Ecology Version 3

[Simon Loverix]

Ok, here's the long-delayed Ecology Model Version 3.

Previous discussion was in Ecology, Climate, Vegetation and Pollution. The disaster model is now integrated with the Ecology Model.
Recently threads have been started for the Map Generator II and the Disaster Model v1.3, so for anything specific to these subjects turn to these (still empty) threads.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Simon, thanks for all the hard work!

It looks basically Good, although I haven't looked in detail at all the numbers. That will come during implementation at least for me!

I have a few general issues I'd like to site.

For disasters, I believe that we should omit from the model any disaster that does not cause At Least a 1% overall penalty to the civ in a given area. So disasters on a square level, unless they have the potential to utterly destroy the square, should IMO not be considered. (FE tornados) The reason is that there is nothing worse for fun than a disaster that has no real meaning for the player, and just annoys them.

Features in the ecology that "turn on" such that they have a large effect at some trigger point are bad design IMO. Such dramatic "non-linear" effects can cause a Lot of micromangement. FE I don't approve of things like: "A farmed square doesn’t regenerate if the population on it is higher than BM*1000." The effect should IMO turn on smoothly as described by some function using the relevent parameters. (I'm not sure you have all the relevant parameters in this case.) If you could try to eliminate such things I'd appreciate it. If you want further explanation, I've gone through this in the previous ecology threads when TK was running the model.

Speaking of previous threads, can you change the previous thread reference above to a link? It saves a lot of time for people interested in the model. Also, you'll probably get more people reading the model if you post it or have a link so people don't have to download and unzip it. Unfortunately Dom is in the throes of RL and probably won't be able to put it up on the web page really soon.

Sorry about all the misc. complaints... I think the model is really good overall! Given limited time, I'm just focusing on the things that can IMO cause some problems.

Great Job!

[Simon Loverix]

Thanks.

The disasters have a significant chance of triggering other disasters, so usually they will come in chains rather than stand-alone. Also a number of them aren't meant to be announced to the player (erosion fe) explicitly. Anyway it is a maximum list rather than something final, so when at a later point someone asks why we didn't include storms, we can say we did but is was scrapped rather than overlooked. And I admit I was hoping for custom disasters.

The non-regeneration of squares is not so drastic as it might seem; pollution will have a bigger influence on BM. And indeed it should be PBM*1000.

[Lord God Jinnai]

1.1 Generation.

Ustability should be based on plate techtonics or atleast try to emulate it if we don't use a map generator like that.

1.2 Climate

Misture is also based on the trade winds. There are the two tropical ones and the two artic ones.

1.3. Ocean, sea and ice cap

Ummm....there are areas below sea level.

1.5. Lakes, rivers and wetlands

Also every flat square next to an ocean wetland should have a chance of becoming one. Also wetlands should increase the mositure in the square and all ajacent squares.

1.6 Biomass

Deltas should increase in PBM as the game progresses

1.7. Food sites

Irrigation should drastically increase desert food sites. The reason being is that deserts have a lot of plants/animals die, but little used, thus tons of potential with very little of it in use.

1.8. Specials

Add for artic areas huskies which are often used (since they are light and won't break ice as easily). I don't know if they would go in any of those groups.

Also for specials:

Rare plants/animals for medical benfits.

2. Interaction

Deforestation and erosion are gradual things and with the exception of large scale construction like strip mining should be done over time.

2.1. Farming
Deforesting which was done by those who lived there generally left in forested areas except when all available farmland was needed. So this too should be gradual and not a sudden change like in the civ games. Deforestation should increase lumber reserves though.

Wetland destruction should lower BM also as well as having a chance of returning if not maintained. This is espially true with coastal wetlands. Note also that some costal wetlands may be unusable for farming once drained to do salt content.

2.2. Hunting & fishing

Reguardless of whether the community wants furs or food, they should get both, just more of the one. I mean if you kill a deer for its meat, you can still use its skin.

The PBM should recover over time.

2.3. Water supply

Underground water may also require certain techs used for sea water as it may have salt in it.

2.4. Production and pollution

Pollution can also be absrobed. So every turn x amount is absorbed. Oceans absrob as a whole and can absrob up to 60% of what is produced in modern day world. every year pollution absorbtion maximum is reached, it should be lowered by 1 for the next turn. It will only recover after 10 turns of not reaching the max.

2.6. Climate disturbance

We disccussed this long ago, there are 3 variations, warmer, cooler, or cycliv (warmer than cooler, the latter being much longer and more sever).

2.7. Environmental protection and restoration

Planting trees - should have a % of success.
Genetically engineering - Two ways either create creatures to 'eat' pollution or create creatures to survive it. Could also be a combination of the 2.

3. Disasters / Events

Deforestion, Smog, tornado, normal fire should be dropped entirely these effects are very localized and/or last so short it is not worth mentioning. Deforestion on such a scale was never known as a disaster because it takes time for an entire 100km x 100km forest to be destroyed.

Erosion, should be extremely rare. I mean extremely. In any event, such large scale erosions should move 30% of the PBM it takes to somewhere else.

