{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[lajzar]

As far as I am concerned, Israel has been able to terraform desertic land.

We are in agreement. I said that hydrographic terraforming would be possible in modern times, and that is exactly what Israel seems to have done. Note also that teh terrain was originally desert, and in civ terms it would now rate as irrigated/farmed plains. It isn't ever going to be as fertile as the plains of Europe, so it can't be further terraformed to grasslands. My model where the game remembers the original terrain (but otherwise treats it as whatever you terraformed it to) would cover this point too.

The cost of terraforming should vary. Planting a forest should be much cheaper than levelling a mountain.

[Richard I]

I'd like irrigation, mine-building etc. to be automaticly built as soon as you place people on the grid in question inside the city. Construction will take one turn, but the finished mine or irrigation/farm will disappear if you relocate the workers elsewhere. Workers/Engineers would still be a unit in the game, but these will only build roads, railroads, fortresses, walls, airports, canals, dams, clean up pollution etc. I find that most of the game is spent improving terrain, which, quite frankly, is VERY repetetive and boring. Also I'd like the opportunity to spend one worker on tiles which isn't inside a citys radius (a lot of resources go to waste now). The resources cultivated would go to cities in need through national trade. This would mean that a city with a shortage in food-supply might still grow to be very large since it could gain food from various parts of your territory. Rome became a city with one million inhabitants this way.

[ardwick]

Please, please, please let workers deconstruct things such as fortifications, radar towers and outposts and airports. Please, please, please do this.

[Xorbon]

Production 'Variance'

I've seen people advocate the use of a 'x10 system' for food/shield/commerce production. I think that increasing tile production would help give game designers and modders more flexibility in fine tuning production from terrains and terrain improvements.

In addition to that, an idea I have is to introduce a variance in tile production. That way, tiles of the same terrain-type don't always produce exactly the same amounts of food or shields. For instance, desert tiles could produce 8-12 shields (10 +/- 2 shields) instead of always producing 10 shields. In that case, one desert tile could produce 9 shields while an adjacent desert-tile could produce 12.

A way to implement this would be to have 'base-production' and 'variance' values for each terrain-type for food and shields. So, in the above desert example, the base-production and variance would be 10 and 2 for shield production. If the variance would cause a tile to produce a negative amount of a resource, the tile produces zero of that resource instead. So, a desert could be given base food production and variance values of 0 and 3. Deserts would then produce between 0 and 3 units of food (instead of -3 to 3). The negative values would come into play later if the tile is irrigated. For instance, if irrigating the tile gives +10 food, a tile that has a -2 adjustment because of variance would produce 8 food after irrigating, not 10.

[Fosse]

Xorbon, I'm a huge fan of this. It would be nice if the map generator could perform a smoothing function on the amount of variance, so that you would get regions of high fertility grasslands, or extremely resource poor mountain ranges.

I would even go so far as to say letting 60 or 70% of the potential production of a tile be the varaiable kind. So grass lands would produce 10 food no matter what, but CAN produce up to 60. Most would fall someplace in between, but every now and then you'd get a great fertile area, and somewhere else on the globe somebody is stuck with what looks like grassland, but has terrible harvests.



For those who care a lot about eyecandy: This system is a good place for the usefull kind... A graphic tile would show the type of terrain, and a graphic overlay would show how fertile or mineral rich an area is. The map would look better, provide more information, and have more interesting terrain with possible strategic influences.

[Xorbon]

Yes, overlays were something that I thought of after I posted. They would be good for indicating whether a terrain has above or below average production (and how much above/below the average). I don't know about having the variance way above or below average. Really poor grassland would be like having plains without the good shield production.

[Fosse]

Well, even if we can't agree on the degree, I'll definatly say that the idea is long overdue!

[Bleyn]

The variable terrain idea doesn't really get me that excited. Honestly, I don't see it as something that would really make Civ that much more fun. More than anything it just sounds like it would make the game a lot more work. And a lot of that would be what I

First, it would mean that unless something really nifty was done with the interface deciding exactly where to plant cities could become a major pain. Especially for perfectionist players. I can imagine having to right-click on every single tile to find out exactly how much resource it provides.

Second, that same interfacing issue would probably make planning tile improvements a lot more of a pain. As it stands now, deciding what tile improvements to do in a particular terrain is not that hard. Often times an experienced and thoughtful player does not need to spend more than a moments thought on what changes to make in working a tile. Just looking at the city on the main map, or occasionally popping into the city screen is enough information. You know what improvements are best for a terrain with your strategy. You don't have to sit down and think about it that much.

With this variable terrain system, it just strikes me that too much mental effort will have to go into planning this sort of stuff. And so as to be clear, its not making the effort that bugs me, its having to make the effort.

