{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[Straybow]

Originally posted by frekk
Scale is irrelevant in civ. If it isn't then the official scale of a tile is TEN miles to a side, 100 SQUARE miles. Not 100 miles to a side. You can say that on a map of size X representing area Y that it is whatever scale you like, and not everyone plays an Earth map. Some play a map of an area like Greece or perhaps the meditteranean. You can easily verify the 10 mile 'official' figure on the 'land mass' figure given on F11, though. I reject the notion of scale as an argument. Scale in civ is too variable to balance an argument on it.

Civ2 uses a round figure of 1000 mi² per tile for the F11 stats. If you play with a "round" map the circumference dictates the scale be much larger than that. With only a hundred tiles at the equator (bigger than normal civ2 maps) the tiles must be well over 140 miles corner-to-corner to cover a small planet like Mars. To cover Earth's equator with 100 isometric tiles would require 250 miles corner-to-corner.

The map for Seeds of Greatness covers the NME from Greece to Persia. Tiles are about 20 miles corner-to-corner, 200 mi². But when you start reducing tile sizes so much, don't many of your anti-rail arguments go out the window? At that scale it is absurd to say you can't move soldiers a few hundred miles across the map by rail in a single turn. By definition, a tile is the minimum useful area of land. Any track that allows access to and from the people and resources of a tile is automatically significant, regardless of scale.

What you're talking about is a level of micromanagement not suitable for a game with mass appeal, and thus the majority of ppl playing the game end up putting rail in every tile. I suspect very few people play the way you do. What I'm saying is that micromanagement can be reduced without sacrificing any realism.

So you're saying nobody first connects cities, then builds rail on high value shield tiles, then to other strategic positions? They just start at one corner and methodically plop down one tile of RR after another without thought?

Or are you saying that taking away the need to think about where to put rail, or the purpose of placing rail, is somehow going to improve the game? Why not make Civ4 a game that plays itself, like MoO3?

The strategy becomes one of connecting cities and building rail for strategic purposes; not "reducing pollution" which is a really unrealistic way to look at rail. If anything, rail decreases pollution where it is built as transportation of resources by road burns more fuel. It's counter-intuitive and micromanagement heavy to look at rail like that.

So connecting cities is strategic, but connecting cities to outlying areas from whence an invader may pounce is not? Moving goods between major cities is strategic but collecting and distributing resources for production is not? Moving troops between major cities is strategic, but moving troops to the battle is not?

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I think its useful to really frame what a change to RR is trying to accomplish. For me its a few things:
1)Get rid of the ugly mess
2)Make RR more tactical in terms of a useful target for bombing/artillary.
3)Get rid of the cheesiness of being able to pull troops from all across your empire for a lightning raid. And vice versa being able to pull troops from all over your empire to defend against an attack.

I think that removing the tile bonus and transfering it to a percentage bonus for linkage does an effective job of taking care of 1 and 2.

So, if you make RR a "useful target" wouldn't that inspire people to RR a wide swath of tiles so that bombing a single tile won't break your network? 1) and 2) and mutually exclusive goals.

Likewise "simple" and "realistic" are mutually exclusive goals.

For those who keep harping on ugliness: Tim Smith's HiRes Modpack v2.5

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I think its useful to really frame what a change to RR is trying to accomplish. For me its a few things:
1)Get rid of the ugly mess
2)Make RR more tactical in terms of a useful target for bombing/artillary.
3)Get rid of the cheesiness of being able to pull troops from all across your empire for a lightning raid. And vice versa being able to pull troops from all over your empire to defend against an attack.

I think that removing the tile bonus and transfering it to a percentage bonus for linkage does an effective job of taking care of 1 and 2.

So, if you make RR a "useful target" wouldn't that inspire people to RR a wide swath of tiles so that bombing a single tile won't break your network? 1) and 2) and mutually exclusive goals.

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Intentionally so, because this creates a choice with consequences. In Civ3 there are no consequences to RRing all the tiles, and in fact it is rewarded. If those RRs cost money, then you have the choice "Do I cover a large swath and pay the price, or do I just RR a single line to each city and risk the tactical problems that entails."

To me, that is a much more interesting strategic choice than the one offered in Civ3.

[Straybow]

I also RR many tiles simply because of gameplay. I don't want to accidentally step off the rail when moving units. The idiot pathfinding algorithm has a tendency to step off the rails at times, too. I RR places that I've experienced or anticipate those problems.

