Terrain troubles or "The scale of the world" - why the terrain doesnt work

[poncratias]

please keep the scale of civ in mind.

that's the main thing that bogs me about c2cs terrains. although it's nice to have a greater variation in general, it seems those terrains just crash with the size of things.

A vanilla Civ IV terrain plot resembles a rather large region, and not small features.

the scale of the world is just to large on its minimum, so using a single plot just for showing something that would be (in comparisation)rather small in reality just doesnt make sense and most of all: it sticks out of the map and makes everything look patchworky and unharmonic.


I really love diversity, but this here just doesn't blend with the rest and makes me wish there would be an option to disable it.


It would be great if you can work on this a little more!

thx for your great effort,
me

 

[ls612]

please keep the scale of civ in mind.

that's the main thing that bogs me about c2cs terrains. although it's nice to have a greater variation in general, it seems those terrains just crash with the size of things.

A vanilla Civ IV terrain plot resembles a rather large region, and not small features.

the scale of the world is just to large on its minimum, so using a single plot just for showing something that would be (in comparisation)rather small in reality just doesnt make sense and most of all: it sticks out of the map and makes everything look patchworky and unharmonic.


I really love diversity, but this here just doesn't blend with the rest and makes me wish there would be an option to disable it.


It would be great if you can work on this a little more!

thx for your great effort,
me

Well, let's take the Gigantic Map as a starting point. You have 180 by 120 tiles, or a grand total of 21600 tiles on the map.

The surface area of the earth would be equal to

4*πr^2 = 4*(3.14)*(3900mi)^2 = ~191,000,000 sq miles

so that would mean that each tile would be 8842 square miles, or about about the area of New Hampshire. So yes, it is a big area, but in the grand scheme of things it blends pretty realistically. That and we are planning on adding bigger maps in the future, so that may also help the issue.

 

[Laskaris]

I agree with the "patchworky and unharmonic" point. I also think that some of the terrains don't blend well graphically at all, that some of them (like Barren or Rocky) stand out like sore thumbs. However, that is an aesthetic judgment, and we will never reach universal agreement about aesthetics because they are so subjective.

My other, and more objective, complaint about the current terrains (as I've said a few times already) is that there is an over-abundance of desert terrains while humid terrains are under-represented. I would like to have more humid terrains to accurately represent Earth-like worlds with their full range of climate zones and biomes.

I know Hydromancerx's argument that terrains plus features can stand for different biomes. For instance, he writes that Marsh plus Tall Grass could be Tropical Wetlands as well as Arctic Wetlands. But I don't find it very satisfying to have such distinct climate zones look exactly the same on the map. And if we are throwing together Tropical Wetlands and Arctic Wetlands on the one hand, why are there subtle distinctions between "Desert" and "Dunes" or between "Marsh" and "Muddy" on the other hand? That's a contradiction in my view.

There is a discussion about a reworking of the terrain at the moment, but there is still some head butting over what will be changed or whether it will happen at all. We will see.

That and we are planning on adding bigger maps in the future, so that may also help the issue.

Bigger than 180 x 120 = 21600 tiles? Will that still be playable? I am currently creating a Gigantic Earth Map for basic CivIV with 232 x 112 = 25984 tiles, which I think is straining the limits.

 

[ls612]

<snip>
There is a discussion about a reworking of the terrain at the moment, but there is still some head butting over what will be changed or whether it will happen at all. We will see.



Bigger than 180 x 120 = 21600 tiles? Will that still be playable? I am currently creating a Gigantic Earth Map for basic CivIV with 232 x 112 = 25984 tiles, which I think is straining the limits.

With Viewports the map size can scale almost arbitrarily (there are some limits in the DLL, but those can be removed) without messing up memory. Koshling says that perhaps in the future we will be able to do 1200 by 800 maps (who knows).

 

[Laskaris]

With Viewports the map size can scale almost arbitrarily (there are some limits in the DLL, but those can be removed) without messing up memory. Koshling says that perhaps in the future we will be able to do 1200 by 800 maps (who knows).

