Question about Floodplains/Desert
- Thread starter Tibur753
- Start date
Here a screen shot. Will someone please look at it.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I've seen desert tiles with rivers and no floodplains many times. A floodplain is just a bonus.
The explanation I've heard before (I can't find a link, sorry) is that the map generator, in an effort to ensure there is a certain amount of rivered tiles in each game, places those rivers randomly, occasionally next to desert tiles, which doesn't change their status into flood plains.
Balderstrom
Emperor
Starting locations w/ Rivers + Desert are usually upgraded to Flood Plains; if you have Bhurics unofficial patch, then this will always be the case. IE starting locations + River + Desert + Bhurics patch = flood plains. Instead of just 'likely'.
Note: Flood Plains can also appear on a Plains terrain, just not as common as Desert Flood Plains.
Note: Flood Plains can also appear on a Plains terrain, just not as common as Desert Flood Plains.
It's been that way ever since the original. It's actually a bug in the way the map generator creates Flood Plain, occasionaly you'll find just an ordinary Desert River with no Flood Plains. Fortunately it's pretty rare. If I see that happening in a nearby river, I usually restart a new game, unless it's only a tile or two.
Not they can't. Check out the CIV4FeatureInfos.xml file. You'll see that there's no possible way that they can appear anywhere else but Desert. You have to tell the map genererator where to put them. That's not to say that it can't be done, but if you did add them to Plains they wouldn't be rare. They would be just as common as Flood Plains. I've added a new feature in my game called River Basin which appears on Plains and Tundra rivers. but I've given it an appearance rate 1/4 that of Flood Plains so they don't get placed as often.
Scoottr
Prince
I wish they would put something in that would allow us to disable deserts. I can't stand the dang things and they always seem to be close to my civ. Pain in the but trying to work city placement and spead the desert space around.
Wodan
Deity
Some mapscripts such as Smartmap allow you to set the % of terrain such as desert, mountain, and tundra.
Wodan
Wodan
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
if you build a city on top of a floodplain then it removes the floodplain for ever.
Also if the map generator places a starting location for a civ nearby a group of floodplains, it sometimes turns the floodplains into desert.
Also if the map generator places a starting location for a civ nearby a group of floodplains, it sometimes turns the floodplains into desert.
Clam Spammer
Prince
The Fantasy Realm map adds floodplains to riverside ice tiles as well as desert. It leaves a lot of them as regular ice or desert though.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
I play Vanilla and i have never seen desert river tiles that are not floodplains.
It is a fact that irrigation technology is just way to massively unrealistically limited in civ4 compared to the real world. To start with, according to civ4, you can choose to farm an unused grassland and only get a 33% increase in food production!?! That is horrifically lame compared to the reality of it - even in ancient times.
Then according to civ4 modern technology is also only able to give a 33% increase to unused natural grassland for all non river linked tiles!! how stupid is that? All this farm technology improvements going on all over the place in the world today since ancient times and apparantly it is all for nothing according to civ4?? Yea and not to mention the fact that the modern world are somehow mysteriously unable to build pipes in civ4 that can irrigate desert tiles?? Perhaps there is some kind of 'sacred ground' religion hidden in civ4 that prevents anyone being allowed to build anything on desert tiles?? Well it is just too much of an insult to realism, ,,, sigh
It is a fact that irrigation technology is just way to massively unrealistically limited in civ4 compared to the real world. To start with, according to civ4, you can choose to farm an unused grassland and only get a 33% increase in food production!?! That is horrifically lame compared to the reality of it - even in ancient times.
Then according to civ4 modern technology is also only able to give a 33% increase to unused natural grassland for all non river linked tiles!! how stupid is that? All this farm technology improvements going on all over the place in the world today since ancient times and apparantly it is all for nothing according to civ4?? Yea and not to mention the fact that the modern world are somehow mysteriously unable to build pipes in civ4 that can irrigate desert tiles?? Perhaps there is some kind of 'sacred ground' religion hidden in civ4 that prevents anyone being allowed to build anything on desert tiles?? Well it is just too much of an insult to realism, ,,, sigh
Wodan
Deity
It is totally dependent up on the mapscript, not what version you play.
Agree on most of what you said though. Still, it's just a game. Reality wouldn't be balanced.
Wodan
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
It is totally dependent up on the mapscript, not what version you play.
Agree on most of what you said though. Still, it's just a game. Reality wouldn't be balanced.
Wodan
I do realise there has to be unrealistic things in the game for balance purposes. But these things should at least try to be as unoticable as possible.
When you are confronted with desert tiles, while having maximum technology and are still unable to build irrigation, it is a very big fat noticable slap in the face to your sense of reality. Especially if your a person playing this game in a country like Soudi Arabia, surrounded by riverless, exstremely productive desert irrigation just outside your window!!
I mean, you know, if it is going to offend reality to that extent then why bother with all the other realistic things in the game? why bother having bomber units that look like bombers? why not have pigs with wings instead?
SharpMango
If in doubt, just axe!
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
i havent played civ2 for a lonng time, but i remember this handy little 'O' button which would transform 'bad' tiles into better ones.....deserts werent such a problem for example, coz we could transform them...
i wonder why that got removed? probably considered an exploit now.....sigh....those were simpler times
i wonder why that got removed? probably considered an exploit now.....sigh....those were simpler times
Wodan
Deity
Well, yeah, I agree on this example. Deserts should allow irrigation after Biology. Heck, they're already 0 food, I can't imagine it would be a gameplay problem if you could change them to a +2. There wouldn't be much point, though. All they would do is feed the citizen that farms them.
