"Real" vs. Civ 3 Terrain

[Node60]

Since there was such a conversation about the plains, keep in mind also the mammoth steppe. Yes, it no longer exists now, but at the dawn of humanity it was. A good territory beyond the Arctic Circle, a bonus resource is a mammoth . Perhaps then it will not be necessary to cut out the Arctic.

 

[Quintillus]

As someone who lives fairly close to the Great Plains, I am confused by the statement that they "don't exist".

If I'm interpreting the colors on the map in the first post correctly, at least the upper Great Plains is labeled as "cropland". That may well be the case today, but if we turn back the clock 200 years, the Great Plains would indeed have been wild plains. "Prairie" being another term, and while I'm sure experts could point out the differences between them, to me it's a bit of forest versus woods. One may be larger and denser, but both have a lot of trees. Plains versus prairies, if it's small and local, it's a a prairie, if it's almost all of Nebraska in 1830 and has bison, it's the plains.

We still have some wild prairies in Ohio, despite the vast majority having been converted to farmland. I'm thinking of traveling to Kansas later this year, to see a part of the country where there are larger areas of wild prairies. I don't expect I'd find the same ecosystem in, say, Virginia.

Then of course there's the classic Eurasian steppe. I suppose I've always had a similar interpretation to Virote_Considon, considering Civ3's "plains" as representing these drier grasslands (which are nonetheless not deserts), and borrowing its language from the U.S. Great Plains. Civ3's "grasslands" being the wetter grasslands of, say, France or the U.S. mid-Atlantic.

In the end, I think Firaxis struck a decent balance, even if a more flexible system for modding would be nice. We could have had 30 different terrains types, but would it make the gameplay better? Or is the argument that Plains should be lumped in with Grassland and there should be fewer terrains?

 

[Plotinus]

There are lots of different ways of categorising environments. The much-used Köppen climate classification system is based on rainfall and temperature, with categories determined by what kinds of plants thrive most in them. The one in the OP seems to be based on biomes. In a Civ context it makes most sense to categorise them on the basis of what use people can make of them. And in that context the "grasslands"/"plains" distinction makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Jorsalfare]

There are lots of different ways of categorising environments. The much-used Köppen climate classification system is based on rainfall and temperature, with categories determined by what kinds of plants thrive most in them. The one in the OP seems to be based on biomes. In a Civ context it makes most sense to categorise them on the basis of what use people can make of them. And in that context the "grasslands"/"plains" distinction makes sense, doesn't it?

I don't disagree with what you are sayin', but IMO there are also other factors to consider regarding terrain types. One is movement cost. Another variable is defense bonus/penalty. Also the flag "Impassable for wheeled units" and available tile improvements are factors that could make terrain more diversified. With more terrain types, it would be possible to have for instance two grassland types with identical yield (in food, shields and commerce), but different movement cost and/or defense modifiers (as in sloped or level grassland). I'm sure the more creative souls amongst us can come up with better examples than this. Just my thoughts...

Sigurd

 

[Ozymandias]

If I'm interpreting the colors on the map in the first post correctly, at least the upper Great Plains is labeled as "cropland". That may well be the case today, but if we turn back the clock 200 years, the Great Plains would indeed have been wild plains. "Prairie" being another term, and while I'm sure experts could point out the differences between them, to me it's a bit of forest versus woods. One may be larger and denser, but both have a lot of trees. Plains versus prairies, if it's small and local, it's a a prairie, if it's almost all of Nebraska in 1830 and has bison, it's the plains.

Attached is a far more scientific breakdown of biomes. I'm not suggesting this as a template, but, rather, for how definitions vary between geographical, and ecological, and "commonplace"/"utilitarian" terminology - and I'm more than genuinely curious as to which of these biomes matches up top your(I'm guessing "Steppe.") Also, "Prairie" is strictly American terminology.

Moving right along -

1. "Cropland" is a utilitarian definition.
2. The second map shows the area in question. The color codes are as follows: the lightest green is, “Shortgrass Prairie;” next up is, “Mixed Grass Prairie;” and the darkest is, “Tallgrass Prairie.”
3. That second is today. Before we Yanks arrived, there was six feet of topsoil - which was reduced to the Dust Bowl in 1934, meaning that Things Were Different Then, before over-farming had run rampant, over the course of a century or so.

Further definitions make the matter as clear as mud. According to Ye Olde Wikipedia:

"In geography, a plain is a flat expanse of land that generally does not change much in elevation, and is primarily treeless. Plains occur as lowlands along valleys or at the base of mountains, as coastal plains, and as plateaus or uplands."

So there can be considerable differences in what a "Plains" is.

Then of course there's the classic Eurasian steppe. I suppose I've always had a similar interpretation to Virote_Considon, considering Civ3's "plains" as representing these drier grasslands (which are nonetheless not deserts), and borrowing its language from the U.S. Great Plains. Civ3's "grasslands" being the wetter grasslands of, say, France or the U.S. mid-Atlantic.

Or Ukraine.

In the end, I think Firaxis struck a decent balance, even if a more flexible system for modding would be nice. We could have had 30 different terrains types, but would it make the gameplay better? Or is the argument that Plains should be lumped in with Grassland and there should be fewer terrains?

From a gameplay POV, I'd happily ditch Flood Pains (just extremely fertile soil + Disease) and Volcanos. I'd also like to see "Jungle" replaced with "Tropical" and "Temperate" Rain Forests.

I'd ditch Plains in favor of Steppe, Grassland, and Rich Cropland (Flood Pains.)

That's -4 Tile Types, and +5 new ones. (Which, of course, can be accomplished, with LM Terrain, but the available graphics don't

 

[justanick]

Also, "Prairie" is strictly American terminology.

The term stems from the french and has been translated into many languages. In Germany the term is used for the steppe in North America, in North America itself the term seems to be used in a broader sense.

 

[ThesaurusRex]

I've always just figured that grassland = wetter climate, and plains = drier climate rather than strictly being distinct terrains in of themself.

This, I use Plains for dry savannas and high deserts and Grassland for wetter meadows. If you look at Google Earth, it jibes pretty well. Making Spain would look different if you made it all green.

In the end, I think Firaxis struck a decent balance, even if a more flexible system for modding would be nice. We could have had 30 different terrains types, but would it make the gameplay better?

I just wish we had a completely impassable Glacier terrain. Tired of filling Greenland and Antarctica in with tundra.

 

[Vuldacon]

From a gameplay POV, I'd happily ditch Flood Pains (just extremely fertile soil + Disease) and Volcanos. I'd also like to see "Jungle" replaced with "Tropical" and "Temperate" Rain Forests.

I'd ditch Plains in favor of Steppe, Grassland, and Rich Cropland (Flood Pains.)

I agree absolutely

 

[timerover51]

I've always just figured that grassland = wetter climate, and plains = drier climate rather than strictly being distinct terrains in of themself.

I tend to have the same view, or treat Savanna as plains.

As for Electrum, that is an interesting idea. I know that the Test of Time scenario has an image for copper that you could use for Electrum. I have used it to add Copper to the scenario as a bonus resource, mainly giving Egypt and Israel something to boost their production. The Egyptians used electrum, but I am not sure if they mined it domestically, or got it from trade.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's copper in Civ 4. I was being obnoxious because Civ 4 looks like Phyllis Diller and has all the grace of Brando on the set of The Island of Dr. Moreau. Believe me, you didn't miss anything.

Wow, one of the few people who doesn't treat Civ 4 like the Second Coming...

You have my respect!