Terrain design from a military perspective

[Cassius Critzer]

When a general looks at the terrain, then fancy farm graphics or mines or irrigation or railroads are rather pointless and detract from their main sense of inquiry: what does the darn base terrain look like so that they best know how to deploy soldiers to fight, how defensible it is on that tile, by what means the soldiers can be extracted or evade, or even retreat.

The way the terrain is now employed, it looks pretty although dated but obscures the very terrain that determines deployment. Basically you are forced to show hidden terrain in the menu, then move, then show hidden terrain, then move, and it is cumbersome. On a huge map, this is a serious time waster.

The most useful terrain indicators for improvements would use a code such as a tiny letter or number or a colored dot in a corner of the tile, such that the bulk of the tile could be seen and not have to use a special command to see what it actually looks like. Because as soon as a farm is laid upon it, then everything else is generally lost, so it could be a hill, or a plain, or grasslands, etc and they all might have different defensive values and movement rates.

The better scenarios eliminate railroads as the movement rates are absurd. It would be awesome if there were bad roads or trails, and then reasonable roads instead.

Because all tiles are layered by improvements, then using tiny graphics and corners would significantly improve the map.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

This especially is important in the scenario I am working on as it alters standard terrain concepts and instead is more akin to agricultural reforms which subsequently has high defensibility at the upper end.

So a forest can be logged to acquire shields, but may be cleared to be a plain. Or it can be sown with seedlings to become a new forest.

Or another kind with conifers can be cleared to become grassland eventually.

Or then you have the hill to plains to grassland upgrade.

Then there is grassland to rich grassland.

Then there is rich grassland to Imperial grade land that has high ability to feed the populace, high shields of productivity, and a significant defensive bonus for the Emperor. Then it ends up being adopted by all the daimyo in turn to best increase their ability to recruit soldiers and feed the peasants and defend the cities. This also duplicates the ability to have very high population density and overcrowding in Japan. It makes the AI to take risks and put cities too close...which is highly desireable to replicate history...and potential for disease and squalor through pollution most likely.

But as soon as a farm is created, then all of that is hidden by a pretty farm.

 

[Patine]

When a general looks at the terrain, then fancy farm graphics or mines or irrigation or railroads are rather pointless and detract from their main sense of inquiry: what does the darn base terrain look like so that they best know how to deploy soldiers to fight, how defensible it is on that tile, by what means the soldiers can be extracted or evade, or even retreat.

The way the terrain is now employed, it looks pretty although dated but obscures the very terrain that determines deployment. Basically you are forced to show hidden terrain in the menu, then move, then show hidden terrain, then move, and it is cumbersome. On a huge map, this is a serious time waster.

The most useful terrain indicators for improvements would use a code such as a tiny letter or number or a colored dot in a corner of the tile, such that the bulk of the tile could be seen and not have to use a special command to see what it actually looks like. Because as soon as a farm is laid upon it, then everything else is generally lost, so it could be a hill, or a plain, or grasslands, etc and they all might have different defensive values and movement rates.

The better scenarios eliminate railroads as the movement rates are absurd. It would be awesome if there were bad roads or trails, and then reasonable roads instead.

Because all tiles are layered by improvements, then using tiny graphics and corners would significantly improve the map.

Keep in mind, a flaw in your thinking, a general does not (typically) personally handle a city's ability to feed itself, to pay for it's infrastructure (and taxes to a higher level of government), and produce new infrastructure, as well engineers, traders, or even new military forces (at least at the level of resource management to do so). The civic government does these things. But these are also just as vital to a Civ2 game or scenario. My point is, the general will have to (and always has had to) compromise in the map display layout with the needs of the national government.