PLEA FOR A STANDARDIZED APPROACH TO LMs!

[Ozymandias]

Our great graphics designers are already racing away working with LMs -- to which I of course say, Excellent!

-- HOWEVER, it occurs to me that a few common needs seem to consistantly recur (see below) so I was hoping that we might arrive at some informal "standards" as to what terrain to turn into what (this is obviously not meant to be binding or exclusive of a particular mods needs etc.!) --

Examples:

1. Mountains: simply use the snow-capped mountain graphics for LM Mountains to represent those to rugged to, e.g., build roads over.

2. I've just suggested to mrtn that he use Hill, not Mountain LMs for his chasms re: (1) above.

3. Likewise, I've suggested to Amenhotep7 that he consider using an LM Plains for the "rough terrain" leading up to, e.g., the Iranian plateau.

4. LM Desert = Oasis (personal mod bias )

Those are my four of the moment -- thoughts, critiques, etc.?

Thanks,

Oz

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by ozymandias
...2. I've just suggested to mrtn that he use Hill, not Mountain LMs for his chasms re: (1) above.
...

You did? In that case you need to be clearer in your suggestions my friend.
The answer is unfortunately no, I need the chasm to be completely impassable in my mod, and only Mountains has this feature.
On the other hand I don't think it would be very difficult to redo for Hills, just copy the relevant parts into LMHills.pcx. Done in a few minutes.

Oh, btw, it is much easier to make Landmark forests, mountains and hills, in the other graphics you need to muck about with the base tiles, each divided in four parts, and they all need to flow seamlessly into each other. That's not a small Guinea Pig, it's a bloody Kangaroo. It can kick your arm off.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by mrtn
You did? In that case you need to be clearer in your suggestions my friend.

What, I'm getting too subtle in my old age??

The answer is unfortunately no, I need the chasm to be completely impassable in my mod, and only Mountains has this feature.

As I said / implied, to each mod its own needs

On the other hand I don't think it would be very difficult to redo for Hills, just copy the relevant parts into LMHills.pcx. Done in a few minutes.

Oh, btw, it is much easier to make Landmark forests, mountains and hills, in the other graphics you need to muck about with the base tiles, each divided in four parts, and they all need to flow seamlessly into each other. That's not a small Guinea Pig, it's a bloody Kangaroo. It can kick your arm off.

Gracias!

-Oz

 

[LouLong]

I like the idea of a basic standardized set common to most players, mods but at the same time since its use will mostly be for scenarios and that people might have special needs for their maps, there will always special request.
Nevertheless, for a standardized set, I would see :

- Hills (LM) : plateaux

- Plains (LM) : steppes or savannah

- Desert (LM) : oasis (I definitely agree with you it is more a special terrain than a bonus resource).

If we could have techs that make some terrains passable we could really create special Forests or Oceans borders that would limit the settler diarrhea until certain techs are discovered but unfortunately that is impossible now.

Other ideas (just thrown out) :

Marsh (LM) : polders or other fertile areas sometimes flooded by the sea (Bangladesh,...)

Jungle (LM) : Mangrove

Coast (LM) Cliffs (would be nice to make them impossible to land on in unfriendly territory) or salt lake.

Volcanoes (LM) : earthquake areas (?), hot water springs (?), sleeping fertile ones

Mountains or hills (LM) : paddy fields ones ...

 

[embryodead]

Sorry but I see completly no reason to stick to anything like that.

 

[warpstorm]

I have to agree with embryodead on this. I see no good reason for standardization. Different mods will have different needs. This would add yet another restricition to a system which already has a lot of restricitons in it.

This is like saying that all graphics mods would have to work with my mod, and not Sn00py's. What benefit would there be in that?

Rather than standardization, a good explanation of what terrain set a mod is designed for and which tiles it replaces would be more of boon to me than something that says "Thou shalt use Snow-capped Mountains".

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by warpstorm
I have to agree with embryodead on this. I see no good reason for standardization. Different mods will have different needs. This would add yet another restricition to a system which already has a lot of restricitons in it.

This is like saying that all graphics mods would have to work with my mod, and not Sn00py's. What benefit would there be in that?

Rather than standardization, a good explanation of what terrain set a mod is designed for and which tiles it replaces would be more of boon to me than something that says "Thou shalt use Snow-capped Mountains".

Right. Forget about it.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by LouLong


Right. Forget about it.

No no -- no "Thou shalt nots!"

I'm assuming (and this is where I may be in error) that Warpstorm, Snoopy, et. al. will eventually get around to making terrain sets utilizing the LM feature; given that there are (?) standard needs (you know, the limitations we all groused about before C3C came out), being able to swap terrain sets without being forced to choose one over another because it uses one LM tile you need without compromising another would be unfortunate.

Again, I must emphasize that I agree that this only has value IF we in general agree as to what sorts of extra terrrain we'd like -- and I suspect there are a few instances of these, Mountains if nothing else.

Best,

Oz