Terrain generator is idiotic

[Panag]

Re: Terrain generator is idiotic

Originally posted by Keeper of Hell
Ok, this really annoys me. I realize that Civ3 was never intended to be extremely realistic, but it seems to me that when one selects "Arid" and "Cold" for the terrain option, vast areas of jungle are probably not going to make a lot of sense. Yet that's just what I get, every single time- vast jungles. Is there any climate setting that Civ3 interprets to mean that it should *not* generate jungles, or is that just a hopeless case?

hi ,

version 1.21 , ......

can you post a SAV(e) , ......
or the seed number , ......

have a nice day

[Sava]

What else do you expect from Civ 3? You could make your own maps, oh wait! The Map Editor sucks ass. Oh well, [Sarcasm) remember to buy the Civ 3 EXPANSION!!!! [/Sarcasm].

[heidlejohn]

Originally posted by Cairo_East
Do you have the planet age set at 3 billion years? I find that you can get a lot of jungles at this time due to the large number of mountain chains which trap the precipitation on one side of the chain.

As a person with a background in geography, I find the terrain generator to be the most improved aspect of the game. Ecosystems are where they are supposed to be, and the effect of mountains accurately effect the surrounding landscape. Even the multi-tile water spaces are an improvement, as they hinder computer triremes/galleys from wandering everywhere.

I constantly see mountains on coasts. While that is true at a few places in the world, I find it hard to believe that so many ocean coasts have hills and mountains. I can't see this as a good geography lesson.

Also the distinction between ocean and fresh water lake is often bizarre. First there is no graphic distinction that I can note between them. Secondly, I have seen large water areas (10 hexes across) completely surrounded by land that is at least 2 hexes wide, yet the water is considered to be an ocean in the game rather than lakes like the Great Lakes.

Not to mention how many wasted whales or fish hexes I see in my games. The only land hex near them, if any, is too often a mountain hex where one can not build cities.

I can't give the rmg a good grade particlarly due to the poor way it handles water hexes.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sava
What else do you expect from Civ 3? You could make your own maps, oh wait! The Map Editor sucks ass. Oh well, [Sarcasm) remember to buy the Civ 3 EXPANSION!!!! [/Sarcasm].

hi ,

what is your point , .........

have a nice day

[Cairo_East]

Originally posted by heidlejohn


I constantly see mountains on coasts. While that is true at a few places in the world, I find it hard to believe that so many ocean coasts have hills and mountains. I can't see this as a good geography lesson.

Also the distinction between ocean and fresh water lake is often bizarre. First there is no graphic distinction that I can note between them. Secondly, I have seen large water areas (10 hexes across) completely surrounded by land that is at least 2 hexes wide, yet the water is considered to be an ocean in the game rather than lakes like the Great Lakes.

Not to mention how many wasted whales or fish hexes I see in my games. The only land hex near them, if any, is too often a mountain hex where one can not build cities.

I can't give the rmg a good grade particlarly due to the poor way it handles water hexes.

A process known as subduction is largely responsible for the mountain chains forming along coasts. The oceanic plate slides under the continental plate and proceeds to melt into magma. The Sierra Nevada Range and the Andes are good examples of subduction. Interestingly, these areas are also prone to long strings of volanoes. I think it shows good example of geogrpahic processes.

As for inland water, try to think of the water as freshwater and saltwater inland regions. The Great Lakes are freshwater, but the Caspian Sea (technically a lake) is saltwater. It's all a part of geographic variance.

It's quite accurate, and still fun. I think it works quite well.

[Purple]

Originally posted by Cairo_East


A process known as subduction is largely responsible for the mountain chains forming along coasts. The oceanic plate slides under the continental plate and proceeds to melt into magma. The Sierra Nevada Range and the Andes are good examples of subduction. Interestingly, these areas are also prone to long strings of volanoes. I think it shows good example of geogrpahic processes.

Strictly speaking, it is the plate collision, not subduction, that produces mountain folding, often bringing formerly ocean-floor strata to the surface, and this process also applies to continental-continental collisions (the Himalayas being the classic example, but the Urals and Appalachians are also mountains of this type).

The subduction process, with its melting of the subducting plate, produces volcanic mountains as the erupted magma builds up. (Pacific "Ring of Fire").

[dexters]

Well, there are no volcanoes in Civ 3, just hills and mountain ranges. So I think both of you are right and the RMG is still quite accurate :P

[Purple]

For the record, I'm in favor of adding adding an events option, which would include volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, river flooding, and other natural catastrophes.

There should also be favorable events, I don't know, like bumper crop harvests, maybe. I think the appearance of new resources fits into this category.

[Cairo_East]

Originally posted by Purple


Strictly speaking, it is the plate collision, not subduction, that produces mountain folding, often bringing formerly ocean-floor strata to the surface, and this process also applies to continental-continental collisions (the Himalayas being the classic example, but the Urals and Appalachians are also mountains of this type).

The subduction process, with its melting of the subducting plate, produces volcanic mountains as the erupted magma builds up. (Pacific "Ring of Fire").

You are correct, I was thinking of the process, but not the event.