Personally, this is one of the few things I never really liked about SMAC. It was a great game, but the terrain/terrain improvement system had too many variables for my tastes. Most of the time, I dont' bother even trying to manage the formers, I just let them run. This despite the fact that I basically loath the governer ai in most modern 4x TBS games. And when I do try to manage the formers myself, I always feel like things just aren't quite right.

With the Civ games so far, its always been fairly easy to be confident that you've managed your terrain improvements properly. With SMAC, I never had that confidence. The terrain matrix was just too complex, it had too many elements in it.

And to me, this variable terrain system sounds like it has the potential to be as complex or more than SMAC.

Third, although it hasn't been suggested yet, and I probably shouldn't be suggesting it now except that if I can think if it someone else probably will too... if variable terrain is good, variable terraforming would be good too. I mean its obvious really. If the base terrain is going to have a range of values, why not have the terrain improvements have a range of values too. Thus, if you have a group of hills around a city, the amount of improvement gained from mining them would vary from hill to hill. Some grass lands would get more improvement from irrigation than others.

And as one can imagine, I think this idea is definitely going a bit too far. Variable terrain and especially variable terrain improvement is just too random for my tastes. This is supposed to be a strategy game. And while I acknowledge that without randomness a game isn't a game, I think that too much randomness in the wrong places can ruin a strategy game quicker than the RIAA can file a lawsuit.

And no I don't care how much variance it is. I'm as suspicous of a little as of of a lot. I just don't think it would help to make the game fun.

[Fosse]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Bleyn

First, it would mean that unless something really nifty was done with the interface deciding exactly where to plant cities could become a major pain. Especially for perfectionist players. I can imagine having to right-click on every single tile to find out exactly how much resource it provides.

Well, that's a good reason to argue on Xorbon's side about the variations being smaller. With a map overlay, the game would provide a visual feedback and you could simply see good spots, much like you can today. If the variation is smooth so that like tiles change very little from one to the next, and only over great distances to you get great change, then I don't think you would have the trouble you bring up.

You will still plant cities to get some food, some production, which means you'll still want grass, rivers and hills. The situations per map in which moving a city one tile will make a huge difference because of variation will be very small. What the system does is create regions with different values. So it might do you good to consider founding a new half dozen cities in a rich loamy grassland than in a less fertile one on the other side of your continent.

As it stands now, deciding what tile improvements to do in a particular terrain is not that hard.

As it stands now, there is no decision to make.

Personally, this is one of the few things I never really liked about SMAC. It was a great game, but the terrain/terrain improvement system had too many variables for my tastes.

There were only 3 levels of moisture and 3 of rockiness. That means 9 total "terrain types." That's almost the same amount as Civ 3, and these boards have been calling out forever that we want more terrain types.

With the Civ games so far, its always been fairly easy to be confident that you've managed your terrain improvements properly. With SMAC, I never had that confidence. The terrain matrix was just too complex, it had too many elements in it.

Here's a difference in opinion, then. I think that always knowing you did the "right" thing in Civ 3 gets old. Fast. Part of SMAC's longevity on so many harddrives is that you can always approach it from a new direction, in part because of that very complexity that turns you off so much. A variation in terrain types won't make the game more complex, it will just make the maps more interesting.

Third, although it hasn't been suggested yet, and I probably shouldn't be suggesting it now except that if I can think if it someone else probably will too... ... Thus, if you have a group of hills around a city, the amount of improvement gained from mining them would vary from hill to hill. Some grass lands would get more improvement from irrigation than others.

That is a completely invalid argument. A system where one mine might give more based on which tile you build it on is silly, an nobody has suggested it. You can't argue with one idea by thinking up a worse one and claiming that they go hand in hand.

---------

What variable terrain types could bring to Civ 4, along with the "10x" rule applied, is a nice simple way to differentiate different regions of the map, so that Continent A with 30% grass and 70%plaines is not exactly the same as Continent B with 30% grass and 70% plaines.

It might create the occassional situation in which you hvae to think a little bit harder about where to place a settler or which tiles to improve first... but I think that most players of these games will view that as a good thing. Maybe even, and we can only hope, it will help to create a situation in which there is no one right answer, and the player will always be re-evaluating his choices and trying to learn better ways to make his land valuable.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Given what Xorbon is saying about increasing the potential for 'Variance', I think that the idea of 'Overexploitation' should be raised too!
What I'm thinking is that, once you build a terrain improvement on a HEX (notice HEX, not square, or tile BUT HEX !!!), be it a farm or a mine, then you should be able to set the output of that improvement-up to its maximum allowed level. This could have important ramifications, should you decide to max out a specific tile-as it would increase the chance of that tile becoming less productive. In addition, overexploitation of tiles should also contribute to a city's pollution level.

