Underwater Cities Development

[Hydromancerx]

@primem0ver

The existing map would work like it works now. All sea things would be on the sea surface such as fish, floating cites, boats, etc.

The underwater map would show the sea floor and everything under the surface. Thus some resources would only appear on the underwater map such as sea vents, methane ice, oil, etc. You could also have other non traditional sea resources such as gold (think bearing sea gold).

Spoiler :

 

[GiuseppeIII]

I personally like the multimap idea just because underground cities sound awsome

 

[Thunderbrd]

I LOVE that proposal Hydro! LOVE LOVE LOVE it!

 

[Hydromancerx]

Thanks. It basically means that when you generate your surface map you will get a twin map for the underground. Where there is land then there will be crust. Where there is coast there will be continental shelf. And where there is ocean there will be sea floor. Where there are volcanoes then there will be magma chambers under them. Where there are caves there will be at least one cavern tile under them.

The rest would get generated at random such as the caverns, water tables, sea trenches, etc. I also can see the sea trenches generating half way between landmasses to simulate them splitting apart. If primem0ver gets a plate tectonics system going then the sea floor could be quite realistic.

Resources would generate on appropriate tiles, just like the surface. The underwater parts would not be accessible until a tech like Deep Sea Exploration. And since the sea floor acts like land terrain the submarines would have to be moved up on their Z axis and work like aircraft.

The main problem will having units interact on a Z axis level where they can attack each other from different maps.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You'd have to have deep submersion and shallow submersion missions to handle movement between map layers and adjustments to the unit's Z axis would need to take place dependent on layer... subs would still need to be able to come to the 'sub'-surface to attack. If an enemy is over them, to make things simple, they should not be able to surface there. We could also create depth charge missions for destroyers and such that could do something like a bombard attack on the tile below them.

The caverns take me back to the underearth map layer from CivII's Test of Time. Very cool. I'd think for a long time, however, only specialized spelunking promoted units should be able to get through 'cave entrances'.

 

[Hydromancerx]

The caverns take me back to the underearth map layer from CivII's Test of Time. Very cool. I'd think for a long time, however, only specialized spelunking promoted units should be able to get through 'cave entrances'.

I like that idea. It could be the same type of code that works for Mountaineering. Where units with "Spelunking" could go underground until you reached Subterranean Exploration tech. Which is the same dynamic as reaching Mountaineering tech or having Mountaineering promotion.

 

[Thunderbrd]

We could also have some very interesting humanoid branches of the family tree down there as barbs... like the movie 'Descent' or the Morlocks from the Time Machine. I'd think some very early units should be able to get spelunking (there's lots of signs of early human habitations in caverns that go on as deep as we can explore) but we'd lose access to this ability somewhere around the Ancient era and grow out of it for a time before tech gets advanced enough to get us back to being capable of crossing the bridge again. In the meantime, the strength of the barbs below should increase to the point to eventually, with ease, wipe out your first explorations (or even possibly attempted habitations).

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well I would think Spelunking promotion would be unlocked at Cave Dwelling tech. Units like Neanderthals, Cave Bear and Cave Lions could be found in the caves. Likewise if I ever make Bats, they could also be found in the caverns.

 

[GiuseppeIII]

Also you should have some under water "barbarians"

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

... Where there is coast there will be continental shelf. And where there is ocean there will be sea floor....

No, no, no. Coast is not the same as continental shelf. Coast is about movement not terrain. Some continental shelves extend out way beyond what is called coast and sometimes there is no continental shelf at all.

While I think the idea of hidden minerals and caves is a fun idea, I tend to agree with ls612 on this one. I don't like the idea of having to flip maps just to cross a bay, going from one continent to another. And with cities... how would you get back on the coast? You would have to show all beach tiles that the underwater cities link too. I would think that would make the underwater map problematic again.

If you are traveling on the surface you would not switch maps.

1) I think subterranean areas are a different map. after all there is ground under the sea also so why aren't there caverns there also.

