Announcement

**Gary Thomas** · July 18, 2001, 14:34

Some further thoughts.

Mixed landforms

I didn't really answer Laurent's comments about mixed landforms.

The model I am proposing doesn't have mixed landforms. Each map square as one and only one landform type. However, there is nothing at all to prevent the introduction of a half hill, half flat terrain type, if it was really wanted. This would, in effect, provide for mixed landforms, and any necessary movement parameters could be set as required.

Mixed landcover

In an earlier post I said that I thought mixed landcover would be important. What I had in mind at the time was forest clearance.

I have changed my mind (having hit the coding side of it). It adds considerable complexity without a commensurate gain. If it is really required to have gradual forest clearance, then partial landcover types can be introduced (25% cleared, 50% cleared, 75% cleared, for example), using the same reasoning as for mixed landforms.

Cheers

**Lord God Jinnai** · July 18, 2001, 15:02

Special Landforms

Special landforms include rare landforms that are virtually unique. These would include rift valleys, trenches, volcanoes (Large ones or particulary active ones), impact craters. These are not essential and may not show up on geologically stable worlds (Class L)

**Mark_Everson** · July 18, 2001, 19:19

We can certainly forget mixed landcover for now... But I suspect it could be a problem at some point. But there are more important fish to fry at this point. I'm just warning you I may put in a bid for it at a later date.

What is the big issue on the coding side BTW?

My big reason for wanting it is that gradual economic development of a forested area without sizable outside resources will be almost impossible your way. "C'mon lads, lets start spending our hard-earned resources now so that in 350 years all of a sudden we'll get gobs 'o' farmland". This means nobody would ever do it! For a big civ its no problem 'cause you can get the same general effect by investing in one square after another. But for areas without centralized government it could make economic development ridiculously hard IMO.

**Gary Thomas** · July 18, 2001, 23:25

The problem is that it requires maintenance of a weighting vector and an algorithm to calculate movement rates for mixed cover.

How about a compromise?

Two types only, one a forest type (natural cover) and one a cultivated or pasture type (agricultural cover) with a single parameter (0 to 100%) giving the proportion of the natural cover left. Movement times would be weighted similarly.

This wouldn't be too difficult to maintain.

It would need a minor mechansim to shift the parameter (presumably from 100 toward 0, though in a collapsed civilization situation it might go the other way).

In exchange, do I get edge rivers?

Cheers

**Mark_Everson** · July 19, 2001, 12:25

Your compromise sounds reasonable to me. The swamp-to-dry land transition is also important. Watertable handles that in your proposal I guess. Do you have that transition covered, or do we need something similar to forest/farm for drainage?

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
In exchange, do I get edge rivers?

No chance!

You just need to convince some others, I already said I was willing to give it a shot...

**Gary Thomas** · July 19, 2001, 14:34

Your compromise sounds reasonable to me. The swamp-to-dry land transition is also important. Watertable handles that in your proposal I guess. Do you have that transition covered, or do we need something similar to forest/farm for drainage?

Forgot about that one. I wonder if the distinction between land cover and water table serves any purpose. They seem to be aspects of the same thing. If I combined them, the present model (which I have actually coded) would have it available already.

The only thing that would be lost is the possibility of forested swamp, as distinct from unforested swamp, and, frankly, I do not feel that will have any reasonable impact on the game. The cover/water table combinations are:

ocean or sea with anything
mudflats with anything
swamp with anything except forest
arid tends to imply little or no cover
crops implies no water
pasture implies no water
scrub could (like forest) combine with swamp
forest could combine with swamp
jungle, adding swamp wouldn't have much effect
and, of course, no cover - essentially not different from arid

So I think I will use the following combined list:

ocean
sea
mudflats
swamp (a sort of generic swamp)
nothing (equivalent to arid)
ice (forgot this in my previous posts)
crops
pasture
scrub
forest
jungle

Any step in the direction of simplicity is bound to get me enthusiastic.

Cheers

**Gary Thomas** · July 19, 2001, 14:42

While I am on the simplifying kick, why not add the material as well. After all of the types I just listed, except "none", imply soil or no specific material (ocean for example) as the material. Adding the sand and rock options gives:

ocean
sea
mudflats
swamp (a sort of generic swamp)
nothing (equivalent to arid)
ice (forgot this in my previous posts)
crops
pasture
scrub
forest
jungle
dunes
stony desert

Have I missed anything?

Cheers

**Lord God Jinnai** · July 20, 2001, 11:02

Savana/Plains

Tundra (differs from Ice)

**Mark_Everson** · July 20, 2001, 16:33

Simplification is fine by me. But you need to get together with Simon and find an approach that seems to work out. I'll contribute to any discussion you two and others may have when I get a chance. Hopefully I'll be able to check in at least a few time while I'm on vacation.

**Gary Thomas** · July 20, 2001, 23:44

Simplification is fine by me. But you need to get together with Simon and find an approach that seems to work out. I'll contribute to any discussion you two and others may have when I get a chance.

I would dearly love to get Simon's input, but he is lying low lately (apart from a quick message a week ago saying that he is back).

It is important to realize that the terrain factors I have been talking about are for the immediate purpose (D5). There is nothing in this system that prevents a more detailed breakdown, along the lines of:

mudflates = soil, no cover, high water table
swamp = soil, scrub cover, high water table
dunes = sand, no cover, arid water table

Savana/Plains
Tundra (differs from Ice)

I suspect that savannah/plains is the same as pasture cover and tundra is the same as flat with no cover, but a cold climate.

Cheers

**Lord God Jinnai** · July 22, 2001, 00:20

I suspect that savannah/plains is the same as pasture cover and tundra is the same as flat with no cover, but a cold climate.

You may be right on the Savana/Plains part (save there are usually trees in a savana and not in pastures/plains), but you are slightly off on tundra. There is cover, but it is sparse, mostly low with a few pine trees.

**Gary Thomas** · July 22, 2001, 15:50

You may be right on the Savana/Plains part (save there are usually trees in a savana and not in pastures/plains), but you are slightly off on tundra. There is cover, but it is sparse, mostly low with a few pine trees.

There really isn't a category for low or sparse cover, though scrub might go close. In any case the distinguishing charateristic is the form of cover. I would really like to think that eventually we will have every reasonable type of cover available in the game.

Cheers

**Mark_Everson** · July 24, 2001, 10:34

Hey Gary:

On getting Simon's input, if he's not available then he loses his chance for input... but you might want to say what you're doing here in the thread "Vegetation, Climate, Ecology, and Pollution" because he may only be checking that one when he does come to the site.

**Gary Thomas** · July 24, 2001, 14:22

There isn't any conflict between the display terrain and the ecology model. The classes I have are displayable classes. They actually don't have anything in them right now, and are only used to determine movement. Soon (in the next few days) they will also have a pointer to the image to be used.

Each displayable class can be a composite of the factors I listed (based on Simon's model) in the ecology thread.

On a related topic, how are partial cover (27% forest, 73% crops) situations supposed to be displayed on the map?

Cheers

Announcement

Terrain

Terrain

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment