DESIGN: Terrain Values

[MrBaggins]

We aren't slowing the early game down... what we are suggesting here is that

• The relative difference in production between cities with productive tiles and those without, should be made smaller... I.E. grassland cities shouldn't be massively penalized
• Food (and fertile areas) should be more important in producing and maintaining Settlers

The intent certainly isn't to slow down the game. Average production will remain about the same... and Settler costs probably reduced (which might speed the game... slightly.)

The intent is to give added importance to early food. Right now its production which is key, pretty much throughout the game.

[Gilgamensch]

I was following this discussion for quite a while, but I must say I haven't found an idea/conclusion either.

It is logical that grassland would produce more food than plain.

Nice example would be like the prarie of the Wild West were people lived mainly from the passing herds. Without them hard to survive. As the people there are more hunters than farmers.

Grassland in such an amount is nearly impossible to find and never really existed. It was most of the times prarie converted to grassland, our good old irrigation systems . The only area I could think of in RL would be either the area going from Germany over Poland to Russia, it was known as the corn-chamber of Europe before WWI. But again, it was normally humans changing it into this state.

What I want to say with it: Maybe we shall get rid of grassland as a 'original' terrain and just have prarie/plains and just make terraforming from plains into grassland cheaper?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
*SNIP*
Grassland in such an amount is nearly impossible to find and never really existed. It was most of the times prarie converted to grassland, our good old irrigation systems . The only area I could think of in RL would be either the area going from Germany over Poland to Russia, it was known as the corn-chamber of Europe before WWI. But again, it was normally humans changing it into this state.
*SNIP*

Erm... no?... Savanna, and (high) veldt would be two typical forms of natural grassland (and although you could artificially make a Savanna, the majority of that enviroment is naturally derived)... and there are other instances of grassland environments in floodplains, depending on the geologic specifics of the area.

From "The World's Biomes" from Berkeley(link)

Grasslands are characterized as lands dominated by grasses rather than large shrubs or trees. In the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, which spanned a period of about 25 million years, mountains rose in western North America and created a continental climate favorable to grasslands. Ancient forests declined and grasslands became widespread. Following the Pleistocene Ice Ages, grasslands expanded in range as hotter and drier climates prevailed worldwide. There are two main divisions of grasslands: (1) tropical grasslands, called savannas, and (2) temperate grasslands.

Savanna
Savanna is grassland with scattered individual trees. Savannas of one sort or another cover almost half the surface of Africa (about five million square miles, generally central Africa) and large areas of Australia, South America, and India. Climate is the most important factor in creating a savanna. Savannas are always found in warm or hot climates where the annual rainfall is from about 50.8 to 127 cm (20-50 inches) per year. It is crucial that the rainfall is concentrated in six or eight months of the year, followed by a long period of drought when fires can occur. If the rain were well distributed throughout the year, many such areas would become tropical forest. Savannas which result from climatic conditions are called climatic savannas. Savannas that are caused by soil conditions and that are not entirely maintained by fire are called edaphic savannas. These can occur on hills or ridges where the soil is shallow, or in valleys where clay soils become waterlogged in wet weather. A third type of savanna, known as derived savanna, is the result of people clearing forest land for cultivation. Farmers fell a tract of forest, burn the dead trees, and plant crops in the ashes for as long as the soil remains fertile. Then, the field is abandoned and, although forest trees may recolonize, grass takes over on the bare ground (succession), becoming luxuriant enough to burn within a year or so. In Africa, a heavy concentration of elephants in protected parkland have created a savanna by eating leaves and twigs and breaking off the branches, smashing the trunks and stripping the bark of trees. Elephants can convert a dense woodland into an open grassland in a short period of time. Annual fires then maintain the area as a savanna.

*SNIP*

The piece goes on to mention Temperate grassland, and Steppes as separate forms of natural grassland biomes.

Irrigation certainly isn't the only source of water in such environments... sepage, perenial flooding and rain (with rainforest and jungle typically being traps for this moisture) are typical method of natural water propagation.

So... I'd vote "No" to the change you mentioned.

[Maquiladora]

To quote myself,

In Const.txt i changed UNIT_WORKDAY to 0.005 it was 0.015.

I got that wrong. It WAS 0.15 (15% increments) and i changed it to 0.005 (0.5% increments), so the change was alot greater than i intended...

The city square was the main influence on the test anyway and Ill still need to test again when/if we have food support for settlers etc... but for now i am stuck for what to do.

[Gilgamensch]

Grasslands are characterized as lands dominated by grasses rather than large shrubs or trees. In the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, which spanned a period of about 25 million years, mountains rose in western North America and created a continental climate favorable to grasslands. Ancient forests declined and grasslands became widespread. Following the Pleistocene Ice Ages, grasslands expanded in range as hotter and drier climates prevailed worldwide. There are two main divisions of grasslands: (1) tropical grasslands, called savannas, and (2) temperate grasslands.

As mentioned in there 25 million years ago

And as we haven't got those differences you mentioned (in the end of your quote of the book, I would rather say that our grassland is already the cultivated one.

