Random Mountains

[stealth_nsk]

Well, I hope you don't design software then.
In Civ IV, they did not have to alter the map scripts to handle the resources.
In Civ V, they had to, and Sirian wrote lengthy comments in the code to more or less apologize about it.
When they did that, they basically ruined map script modding and resources modding at the same time, as you suddenly had to alter both if you wanted to change one, whereas this extra work was not required in IV.
It is, objectively, technically, bad design. They could have done the same thing the Civ IV way, separating the code from the assets (resources were in xml files and the map scripts used that), but they did not.

I don't think we're speaking about the same thing. I don't mean you need to rewrite how mountains are generated if you add new resource, I'm just saying distributing resources is part of the map script.

The whole point is - map script doesn't exist in the void or to generate some beautiful picture. It exists to generate a map for the game and to provide the best map for this particular game to be played.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

it would be great if map scripts are largely mod-able! hope the included map scripts will also be nice with a good variety of shapes and sizes for most/all things including within a generated map!
I'm not too bothered with random single mountains, maybe not be the norm and a bit more rare.. I don't know, would like to see examples. Well again it sounds like a pretty specific "extreme" case, so it shouldn't be super common, but why not let that occur sometimes? (plus in terms of how it works with the game adjacency systems and so on it sounds like that's better than always finding clusters of mountains you might always want to hug with either campus or holy sites? )

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I was expecting different district types to have adjacency bonuses for different types of terrain. For example, the theater square having an adjacency bonus to flat land without a forest, double adjacency bonus for cattle, horses, sheep and deer.

In other words, I was expecting no terrain to be inherently better, just more appropriate for certain district types. That way, Civs that spawn in a flat area without mountain and forests would just focus on growth (farms) and culture (theater district) rather than science in their capital.

In any case, we might be jumping to conclusions. Flat lands with rivers are probably great for farms, which have their own adjacency bonuses too, as we know, and that could mean they are already a great location for a city. If that is the case, adjacency bonuses to mountains and jungle could just be a way of compensating. If doesn't look like that is the case, but we have to play with the systems quite a bit to know for sure.

Well there is a little bit of that (looking at terrain only)

Mountain-Faith/Science/Aqueduct*
Woods-Faith
Rainforest-Science
River-Gold/Aqueduct*
Hills/Mine resources/Quarry resources-Industrial
Lake/Oasis-Aqueduct*
Coast-Gold (assuming you build a Harbor in the coast)

Mountains are definitely the strongest (and earliest).. but they are the weakest terrain by themselves
(It would be interesting if Mountains gave a minor bonus to Campus and then you could build an Observatory (instead of a University) and get a major/standard bonus for mountains in that Campus)

*not an adjacency bonus as much as a requirement

 

[shaglio]

I agree! I wonder if it would be possible to add some "land" cliffs (à la Age of Empire).

Do you mean escarpments?

 

[ZTZaorish]

One thing I've been seeing in various videos and screenshots is far too many "random mountains" that is to say a bunch of plains/grassland with a single mountain in the middle. Mountains, generally (there are some exceptions), should be in ranges and not found interspersed here and there throughout the world. I understand that due to adjacency bonuses perhaps the map scripts have been made in such a way that mountains are more dispersed for balance... But somehow that doesn't really make me feel any better about it.

I hope at the very least we get some options in the vanilla game for controlling how mountains are generated including a "more realistic" option.

Thoughts?

I understand your concern, and perhaps they could be up to 2 or 3 clustered tiles . But I would much rather have this, than have the Cluster***k that was Civ V's mountain ranges. It made the game feel so crowded, and frustrating to move around in.

