terraforming capabilities should increase

[CiverDan]

BTW, what does this topic have to due w/PTW specifically anymore?

Lets move it to the general discussion

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by dovlvn
1 it'll take quite alot of time to terraform everything and not all terrains will be terraformable
2 mod nation turn all areas around them to boring subarbs so this just imitates reality
3 as it is a whole map covered in railroads (which most become by mod time aren't very interesting (the interest is focused in getting to the final victory over your rivals
4 it lowers a bit the pay for bad starting location just like in reality with sufficnt tech even a boiling desert can become attractive real estate

1. It still messes up the global warming.

2. Take a look at a map over of Russia. Noone lives in tundra... still we make people live in such places in Civ3.

3. I don't like the railroads either.

4. Bad start location? You SHOULD pay . That's the nature of the game.

[aahz_capone]

I agree that terraforming, at least the smac type, should be left out, but on a smaller scale, like removing hills (not mountains) is possible today and was possible in civ2 (unless I'm dreaming again). Those engineers are cool.

Still, I agree many railroads look buttugly, but the industrial world looks but ugly, so I can live with that. Or I just modify the railroads to make 'em look thinner, helps a damned lot! But the refirgeration/farm thing was cool. all You're bigass cities surounded buy hightech farms looks very neat.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by CiverDan
my problem isnt with no terraforming (except for maybe forest/plains to grassland) its with global warming..but thats for another thread..

Anything else is either unrealistic (changing tundra to anything else would require a temperature change)..or extremely time consuming to complete (mountains to hills, etc...

Yep this is exactly how I see it. Terraforming is too theoretical to implement. Then again, so is global warming as it is currently implemented. We simply don't know the effects on the planet if we terraformed or if we used a bunch of nukes. I'm hoping the reason Firaxis didn't include terraforming is due to this reason and not because the AI couldn't perform an admirable job using it. It's too bad they also didn't find a better penalty for using nukes than global warming. For God's sake, implement the SMAC UN so that we can effectively disable nukes!

[Athitis]

What about having ur workers digging rivers and turning lowering hills like one suggested before? This looks credible to me.....

[AlecTrevylan00]

but the ancient Egyptians drained Farla or something, the swamps, created a lake in what had been swamps+deserts, and created thousands of thousands of square miles of extremely fertile land

[Cyclotron]

Yes, that's irrigation.

[Ozymandias]

Resources as improvements?

Would it be possible to have workers add RESOURCES as "improvements"?

Consider a historical "real-world" scenario which begins without horses in the Americas:

How about if a Civ with horses, colonizing the New World, has the ability to further "irrigate" already irrigated terrain -- with the result being a horse resource?

It seems a reasonable way to model history, and let the Iroquis get their UUs ...

-Oz

[Quasar1011]

In Civ 2, terraforming was also possible by using the editor. In some of my scenarios, I made a ship- the terraformer- that could change ocean tiles into swamps. Then, engineers could drain the swamp. I usually assigner the terraformer to the technology of architecture, which was available just after the time of the automobile. This obviously is a late-game feature. I'd like to see this ability in the Civ3 editor too.

[Skeeve]

Terraforming could have worked in civ 3, but it would have had to be balanced very carefully.

Yes, it would reduce the penalty for polluting, but if you make it tough to terraform you are paying a penalty anyway by needing scores of workers to do the job.

Secondly, it would have to be a late-game ability. Perhaps deep into the Modern Era.

Third, any major changes would take either a horde of workers or dozens of turns.
For example:

Tundra --> Desert --> Plains --> Grassland could conceivably take 120 turns for 1 worker - thus if you tried to get it all done at once, you'd need 120 workers - now that's a lot of workers! (or slaves).

Industrial civs, however, might have an unfair advantage if they could accomplish terraforming sooner.

Something to think about for Civ 4?

[Cyclotron]

I'm willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt. I don't think terraforming could be added without screwing up the existing game. If I assume that a terraforming system could be implemented problem-free, I would still have a question: why? What is the reason for including the means to convert terrains? Does it add to the game, or is it just another thing you are able to do? Would the very ability of terraforming take away geographical/environmental determinism?

[Skeeve]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I'm willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt. I don't think terraforming could be added without screwing up the existing game. If I assume that a terraforming system could be implemented problem-free, I would still have a question: why? What is the reason for including the means to convert terrains? Does it add to the game, or is it just another thing you are able to do? Would the very ability of terraforming take away geographical/environmental determinism?

"Why?" is a great question. In fact, even as I write this response I am having trouble answering. I think there may be a pretty deep reason, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. But, I do know that it probably has something to do with the reason why we all like Civilization type games in the first place. Something about the power to do stuff - change or create worlds - that makes playing these games so fun.

I guess terraforming is just another extension of that feeling of power.

As for geographical/environmental determinism, I don't think terraforming will take too much away if it is awarded very near the end of the technology tree.
One will still have to be diligent about city placement and "land-wise" matters for the vast majority of the game. When terraforming comes, it's just icing on the cake.

- Skeeve

[Amadan]

One bit of terraforming that will work (but isn't really intended): allow hills to be forested.

Change the editor to allow hills to be forested, plant forests on a hill, then chop down the forest. You now have grassland, not hills.

(When I noticed this, I removed the 'Plant Forest' flag in the editor and changed it back to the way it was originally.)

[Traelin]

No no no no to Civ2-style terraforming. I could agree with the foresting of hills, but that's it.

And if global warming continues with its silly "terraforming", then tundra should change too. The only thing I've ever seen is forests being removed from tundra. Assuming that desertification would occur on such a global scale, tundra would be some of the first terrains that would change.