TERRAIN & TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS (ver 1.1): Hosted by EnochF

[Theben]

OK, looking back the 2 ideas are different but IMHO would work great together. Mine works best for city terraforming, while his works best for areas outside cities.

[Maniac]

I agree with Theben grasslands could always be irrigated.

[ember]

I disagree with the idea of rivers being a defense penalty.
On the scale of a civ battle, bost of the time it will be the attacker, not defender, forced to try and cross those bridges or with barges.
Your troops sit on the far bank and wait for the enemy to get in position, then it's 'shooting fish in a barrel'.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Maniac]

ember's right.

[Communist_99]

Hello all, I am sorta new here. But I have a few ideas, such as:
-Trenches, increase defense of units by 100%, by 50% after the discovery of "Chemical Warfare," and by 25% after the discovery of Advanced flight. Cannot be built in, forest, jungle, swamp, moutains, artic, and desert.

Well, that is my first idea and I will have more to come.

[Theben]

An idea from the CITY IMPROVEMENTS thread: supply crawlers as supply "depot" TI's. You build the TI (with public works or engineers) and it provides 1 of 3 of the resources. Can build a max of 3 in a square. Distance, tech, size of city, and connection to city (roads, etc.) may be a factor in % of total resources reach the owning city. Requires per turn maintenance.

Plusses:
-Less micromanagement for player. Build and forget.
-Less units that clutter up terrain, less unit types overall.
-Will not interfere with an enemy advance (as it shouldn't) but can still be pillaged.

Minuses:
-Already have crawlers, and does same job, why add to programmer workload?
-Increased per turn costs for players
-Will not interfere with an enemy advance; maybe I want them to?
-Won't be able to add to Wonders (plus: there are many other ideas on how to add other cities' production to a wonder).

IMHO the +'s outweigh the -'s; micromanagement & unit clutter are high priorities in my book.

[Gordon the Whale]

This is an (edited) repost from the Firaxis site:

Rockiness/moisture/elevation,as in SMAC, really wouldn't do it for the variety we want on Earth. But change it to Landform/Temperature/Moisture/Vegetation (LTMV), and add rivers, and special resources (as in Civ2, rather than SMAC), and it would be much closer.

I combined Elevation and Rockiness into Landform because the scale we are using is much too large for resolution of individual mountains; any elevation we can see is more along the lines of plateaus. I know M@ni@c liked the idea of high altitude plains, but in terms of game play, they're pretty much the same. It works reasonably well for ocean depths, but otherwise seems pointless, since we're not using solar power for most of the game anyways.
Instead, use Landform, which determines the base mineral content (if such is used, rather than a more complex resource system. Still, mountains have more Iron than plains) and the suitability for farming. There are 3 levels, Plain, Hill, and Mountain.

Temperature and moisture would both help determine the food output of a square (you can get a LOT more food out of a hot, wet climate than a cold, dry one). The levels would be simple: Hot, Temperate, Cold, and Arid, Moderate, Wet. Temperature and Moisture would also help the Map Generator determine Vegetation.

This is what really gives the land the variation that SMAC lacked. The types could be:
nothing/Scrublands
Grass
Forest

The vegetation would be generated from the underlying terrain, for instance, Forests can't grow on a Hot, Arid Mountain, and Nothing couldn't be placed on a Temperate, Moist Plain.


Pros of the LTMV system:
1)Much more realistic worlds, where the Landforms are generated first (hopefully using some sort of Plate Tectonics thing; I'm developing an algorithm to do that.), then Temperatures based upon latitude and "wind patterns" (hopefully slightly more complex than in SMAC; Make a smooth 2-D fractal, then take it's gradient, then rotate
all vectors 90 degrees. For something more complex, actually try to take the Coriolis force into effect. Lots harder.), then Moisture based upon Landform, Temperature, and Wind Patterns (which could be discarded after the world generation is complete, and have no bearing on the actual game, or could be used to determine climatalogical effects in the late game caused by massive terraforming, pollution, or nuclear war, as well as sailing ship movement) then place the Vegetation based upon Landform, Moisture, and Temperature.

2) More land types without getting confusing. You can have a forest, forested hills, forested mountains, cold forest, temperate forest, etc. etc.