Think of it this way, Game play > Immersion. This may have been how the designers thought of it, and again, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Acken]

it would be great if map scripts are largely mod-able! hope the included map scripts will also be nice with a good variety of shapes and sizes for most/all things including within a generated map!
I'm not too bothered with random single mountains, maybe not be the norm and a bit more rare.. I don't know, would like to see examples. Well again it sounds like a pretty specific "extreme" case, so it shouldn't be super common, but why not let that occur sometimes? (plus in terms of how it works with the game adjacency systems and so on it sounds like that's better than always finding clusters of mountains you might always want to hug with either campus or holy sites? )

Map scripts are 100% moddable. The whole source code for them is in lua.

But its not easy. Although mouintain density is one of the easiest thing.

 

[LDiCesare]

Think of it this way, Game play > Immersion.

No.
Game play is part of immersion. Unless you play competitive MP.
Immersion is what makes you play one more turn. One more turn is the definition of immersion. You're so inside the game that yo can't get out of it. It's not gameplay.

 

[BrokenBokken]

No.
Game play is part of immersion. Unless you play competitive MP.
Immersion is what makes you play one more turn. One more turn is the definition of immersion. You're so inside the game that yo can't get out of it. It's not gameplay.

If you argue that immersion is part of game play you can argue that anything is part of game play because everything can make some one feel a certain way. Which makes game play a meaningless descriptor. If you agree that game play is a meaningful aspect of a game, you can't include immersion in to.

 

[Haggbart]

No.
Game play is part of immersion. Unless you play competitive MP.
Immersion is what makes you play one more turn. One more turn is the definition of immersion. You're so inside the game that yo can't get out of it. It's not gameplay.

Ok, gameplay > realism. There.

 

[LDiCesare]

If you argue that immersion is part of game play you can argue that anything is part of game play because everything can make some one feel a certain way. Which makes game play a meaningless descriptor. If you agree that game play is a meaningful aspect of a game, you can't include immersion in to.

Maybe you want to read what I wrote again:
I say "Game play is part of immersion".
You say "immersion is part of game play".
That is, well, the exact opposite of what I wrote. I didn't think a sentence with subject verb object would be hard to understand. I apologize for using such complicated language constructs.

Ok, gameplay > realism. There.

I agree with that. But realism != Immersion.
There has been no argument about why people spend so much on music and visuals, apart from Ryika's comment about games with good graphics being flops, which misses the point. As I said, gameplay is part of immersion (not the other way around). If you have bad gameplay, the game is not immersive, it flops. But if you have no graphics, people don't buy the game or can't immerse in it. I think NetHack is an awesome game. Its gameplay is grand. There are many roguelike games created still today copying its gameplay and falling short. But you know what? It's ascii art. Most people just can't get into it because immersion is what matters most. When you play this game, see how gameplay makes you feel like you're actually interacting with a consistent world. Civ is good also because you feel like you're rewriting history. Ever thought why SMAC, which is touted for its awesome gameplay, never reached popularity near that of Civ? Its setting oes not inspire. It's not all about gameplay. Again, unless you play competitive MP, but that's a fringe as far as Civ is concerned.

 

[Thormodr]

As in any game, it is important that the mechanics make sense. When they do, it creates immersion.

 

[rastak]

I think I'd rather not play it actually. They touted Civ VI terrain would be significant, but it will only be so in terms of city management, not of (land) warfare? There are reasons why so many actual empires and countries have borders based on terrain features.

That's great option and saves money too!

 

[Mort_Q]

They touted Civ VI terrain would be significant, but it will only be so in terms of city management, not of (land) warfare?

Terrain limits movement, therefor warfare options. Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[LDiCesare]

