Seriously Civ 5! Desert and Tundra

[Imalich]

I always thought tundra was opposed to jungle, while desert could happen anywhere. Aside from a gameplay perspective, i don't really see the problem with the map generated in the screenshots

 

[Tiggurix]

I thought this was going to be a complaint about how tundra and deserts are comparable tiles, and that tundra is vastly UP compared to deserts. Seriously, let's make a few comparisons:

1) Deserts get a unique wonder, the Petra, which is only available if your city is on or by a desert tile, and which makes desert tiles VASTLY better AND gives you an extra trade route. Later in the game, cities on or by deserts can make a replacement for Nuclear Plants, the Solar Plant, which requires NO resources to build. Meanwhile, tundra gets nothing of the sort.

2) Both desert and tundra tiles have a Pantheon that gives Faith for working them, but, while the tundra version (Dance of the Aurora) does not work if the tile is forrested, the desert version (Desert Folklore) works even on flood plains and oases. Why? In my opinion, if these pantheons are supposed to be balanced against one another, they should EITHER both give Faith for ALL relevant tiles, OR Desert Folklore shouldn't work with oases and flood plains.

3) Tundra requires fresh water to be arable, while desert tiles, for some weird reason, can be farmed whether that tile has access to fresh water or not. Now, I'm not an expert in agriculture, so I don't know whether an arid sand plain, or permafrozen ground is hardest to make fertile, but it does bear worth mentioning that you DON'T see forests growing on desert tiles in this game, which one DOES see on the tundra tiles. Even if tundra tiles without fresh water shouldn't be arable right away, I do think that it should be awailable at Fertiliser or something, perhaps with reduced yield compared fresh-water-less tiles on other tiles.

 

[Calouste]

From my limited knowledge of geography, tundra means ABSENCE of trees. I freaking don't understand why Forests on Tundra happen.

Technically what is Tundra with Forest in Civ5 is known as Taiga or Boreal Forest.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Fine then. If we are willing to accept a broad definition of desert, why not create an additional desert design to differentiate deserts like the Mojave and Artic. We already have different styles of grassland, why not desert?

Because different style of grassland is tied to "geographical category", which, map scripts generate based on continents, meaning one continent is going to be one style, nad not interchangeable.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Best thread I have read in a while. Googling all the names being mentioned has shown me a lot of really beautiful places

 

[A Rabid Dopsis]

People need to learn their geography! Or try wearing shorts in the Gobi Desert.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

...
3) Tundra requires fresh water to be arable, while desert tiles, for some weird reason, can be farmed whether that tile has access to fresh water or not. Now, I'm not an expert in agriculture, so I don't know whether an arid sand plain, or permafrozen ground is hardest to make fertile, but it does bear worth mentioning that you DON'T see forests growing on desert tiles in this game, which one DOES see on the tundra tiles. Even if tundra tiles without fresh water shouldn't be arable right away, I do think that it should be awailable at Fertiliser or something, perhaps with reduced yield compared fresh-water-less tiles on other tiles.

I think desert is only farmable because of Petra and other desert modifiers. There's really no reason to farm a standard desert because even with two food you're just breaking even for the population working the tile. As long as the AI isn't stupid enough to farm desert without any other modifiers then it doesn't need to be restricted because you'll restrict yourself.

Also, not an expert, but I think desert would be easier to farm that permafrost. Deserts can get water, underground etc. but permafrost water can't flow anyway even if you have it. That's just my thinking.

 

[Socratatus]

If it can happen in reality- keep it. i`ve seen too many games ruined because someone `thinks` it shouldn`t be and shouts louder than others, twisting reality into their point of view.

 

[Hulking Lummox]

Oases are one of the best tiles in the game in my opinion. You can build farms all around them and they have an awesome value in and of themselves. Not sure why tundra has no love, just ice.

In regards to the OP, honestly, I feel that maps are one of the last frontiers for civ V to fix. I have a rule that I rerolll every time I see a desert 2-3 tiles from a tundra in my starting location so I had to laugh when I read your post and cry when I saw the first screenshot.

I was somebody who asked a lot about map script changes prior to BNW and was annoyed that it wasn't a part of this expansion. Not only was the issue not addressed, but there wasn't even a new map type introduced to the game which I am pretty sure they did for G&K. This was a big reason why I didn't want them to waste time on scenarios when 99% of people's time is spent playing their own games of civ. ooo, a random Africa map for every ti - I mean the one time I play Scramble for Africa.

The game still has a lot of nagging scale issues and this desert/tundra one is definitely one of them. I believe the desert/tundra problem is mechanically fixable as well as visually fixable by making better bonuses for every terrain type and generally scaling up the size of the biome each civ spawns in. Generally having more obstacles separating areas that don't belong together is a good thing (yes, gobi desert argument and what not but that should be a map script exception, not an afterthought justification on the player's side for bad map scripts).

One other thing would be to have your civ adapt to its surroundings beyond pantheon beliefs - new traits that would be inherent to every starting location and perhaps founding location given policy choices or some such. A lot of great and yet simple mechanics could follow suit with that: having enough coast tiles touching your city could grant a gold/trade benefit, lots of mountain tiles could be workable for city defense, lots of plains tiles grants an extra movement to troops built in the city, lots of grass means your workers build farms faster, stuff like that.

While I love the concept of terrain influenced civs such as Morocco, and the Iroquois the map scripts truly do spit on them. Anyways, obviously this all has spoiled more than one of my games of civ and I need to digress somewhere. Good topic!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I thought this was going to be a complaint about how tundra and deserts are comparable tiles, and that tundra is vastly UP compared to deserts. Seriously, let's make a few comparisons:

1) Deserts get a unique wonder, the Petra, which is only available if your city is on or by a desert tile, and which makes desert tiles VASTLY better AND gives you an extra trade route. Later in the game, cities on or by deserts can make a replacement for Nuclear Plants, the Solar Plant, which requires NO resources to build. Meanwhile, tundra gets nothing of the sort.

2) Both desert and tundra tiles have a Pantheon that gives Faith for working them, but, while the tundra version (Dance of the Aurora) does not work if the tile is forrested, the desert version (Desert Folklore) works even on flood plains and oases. Why? In my opinion, if these pantheons are supposed to be balanced against one another, they should EITHER both give Faith for ALL relevant tiles, OR Desert Folklore shouldn't work with oases and flood plains.

3) Tundra requires fresh water to be arable, while desert tiles, for some weird reason, can be farmed whether that tile has access to fresh water or not. Now, I'm not an expert in agriculture, so I don't know whether an arid sand plain, or permafrozen ground is hardest to make fertile, but it does bear worth mentioning that you DON'T see forests growing on desert tiles in this game, which one DOES see on the tundra tiles. Even if tundra tiles without fresh water shouldn't be arable right away, I do think that it should be awailable at Fertiliser or something, perhaps with reduced yield compared fresh-water-less tiles on other tiles.

Really excellent points, I agree with all of them.

 

[Crashonly]

Hmm.. In one of my recent games I got an oasis on a marsh tile Does that make sense?

Also, I agree that tundra really sucks compared to desert. Don't know why they made it that way. I love a desert start as long as there's a river and an oasis or two: I'll just do my damnest to get the desert pantheon and if I do, I don't even worry too much about if I'm able to get Petra or not.