feel that I should leave it like that.
The main difference with "isFreshWater()" is that it also considers adjacent Terrains "Lakes", "Ice Lakes" and "Large Rivers".

There is also a logic in Civ that watermills can only be placed next to rivers.

It is the same in WTP, but in WTP Watermill is a Building (inside the city) and not an Improvement (outside the city).

-------

Fresh water is an important concept in the Civ series ...

I remembered that, because in some older Civ4 game I had to build irrigations. (I think it was Civ1 or Civ2)

placed next to it due to the need of irrigation.

Irrigation now exists in branch "Plains" as well, but it only possible in Deserts and also requires Rivers.
(It is more or less impossible in current maps or mapscripts anyways that Deserts will have any fresh water lakes.)

-------

Summary:

At the moment "isFreshWater()" is only used for "HealthOverhaul".
(A starting Plot with with fresh water is healthier than a starting Plot without fresh water.)

Maybe in the future a modder will implement something more with it.
(At the moment I personally have no further usage for it.)

 

[Brosso B.]

feel cities have too much food yield by default

Totally agree.

Rivers do provide a bonus but the difference between 9 or 10 food on a few farms doesn't feel that significant later on.

 

[XSamatan]

Let's wait with the balance discussion until the branch is in beta testing, shall we?

Until then you could move the discussion about food yields in a new dedicated thread

Kind regards
XSamatan