But again, it was only a suggestion

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch


As mentioned in there 25 million years ago

And as we haven't got those differences you mentioned (in the end of your quote of the book, I would rather say that our grassland is already the cultivated one.

I think you've misread the first paragraph.

It says that DURING a period 25 million years ago, MOUNTAINS ROSE in the Western US, CREATING a favorable climate for grassland.

Those mountains are the Rockies, and, trust me, they are still there, and the climate in the majority of the continental US west of the Rockies follows the climatic system mentioned.

[Gilgamensch]

In the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, which spanned a period of about 25 million years, mountains rose in western North America and created a continental climate favorable to grasslands.

Let's see:

I think it is rather clear:

During this period, which covered 25 million years, mountins rose and created a climate for grassland. Meaning it happened before 'civilization'. Those two epochs are OVER!

That's how I understand it.

[MrBaggins]

Right... grassland environments have existed in North America for 25 million years. Humans didn't do massive irrigation to make grassland in the USA. They might have improved some existing grassland with irrigation and done farming there...

[Gilgamensch]

Right... grassland environments have existed in North America for 25 million years. Humans didn't do massive irrigation to make grassland in the USA. They might have improved some existing grassland with irrigation and done farming there...

But when humans didn't do it (assumption, as it can't be proofed disproofed) it turned to 'plains'. Just a process we see/saw everywhere in the world. OK humans also increased this process, but America for this a good counter-example, as the Indians where living with the nature and not off the nature. Just the earth coming out of the last 'ice-age'.

If you take Egypt/Babylonians and those old cultures, they always had to preserve/irrigiate what they had to keep it in this stage. (not sure about China)

That was my idea behind not having grassland as a default, but just as a TI.

[MrBaggins]

Erm.. from personal experience, I'd have to say... "No".

The central US, where it isn't heavily populated, or currently farmed is grassland... I know this because I look out of the window occassionally when I fly over it.

There aren't enough significant lakes and reserviors to irrigate everywhere, but a large portion of the central US is filled with endless fields. Those work, because it is relatively warm, and rains every so often, in the US. The ice age warmed things up, making grass growth possible again... it didn't turn grassland in the US into plains.

The (west to central) southern US, however, does have more prairie (plains) due to the fact that it's got a drier, more arid climate... this is because it isn't in the shadow of the Rockies, which squeeze the moisure in weather systems into tight cloud formations, which release precipitation over the central and eastern US.

If it rains for 6-8 months, and has a relatively dry spell for the remainder, you'll get grass, on appropriately even ground.

There are lots of environments in the world that fulfill this.

You're also dramatically overestimating the degree to which human irrigation affected water in Egypt and the Gangees.

These areas sit in river deltas... both of those rivers annually flood, which distributes water over a wider area... which permeates the land, and spreads rich silt. Thats the reason why those areas are so fertile, and are grassland biomes.

Human irrigation is effectively a pinprick in comparison, until recently, where electric pumps have made controlled irrigation possible.

[Gilgamensch]

How long has this area been grassland?

A lot of what we see nowadays has been brought into this state by us. I am not even sure if there is still some old grassland existing anymore.

You're also dramatically overestimating the degree to which human irrigation affected water in Egypt and the Gangees.

I think you shall re-read espacially Egyptian history. They were only able to exist in this size because of the extensive irrigation they did. Or better to say, Egypt was createdable to expand to this size, because the farmers irrigiated.

The floods did help, but only for fertilisation, not for watering. This enabled them to have 2 seasons per year (missing the term for when you collect the stuff form the fields).

Similar goes for what is nowadays Iraq/Mesopotania. This has been green lands and nowadays a lot of it is desert, but defenitly not grassland anymore.

I know there have been plains with buffalo-grass existing in the US. But they were referred to as plains not grassland.

So again I would say, grassland perse doesn't exist for a long time.

[MrBaggins]

Hopefully this map should put this matter to rest

http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/as/education/projects/webunits/biomes/

[Gilgamensch]

I don't disagree that there is grassland existing. But look at this one:

http://www.worldbiomes.com/biomes_map.htm

and you already see they differ quite a lot.

My point was mainly (see Eqypt and Mesopotania): It didn't last........it is changing in a huge rate. Grassland seems to be only a temporary thing.

by the way interresting that Europe is seen as forest on both maps

[MrBaggins]

That biome map shows plenty grassland and savanna, and savanna is classified as grassland. Therefore you've just posted something stating that grassland obviously exists.

As for the forest covering Europe... its because it would be forest, if the Europeans didn't chop it all down, and plant crops and or buildings all over it.

[Gilgamensch]

Again:

I am not saying that grassland doesn't exist.

BUT:

Look at where two of the oldest civ's we know of resided:

What has been Savana/grassland is now desert. It was only preserved by humans. (check also the picture thread with pictures of Locutus in Egypt).

This happened in 'only' 4000 years.

Therefore you've just posted something stating that grassland obviously exists.

Don't get me wrong: But you just stated that plains wouldn't exist

Those Biom-maps are not having any plains, so what.......