On Random Map Creation - Work to be done?

[dreiche2]

I'm playing the Malakim now. What makes desert their favored terrain? I'm curious, as I certanly saw no benefit to the stuff. As soon as I built my first Adept he used his 1st 2 experience points to take Water so he could get rid of whatever desert I had. I know I certainly could not extract resources from desert tiles ... so why would I "want" to start in desert?

I was unaware that the Doviello drew any advantage from Tunra tiles. I've only skimmed the civ descriptions, the Doviello sort of fit the 'barbarian niche' yes? So perhaps they stylistically prefer tundra. But what game mechanics exist to make them thrive if they are placed in tundra? Any? I don't know of any. Seems to me, forcing the Doviello into Tundra would be tantamount to hamstringing their economy on the outset.

Well, yes, I think up to now the Malakim and Doviello and not really fleshed out yet in this respect (there is some info on some units' boni in the civ manual thread).

Anyway, the difference between a scenario and a random map is much more than semantics. A scenario has been designed to highlight a certain gaming experience, and it has been play-tested a bit to ensure the various positions are in balance. Scenario maps are generally products of labor and attention. Asking a random map generator to produce scenario-quality maps, and assign various different civs to their "natural" terrain - without crippling some civs in the process - does in point of fact strike me as asking too much from a random map generator.

What I wanted to point out with the semantics comment is that if people want this feature, it doesn't hurt in any way and can be coded without too many problems (see below), then it should be implemented, no matter if you call it a scenario or a random map generator

Now, if we really want to discuss the wording, i'd still say this would be a random map generator, because, well, the maps would still be significantly random, with certain restrictions (you can already set many parameters, and even more so with the smart map thing). I think usually scenarios are associated with someone using one map and setting up some.. uh.. scenario.

Or on the other hand why isn't the random map generator, when for example set to 'archipelago', also a 'scenario generator', cause it generates water world / pirate/ colonization scenarios, doesn't it?

Yes, if such an item could be coded within a short timeframe and minimal effort, I'd love to see someone code it. But I think the reason we don't see such an item is because it is setting the bar a bit too high. That's JMO.

This might very well be true, I don't know how much effort it would take, so others have to decide that...

 

[Sureshot]

atm the normal map mods seem to do a bit of this. a city located in the south or north ends of the map may have tundra surrounding it, but the city fat cross is all grasslands and plains.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

As someone who primarily plays the Malakim, this is a big issue for me. Asking the random map generator to have the projected Malakim spread of lands surrounded by a desert from the beginning is also probably too much to ask of a random generator. There's actually an interesting discussion that starts on page 9 of the Design: Relgions thread. I might have conceded the point, but who knows what the future will bring?

On the other hand, it can be argued that flood plains are the best type of terrain, with three one . If the random map generator stuck the Malakim in the middle of the biggest desert, but with a few more rivers flowing through it than normal, I could deal with that. In fact, I might prefer it.

As for the Doviello, I don't know what to say. Maybe increasing the number of resources that spawn in tundras a bit might help balance this, or giving the Doviello an extra from tundra tiles might work, too. Starting the Doviello in tundras also leads to the fact that they'll be mighty eager to shunt out any Civs that stand between them and more prosperous lands... an excuse to play them warlike, which might work out well. I've seen the Doviello in the jungle a few times, and it's really not good for flavor.

Desert and Tundra are not quite the economy killers the ate in vanilla. You can Spring the desert (IMO) early on and with ease. You can Druid up or Genesis up the Tundra, later in the game and with more effort. But that's the player. The AI seems to never use those capabilities. Forcing AI startups into such terrain isn't going to make those realms fat and happy. It'll do the opposite.

Malakim can create their own desert, elves can create their own forests. The only thing that can't be created are hills, seas, and tundra. Most maps start you within sight of the sea, and tundra is not the place you want to live, even if you are good fighting there. So we are left, basically, with only the Dwarves who might not start near a lot of hills, and who depend upon them for their production, and who cannot create terrain conditions they prefer through gameplay. So once gain the dwarves get the short end, but what else is new?

So, how big a problems is it really? Only one racial type seems incapacitated in the long run.

 

[Silverkiss]

Its all about flavor man.... flavor !!