Flood should be for dreastic floods only.

[Simon Loverix]

Hi LGJ!

Geological unstability was indeed to be derived from tectonics and fault lines.
General wind direction should be taken into account when generating the wind currents in the map generator.
Areas below sea level.. The significant ones I know are the area around the Dead Sea and the area north of the Caspian Sea. There's still sea there, so I thought the difference would be minor if sub-sea level area's were left out.

wetlands:
I would rather let it depend on the square itself whether or not it's a wetland there. An area has a wetland because it's moist/low there, it's not moist/low because there is a wetland. Coastal area's will have a higher moisture anyway, and having wetlands depend on moisture will generate them in groups anyway, given the effects that cause moisture.
Yes, after draining a wetland, PBM should be recalculated, and BM reduced to 50. A wetland will revert to its original state if a certain amount of certain types of infrastructure aren't there. I don't think coastal wetlands are that salty, coastal or not.

Delta's should increase in PBM, I think, since they are already composed of silt. They do increase in elevation.

Desert irrigation:
Well, it would be logical to increase moisture there and recalculate the PBM on that basis. However, the square would need to be irrigated all at once in that case, which can be just too much for ancient civilizations. Mark's way to do it is increasing the tech level artificially. I would rather give a farming kapital bonus, despite the diminishing returns. But we'll see what works best.

specials:
Huskies can be a pack and/or a small war animal, depending on the use you want to give it. I'll add a medicines slot.

Deforestation and erosion:
Well, they are gradual. Look at the effects table on the last page of the model. Decreases of -2 and -1 BM and PBM respectively are not drastic. But you better don't ignore them. These are unintentional and unorganized deforestation: triggered by population growth: wood used for houses, living space needed; triggered by GAP: acid rain. Intentional, organized deforestation to gain farmland (i.e. burning it down) results in the reduction to 60 BM.

hunting:
They should get both, but not everything of both. PBM shouldn't recover, since big and slow-reproducing animals are all hunted down and gone forever in that area. eg. bizons, bears,..

water supply:
Depends on how detailed we will handle water.

TO BE CONTINUED..

[Lord God Jinnai]

Most of what you've said seems okay, though 2 things i disagree with.

1. Salt-water wetlands (or perhaps brachish) occur do mainly do to man-made interferance, although there are a few naturally occuring ones. The best example i know of is the wetlands in Louisina. The levees put up to keep the Mississippi from changing course hae causes a lot of sinking on the delta which has allowed salt water to begin seeping into fresh water supply. While this kills off many things, other plants adart or are brought there.

PBM should increase as the game progresses until it reaches its maxium level, barring circumstances that lower it. This shous the tendancy for areas to reach their maximum potential when humans don't intervene. PBM should probably start out max for every square, save the squares where human population is centered and surrounding areas. in (for cultures reduce by 5% square).

[Mark_Everson]

Hi LGJ:

I think things like careful treatment of coastal wetlands are really beyond the scope of the Clash environmental model. Correct treatment won't give the player any additional fun, most wouldn't even notice. So I guess my plea is that you focus on relatively big issues. Perhaps reread some model you haven't looked at in a year and see if anything big pops out at you. Small incidental details in models will likely not ever be coded, there is just too much work to do on more important things.

Sorry to be a party pooper, but there's another reason I'm bringing this up too. When people visit the forums, and the first thing they see in Clash is a discussion on the importance of salt-level in marshes, they most likely chuckle and never return... Paul Crocker left the project because there was too much discussion of minutae and not enough thought about how the big things fit together. So when we get to that point in the discussion I feel I need to bring it up for the good of the project.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.

[Simon Loverix]

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
PBM should increase as the game progresses until it reaches its maxium level, PBM should probably start out max for every square,

From the model (1.6 PBM):
"Initially, BM = PBM. When BM changes, the square is flagged. Each turn the BM (re)gains/loses BM*0.05+PBM*0.05 towards the PBM value of the square. When they are equal, the square is unflagged."
So the actual vegetation rises to the potential of the square, but does not exceed it. PBM is calculated using the rules in the model and it is meant to be everything that can possibly grow on a square. So it is fixed, otherwise there would be forest everywhere by AD 2000.


CONTINUING

pollution absorption:
I would take the total sum of the BM of all ocean and sea squares and let the amount of reduction depend on this number (recalculated only if significant changes are made to production or population.)

climate disturbance:
I know, but the mechanism I proposed allows for all that and more. You get a trend, but also unexpected things.

restoration:
% of success: It should be more expensive to plant trees if the PBM is low, and the BM can never exceed the PBM this way (well, it can, but it will be reduced immediately, anyway). I would rather avoid taking chances: it's exciting and fun in RPG's, but quite unfair in strategy games. And it stimulates Load/Save cheating.
genetics: Yes, that would be 2 applications of the tech.