For example: Lets say that a farm can produce a maximum of +3 food-in my system, this maximum would only be if you were using so-called 'Intensive Agriculture'. This would be highly productive, but also highly degrading for the terrain.
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Bleyn
In some ways I think the solution to that issue isn't so much in changing pollution, but in changing the way cities grow and shrink. Among other things, we all know that in a modern country with decent food supplies, storage technologies and transportation, the Civ food model doesn't work. A modern city does not depend solely on the local food sources.

I agree. Thus the following part of my post:

Growth in modern times should become more dependant on the total civ food supply than on local supply. More like the food model in MOO2.

Terrain could still play a role in city growth in such a model however. There could be an upper limit to the population that a city could support based on the surrounding terrain if not directly on the amount of local food production. A city all in grasslands would have an upper limit much higher than a city all in tundra or with lots of mountains. Again, MOO2 is a good example of what I mean.

I sort of agree. I don't think there should be an upper limit at all on a city-by-city basis. Since you like the RL comparison, try this: Want to tell me exactly where LA or Phoenix get their food from in terms of nearby production? Mmhmm? How about NYC? Even Chicago gets most of its food from hundreds of miles away, and it's practically in the middle of the best farming land anywhere in the US. Yet, all three of these cities are humongous, equivalents of 40 to 50 size Civ cities (if you could figure out an equivalent realistically rather than by the Civ designations of pop. numbers). Certainly way bigger than the area can support...

I'd say two separate things here.

First, to have your first idea - civ wide food - go back to Civ2 style food, where you have food transported from one city to another. Perhaps do this on the F1 or F2 screens or whatever equivalent there is, no reason to require a unit. Then create a system for "spoilage". This is like corruption, but for food. It's determined by how far food has to travel.
For example:
I have four cities, Chicago, Des Moines, Madison, and Springfield. Chicago is a 40 size city that is 5 squares away from Madison, 15 from Des Moines, and 10 from Springfield. It requires 80 food, and produces 48 on its own squares (32 down). Des Moines produces 54 food for a 20 size city (14 surplus), Madison produces 50 food for a 20 size city (10 up), and Springfield produces 52 for a 20 size city (12 up). (K, these aren't the same size, but you get the point). "Spoilage" equates to 10% loss per 5 squares distance. Thus, Chicago can get 11 food from Des Moines, at a net "cost" of 3 food to the economy; 9 from Madison, and 10 from Springfield, for a total of 30 (which is 2 less than it needs, so someone else provides the extra 2). That is at a cost of 6 food total. Of course, Saint Louis, which is only 5 squares away from Springfield, could get its 10 needed food from Springfield and still leave 1 extra food (more than Chicago would leave), encouraging either Chicago to get more from local suppliers, or St Louis to grow more than Chicago.

Second: The other realistic limit to city growth is *production*. So, if there aren't enough jobs (shields plus food plus commerce plus whatever the nonlaborers do in civ4) available, somehow you limit the population. Not sure how this would work -- obviously we mean taskmasters work our poor civvies to death so we never have unemployment -- but you could have an unemployment factor somehow, possibly linked to the "overcrowding" factor that makes people unhappy right now. Say more than 3 nonlaborers each add'l person creates 1% unemployment perhaps; or link it directly to shields or commerce or both (but ignore the rest of it), say (shields div 2) equals the maximum "full employment" number and everyone over that increases "unemployment" and thus decreases max city size. It would have to be either a factor massively increasing unhappiness if you're over a certain amount (say 5%), or physically constraining, either by forcing a number of citizens (1 or more) to not work at all, or simply capping population at whatever causes 5% unemployment. This would encourage people not to have humungous cities.

Just a thought

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I like your ideas Snoopy. I have long advocated being able to shift a cities excess food and shields into a central 'Pool'-which would show up in your trade screen-and which you could then allocate to cities as you see fit, or even use in trade with other civs. For instance, if you have a shield pool of 40, you might decide to trade 20 of them/turn for 300gpt (just to name some numbers). Of course, how much you would actually get for commodities, per shield or bushel, would depend on distance between civs, relative wealth and 'supply and demand' factors. For example, if you were trading shields to a civ that had poor production, then you could get much more per shield than if you were trying to sell them to the equivalent of the modern US! Also, more wealthy nations would probably get more money for commodities than poorer ones (perhaps it might get you a bonus of x(your total gold/other civs total gold). Again, as an example, if you had 5000gpt, and your trading partner had 3000gpt (irrespective of outgoings), then you would get 1.7x what you would normally get for these shields! Tariffs can be applied to trade, though, and will cost the trading civ x% of the other nations total gold. Again, as an example, if the civ in question placed a 5% tariffs on your shield trade, then it would cost the former civ (3000*.05) 150gpt to conduct the trade-with the money going to the civ imposing the tariffs! Depending on how much the trade is worth in the first place, this would make tarrifs an effective way for a nation to keep 'foreign shields' OUT of their economy (i.e. protectionism!)
I agree with the wastage factor, but I think it should only apply to food and should start high, but then come down in each age-to reflect improved transportation technology! In addition, as I am suggesting a central pool, then the 'wastage distance' factor should be measured between your capital and the city which is recieiving the food! In the case of international trade, it is the distance between capitals which decides wastage!
As for your unemployment idea, I was actually approaching it from a different angle. I was advocating multiple improvements per city (i.e. multiple factories etc)-with the maximum no. being dependant on the city size. Of course, you could build more than that, but with no improvement in outcomes, and just an increased maintainance cost to bear, and increased unhappiness due to overcrowding. By the same token, though, I feel that you are right that unemployment rates should be determined by factors like shields. In fact, maybe it should be (total shields+total beakers+total commerce)/6=maximum city size before unemployment and, therefore, unhappiness begins to rise!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