3)"Terraforming", or whatever you want to call it, can be more reasonable. For instance, changing a mountain into anything other than a mountain, especially when we're talking about big mountain RANGES, is ludicrous, regardless of whether or not you have explosives. But cutting down the forest on the mountain is much more reasonable.

4) You could also put it in the ocean, for nice variety there, too. Landforms are Continental Shelf, Offshore Deeps, and Abyssal Trenches. Vegetations are Nothing, Coral Reef, or Kelp forest (more Nothing in the ocean than on land, though, and Reefs and Kelp would be limited to Continental Shelf). Here, moisture is mostly just a placeholder in case land ever rises up, and Temperature is still used for determining vegetation.

4) If pulled off well, it could make REALLY pretty maps.

Cons:

1)If pulled off badly, it could make maps that are mostly flavorless, as in SMAC. This could (hopefully) be avoided by, rather than putting transparent textures on the landscape, actually have graphics for each combination. A hot, wet forest looks different than a Cold, moderate one, and not just because it has a bigger cloud over it! The cold, moderate forest should be pine trees, and the Hot, wet forest should be jungle. At the same time, there need to be good borders to avoid the cut-and-dried blockiness of CivX maps. For instance, I'd like to see icebergs breaking off the glacier at the coast, and a cliff where a tall mountain plunges into an abyssal trench. Also, you need to preserve the like-terrain borders, where adjacent mountains form ridges.

Which leads us to...

2) Too many graphics. 3 Landforms*3 Moistures*3 Temperatures*3 Vegetations = 81 possibilitieson land, plus 3 Landorms*3 Temperatures*3 Vegetations = 27 landforms in the water. 108 terrain tiles. Not all of those could be generated right off by the terrain generator, but with terraforming/disasters, or at least for the map maker, you'd need graphics for all of them. Then there are the border tiles... These are where you get the REAL eye candy, but I count 30 billion possible combinations across a border. (for the calculation, see the Firaxis forum.) Ludicrously many. A lot can be shaved off, (for instance, the border between a Wet Cold Plain and a Wet Cold Mountain could look the same as the border between a Wet Cold Plain and a Moderate Cold Mountain, since the difference between the mountains is only how much snow they have on the top.) but it's still probably too much to do, especially for a customizer. The borders are not a necessary part of the game, since they'd only improve the look, but they would still be nice.

3)On top of the work involved, the customizers may sacrifice some freedom, although this can largely be saved by using all user-defined special resources on a flat, boring map, as well as allowing redefinition of the terrain parameters.

Addendum: The old terrains in the LTMV system

Ocean: Offshore Deeps/any/any/nothing
Desert: Plain/Hot/Dry/Nothing
Plains: Plain/Temperate/Moderate/Grass
Grassland: Plain/Temperate/Wet/Grass
Forest: Plain/Temperate/Moderate/Forest
Jungle: Plain/Hot/Moist/Forest
Swamp: Plain/Any/Moist/Grass
Hill: Hill/Any/Any/Grass
Mountain: Mountain/Any/Any/Nothing
Tundra: Plain/Cold/Any?/Grass
Arctic: Plain/Cold/Any/Nothing

I think that's all of them. As you can see, most of the new tiles would be allowing more diverse vegetation types on a mountain, hill, or ocean.

[Maniac]

Wunderful idea ! I was looking to some way to use the moistyness/rockyness system in Civ3 and still make it look earthlike. I didn't found one, so I tried to reduce the damage by suggesting more terrain types.

But I still think that in the beginning of the game there should be more forests then grass to simulate the world before humanity burned most forests. So switch vegetation from forest to grass should be easy.

How do you simulate high altitude plains? By hills( because it's high altitude) or by plains(because it's plains)?

[loinburger]

I would say that the pros outweigh the cons for such as system. The greatest con as I see it is that customization would be a nightmare with all of those differing terrain tiles, but this could actually be turned into a pro (of sorts). In other customizable games minor gaming companies looking for a few bucks, as well as amateur programmers looking for a few bucks and some enjoyment, have made their own expansion packs. If someone had the patience they too could make themselves a tile expansion pack so that you could concievably play a Civ III game in Hell or on Mars or whatever.

