Design decision - Rivers - In square or on edge of square?

[Lord God Jinnai]

[qupte]
If suspension of disbelief is a problem we shouldn't be using squares - squares are actually just a hangover from board games. It is perfectly possible to have a terrain map which doesn't requires squares at all. Such a system has the best of all possible worlds - no matter where a river is it is easy to tell which side of the river a unit or city is. In such as system rivers can wind perfectly naturally, gorges are possible, and so forth. If we are going to suspend disbelief to the point where all turns are 45 degrees, we might as well accept right angles. In fact I have seen such maps and they don't look bad at all. The right-angle effect is much reduced if the rivers cut corners somewhat.
[/quote]
I'd like to see such a terrain map. If we could do that it would really help alot.

That is a bit extreme - no roads for 50 km, simply because you can't bridge the river? What about fords and ferries? Both of
these are easily accomodated in the rivers on edge system

Well if that's the case, simply code it in as to whether there was a bridge on that layer or not. For graphical purposes, the only problem would be with forests and it would actually be harder with roads than with the bridges themselves.

Why on earth should it be difficult? As far as coding is concerned I can see no problems at all.

Here's the reason why. Depending upon the current level or Government Basic Tech and the type of government, you can easily rule lands X squares away. Beyond that it becomes more difficult. The thing is, this usually won't be the case. Say two conties are fighting for terriroy on a continent. and a major river runs through it. In the long run, that river would be considered the natural boundry of both nations unless 1 was completely wiped out or pushed so far back that something else, like a mountain range became its new natural boundry. Can you say that you can program in such things easily?-

[Gary Thomas]

[QUOYE]I'd like to see such a terrain map. If we could do that it would really help alot. [/QUOTE]

I used to own 720 board games, but when I lost interest I gave them away. Several of them had pretty reasonable rivers on the edge of both hexes and squares. At the scale we are talking about (100 km per square), most rivers are more or less straight anyway. So realism is achieved by having several different "straight" sections, which aren't really straight, and wander into the square somewhat. Rather than turns such major rivers tend to have tributaries which join the main river more or less at right angles anyway.

Here's the reason why. Depending upon the current level or Government Basic Tech and the type of government, you can easily rule lands X squares away. Beyond that it becomes more difficult. The thing is, this usually won't be the case. Say two conties are fighting for terriroy on a continent. and a major river runs through it. In the long run, that river would be considered the natural boundry of both nations unless 1 was completely wiped out or pushed so far back that something else, like a mountain range became its new natural boundry. Can you say that you can program in such things easily?-

The X squares away rule doesn't take account of barriers other than rivers - mountains or sea.

My preference would be that control becomes more difficult based not on number of squares distant, but on the number of ticks of movement, to that square, for some standard unit such as an imperial courier. That approach comfortably takes care of mountains, seas and rivers.

In any case, rivers are no more difficult to deal with than mountains or seas.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

There is another argument in favour of edge rivers.

At present the coastlines look very ugly - just straight edges. However, edge river overlays could also be used to provide coastlines - just treat every edge between a land and sea square as a river. The sea side would blend in with the sea tile, but the land side would improve the appearance considerably.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

"Coastlines ugly" That is just because the 'shore' pieces that we had for demo 4 haven't been put into the d5 framework! It has nothing to do with the edge-vs-in-tile river argument either way IMO.

[Gary Thomas]

How do the "shore pieces" work? Are they separate tiles with all combinations of shore, for each possible land, or are they overlays? Alternatively, are they different kinds of sea tile?

My suggestion (with a bit of water showing on the land tile) reduces the different number of tiles required, which must have some bearing on the discussion. Also, the same coding can be used to display rivers and coasts. Anything that reduces coding is a plus.

Cheers

[Simon Loverix]

following arguments have been presented in favour of in square:
Looks more natural
Can go in eight directions
Simpler to build cities on rivers.
Rivers can function as roads

-Since rivers on edges are easier to do on the graphics side, we can make them look more natural more easily. Besides, 90° edges give some kind of a meandering effect.
-Can go in eight directions: If rivers are on-square, you can use the height of the squares to determine how they run. That can be more problematic if they're running in between.
-Cities on rivers: I thought it was easier to determine trade and other benefits of rivers if they were on-square.
-Rivers as roads: With on-square rivers it is possible to put TF's on a river, in a boat. With edge-rivers that would place them not on a coördinate, but in some imaginary void between the already imaginary squares.