And of course you can bloom forest for your little elves, but only if you get FoL, which is not an easy task. And of course you can Vitalize Lands to have that nice little green Utopia, but thats only whit Commune with Nature. You can be dead way before that.

 

[Sureshot]

i cant say i agree with "most maps put you next to the sea", Lanun seem to get screwed over a lot.

the ability to turn ones lands into their favoured type would be good to have more well realized, and useable by the AI.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

So, how big a problems is it really? Only one racial type seems incapacitated in the long run.

Incapacitated....poor choice of word.

 

[Sureshot]

tsunami is supposed to make sea squares too, but like julius said, getting those terraforming spells can take a while and you can be dead before you even get your flavour!

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Its all about flavor man.... flavor !!

And of course you can bloom forest for your little elves, but only if you get FoL, which is not an easy task. And of course you can Vitalize Lands to have that nice little green Utopia, but thats only whit Commune with Nature. You can be dead way before that.

I'll take an interesting game over a pushover full of flavor, is my point. Force some starting civs into their so-called "preferred" terrain, as the AI, and they will not get out of the starting gate. Humans can overcome the disadvantages, but the AI (so far) does not.

As for the elves not being having forests ... I've never seen the AI Ljos not following the Leaves, so it does not seem that hard to obtain. And it's not exactly like random maps start with no woods on them. ... It's more like try to find a spot that is not wooded.

So really, besides the chance Dwarves might not start near many hills, exactly how problematic is this problem? It strikes me as one more of perception that of function. And considering that everything must be prioritized, I'd hope other issues would get worked on first.

For my money, I've seen a far worse problem from certain AI races. Those guys limited to 3-4 cities are pathetic. In every game they've appeared, they grab a bit of territory and sit there until someone come along to flick them out of the way. The Mercurians seem pretty passive at all times. But have you ever played a game with the Mercurians but no Infernals? The poor bastards will sit there and do nothing. See that Evil realm bordering you to the west? Want to stop feeling pleased/friendly towards them, Oh Supernatural Forces Of Good? I mean, tey're not Infernal, maybe, but they're still Evilforcryingoutloudgetoffyourasses.

So yeah, while in an ideal world I would be happy to see this option exist, programing difficulties and project priorities put this matter low on the personal wish list. Your wish list may vary.

Now, what I'd like to know is what settings are used to get Smart Map to generate fun, non-annoying maps?

 

[Sureshot]

my fav smartmap settings:
2 huge lands
minimal ocean
lots of hills
lots of peaks
heavy forest
wrap both - central poll (makes center of map icy, and has map top and bottom connected, and sides connected)
many rivers
high level of bonuses
land stye: least round, most fragments (gives the world a great shape)

you end up with a rich world with minimal ocean (but theres still a few decent seas and oceans) and very interesting shape (the fragmentation ends up connecting the two huge lands)

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

i cant say i agree with "most maps put you next to the sea", Lanun seem to get screwed over a lot.

the ability to turn ones lands into their favoured type would be good to have more well realized, and useable by the AI.

I've hit the map regen button a lot in my day, and it's a damn rare map that does not show any nearby sea. Those guys have appeared in a couple of my games. If you ask me, AI improvements will rectify matters with this race too. In my games they've started with ample coast, yet they do not prioritize building cities on the coast. They'll put a city down 1 tile away from the coast when clearly the option existed to make it coastal. So I'm not sure it's a case of the map keeping them form the sea. It seems to be a matter of them not wanting it bad enough.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

my fav smartmap settings:
2 huge lands
minimal ocean
lots of hills
lots of peaks
heavy forest
wrap both - central poll (makes center of map icy, and has map top and bottom connected, and sides connected)
many rivers
high level of bonuses
land stye: least round, most fragments (gives the world a great shape)

you end up with a rich world with minimal ocean (but theres still a few decent seas and oceans) and very interesting shape (the fragmentation ends up connecting the two huge lands)

Thanks, I'll give it a try. The polar map projection sounds interesting. I saw a polar map generator, but I didn't know that function existed inside SmartMap. Thanks!

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I have a question someone might know that I'll put here:
When choosing random civ for yourself or others, does it select from the list of rulers, or the list of civs? The first method would favor civs with more leaders, the second leaders without other leaders in that civ.