And then we have a multiplayer PBEM game on that map with 128 people, I guess?

 

[crazyewok]

"Drolls at the idea of Mega sized maps"

 

[Hydromancerx]

I know Hydromancerx's argument that terrains plus features can stand for different biomes. For instance, he writes that Marsh plus Tall Grass could be Tropical Wetlands as well as Arctic Wetlands. But I don't find it very satisfying to have such distinct climate zones look exactly the same on the map. And if we are throwing together Tropical Wetlands and Arctic Wetlands on the one hand, why are there subtle distinctions between "Desert" and "Dunes" or between "Marsh" and "Muddy" on the other hand? That's a contradiction in my view.

It all is based upon the temperature and wetness of those. If lined up they would be ...

Wet to Dry
Marsh -> Muddy -> Lush -> Grassland -> Plains -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren -> Desert / Tundra -> Dunes / Permafrost -> Salt Flats / Ice

Hot to Cold
Salt Flats -> Dunes -> Desert -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren / Plains / Grassland / Lush / Muddy / Marsh -> Tundra -> Permafrost -> Ice

In other words the 3 Desert (Desert/Dunes/Salt Flats) and 3 Tundra (Tundra/Permafrost/Ice) biomes were put in for the temperature difference, while the 3 Wet biomes (Marsh/Muddy/Lush) were put in for increased wetlness since the Deserts and Tundras were already very dry.

In addition all of the terrains had different stats. Such as if Lush is more food then Barren is nothing. Likewise Rocky allows for mines without a Hill. Grassland/Plains/Scrub were the middle ground where Grassland is more wet and Scrub is more dry.

As for more desert biomes? There are only 3 Desert biomes. Unless you count the Tundras as a type of Cold desert. As I have said before the other biomes sit in the middle in how wet they are except for Marsh, Muddy and Lush which are more wet but do not have a specific temperature.

 

[Taxman66]

My problem, or rather annoyance, is that too many of those categories end up being 'bad' to 'horrible' and not enough in the 'good' to 'great'.

Salt, Dunes, Desert, Barren, Ice & Permafrost = Horrible
Rocky Scrub, Tundra, Marsh = Bad
Muddy, 'Flood Plains' = OK (Flood plains themselves are good, but come with sickness and are often accompanied by lots of bad terrain equating to cities using them also having many bad & horrible tiles)
Plains, Grassland & Lush = Good/Great.

Has anyone run a distribution computation on generated worlds to see how many tiles fall into each category to determine percentages?

 

[AIAndy]

It all is based upon the temperature and wetness of those. If lined up they would be ...

Wet to Dry
Marsh -> Muddy -> Lush -> Grassland -> Plains -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren -> Desert / Tundra -> Dunes / Permafrost -> Salt Flats / Ice

Hot to Cold
Salt Flats -> Dunes -> Desert -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren / Plains / Grassland / Lush / Muddy / Marsh -> Tundra -> Permafrost -> Ice

In other words the 3 Desert (Desert/Dunes/Salt Flats) and 3 Tundra (Tundra/Permafrost/Ice) biomes were put in for the temperature difference, while the 3 Wet biomes (Marsh/Muddy/Lush) were put in for increased wetlness since the Deserts and Tundras were already very dry.

In addition all of the terrains had different stats. Such as if Lush is more food then Barren is nothing. Likewise Rocky allows for mines without a Hill. Grassland/Plains/Scrub were the middle ground where Grassland is more wet and Scrub is more dry.

As for more desert biomes? There are only 3 Desert biomes. Unless you count the Tundras as a type of Cold desert. As I have said before the other biomes sit in the middle in how wet they are except for Marsh, Muddy and Lush which are more wet but do not have a specific temperature.

In general there are far more hostile terrains than good ones. Rocky, Barren, the 4 desert and semi desert terrains, the 3 cold terrains and also the very wet terrains. Compared to 2-4 good terrains (in terms of food).

 

[Laskaris]

It all is based upon the temperature and wetness of those. If lined up they would be ...