Adding a cost component (which no other tile improvement suffers) needlessly complicates AI decision making, too.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Straybow
I also RR many tiles simply because of gameplay. I don't want to accidentally step off the rail when moving units. The idiot pathfinding algorithm has a tendency to step off the rails at times, too. I RR places that I've experienced or anticipate those problems.

Adding a cost component (which no other tile improvement suffers) needlessly complicates AI decision making, too.

Both of those reservations are based on implementation, not gameplay mechanics. Do you have a problem with the mechanic other than AI coding, and pathfinding coding?

[frekk]

Originally posted by Straybow
Civ2 uses a round figure of 1000 mi² per tile for the F11 stats.

Well, in Civ3 it is 10 miles per square. Start a new game, build your city and go to F11. You will see 900, not 9000, square miles, providing its an inland city, with 8 land tiles around it and the one in the middle. Not that it matters, scale is so out of whack in Civ you can't base any argument on it. But IIRC, its 10 miles per square in civ2 as well. You can easily verify this, I no longer have a copy.

I loved Civ2 as well, it was great for modders, but come on ... civ4 is not going to be a rehash of civ2. What new things do you want in civ4? Or are you just complaining that a new edition is coming out because you're happy with Civ2?

The map for Seeds of Greatness covers the NME from Greece to Persia. Tiles are about 20 miles corner-to-corner, 200 mi². But when you start reducing tile sizes so much, don't many of your anti-rail arguments go out the window? At that scale it is absurd to say you can't move soldiers a few hundred miles across the map by rail in a single turn.

What does movement have to do with building rail in every tile? That's a separate issue, and for the record, I'm not against unlimited distance moves on rail! I don't know where you got this idea. Capacity is a different matter than how far you can move in a turn, and on a smaller scale, obviously capacity would be of much greater concern, not less. But this is the wrong thread for this, and they are two separate and unconnected ideas.

So connecting cities is strategic, but connecting cities to outlying areas from whence an invader may pounce is not? Moving goods between major cities is strategic but collecting and distributing resources for production is not? Moving troops between major cities is strategic, but moving troops to the battle is not?

Heck, tightening a screw on the engineer's door is strategic if you want to look at it that way ... its a question of gameplay. I'd rather spend my time doing other things. I love Railroad Tycoon, but if I want to play that, I'll play that, not Civ.

So, if you make RR a "useful target" wouldn't that inspire people to RR a wide swath of tiles so that bombing a single tile won't break your network?

Sure. At the border I probably still would build rail in every tile, but I wouldn't have to waste my time in the interior.

For those who keep harping on ugliness: Tim Smith's HiRes Modpack v2.5

How come your image shows the railways in lines and not on every tile? If it looks so great on every tile, why are you afraid to show that?

I also RR many tiles simply because of gameplay. I don't want to accidentally step off the rail when moving units. The idiot pathfinding algorithm has a tendency to step off the rails at times

Yes ... one of the great frustrations of Civ2. In Civ3 this has been fixed. I imagine it will remain fixed for Civ4.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by frekk
But IIRC, its 10 miles per square in civ2 as well. You can easily verify this, I no longer have a copy.

I do still have, and play on a regular basis, Civ2. That's why I explained to you, accurately, that Civ2's F11 uses 1000 mi² per tile. My point was that even that figure is grossly too small for almost any game map. As for the picture, it is from Tim's site. The point is to illustrate that rails don't have to be "ugly black lines." Make them look better if it matters to you.

But when you start reducing tile sizes so much, don't many of your anti-rail arguments go out the window? At that scale it is absurd to say you can't move soldiers a few hundred miles across the map by rail in a single turn.

What does movement have to do with building rail in every tile? That's a separate issue, and for the record, I'm not against unlimited distance moves on rail!

Because if there isn't a RR on a particular tile you can't move a unit there by rail. If the mechanism forces players to build only connections between the cities, then you can only go between cities. If the rail capacity doesn't take into account multiple routes and the overall size of the rail network it is oversimplified. If it does, then the player benefits from RR-in-every-tile.

So connecting cities is strategic, but connecting cities to outlying areas from whence an invader may pounce is not? Moving goods between major cities is strategic but collecting and distributing resources for production is not? Moving troops between major cities is strategic, but moving troops to the battle is not?

Heck, tightening a screw on the engineer's door is strategic if you want to look at it that way ... its a question of gameplay. I'd rather spend my time doing other things. I love Railroad Tycoon, but if I want to play that, I'll play that, not Civ.

Now that's just being assinine, which often means the post hasn't a point to make. My point was that rails don't just go between capital cities (and cities in Civ are in essence provinces with a central capital). If anything there should be added economic benefit for RR, not just for roads.