2) The problem with multi maps and to a lesser extent view ports is the difficulty in selecting targets for units to move to (including rally points).

3) I don't think we need another map for water terrains. What we need is to "fix" what we have so that it works well. BTW why don't we have flying cities.

Currently we only represent resources, some terrain features (reefs and coral), improvements and movement and trade information on the water areas of the map. What we need o do is come up with someway of not loosing the movement and trade information when we start to add extra stuff to the water terrains. maybe we need something like a new domain (submerged) leaving the current water one for surface.

 

[primem0ver]

Wow. Ok... I have mixed comments about the proposals made lately.

1. Actually, now that you have shown me the map I realize there is a major problem it WOULD solve: The map could be made inactive until certain techs become available. This would solve the "Sea floor being visible before the techs are their to see it" problem.
2. I remember CTP 1 had an alternative map that could be activated as well... the space map that existed in the high atmosphere. So it wouldn't be too far out of an idea. I also remember that the space map was a real pain to navigate because when active, it slowed the computer down significantly.
3. I do not like the caves idea for one simple reason. Caves are never that large. Remember that each square represents around 100 miles to a side, depending on the size of your map. I think caves are fine to a certain degree. Small underground communities could be built within them. And technology could expand those caves to be man made systems. We could even build vast underground tunnel systems. But for natural caves to be more than two squares wide is going way beyond my suspension of disbelief.
4. I like the Magma chambers if for no other reason than for their teaching potential. They can be considerably large so having them there isn' necessarily unrealistic.
5. I do not like the portrayal of the water table. The water table exists everywhere. Including deserts. It just happens to be 400+ feet down in the desert. However, we could rename the "water table" an "aquifer" and it would be scientifically fine. Building an artesian well anywhere within the aquifer could give an added food bonus to the land above it.
6. This map addition would allow for addition of other undersea terrains and features such as guyots, seamounts, mid-ocean ridges, deep sea trenches, etc...

I suppose in the end I like the idea for its ability to show features and terrains that should not be useable or visible before the modern era. However, I still think that it makes the game more complicated than it should be. At the very least, I think that we should keep cities above water for the sake of being able to navigate to them without switching to the other map. Perhaps the graphics in the underground view would be more robust; have more depth and more detailed but I still think switching to the underground view should be unnecessary. Remember that switching back and forth will take a LOT of processing time. (If you ever played Sim City 3000, think of the underground mode there. This might take even longer because of all the detail that would exist).

 

[Hydromancerx]

No, no, no. Coast is not the same as continental shelf. Coast is about movement not terrain. Some continental shelves extend out way beyond what is called coast and sometimes there is no continental shelf at all.

What would you call the zone between the abyssal plain and the land?

1) I think subterranean areas are a different map. after all there is ground under the sea also so why aren't there caverns there also.

We could have multiple underground maps, however that just makes it even more complex. Having underground and underwater on one map at least introduces 2 maps in one map. Also we could always have a connection between the continental crust and the ocean with sea caves.

3) I don't think we need another map for water terrains. What we need is to "fix" what we have so that it works well. BTW why don't we have flying cities.

On a multimap or n the surface map just on a later that it very high up? We have talked about orbital stuff and even some orbital buildings and units already.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

What would you call the zone between the abyssal plain and the land?

Continental shelf = continental shelf. Coast = how far I can sail but still see land. One is chalk the other algebra they have nothing in common. Except they exist in water terrain.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I do not like the caves idea for one simple reason. Caves are never that large. Remember that each square represents around 100 miles to a side, depending on the size of your map. I think caves are fine to a certain degree. Small underground communities could be built within them. And technology could expand those caves to be man made systems. We could even build vast underground tunnel systems. But for natural caves to be more than two squares wide is going way beyond my suspension of disbelief.

If they were graphically depicted as being more like a web of tunnels on each space I'd think we could go further than that much limitation but I tend to agree with the overall assertion there.