Wet to Dry
Marsh -> Muddy -> Lush -> Grassland -> Plains -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren -> Desert / Tundra -> Dunes / Permafrost -> Salt Flats / Ice

Hot to Cold
Salt Flats -> Dunes -> Desert -> Scrub / Rocky / Barren / Plains / Grassland / Lush / Muddy / Marsh -> Tundra -> Permafrost -> Ice

In other words the 3 Desert (Desert/Dunes/Salt Flats) and 3 Tundra (Tundra/Permafrost/Ice) biomes were put in for the temperature difference, while the 3 Wet biomes (Marsh/Muddy/Lush) were put in for increased wetlness since the Deserts and Tundras were already very dry.

In addition all of the terrains had different stats. Such as if Lush is more food then Barren is nothing. Likewise . Grassland/Plains/Scrub were the middle ground where Grassland is more wet and Scrub is more dry.

As for more desert biomes? There are only 3 Desert biomes. Unless you count the Tundras as a type of Cold desert. As I have said before the other biomes sit in the middle in how wet they are except for Marsh, Muddy and Lush which are more wet but do not have a specific temperature.

Thank you. I do understand your reasoning behind it. I think part of the issue is that we are simply coming from quite different design philosophies, yours with a stronger emphasis on game design / balance considerations, mine with a stronger emphasis on "How can I get all the real-world biomes in and make them look right as well as different from each other?". I would not have thought of something like "rocky allows for mines without a Hill, and that is why we are going to have that terrain" - it would not have occurred to me. On the other hand, I don't think it would have occurred to you to put in different types of forest soils with different levels of fertility.

I see your point about there only being three desert terrains in your view: desert, dunes and salt flats. However, as you guessed correctly, I have a broader definition of desert myself. For me, it's about the lack of plantlife. So I rate Rocky and Barren as deserts or near-deserts as well (the graphics sure look very desert-like), Tundra and Permafrost as near-deserts, and Ice as a (polar) desert. Which is why, where you see balance, I see an imbalance from the point of view of my design philosophy.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply, because I am starting to understand more clearly where you were coming from with the terrain. I hope you see my perspective more clearly now as well.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Thank you. I do understand your reasoning behind it. I think part of the issue is that we are simply coming from quite different design philosophies, yours with a stronger emphasis on game design / balance considerations, mine with a stronger emphasis on "How can I get all the real-world biomes in and make them look right as well as different from each other?". I would not have thought of something like "rocky allows for mines without a Hill, and that is why we are going to have that terrain" - it would not have occurred to me. On the other hand, I don't think it would have occurred to you to put in different types of forest soils with different levels of fertility.

I see your point about there only being three desert terrains in your view: desert, dunes and salt flats. However, as you guessed correctly, I have a broader definition of desert myself. For me, it's about the lack of plantlife. So I rate Rocky and Barren as deserts or near-deserts as well (the graphics sure look very desert-like), Tundra and Permafrost as near-deserts, and Ice as a (polar) desert. Which is why, where you see balance, I see an imbalance from the point of view of my design philosophy.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply, because I am starting to understand more clearly where you were coming from with the terrain. I hope you see my perspective more clearly now as well.

That's true I was not really thinking of say a rainforest with a poor soil. I Just though ok so we can have a rainforest on a variety of different terrains, some can be Rich like Lush or Poor like Barren.

I was also considering terrain movement such as Dunes and Marsh slow you down but Salt Flats do not impede movement (because they are so flat and empty). Thus the 3 type of desert terrains also are unique in other features such as the salt flats and dune are almost impossible settle on, while deserts you can.

I was also thinking of what resources would be generated on what terrain as well as what types of wild animals. For instance Salt resource on Salt Flats, Camels (both animal and resource) on Desert and Dunes, etc.

Same goes for cold climates such as Penguins on ice or Musk Oxen on Tundra. Note that DH has done great job in having animals spawn in the correct location on the globe. Thus no penguins at the North Pole. And for random maps if say where Africa should be is ocean then well you don't get the African specific animals in your game.