Wodan
How about refrigeration as a requirement for desert farms. That makes more sense. Cause I assume that it includes the invention of air conditioning, too, because they use basically the same technology. That would make the tiles more habitable too people. At that note, mountains should be workable with flight. Giving two production but they are still impassable.
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
I remember the ability to transform terrain in civ2. I do not think it is all that bad that you cannot do it in civ4. When you think of it, desert is always desert. Man has the ability to bring water to the desert so that it will be very productive but underneath it all, it is still desert.
Also i would point out that it is no longer possible to plant forrests in civ4. Now obviously this is another insult to realism since human beings are actually capable of planting trees! Nevertheless it is not all that noticable in the game, so the effect of such unrealistic nonsense does not have too much negative impact on the game.
My whole point is that desert tiles are very noticable in the game and are a constant big fat in your face reminder of an unrealistic rule put in place for game balance. Because it is so noticable like that, it really should be fixed!
Also i would point out that it is no longer possible to plant forrests in civ4. Now obviously this is another insult to realism since human beings are actually capable of planting trees! Nevertheless it is not all that noticable in the game, so the effect of such unrealistic nonsense does not have too much negative impact on the game.
My whole point is that desert tiles are very noticable in the game and are a constant big fat in your face reminder of an unrealistic rule put in place for game balance. Because it is so noticable like that, it really should be fixed!
mystikmind2005
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 510
I would guess the purpose of dissalowing improvements to desert tiles would be to give global warming some teeth. Otherwise who would care about global warming?
It is a fact that there are no civ4 related effects of global warming that cannot be overcome with engineering in the real world. However, most countries will not mount the kind of response in the short term that somone playing civ4 could manage if they were allowed by the rules, and in a strong position in the game!
So how do you limit what a player can do to fight global warming in line with the real world? Well, one possible solution - you could put negative income for farms on desert tiles that would represent the cost of maintaining irrigation where there is no rainfall. Also desert farms cannot be built where the city has no access to fresh water so you would have to build a desalination plant and or a super pipeline for inland cities. A desert farm should produce as much food as a grassland farm.
It is a fact that there are no civ4 related effects of global warming that cannot be overcome with engineering in the real world. However, most countries will not mount the kind of response in the short term that somone playing civ4 could manage if they were allowed by the rules, and in a strong position in the game!
So how do you limit what a player can do to fight global warming in line with the real world? Well, one possible solution - you could put negative income for farms on desert tiles that would represent the cost of maintaining irrigation where there is no rainfall. Also desert farms cannot be built where the city has no access to fresh water so you would have to build a desalination plant and or a super pipeline for inland cities. A desert farm should produce as much food as a grassland farm.
Balderstrom
Emperor
Desert/Ice, you put a city there, you will get the resources but unlikely that the city can grow much beyond a pop or 2. It's a trade-off, is it worth getting whatever resource is nearby for a limited city.
Tundra - cities located in a tundra heavy terrain w/o a nearby food resource are likewise limited in growth. And even w/ a nearby food resource, the city will be stunted compared to a city surrounded by Grasslands+Plains.
It is perhaps a fault in the CIV mechanics, which fine-lines a cities potential growth too much. Without a food source in the BFC any city in question will basically just be growing to support its pop. Without a food source, you need 2 Grassland farms to even run one Plains+Workshop or PlainsMine. Whereas in a Tundra|Ice|Desert scenario you can never get above break-even.
It would be worth considering an alternate mechanic that would allow for city growth w/o nearby food resources.
Plantable Cactus on desert tiles, that allow:
1) Farms to be built.
2) Water Wells to be dug.
3) Cottages to be built if the tile touches Fresh Water (Well, River, Cactus)
Cottages that provide food on Ice/Tundra/Desert at the Village|Town stage.
Ability to build Igloos on ice, and gain Food, ice Fishing et al.
The harsher terrain should be more difficult for cities growth, obviously. But as it stands now those terrains nearly completely inhibit growth. Mechanics that would allow for slower growth instead of none would be preferable.
Cities built on Tundra/Ice/Desert might slowly change surrounding terrain to +Food.
Cities built on Tundra/Ice/Desert might require 2 or 3 times as much food for population growth.
Anyways, Peace
Tundra - cities located in a tundra heavy terrain w/o a nearby food resource are likewise limited in growth. And even w/ a nearby food resource, the city will be stunted compared to a city surrounded by Grasslands+Plains.
It is perhaps a fault in the CIV mechanics, which fine-lines a cities potential growth too much. Without a food source in the BFC any city in question will basically just be growing to support its pop. Without a food source, you need 2 Grassland farms to even run one Plains+Workshop or PlainsMine. Whereas in a Tundra|Ice|Desert scenario you can never get above break-even.
It would be worth considering an alternate mechanic that would allow for city growth w/o nearby food resources.
Plantable Cactus on desert tiles, that allow:
1) Farms to be built.
2) Water Wells to be dug.
3) Cottages to be built if the tile touches Fresh Water (Well, River, Cactus)
Cottages that provide food on Ice/Tundra/Desert at the Village|Town stage.
Ability to build Igloos on ice, and gain Food, ice Fishing et al.
The harsher terrain should be more difficult for cities growth, obviously. But as it stands now those terrains nearly completely inhibit growth. Mechanics that would allow for slower growth instead of none would be preferable.
Cities built on Tundra/Ice/Desert might slowly change surrounding terrain to +Food.
Cities built on Tundra/Ice/Desert might require 2 or 3 times as much food for population growth.
Anyways, Peace