The borders, although difficult to manufacture, could still be manageable so long as the programmers cheated a little bit in order to avoid the billion different combinations. Another possibility (this may not be feasible) would be to have an algorithm designed to "mesh" the different terrains together (a jungle bordering a boreal forest would be dotted with pine trees on its edges, while the boreal forest would be dotted with jungle). This could look ugly as sin if done poorly, though (just like anything), and not being a graphics programmer I have no idea how easy such an algorithm would be to make.

An idea I've just thought of: with 'wetness' and 'temperature' factors in terrain, perhaps these could also be factors in disease and life expectancy. In Colonial times the settlers in New England would live about 20 to 30 years longer than the settlers in Florida and Georgia. The reason? Germs like it hot and wet, not cold and dry. If you system were used, then disease could play a major role in the game (cities located near jungles/swamps would experience more plagues and would need to build more hospitals et. al).


On another topic, what is the current consensus (or lack thereof) on farms and irrigation? I ask this because so many posters are requesting that irrigation be severely limited. However, farms need not require irrigation. I therefore suggest that irrigation and farms be separate tile improvements, with irrigation and farming having a synergistic effect if done in the same square. Both improvements would improve with certain tech advances, but they would improve separately.

Sorry if this is covering old ground, but I'd hate to starve out mountain cities just because they don't have a river near by. (speaking of which, let's have terraced farms for the mountains/hills. They'd require the necessary tech advances, would "cost" more time to make the improvement, and probably wouldn't provide as much food, but they'd be better than nothing).
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited July 27, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

This is basically what I asked for, but is more developed as an idea. Great job!

To alleviate some of the problems w/ too many tile types, allow some tiles to represent more than 1 type. FE, grasslands in more arid/colder climates could=plains. Much simpler. Con: Could create an ugly map if too few tile types.

Technophile,
If you're truly concerned about mountain cities, don't be. Consider what you're talking about. Older Incan cities (your focus I think) had a civ2 city size of 2-3 (30,000 to 60,000), easily reached if nearby hills are "terraced". Modern cities are larger due to food imports, which many people have suggested ideas to get around this limitation (though in civ2 you can already avoid this limit with food caravans).

[loinburger]

Theben: Understood, perhaps "starve out mountain cities" was too strong of a term for me to use. It's not so much that I'm worrying about the Incas, it's just that I like to get the most for my money. If I've got a lot of mountains by one of my cities, great, I've got minerals galore, and unless I was an idiot I've got some grasslands in the city radius as well. But, those mountains are still a limiting factor, because I can't get rid of them (probably), and they'll never produce any food. I'd just like to be able to eke out a few nutrients from a mountain, that's all.

[FinnishGuy]

Shouldn't this thread already be in 2.x version level?

[Gordon the Whale]

The problem of High altitude plains isn't really adressed in the system I proposed... What would the difference actually be, in terms of gameplay? I may be ignorant of the real world, but it seems to me that they would function the same as their lower altitude brethren... If this is the case, the entire map, hills, mountains, and all could be plopped onto a 3D map like in SMAC, which would give more wide-area effects than the Landform component of the tile. If the landforms were represented by smaller 3D grids, as suggested by mindlace earlier on, adding a larger 3D map wouldn't even be much work for Firaxis. I think that would, incidentally, be the best way to go for the landforms. The Forest texture on a mountain wouldn't be the SAME forest as on a plain, but the underlying (grossly exaggerated, of course; looking at mountains with their actual aspect ratio isn't what we need to see in a video game) shape would be cool to look at.

technophile: Awesome idea about disease and moisture! You could put an even bigger risk of disease for cities founded by a settler not built in a city with a high disease risk, which would last for the first few turns, because the people have NO idea what to avoid. Make that go away after the discovery of medecine, or some similar advance.

theben: Tiles could double as several terrain types, but that makes the map ambiguous. When I'm going out to build a city, I want to KNOW whether I'm on a plain or a grassland; That one bit of food makes a huge difference in the long run. There would probably be a terrain inspection tool, so you could click on it to find out which it was, but that would get tedious... Like building cities in the monsoon jungle in SMAC, where you can't see the underlying resources. A pain. But the difference between the two could be very subtle... Just a matter of shading, or whatever. In fact, that would generally be the differences between similar terrains, especially Grass covered terrain of different types.