This helps make each game different and your starting location very important. For instance we do not have many animals in South America at the moment so it may be the weakest starting location for hunting. However Australia has very unique types of animals found nowhere else on the map.

 

[primem0ver]

LOL. I love how this topic has been hijacked to yet another discussion of terrain types (even if it IS on topic....).

Bottom line poncratias is that the scale for the larger maps is appropriate for the different terrain types that exist. Ls612 is correct when he considers the actual statistics. Those statistics (of actual plot size) will be a major consideration in the new GeoRealism engine. So much so that I will be adding a tag to the map sizes that define how large of an earth (a radius in km) those map sizes should represent to calibrate scaling within the engine. We may very well introduce the ability to make the extra terrains optional though. If you don't like them you can play without (most of) them.

As for dry versus wet terrains? I will have to side with Hydro here Laskarsis. I am with you when it comes to there being more wet than dry but after spending some time in the west, I see how there is difference between the more arid types of terrains. And it is really tough for me to justify calling them all "desert"...

 

[Mouthwash]

That and we are planning on adding bigger maps in the future, so that may also help the issue.

I think this is a perfect solution as everyone else is planning to upgrade their computers in the near future. Makes perfect sense.

 

[primem0ver]

I think this is a perfect solution as everyone else is planning to upgrade their computers in the near future. Makes perfect sense.

LOL. We are? Don't I wish I had the money...

 

[Hydromancerx]

LOL. We are? Don't I wish I had the money...

Apparently Mouthwash is gong to buy us all new computers! Yay!

 

[Taxman66]

As a side note, while early access to salt was rare, it does occur in more than just desert/salt flats. There were surface deposits of salt in areas where the ocean and/or salt lakes receeded as well.

Additional salt access through mining became available in the industrial revolution, and many subsurface deposits throughout the world make it a common enough occurance. Just google 'salt minning' and you will see there are large mining operations throughout europe (Bosnia, Austria, Poland, Germany, Italy, etc...) and plenty of other non-arid access. Heck there is even a town called Saltville, Virgina that has a large mining operation.

Modern access to salt should be even easier. As there is a means of brine extraction any coastal city should have a building available that can produce salt. *If this is already in the game, and I just haven't reached it yet then my appologies.

 

[AIAndy]

As a side note, while early access to salt was rare, it does occur in more than just desert/salt flats. There were surface deposits of salt in areas where the ocean and/or salt lakes receeded as well.

Actually salt extraction from brine springs happened as early as the neolithic.

 

[crazyewok]

I think this is a perfect solution as everyone else is planning to upgrade their computers in the near future. Makes perfect sense.

I think the point is with viewport and multimaps working properly, even a current adverage/good PC would handle huge maps.

And if your PC is crap...well stay on the small maps. No ones gunna point a gun at your head and make you play the big maps lol

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

As a side note, while early access to salt was rare, it does occur in more than just desert/salt flats. There were surface deposits of salt in areas where the ocean and/or salt lakes receeded as well.

Additional salt access through mining became available in the industrial revolution, and many subsurface deposits throughout the world make it a common enough occurance. Just google 'salt minning' and you will see there are large mining operations throughout europe (Bosnia, Austria, Poland, Germany, Italy, etc...) and plenty of other non-arid access. Heck there is even a town called Saltville, Virgina that has a large mining operation.

Modern access to salt should be even easier. As there is a means of brine extraction any coastal city should have a building available that can produce salt. *If this is already in the game, and I just haven't reached it yet then my appologies.

We have discussed this a bit - some mining goes way back and large scale brine extraction is at least found as far back as the medieval period. One argument is that we may as well remove it from the game completely as everyone can have it, just like air on an Earth map. Another says it is a useful resource but for game balance it needs to be rare. I don't think we ever reached a conclusion.

 

[Hankc]

Personally, I usually see the resources as "large vein of (mineral)" or "Quality (Resource)" or something similar. So yes, you can get salt everywhere, but access to the resource provide you with a surplus to use for non-essentials etc.