Eliminating the tile resource bonuses for rail is eliminating rail's enormous impact on resource extraction. Again, if anything the resource bonus is far too small.

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Both of those reservations are based on implementation, not gameplay mechanics. Do you have a problem with the mechanic other than AI coding, and pathfinding coding?

Uh, yes. Asked and answered. I want to be able to move units by rail anywhere rails would likely go, not just between cities or on limited routes. I also don't think rails should cost anything if other tile improvements don't cost anything. I don't think any tile improvements should have maintenance costs.

[wrylachlan]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. And I think that the root of our disagreement comes down to a question of perceived scale: I see civ as a strategy game that takes place on a tactical-sized map. You see it as a strategy game with some small tactical additions which takes place on a strategic sized map.

I go back to what I originally said about scale. Catapults on either side of a swordsman can hit him in the same turn. That gives you a tactical sized tile.

You say that you want rails to be everywhere where rails are in real life. So do I. I'm just imagining the tiles as being smaller.

And more important to me than perceived scale is the issue of gameplay. Rail everywhere does not lead to any meaningful gameplay decisions, because there is no downside to building rails. And it is decisions that make the game fun.

And specifically, for me, it is the tactical warfare that is fun. The empire building part of the game is fun in that I get to make decisions as to what type of army to field, and how to get there - but with the endgame being tactical combat in the field. And rail everywhere takes away from tactical combat.

[Straybow]

I go back to what I originally said about scale. Catapults on either side of a swordsman can hit him in the same turn. That gives you a tactical sized tile.

By that logic the tiles must be only a few yards across, because Legions armed with swords can only hit an enemy within arm's reach. No? The attack is, in essence, an attempted move into the tile with the defending unit resisting (going forth to meet the threat)

You say that you want rails to be everywhere where rails are in real life. So do I. I'm just imagining the tiles as being smaller.

You'd be hard pressed to find a 10 mile square near any town that doesn't have a rail right of way going through it.

And more important to me than perceived scale is the issue of gameplay. Rail everywhere does not lead to any meaningful gameplay decisions, because there is no downside to building rails. And it is decisions that make the game fun.

Well, you have to allocate resources (Engineers) to build the rails, and until you have railed every tile you decide which are most important. The downside in Civ2 is that the enemy can use your rails just as easily as you can.

And specifically, for me, it is the tactical warfare that is fun. The empire building part of the game is fun in that I get to make decisions as to what type of army to field, and how to get there - but with the endgame being tactical combat in the field. And rail everywhere takes away from tactical combat.

You and your enemy still have to choose where to station units to defend against the initial attack, and then you have to decide which tile to attack from (seeing as you may well be unable to move afterwards and thus be left vulnerable).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Why shouldn't you have to pay for tile improvements? After all, you have to pay for city improvements so I don't see why this should be any different. Also, though, having to pay for tile improvements might help to limit the unrealistic connection between land area and economic strength-as, in a large nation (land-wise), a large proportion of what you recieve from your economy will have to go into maintaining your vital infrastructure. A smaller nation, OTOH, will recieve the benefits of the infrastructure, but for relatively smaller cost.
In addition, though I am not opposed to the 'principle' of infinite RR movement. I do believe that their should be a limit to capacity-i.e. the number of units which can make use of RR in a single turn. Also, the more units you move on RR's in a turn, the less money you can make from that same RR capacity (as the rolling stock and track has been appropriated for military use!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[DarkCloud]

From another thread...

**Strategic Resources with an Area of Effect
A good step in this direction would be to increase the occurance of strategic resources, and have each resource have a "range of effect". In other words, a city would have to be physically close to the resource in order to benefit from it.

Here's an example. Let's say that you have an iron resource, and the "radius of effect" for iron is 20 tiles. That means that only cities within 20 tiles of the iron can use it. You will be able to "export" the iron to your other cities on a per-city basis by road or sea, but doing so will cost you gold to cover the transporation cost. Cities connected to the resource by railroads would get double the base radius, and cities connected by airport would get quadruple.

The result of this is that you will not be able to have every resource available to your empire being available in every city unless you want to pay a hefty fee to make it so. As such, you will be limited to producing various units and buildings only in regions where their raw materials are available.
--Ijuin

[DarkCloud]

I was wondering why this thread was the most active- when honestly, there are a lot of more controversial and 'interesting' topics out there to be covered... and I think I just realized it- it's you Nikolai- you spend the msot time shepherding this thread and actually taking other people's considerations into accoutn and commenting on them.

Thanks for keeping the list alive with your dedicated work!