 

[Sureshot]

im guessing it chooses first from the list of civs, given how many times i get single leader civs seems to be just as common, if not more common, than multi leader civs.
but i don't know for certain either way.

 

[QES]

I have a question someone might know that I'll put here:
When choosing random civ for yourself or others, does it select from the list of rulers, or the list of civs? The first method would favor civs with more leaders, the second leaders without other leaders in that civ.

I think it's leaders, as otherwise it would require two checks for randomness. One check for the civ, and if applicable, one check for a leader within that civ. If its just leaders from the get go then its a quick one-check romp to civ-time. However, i've never seen more than 1 of the same civ playing....so this hurts my argument.
-Qes

 

[SchpailsMan]

Selecting the civ first and then a leader for that civ seems more natural for me, programming-wise. Rolling for two consecutive random numbers doesn't hurt performance, especially since this happens only once per game.

 

[QES]

There should be an insentive (and price) for wanting to leave much of the world wild. As it is, we want to expand quickly to eliminate barbarian threat, and gobble up resources. But it's great to have "unexplored" and "trecherous" lands between civs, not only for a buffer zone, but also for exploration Mid-late game. Yes, they're alreayd planning on doing something like that. But maybe terrain should be harder to develop?

I'm wondering if development of tiles should not be subject in terms of difficulty directly relating to the distance from the capital? Perhaps this could be mitigated by some civic options, and worsened by others.

This would result in more modular and isolated kingdoms, each civ fighting for its own lands, and holding its boarders against the wilderness. Also, it'd be great if more units(barbarian) were unable to enter boarders, but were very powerful and mean and just plain nasty. In this, those who would chose to adventure out into the wilderness might never come home, even at a developed stage of the game. War between civs might be more difficult (and potentially necessary) to gain territory.

Maybe "land types" should develop over time that are OUTSIDE the boarders of civs. Is it possible to invent new terrain squares and features? I think features would be better, kinda like forest. I just imaginge Huanted forests, Dry wastes, Ice caverns, Mountain Caves and the like would be VERY intersting Mid-game exploration.

Perhaps these kinds of terrain would have massive movement modifiers. And also maybe barbarians of certain types are only generated in these "Special" terrains. The function could work similarly to the "leaves - ancient forest" deal. Only it would affect ALL terrain outside of ANY boarder. Forests turn into haunted forests, plains and desert turn into dry wastelands, tundra and ice turn into ice caverns (rare) Mountains and hills develop Caves.

This could ALSO solve the issue with mountains. Maybe the "Caves" feature allows passability and development. Otherwise the mountain remains impassible.

I like the idea of the Map shaping itself over time. As you develop your civilization, the map develops the wilderness.
-Qes

EDIT: Also an interesting idea, would be for ocean (and only ocean squares) to VERY VERY RARLY turn into islands. I imagine all that would be necessary is when an ocean (and only ocean) tile turns into a peak tile, the surrounding terrain could randomly turn into either plains, grassland, with potentiall hills terrain, or remain ocean. Little islets would appear then between 1 and 9 in size. This should be rare, and island production should maybe only happen once ever 5 games or so (in probability).

 

[Sureshot]

really like those ideas, and maybe make them resistance to cultural borders (maybe they could generate their own culture?)

 

[QES]

really like those ideas, and maybe make them resistance to cultural borders (maybe they could generate their own culture?)

Oo, i like that idea. Of course this should only apply to the "special" terrains, but maybe up to a limited amount "barbarian" culture is produced. I'd like to keep it different from barbarian cities, which function as minor civs, but instead the wilderness itself, which is not out to conquer territory, just resist conquering itself.
-Qes

 

[Sureshot]

and your other idea for keeping the wilderness wild, theres a bit of that if you play all-human-players on Deity, since building more cities ends up costing you big time (normally 3 cities is as many as you'd want for quite some time). the problem with that is that it doesnt apply to AI's, they'll build unlimited cities in deity games.

 

[n12m13]

I agree with the culture buffer idea. That would be a great way to define civs, nudging them within boundaries. Of course, it would make sense that after a while they would be overcome, but it would hold expansion at bay for a while. Possibly an option in the script?