There are four possibilities, I believe to place rivers:
- on-square, with the river occupying the whole square.
(100 km broad rivers?)
- on-square, with the river running in the middle
(too confusing: east bank, river and west bank in one square )
- between squares, with no room on the river
(can't put TF's on river )
- between squares, with room on the river
( this has the least disadv., it seems)

[Gary Thomas]

- between squares, with room on the river
( this has the least disadv., it seems)

That is a brilliant idea which readily extends to other areas. If all squares are regarded as potentially having water at the edges, then this bit of water can be used for many things:

Troops on a river boat
Boats in port
Beached boats

and so on.

I love it.

Cheers

[Simon Loverix]

I hadn't looked at it that way yet.
So a normal set of squares looks like:
123
456
789
1,4,7 are sea. 5 is a city.
The port would then be square a, with access only to 4 and 5.

1A 2 3
4B 5 6
C D E
7 8 9
All are land squares. The river runs a between 1 and 2, b 4 - 5, c 7-5, d 8-5, e 6-9, each river square giving access only to the pair of squares it is in between.

We can also give each square room aside, but isn't that redundant? unless we're going for a right and a left bank..
And in 4 or 8 directions?

How about the coding?

[Gary Thomas]

Essentially you have it right. The only difference is that a roww looks like:

1L 1 1R, 2L 2 2R, 3L 3 3R, ...

where 1L 1 1R are all in one square, and there are corresponding up and down extra bits.

If 1 is sea, 1L and 1R hold nothing, but 2L holds a "bank" or "coast" strip. If there is a city the port will be "on the coast" in 2L.

If there is a river between 2 and 3, both 2R and 3L are "bank" or "coast" strips. Potentially a city can have four ports.

Boats on 1R are equivalent to being on 2L, and don't have direct access to 2R or 3L. Unless there is a river across the bottom. The exact system for moving around a single square, if the river permits it, will have to be established.

The code is easy.

Cheers.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
How do the "shore pieces" work? (snip)

My suggestion (with a bit of water showing on the land tile) reduces the different number of tiles required, which must have some bearing on the discussion. Also, the same coding can be used to display rivers and coasts. Anything that reduces coding is a plus.

I think your suggestion is better on balance than what we had in d4, which was little pieces of shore added on to tile sides. I'm generally for your proposal. But there are complications. FE for a heavily forested square that is coastal the mask for the water/beach at the side of the tile may cut off individual trees in the forest image, giving a really odd appearance to the shoreline. You might want to cross-post your idea in the map graphics thread and see if Fiera has any thoughts one way or the other before you go too far with the idea.

[Simon Loverix]

If we have a shore (12 land, 34 sea)
12
34
and the river runs between 1 and 2, where is the river mouth? In 3 and 4 at once? Just to be sure.

[Gary Thomas]

But there are complications. FE for a heavily forested square that is coastal the mask for the water/beach at the side of the tile may cut off individual trees in the forest image, giving a really odd appearance to the shoreline.

If this becomes a problem, then there should be a special Forest/Shore tile strip which blends the forest onto the shore line, designed to avoid partially covering any trees.

If we have a shore (12 land, 34 sea)
12
34
and the river runs between 1 and 2, where is the river mouth? In 3 and 4 at once? Just to be sure.

A river mouth can be an extended thing - it is not a point object, but can be many kilometers across. So, the western half of it is in 1 and the eastern half is in 2. It is not uncommon to have two ports on opposite sides of a river mouth.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

There is actually a more serious problem with my ideas about coasts and rivers, but I have been carefully avoiding it. I guess I am getting close to having to come clean. But not yet...

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

So, Gary... What is the thing that you didn't want to say several months ago? Has it been superceeded by more thought, or is it still lurking there? If so its the time to come clean, since we've got to make decisions on these things soon, and we need to balance the good and the bad. Warning: if you say you've forgotten I will say many bad words

[Gary Thomas]

The system is pretty near incompatible with the polygon mapping system. The rivers would have to be polygons themselves, rather than being on the edge of a land polygon. On the other hand, if we are not implementing polygons anytime soon, I guess there isn't a problem.

Cheers