Terain limits movement, but the impact of terrain on movement will be less than it was inprevious Civs. Rivers have more impact, but the sparseness of peaks means less chokepoints, so overall less influence.
I think the need of having mountains everywhere for city management purposes runs contrary to the goal of making terrain important. They scatter mountains so there is more or less the same kind of terrain everywhere around the map in order for people not to feel cheated. The result is the map is likely to be globally "the same", strategically, everywhere. You can't develop a "mountain civ" that focuses on, f.e. defense and mining, because it started in mountains, simply because mountains are scattered all over the map. The features they tout about making the map important are all on a tactical/micromanagement level, not on a strategic level.
If map scripts need to be tweaked to make the game playable, then how will the game play on TSL/real Earth map? It's likely going to be imbalanced and uninteresting.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't mind random mountains so much. You could just say it's a dormant volcano. Volcanos can appear in many places (not all are along places where the plates come together). I'm certainly no geologist though, so what do I know. I just know I come from the most mountain filled state in the Union (aside from Alaska). But I also spent a good deal of my early adult life in the South, not a mountain to be found anywhere. And don't tell me the Appalachians, it's hard to qualify those as mountains. In Civ terms, I'd say they are hills since they are fairly easy to build roads through.

edit: I just think the mountain bonus for research is a bit silly. Many of the top Universities are not located next to mountains or rain forests. Especially the Eastern U.S. ones (the California ones you could say are near mountains though). And I'm not even going into prestigious English universities, or European...

 

[BrokenBokken]

Maybe you want to read what I wrote again:
I say "Game play is part of immersion".
You say "immersion is part of game play".
That is, well, the exact opposite of what I wrote. I didn't think a sentence with subject verb object would be hard to understand. I apologize for using such complicated language constructs.

Don't be condescending when you're making a worthless semantic argument. If your point is that immersion is much more broad than making things 'seem realistic' or aesthetically pleasing and that immersion means the more literal 'getting lost in the game.' Then the word loses all importance in the discussion. It would be the same if someone comes in and just says 'oh the game needs to be fun!' Obviously the mountain script doesn't make the game any less 'immersive' in that regards for a lot of people, judging by the posts in this topic. It essentially becomes children say 'no this is more fun!'... 'Nuh uh this is more fun!'... because you can't define exactly what makes the game immersive to different people. Maybe if you worried more about making an argument with merit over fighting about semantics you wouldn't have to make insults in your replies to make you seem intelligent. But your witty retort did seem to be about on the same level as 'Nuh uh! I said so!'

 

[LDiCesare]

Don't be condescending when you're making a worthless semantic argument. If your point is that immersion is much more broad than making things 'seem realistic' or aesthetically pleasing and that immersion means the more literal 'getting lost in the game.' Then the word loses all importance in the discussion. It would be the same if someone comes in and just says 'oh the game needs to be fun!' Obviously the mountain script doesn't make the game any less 'immersive' in that regards for a lot of people, judging by the posts in this topic. It essentially becomes children say 'no this is more fun!'... 'Nuh uh this is more fun!'... because you can't define exactly what makes the game immersive to different people. Maybe if you worried more about making an argument with merit over fighting about semantics you wouldn't have to make insults in your replies to make you seem intelligent. But your witty retort did seem to be about on the same level as 'Nuh uh! I said so!'

I'm not condescending.
I said White, you said I said Black.
That's borderline insulting on your part, so yes I got witty in my reply. How would you react if I quoted you and said exactly the reverse of what you were saying? Wouldn't that be the rudest thing short of an insult? I think so.

Yes, immersion is, as you say, being lost in the world. And imo, it is ALL that matters in a noncomptetitive game.
Gameplay matters only in so far as something else (art, realism, whatever) does not prevent the player from getting immersed.
But as I said, the topic gameplay first "gets old pretty fast".
It is NOT the topic of this thread.
The topic is about mountains having to be scattered all around the world in order for the game to work.
I think it's sad because I can't have maps I find realistic/pleasing.
I think what's sadder is that Earth maps just won't work well either. There's no peak in England, yet it was a science powerhouse.
Civ VI is advertised to put a lot of importance on terrain but they actually scattered all kinds of terrain all over the place, so the only importance of terrain will be on the micromanagement/tactical level, not on the strategic level:
I fail to see so far how a civ will play differently when it starts on a coast versus when it starts in the jungle or the desert. The civs are biased to start in certain climates/terrains, important features are scattered everywhere, so it does not seem there will be much in terms of strategic decisions based on terrain, only tactical ones.