Actually, looking back at my old list, I'm not sure that grassland should be a Wet square. I had thought that wet should be reserved for REALLY wet squares... Jungles, swamps, etc. A Plain/Whatever/Wet/Grass should be a marsh of some kind. Maybe CivX Plains and Grasslands could be Plain/Temperate/Dry/Grass and Plain/Temperate/Moderate/Grass in CivIII.

Here are some ideas for the actual numbers:

Landforms

Plains are the basic square. The liklihood of finding mineral resources is pretty low... 1/10 of plains would have a mineral resource. (this could be represented as 1/10 having one shield of production, or in a more complicated, resource-based system, 1/10 of plains have iron, coal, quarries, whatever.)
The maximum food production of a Plain without a farm is 2.

Hills have a much higher chance of resources; say 1/4. Resources could be seeded individually, rather than by square, so some squares could end up with 2 resources. Hills could also have Large Deposits, which would give 2 of whatever resource (or just shields in a shields economy). However, Hills can only produce 1 food without a farm.

Mountains are the most resource heavy; 1/2 or 1/3 chance of resources. Mountains, like hills, can have Large Depisits. No food is found on an unfarmed mountain, and all Mountain Grass squares get a -1 food penalty.

Temperature is much simpler; -1 food per square (taken before improvements) for cold, no mod for Temperate, and +1 for Hot.

Moisture would have the same effect as Temperature, but an unfarmed Wet Plains square would function as Dry (-1 food), and Wet Plains squares would require a special kind of Farm. This is because you can't really farm a swamp; you have to drain it. However, since Moisture here represents rainfall, you can't really allow people to change it. So require a special farm. Hills and Mountains don't have that penalty because they are self-draining. When the special farm is built, then there is a +1 food bonus.

Vegetation

Nothing is nothing. it provides no food, and whatever resources are inherent in the Landform. The heat bonus for food does not apply in Nothing squares, although the moisture bonus does. (this is to simulate deserts with some vegetation, so you can get a minimal amount of food In the game, of course, a Moist Nothing square is not likely... It would grow something spontaneously pretty quickly. The only way would be nuclear/chemical war, volcanic blasts, etc, and the grass/forest would grow back eventually)

Grass produces 1 food and the resources inherent in the landform.

Forest produces 1 food and, depending on the system used, 2 shields or 2 wood. Farms cannot be built on forests. Climate bonuses and penalties that normally apply to food also apply to the wood production of a forest; this includes the Wet Plains Penalty. Note that since you can't build a Farm in a Forest, you can't get around this.


On Farms:

Here I am assuming there is a TI called a Farm. The Farm does not increase the food production of a square, but enables it to go beyond a certain point. For instance, Maybe you have a special resource Grass Plains square with 5 food production. A plains square can only supply 2 food without a farm, so you need to build a farm to get the third food out of it. This is an ABSOLUTE. All bonuses and penalties are applied before the farm is checked. Later, of course, other TIs that actually increase the food production of a square would become available; These STILL won't be able to increase the food production past the no-farm limit unless there is a farm.

Here are the types of farm:

Farm: Allows unlimited food production on Plains, 2 food production on hills. Cannot be built in mountains.

Terraced Farm: Allows 3 food production on hills, and 2(1?) food production on mountains. Remember that Mountain Grass gets -1 food. Can only be built on Mountains/Hills, and requires a Tech. Advance (Earthworks? Terraced Farming? Construction? Engineering?)

Drained Farm: Acts as a regular farm, but alaso gets rid of the Wet Plains penalty. Makes Wet squares the best. This also requires a Tech advance... Maybe start a new line of advances that covers Aqueducts, Sewers, Irrigation, Drained Farm, Canals, Dikes, Dams, etc. (not in that order, of course)

Maybe there could be furthur farms, also... Like limit the Farm/Drained Farm to 4 food or something. It wouldn't come into play unless you had other improvements to increase food production. Those could include Irrigation (in Dry squares) and various special crops. For instance Rice could add +3 food but only be available on Wet squares, Wheat could add +2 but not be available on Cold or Dry squares, Maize could be +1 on anything but cold or wet, and Potatoes +1 anywhere. These could become available either as research advances, as random events (Chinese farmers have domesticated a new crop: maize) or could be given 1 per civilization at the bginning of the game, determined by the starting location. In any case, you could trade them like an advance with other Civs, so in the end, you could plant anything. There could also be Cash crops, which operate like the food crops but produce money instead of food. This could be a single crop, or Tobacco, Cotton, Sugar, and Indigo. All of these grow in similar climates, though, so maybe they could be lumped as Cash crops, and allowed anywhere but Cold or Dry.
Other than crops and irrigation, greenhouses could eliminate the penalty for cold squares, and various Advances might generate other bonuses. Late in the game, you might get things to increase the food from forests.