[Nikolai]

/me blushes.
Thanks. I have done my best. But for the last months, there has mostly been discussion around the same topic, and not much of new ideas. That has been the case on other topics too. I guess I will have to add the little left here, and then post the addendum. When was the new date btw? January something... 15th? And I guess the easiest way to make is to just add it in a file with the old ideas too(other color, blue?) and send you the whole thing? Is that best? And then I have my bad consioence, the resource thread, which I forgot... I will try to make something out of that too, but it won't be as good as the other two I'm afraid... I must think of the two important project I will have to finish within a month...

[DarkCloud]

I guess the easiest way to make is to just add it in a file with the old ideas too(other color, blue?) and send you the whole thing? Is that best?

Yes, that would be the best- that way I can stick it into the word document very easily and then get it to Firaxis.

Jan 15th would be a good date- that'll give me enough time to get things up and running by the 30th.

And then I have my bad consioence, the resource thread, which I forgot... I will try to make something out of that too, but it won't be as good as the other two I'm afraid... I must think of the two important project I will have to finish within a month...

Well, if the resource thread is even a third as good as you've done on this thread, then it'll be good enough

-dc.

[Camber]

Global Warming tied to vegetation:
Vegetation should have a negative effect on global warming. A point system has been suggested, where Irrigated tiles have a value of 1, Forest a value of 2, and Jungle a value of 3. The global total of these values would be able to absorb a certain level of the greenhouse effect, so that a more forested map would be more resilient to industrialization. Irrigation is considered to represent an increase in vegetation in the case of plains and desert tiles, so should be considered a part of the equation.

Old Growth value:
Chopping a forest should give a value in shields related to how long the forest has been untouched. Old growth (virgin forest) should have the full value, with newly planted forest at maybe 1/5 the value, and growing over time. In addition, Forest/Jungle tiles should have tourist value that grows with each 1000 years it has been untouched.

A tile worth of virgin forest should be worth much more in the modern era (when it is rare) than in the ancient era (when it is plentiful). But in the current game, 10 shields from chopping forest is worth far less in the modern era than it is in the ancient era. This should be reversed. One of two systems, or a combination, is suggested:

In addition to the value of forest growing with age,

1. The value of forest should be relative to the number of other available resources. If there are 91 forest tiles, a chopped tile would be worth less than if there were 34 left.
2. The value of forest should be relative to the current era of the chopper. In the modern era, forest would be worth more than it would in the ancient era.

Natural Wonders:
The idea of "landmark terrain" in Conquests is great, but should be taken a step further. Random natural wonders should be placed on maps that have tourism value, similar to a bonus resource.

More dynamic "global warming":
When global warming occurs, more should happen than just tiles losing forest or jungle. Ice caps should melt, and eventually the coastal tiles should rise. There should also be triggers for an ice age ecological disaster that causes ice caps to grow and tundra to encroach on other tiles (grassland would be the logical choice).

Events that affect terrain:
Similar to the very cool volcanic eruption and Black Death events, there could be other events generated in the game, such as drought, El Nino, hurricane/monsoon, tsunami, earthquake, flooded rivers, and positive ones such as overwhelmingly good crops. The evil side of me would also like to see Mad Cow disease, Potato Blight, and genetic disasters caused by too much tampering with the human genome after the discovery of Genetics or a major nuclear conflict. For that matter, a major nuclear war should trigger the appearance of Fallout II-style resources, like mutated cattle, salvageable military debris, and roving bands of refugees.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Camber
Global Warming tied to vegetation:
Vegetation should have a negative effect on global warming. A point system has been suggested, where Irrigated tiles have a value of 1, Forest a value of 2, and Jungle a value of 3. The global total of these values would be able to absorb a certain level of the greenhouse effect, so that a more forested map would be more resilient to industrialization. Irrigation is considered to represent an increase in vegetation in the case of plains and desert tiles, so should be considered a part of the equation.

Old Growth value:
Chopping a forest should give a value in shields related to how long the forest has been untouched. Old growth (virgin forest) should have the full value, with newly planted forest at maybe 1/5 the value, and growing over time. In addition, Forest/Jungle tiles should have tourist value that grows with each 1000 years it has been untouched.
...

These are some great ideas, IMO. It seems like you read my mind on some of them!

You forgot about marshes though. They could count as 2 for reducing the greenhouse effect.

And eco-tourism is relatively new as far as I know. It should only come into effect once ecology or environmentalism is discovered. But it's a good idea, and may give players incentive to keep some jungles around (as long as there's a way to counter the effects of disease caused by jungles/marshes).