Disasters/events:
As I said, this list is a rather a maximum. I included Smog because it caused a large number of deaths in industrializing London and caused a change in legislation. Also a number of the events aren't to be mentioned explicitly (erosion etc.). Note that erosion and deforestation have a very minimal effect (second table). Deforesting an entire square eg. of BM 200 would take 80 'deforestations'. It's a bad name, I admit. But that is what it is meant to simulate, and what it leads to. The same goes for erosion; most of the time, it won't affect anything noticably, but in the long run..

[Lord God Jinnai]

For erosion, there was the dust bowl in the US where because of bad farming 90% of the topsoil of the midwest was stripped away after severe doughts within a matter of only a few years, but the soil must go somewhere and not all goes into the ocean.

As to PBM:
Alright, but then drop when hunting it reducing the PBM and the BM...just reduce the latter, though maybe by a bit more.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Alright i took your suggestion and reread the previous thread and found a few things:

War on ecology

Richard Burns:

This model would allow warfare to create long-lasting effects on the land. They still can't farm on World War One battlefields because of the chemicals and shells in the ground. And then there is the Agent Orange option for reducing attrition due to guerilla warfare. I think it would be interesting to see if players would use a chemical like that if it were presented with a different name, or if it had a different purpose like allowing armored divisions to go through dense forests easier.

This would be implimented through the military model of course.

In former Soviet States people farm on what would be to us considered unlivable land because of extremely high radition. The problem is, they have no choice, so they know the food they eat is laced with radiation, but they haveto eat anyway, its a natural[qyot instict that outways their wisdom to not and simply starve. They can't leave because no place would take them and they have no money. So simply make radiation pollution sepeate for that reason. It should still count toward total pollution amount, but its still 'usuable' as a last resort.

Radiation also has vast differances from most other forms of pollution, such as the way its spread, its ability to endure through half-lifes, etc.

...deltas will continue to have rich soil and the land area will grow over time. The best example is the Fertile Cresent which during the times the first civilizations were into being, the delta was so far back the Tigris and Euphates rivers never conncected and cam as close as 20 miles. The land area has increased enough to add atleast in the clash mapping scale atleast (prob more, thouhg not too many) 1 extra tile of habitable land area.

This was forgotten...deltas should as well as increasing in BM and PBM, increase the size of land.

Rich

Wetlands can increase disease, but they decrease the chances of flooding, decrease the effects of pollution, and restore potential water ratings of nearby provinces. All wetlands greatly slow the movement rate of units and are impassable to most mechanized units. Wetlands can be drained to make normal terrain, which is usually fairly good farmland. When this happens, the terrain is given its original stored Soil and Water ratings.

Don't think everything was addressed here.

Finally there is one thing that was missed entirely:

The introduction of new species to an area. This is considered to be the most devistating effect mankind has done to ecosystems, moreso than habitat destruction and pollution.

[Mark_Everson]

Important info that bears on the ecology model

Simon:

This came out of the Terrain thread as of several days ago. Please look it over for ramifications on the ecology model. I think so long as the info from your model is put into the xml spec defined in 2 below it should work ok, but I may be wrong.

-Mark

Originally posted by Gary Thomas
More thoughts about terrain.

The existing terrain coding is complex, hard to maintain, inflexible, and generally a pain. I can say this because I wrote it.

The present constraint on terrain is the availability of tiles to depict the terrain. Providing for landform and landcover combinations, as the code presently does, allows swampy mountains and mountainous oceans, for which we have little use, and no tiles.

So I propose the following:

1. Do away with the landform and landcover classes.

2. Replace them with totally data-driven Terrain class (which I have been working on from the point of view of movement and road-building, calling it TerrainEffects). Each landform/landcover combination that is actually used will have a terrain object defined in the terrain.xml file. The data will include the image reference as well. Each terrain type will have a symbolic name used for references in scenarios.

3. Make the image mapping totally data driven as well (this is a small job), using images.xml. This file will map a symbolic image name ("swamp" for example) to a gif name. The images will then read this in, and then read all the gif files. Then, to change the image for, say, "romancity", we just change the gif name in this file.

4. Military units (as they already do) will reference the symbolic name, so, if the gifs are changed, the military data doesn't need to change.

5. Scenario data (which shortly be transferred to data files, rather than hard coded) will, in the map, refer to the terrain symbolic values (see 2, above).

This system will allow percentage deforestation to be added when we actually implement that aspect.

The effect of all this will be to completely remove from the hard coded data all references to image and terrain specifics, and hugely simplify the movement, road building and map square code.



We are actually getting perceptibly closer to allowing general users to design scenarios.

[Gary Thomas]

The coding I proposed does not nullify the ecology model. It is purely a coding simplification for the present level of development of the game. It does not include such matters as climate or ecological disasters.

A terrain, as defined for my purposes, is essentially a tile picture with related movement and defense values. There is no reason that this cannot be a culmination of an ecology model. In my view the two things are quite separate, though I would expect an ecology model to generate a useable terrain type. However the ecology model is not organized to produce movement costs, road building costs, or defense values.

I do believe that those factors should be directly derivable from the visual appearance of a tile. That is, given what the tile looks like, the player should immediately know what to expect for those factors.

Cheers