{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[Xorbon]

While I'm in this thread, here are some terrain-types I'd like to see in the next Civ (some of these may have been mentioned by others before): glacier, arctic, shield-land, ice-flows, and ice cap.

Glacier: the food/shield/commerce production of this terrain would be 0/0/0, although being next to a river would still give the bonus commerce; no terrain improvements could be built on glacier (including irrigation, mines, and roads); no planting forests on glaciers; movement cost of 3; can't build cities on glacier

Arctic: production would be 0/0/0, but could be mined; in addition, could have roads built on them, but not rails; no planting forests in arctic terrain either; movement cost would be 2

Shield-Land: represents heavily eroded ancient mountains; a hybrid of hills and plains; production would be 1/1/0; irrigation would provide 1 additional food, mines 2 additional shields; movement cost would be 1; low (20%) defensive bonus; can contain forests

Ice-Flow: an overlay on top of coast, sea, or ocean terrain; high movement cost (of 3?); chance every turn for units occupying ice-flow tiles to sink (with lesser chance for more modern units to sink); production would be same as underlying terrain

Ice Cap: another water-based terrain; zero production; impassable except to units flagged to pass through or under this terrain (such as nuclear subs)

[snoopy369]

Interesting I suppose, but I'd rather see a few more "useable" types -- again, quite possibly duplicating other suggestions, I'd like to see:
* variants on the plains/grassland concept, perhaps even an increase in total food used to 3 per citizen to allow more variance, ie grassland as it stands is 3 food 0 shield (3/0), plains 2/1, bonus grassland 3/1, wooded plains 2/2, forest 1/2, high desert 1/1, desert 0/1, flatland 2/0, tundra 2/0, arctic tundra 1/0, floodplains 4/0 ... you get the idea. More variations on the same are fine with me, but more strategic choices for where to settle (ie shields vs no shields) is where I think it's at.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

You see, I believe that any resource should have the potential to appear ANYWHERE-at least, theoretically!
Of course, the chance of a resource appearing would depend on the underlying terrain, and how much you're prepared to pay to go looking for it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Xorbon]

I like having restrictions on where each resource can appear. It wouldn't make sense for certain combinations to exist. For example, rubber in a desert, or wine on a glacier (unless it's ice-wine ). I do like your idea of having different probabilities of occurance of each resource in each terrain, though. It's just that some of those probabilities would be equal to 0%.

By the way, the 'shield-land' terrain-type I mentioned is an actual name for a real type of terrain. It's not named after the 'shields' representing city production in the game. I just realized I might have confused some people.

[snoopy369]

I don't mean wine appearing on glaciers by my comment relating to any type of terrain. I mean for terraforming purposes: say for example if you wiped out a forest with rubber in it. If you replanted the forest, there's a chance (perhaps 100%) that it would have rubber in it again (but wouldn't ever have it as grassland like in civ3). Also either have a random generated chance of a "new" forest having rubber or whatever in it (first time only), or preset "latencies" across the whole map, where grassland has "potential rubber" in it (you can't see this as a player), where if you plant trees they'll be rubber trees (because of soil conditions or something, rubber trees grow well there). Similar applies to other resources. Certainly no actual appearance of resources on other types of terrain tho -- that'd be horrid. Just I guess something both to be more interesting, and to allow you to feel free to terraform, and if you accidentally terraform away the trees that had rubber in them, you can try replanting all over and have a chance of getting rubber (instead of rubber disappearing forever when you cut down its forest).

[Xorbon]

I was replying to the last post (by Aussie Lurker) when I mentioned the example of "wine on glaciers".

As far as the rest of your post goes, having a random chance of a resource appearing when terraforming isn't a bad idea. However, if you chop down a forest containing rubber and later replant it, you shouldn't get any bonus for having rubber re-appear there, IMO. So, if you have a 1% chance of rubber appearing in any forest you plant, replanting a forest in a tile that previously contained rubber would also only have a 1% of having rubber re-appear.

[snoopy369]

I actually thought Aussie had the same idea in mind ... rereading it i'm not so sure, but I interpreted his post as indicating that you'd have to "look" (ie terraform everywhere) to find it.

The reason I want to have it reappear is twofold: one, it's reasonable and realistic -- to the extent that resources are in civ. If an area is "good" for producing rubber trees, that implies that the soil PH is good for it, for example. Thus if we cut down the rubber trees, but later replanted them, it's likely they'd grow back well.

Second, is because I wanted a marker for each square to indicate if it's been "looked at" for a resource yet -- ie if it's taken its random roll once already. I don't want it to be possible to plant and replant forest on one square until rubber shows up -- so just a single chance. Thus, i'd have a marker saying "planted forest" or whatever, set the first time a forest is planted there (and same for any other important to resources terrain type), and at that time determine if a resource is there -- which would have to be set for a forest square imho (tho i guess you could clear it, but the coding would be more complex since you'd have to remember that it *originated* a forest square and wasn't just a planted forest already.