Notice that the Crops are VERY important. On a basic Flat/Temperate/Moderate/Grass square, you're only getting one food; That's not even enough to feed the population working it! However, remember that you start the game with a crop suited to your particular climate, that will increase the food production by at least 1. Crops are very easy to plant, and if there's a Public Works TI-er, it's even easier, and you only need to spend your first turn or two improving that land. Otherwise, I'd suggest that every City get a free Terraformer (I know they can't be called that at the beginning of the game, but I'm not sure what else to call them) when it is founded. The graphics for crops and farms should be low-key, mostly transparent things. Later there could be bigger, more in-your-face improvements.

That is one heck of a long post!

[EnochF]

Shut up, everybody!

Er, sorry. Look, I've only got so many hours in a day to summarize all this stuff... And it looks like I'm going to have to reorganize the summary a bit, or it'll end up being fifty pages long. It looks like at least a three-hour job. I'd put it off to the weekend, but who knows, maybe it'll be up to 150 posts by then...

Okay, I'll try to write the new summary now... time to go fetch some fresh sources of caffeine...

[Maniac]

Sure high altitude plains could be the same as normal deserts/plains/grasslands.
But it kinda looks strange to have a low plain graphic between a mountain range. Other graphic please. You should be able to irrigate a high altitude plain even if there isn't a river passing by(cause in Civ2 it was impossible to have rivers in mountains).
BTW, wet terrain should also be able to be irrigated. Not only if there is a big river passing by.

[Gordon the Whale]

If we're using 3D mapped Landforms, then the plain, rather that being set at 0 elevation, could just be the average of the surrounding tiles, so that they could end up high altitude if they're between mountains. Good enough?

As I was imagining it, irrigation would be a thing to get rid of penalties for a dry climate; no need to irrigate if it's a cleared swamp to begin with!

[ember]

Quite true. Irrigation only has an effect if there is a lack of rainfall. In Canada only a miniscule portion of our farmland is irrigated, but it is still some of the most productive in the world. We just don't bother using marginal land because there is so much land available.

Irrigation should upgrade a squares mossitre rating.
Implimenting farms and crop rotation are the big harvest boosters.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[ember]

What effect does the altitude have?
in Civ the squares (to me) represent the resources available. Mountain is very rugged, but plain is much more fertile and flat. It does not say anything about elevation. We could add a palteau terrain if it is really improtant to have high altitude cities.
I personally feel that 3D terrain is a devolution. It makes the interface more complicated without adding any relivent information. I find that the relivent infomation content in SMAC style terrain is lower that with CIV2.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ember (edited July 28, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Agreed. Irrigation should increase the moisture of a tile, and farms increase the food production.

[Theben]

double post
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited July 28, 1999).]</font>

OOh, ooh! Let me add yet another layer of complexity to this LTMV model. There is a difference between rainfall and drainage. In New Mexico there is a wetlands area called Bosque del Apache. It isn't like there's much rainfall, but the drainage is such that there is a large, uh, swamp. On the coast of Washington and British Columbia there is a temperate rain forest. It isn't a jungle or swamp because the drainage is good.

In Georgia and South Carolina we've got these little minnie-swamps called Carolina Bays (no, I have no idea why they might be called "bays"). The climate is generally pretty wet, but the swamps don't cover so much area that farming is impaired.

[FinnishGuy]

Oops sorry EnochF. I guess my little innocent meant-to-be question looks pushy. I wasn't demanding an immediate new summary. I was just wondering shouldn't all the active threads have v2.x in their names (rename?) now that the List v1 is out.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by FinnishGuy (edited July 29, 1999).]</font>

[ember]

I don't see why artillery gets a high ground (on a civ scale) bonus. If the arty is short ranged enough to take advantage of the increased range (like cannons) it should not be able to hit the next square. If it is very long ranged, like a modern howizer, what difference is an extra hundred meters?