At the very least, I think that we should keep cities above water for the sake of being able to navigate to them without switching to the other map.

Hmm.. perhaps the city should be considered to exist on both layers. In essence it would create an artificial island on the surface and a deep submerse underneath. Or better yet, we actually have artificial island cities on the surface and completely different cities in bubble lifestyles underneath. Two different 'types' entirely.

Remember that switching back and forth will take a LOT of processing time.

I'm really hoping it won't be all that long to switch... I have a lot of faith in the processing streamlining skills Koshling and AIAndy bring to the table here.

 

[primem0ver]

"Dancing" posted his comment after I started making mine. I agree with most of what he says. Except:

The problem with multi maps and to a lesser extent view ports is the difficulty in selecting targets for units to move to (including rally points).

Actually... in this way I think it is an advantage. It could help in keeping units underwater separated from units above water... but in a way that is moot since the GenEM code already settles this issue.


I also have something to say about what Hydro just noted to counter "Dancing's" statement:

What would you call the zone between the abyssal plain and the land?

To be accurate: you are both right on this one. It is a matter of semantics. The coast is not the same as the continental shelf, yet in this game it does represent the area of shallow water that in science is called the continental shelf. It is also true what Dancer says about it not always existing, and sometimes going 100's of miles out. The bottom line is that Firaxis did not get scientific about coast lines so it can be seen both ways. What matters here is that the "coast" serves as a graphic that can represent the continental shelf.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

To be accurate: you are both right on this one. It is a matter of semantics. The coast is not the same as the continental shelf, yet in this game it does represent the area of shallow water that in science is called the continental shelf. It is also true what Dancer says about it not always existing, and sometimes going 100's of miles out. The bottom line is that Firaxis did not get scientific about coast lines so it can be seen both ways. What matters here is that the "coast" serves as a graphic that can represent the continental shelf.

The problem with having "coast" = "continental shelf" in game terms is that on an Earth map you end up with only two (or three) continents since iirc coast joins regions. It means that small ships even rafts will be able to get to places we don't want them to get to for game purposes.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I do not like the caves idea for one simple reason. Caves are never that large. Remember that each square represents around 100 miles to a side, depending on the size of your map. I think caves are fine to a certain degree. Small underground communities could be built within them. And technology could expand those caves to be man made systems. We could even build vast underground tunnel systems. But for natural caves to be more than two squares wide is going way beyond my suspension of disbelief.

Scale it a bit irreverent in this game. We have HUGE units and a city that only takes one tile. Note that tunnels would just use the road style graphics so they would appear small. We could always have a cave system use road-like graphics but have then generate naturally on the map rather than made by a civ.

 

[primem0ver]

The problem with having "coast" = "continental shelf" in game terms is that on an Earth map you end up with only two (or three) continents since iirc coast joins regions. It means that small ships even rafts will be able to get to places we don't want them to get to for game purposes.

Good point. However, here again, my comments about the "pre-modern" view being separated from the "modern" view apply. The ancients didn't exactly use a measuring stick to say... "ok... ships can't go beyond this point." They simply feared going too far from the coast. So the traditional coast view can be for the normal map in the early game. Later that coast view can be matched with the actual continental shelf since by the modern era, everyone will be able to at least navigate the oceans anyway.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Continental shelf = continental shelf. Coast = how far I can sail but still see land. One is chalk the other algebra they have nothing in common. Except they exist in water terrain.

I thought coast was just shallow waters, while ocean is deep waters. Which is why you can have coast with no land.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That looks more reasonable, with perhaps some very small pockets (1-2spc max) of open caverns.

If you get the ability to tunnel, it would be a very bad thing, I'd think, to tunnel into a volcanic collumn, an aquifer or a pocket of oil, no? That'd basically force that underworld terrain type to invade your tunnel system and at minimum destroy the poor unit that broke in. Maybe advanced sonic techs could give you extra visibility beyond the immediate tunnels to help you avoid this fate.