[snoopy369]

Other thing I really want to see, while I'm at it, is CANALS and CANAL BUILDING. I think SMAC had something similar (well, at least the ability to lower land to water level), and it was sweet. I'm tired of having to find areas where I can build a city and join up with a lake and build another (crud) city that is in a good city's radius just to cross an island or a continent or what have you ...

I want workers/etc. to be able to build a canal. It would take longer than basically anything but maybe jungle clearing. It would mark a land square as "passable by ships". I'd say it becomes available possibly with Engineering, possibly later (Canals were popular I think in the 1700s, maybe even earlier, in much of europe and even north america). It would be made easier by the presence of a river I'd say. Dunno if you'd make it uni or bidirectional as opposed to multidirectional (ie any square near with sea). I suppose it could be done on squares NOT near an ocean, but that would take forever (i guess to let you use ships across a large continent -- much like europe again in the 1700s where land travel took a long time).

Canals would still be crossable by land units but perhaps would require stopping on the square.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, just to explain things.

In my plan, you DON'T have to go looking in order to find a resource-but it sure will help ! I'll explain my idea, though, by dint of an example.
Rubber, for instance, might have a base % chance of appearance of around 10% (based on scarcity). Now, in the BEST terrain for rubber (jungles) this chance is increased by +20% (or even +30%). On least 'preferred terrain' (Deserts or non-land) the chance might be reduced by -20% to -30% (meaning that, under almost ALL circumstances, it will NEVER appear).
The age that you go 'looking' will also effect the chance of finding it. For instance, for every age before a resource is first used, you might have a -10 to -20% chance of finding it. If, for example, you are in the middle ages, you might have a -10% chance of 'finding' rubber (which first comes into proper use in the Industrial age).
Having a mine, outpost or settlement buit on a hex will increase the chance of a resource appearing in that hex. As will investing money in 'prospecting', for every X gpt, you might increase your chance of finding a resource by 5%! Of course, this is a great way of finding a fairly common resource in its 'preferred environment', but will become prohibitively expensive if you go looking for rubber in a desert, for instance ! You might find it, but it is soooo unlikely!
In addition, the % chance of a resource appearing will also determine its 'relative size'. So even if, by some minor miracle, you managed to get your chance of finding rubber, in a desert, to 10%, then any rubber you'd find would be no greater than a size 1 (out of a possible 10!) As size of a resource would relate to its chance of disappearance, then any rubber you found would probably disappear again in just a few turns-especially given the overall terrain!
This brings me to the next point. The chance of a resource disappearing is based on its 'Size', the Number of that Resource you Control', its 'Scarcity', the 'Terrain' and 'Use'-'Use' relates to empire size, resource trades and the # of units/improvements you build per turn that require the resource. Also, the # of units/improvements that require the resource on a regular basis will also effect the Disappearance Rate of that resource. For instance, if you build a LOT of tanks, then your oil resource has an increased chance of disappearance-even if you haven't built any tanks for a while!
Anyway, I hope this clarifies my position. If not, then I'm happy to explain it in greater detail!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

lol ... just makes it clear that I didn't know what I was talking about Interesting idea, tho I think I have to agree that I would rather not find rubber on desert or other inappropriate terrain...

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Nor would I and, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to waste the kind of money I would need to spend in order TO find it. Even so, you would be more likely to find oil in the desert than rubber if you spent that much money and effort 'prospecting for it'! Have this weird game image of the civ that spends hundreds of gold and over 40 turns looking for rubber in the desert-only to find the 'black sludgy material' that won't wash out with water !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

lol and probably quite realistic too if you think about it ...

[snoopy369]

after all how many Columbian voyages were attempted -- either at sea or in the desert or whatnot -- looking for one thing and finding a second. Alaska, for example ...

[Xorbon]

Aussie's idea is interesting. I kinda like the idea of having to 'look' for certain resources. Of course, not all resources should have to be 'looked for', like horses for example.

Canals are something many people, including myself, have wanted for a long time. To help keep players from just running canals all over their continent, canals should have an upkeep cost. Also, I like the idea of making them bi-directional instead of multi-directional like roads and rails. If a player wants to have their canal branch off in multiple directions, it would cost them more worker time and upkeep for that tile.

I'd like to ask a question to get some opinions. Assuming rivers go between tiles as they do now, should canals go between tiles as well? Or should they go through tiles like roads/rails?

[snoopy369]

On canals, just make them incompatible with railroad going across them. That'll fix the problem with overcreation. Also make them horrifically hard to build (at least as hard as mining a mountain, maybe harder, on base terrain), and perhaps make them force-stop any units that go onto them (3 mp), as I suggested earlier I think. Nobody would build them except in necessary situations. Also could consider making them *Decrease* the total food/shield (maybe to 0, but like 4 or 5 trade) production of the square since you can't grow anything on a canal ...

Not that the Europeans and even some areas of New England had, during the 18th century and early 19th, quite a system of canals that would equate in civ terms to nearly every square being Canalled ...

Canals would have to be on a square (not in between) since it's something the ship would move *on*, i'd think.