Well, I'd agree with the international trade concept certainly, and the distance between capitals determining waste would work fine there. I suppose it's easier to use distance from capital than to have to determine which city the food is coming from, although I wasn't exactly intending to have *all* food go to the central pool (and thus not have any growth) -- would have to either allow direct control of how much food goes into trade, as in my example, or have it related to granaries or something.
Definitely have spoilage go down over time -- perhaps with scientific developments. For example, pottery decreases spoliage from 100% to say 75%; engineering cuts spoilage to 50%; electricitiy down to 25%; Sanitation down to 10%; and perhaps one of the modern era things, like robotics or ecology, cuts down to 5%, all of these per 5 or 10 squares.

Corruption already takes care of shields, so I'd not worry about that.

Perhaps the Unemployment factor could be a combination of our ideas:
say it starts out at (commerce+shield+food)/6 or whatnot, but improvements like Factory, Manuf. Plant, and so on decrease unemployment, perhaps related to city size (like Aqueduct essentially) or perhaps just not taking any meaningful effect until a city needs them (like Cathedral). IE, if my city is size 8 and has (12+6+18) which is 36, thus 2 unemployment under that formula, and I build a factory, it would either reduce unemployment by a set number (2, say, or 4), or it would reduce it by increasing the "employable" by a percentage (25%, say, so 36 + 9 = 45 / 6 = 7.5). I would say the only thing here is that a factory is already very useful, so one might want to decrease its shield effect or something like that in order to not overpower it.

In terms of international trade, I'm not sure I like the idea of bonuses and whatnot -- ie, I think (at least for multiplayer, and why not for SP too) it's more interesting to have simple S&D determine prices. IE, just like techs and whatnot, you can offer "10 food" to the other civ, or shields, or whatever, with the only modifier being distance for the food trade. Clearly a shield poor civ is going to offer more money for shields than the US or whatever would, just like a desert civ will offer a small fortune for 3 or 4 food. You'd have to have a screen to allocate food and whatnot tho, but that's not hard, could probably do it from the F2 screen in the current Civ.

Tariffs would only really work if you were trading through a third civ. "Real life" tariffs don't work at all since Civ doesn't have enough differentiation to have different shield effects or whatever. You'd just be increasing the price forcibly, which is not really useful imho. However, you could set it up (with some complication) that any trade that requires use of a third party's roads would give them a percentage (Fixed or settable) of the monetary value of that trade, as well as leave the option for "trade embargo" preventing any trade from using your roads or waters...

[Xorbon]

Here's a simple idea that I've seen mentioned in various posts. A flag for (strategic, bonus, luxury) resources that causes them to disappear if the terrain is altered to a terrain-type that doesn't support that resource. For instance, spices and rubber should disappear if you chop down the forest/jungle they're found in. Horses should disappear from plains if you plant forests. Uranium would be an example of a resource that would not disappear if the terrain is altered (i.e. the flag wouldn't be enabled for uranium).

[snoopy369]

Or more likely it could be a flag like the "terrain types this could appear on" flag -- ie uranium would have every terrain checked, rubber would have forest and jungle. Coal and whatnot would be an interesting debate -- i've always felt coal should be primarily on plains anyways, as there's no reason it should be found in hills over any other area. Certainly it is not related to the hills just like uranium or even gold -- if we allow terraforming, and terraform a hills to a plains, there's still coal underneath those plains.

Question: if we tear down a rubber forest, and then replant it, does it come back?? I'd argue yes, since we can choose to plant rubber trees (quite easily). Heck, i'd argue for it being "latent" in grassland in other places, and just waiting for a forest to be planted to appear (or perhaps just 1% of forests planted contain rubber or something like that). Of course, it would be limited to one planting per square -- ie a second planting is no dice.