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ember (edited July 29, 1999).]</font>

[Gordon the Whale]

don-don. You're right, but adding a fifth parameter would be hellish... Instead, how about making it a thing rivers do? I always thought it odd that there were rivers but no lakes in Civ (just ocean, which seems different to me.) If there WERE 3D terrain, at least as far as the map generator was concerned, it could make the rivers actually run downhill, like in SMAC. That way, if they were inside a basin, they could pool all over the place... Make the graphic for a river surrounded by other rivers into a lake looking thing. There could also be a "flow rate" thing on rivers, that decided how navigable they are. (if rivers are navigable, which would be a good thing, at least in ancient times) If the flow rate was 0, they would do different things than a regular river... Make penalties instead of bonuses, I guess. That way, Wet squares could be farmed by regular farms, with the food bonus, and Swamps and Bogs and Marshes would be areas with really slow rivers... It would also stop them from forming on hills and/or mountains.

The only thing lacking is that swamps are often coastal, and this wouldn't happen if they were formed by rivers with nowhere to go... Is that a big enough thing to worry about?

[EnochF]

Oh, that. Well, I wasn't expecting Terrain to be in the 1.0 version of the List. The last summary I wrote was the one at the beginning of this huge thread, and that's the one Yin managed to get into the list. Since I haven't written another one (yet), it's still in its 1.1 form. I suppose I should make the next one 2.0. But really, who keeps track of these things...

[loinburger]

I don't really see a need for a high-altitude plains tile (or similar tile) because elevation doesn't really affect the biome directly, only indirectly (by lowered/increased temperature, rain-shadows, etc.).

I am still in favor of having 3D terrain, however, if for no other reason from the military standpoint (artillery on higher ground gets a bonus) and the land raising standpoint (creating/destroying rainshadows, etc.). 3D terrain is certainly not a necessity for there to be elevation differences, it would just make it easier to differentiate between high and low ground.

[Harel]

Yes EnochF, who DOES keep track? Numbers are such an annoying thing, aren't they?

Post 116.

Still no summary?

[Harel]

Yes EnochF, who DOES keep track? Numbers are such an annoying little thing, aren't they? Divide, subtract...
But you can always yell for silence, can't you?


Post 116. Still no summary?

[Harel]

Yes EnochF, who DOES keep track? Numbers are such an annoying little thing, aren't they? Divide, subtract...
But you can always yell for silence, can't you?


Post 116. Still no summary?

[Gordon the Whale]

Boy, harel, shouldn't that be post 116, 117, and 118? Don't hassle the guy. He's a volunteer. I, in particular, am throwing really long, convoluted posts at him, and that's really hard to summarize. By the way, sorry about that, EnochF, but I'm just a long winded whale...

As for the artillery bonus from high ground thing, it's a close call... How about instead of that, just give any unit an attack bonus from a "higher" square, i.e. mountain to hill or plain, hill to plain. It's true that modern artillery might be able to bombard ONE square away on a civ map, but it doesn't seem all that important. I guess that really belongs in the combat thread, but it is a sort of overlap thing.

I think that 3D terrain on a sub-grid level is a good think... CtP had that, right? Where a mountain square will stick up above the plains square behind it? It could be done with sprites instead. (as I believe it was in CtP, but I've never played it, just seen shots) However, you get better tile continuity by using a 3D map, at least to generate the sprites. Can anyone tell that I'm a big fan of tile continuity?

The high altitude plains thing, as I saw it, was just a nice way to make the world look more realistic. Didn't think it would actually change anything.

Changing Rainshadows? In Civ? It was implausible enough in SMAC. As I said earlier, the idea of knocking down a mountain range with any technology we have today or can forsee in the immediate future is ludicrous. Raising one is even worse. The only way to change the Landforms that I could see would be to change Continental Shelf to Plains... This might even require a special square on the continental shelf, called Shallow Flatland, or something, because you can only extend land by diking in a very few places in the world. In fact, only vegetation could be purposefully changed, and then the only one that would be at all easy would be to change Forest to Grass... Grass to Forest should take at least a hundred years. Either of them could be turned to None using nuclear warheads, I guess. Moisture and Temperature might change as a result of Pollution, but Landform? Not even nuclear war would change Landform. Can you imagine people actually knocking down the Rockies? It's silly.

Sorry if I got a little carried away there.