roads, borders, irrigation

July 12, 2001, 01:32

I remember the borders used to overlap the mountain, but you can see here its not doing that anymore, I guess they are still working on it, so I wouldn't worry about overlaps on mountains just yet.

Also notice the irrigation on the grassland down below, on its own. It actualy looks quite good, because it looks primitive, I actualy like it now.

Ralf · July 12, 2001, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by ContradictioN
Also notice the irrigation on the grassland down below, on its own. It actualy looks quite good, because it looks primitive, I actualy like it now.

Irrigation shoudnt look "primitive" or "natural" - They should look artificial, squarish & regular - obviously manmade. Also some hint of fields with cereals wouldnt hurt.

AroSch · July 12, 2001, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by ContradictioN
I guess they are still working on it, so I wouldn't worry about overlaps on mountains just yet.
Also notice the irrigation on the grassland down below, on its own. It actualy looks quite good, because it looks primitive, I actualy like it now.

Yes, I agree mostly. I really hope they will work on the roads too, the roads still seems to me like floating roads.

TechWins · July 12, 2001, 02:20

I don't understand how there can be irrigation in certain spots when there isn't even any water source next to it.

I don't like how the roads are so curvish.

I like the more squareish feel that Civ2 had with all the terrain and terrain improvements.

Ralf · July 12, 2001, 02:24

I realize that it all is a matter of subjective opinions, of course. But as I look at it; the player should be able spot the difference between naturally looking basic terrain-types and artificially looking tile-improvements.

And thats the problem with those irrigated tiles - unless I didnt knew it before, I could have sweared that those tiles where infact some kind of basic terrain-type marshes.

Provost Harrison · July 12, 2001, 02:29

This mountain overlap is a major concern. The border may now be overlapped, but buildings, roads, etc, most certainly are not. I know it sounds trivial, but this really needs to be dealt with to make a more polished appearance to the game. I like the idea if the overlap works, but perhaps they could shorten the mountain a little bit to make it easier to see what is going on behind as well, so it is easy to spot a road, etc. And how will a unit interact with a mountain?

LaRusso · July 12, 2001, 02:32

exactly.
the main principle of tile design should be that one can tell what one is looking at at the first glance. at least in 95 % of the cases.
when i look at irrigation i reckon 'swamps'
they really look ugly.
i remember there was a whole thing about breugel's or bosche's pics as inspiration for civ3 team. i could swear they switched to warhol at some point - landmasses of artificially looking tiles. dizzy

Ralf · July 12, 2001, 02:33

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
I don't understand how there can be irrigation in certain spots when there isn't even any water source next to it.

It seems that the challenge of connecting sea/river/ocean with irrigated tiles have been removed from Civ-3. Imagine a desert-tile surrounded with mostly desert an no water in sight - no problem; just go ahead and irrigate it anyway. Alternatively: perhaps its now enough that tiles is diagonally adjacent from already excisting irrigated tiles/oceans/rivers/sea in order to irrigate it.

LaRusso · July 12, 2001, 02:38

it does not look like that to me. remember, every city tile is irrigated per se so if you take that into account, it does not seem to me that there are any irrigated areas not connected (at least diagonally) to another water or irrigated tile

Ralf · July 12, 2001, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
(at least diagonally) to another water or irrigated tile

Deja vu!

I had the same thought, so I edited the reply.

TechWins · July 12, 2001, 02:45

Quote:

It seems that the challenge of connecting sea/river/ocean with irrigated tiles have been removed from Civ-3. Imagine a desert-tile surrounded with mostly desert an no water in sight - no problem; just go ahead and irrigate it anyway.

Yeah, it's pretty dumb to have it work that way.

Quote:

the main principle of tile design should be that one can tell what one is looking at at the first glance. at least in 95 % of the cases.

I agree, I can't even tell what a lot of the terrain is.

Right now the graphics on the terrain looks terrible. I like the Civ2 graphics for the terrain a lot more, at this point.

TechWins · July 12, 2001, 02:50

Quote:

Alternatively: perhaps its now enough that tiles is diagonally adjacent from already excisting irrigated tiles/oceans/rivers/sea in order to irrigate it.

I'm not sure if I really like it being that way. I would like them to keep the same irrigation model as Civ2 but I guess that's not the case. This way it will be even easier to irrigate certain tiles.

Lord_Davinator · July 12, 2001, 03:18

well the terrain reminds me a lot of ctp. I hate...absolutely utterly hate how the irrigation looks like. Trust me even primitive irrigation would look better than that. They had better change the darn color of rivers also. whats that? a slime trail?
seriously if they sell teh game with those terrain looks, I hope someone gets a mod out for better ones immediatly.

Ralf · July 12, 2001, 03:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord_Davinator
I hate...absolutely utterly hate how the irrigation looks like. Trust me even primitive irrigation would look better than that.

Its nice to know that one isnt alone feeling this way.

Hey, I have become "King" now.

Adagio · July 12, 2001, 03:30

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
I don't like how the roads are so curvish.

I like the more squareish feel that Civ2 had with all the terrain and terrain improvements.

I like when roads a curvish, I hated when those roads where regular, it looked so unrealalistic

It's great that the population don't have to travel on straight roads all the time

Provost Harrison · July 12, 2001, 03:33

Easy on the steering though

The roads are fine in how they look themselves, it is just how they interact with the landscape that concerns me!

campmajor! · July 12, 2001, 03:53

Just look at how the river runs over the mountain. It looks very silly. This needs a lot of work....

I really hope they change it before October.

Adagio · July 12, 2001, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Easy on the steering though

The roads are fine in how they look themselves, it is just how they interact with the landscape that concerns me!

Yeah, the interact with the landscape is in really early beta still, that's atleast what I hope, since it looks really strange, specially when mountains is near

Provost Harrison · July 12, 2001, 10:39

Graphically, this is my major concern. The mountains need a bit of work as well, all related to the roads, although their appearance doesn't bother me per se, I think they are OK, just they may obscure what is behind them too much...

But as I have already stated, the borders work fine, they even roll over the hills and behind the mountains, so I presume this is just the same...

I think the thing is, these mountains work well if they are on individual squares, but for groups of mountain squares, ie, a range, a more alpine or himalayan look would work better in places...

Provost Harrison · July 12, 2001, 10:40

While I am on a role, another idea. Where in SMAC you got landmarks, perhaps a similar thing could happen in a mountain range, where perhaps 4 squares next to each other in a range could constitute a big mountain, which would look quite impressive...

Adagio · July 12, 2001, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
While I am on a role, another idea. Where in SMAC you got landmarks, perhaps a similar thing could happen in a mountain range, where perhaps 4 squares next to each other in a range could constitute a big mountain, which would look quite impressive...

That could be great

I like the mountains, it's just the way the mountains act with roads behind them it's annoying

Inverse Icarus · July 12, 2001, 16:00

the civ 2 irragation model was great, b3ecaue it often forced you to do "odd" things to get water to a city.

you often had to build irragation outside of your city radius to get water. sometimes you had to irragate a hill, or loop around a mountain range.

diagonal connections doesn't seem right to me.

N35t0r · July 12, 2001, 16:08

And i could have sworn that those plains were deserts...

Grumbold · July 13, 2001, 19:36

I haven't looked at the AVI's but from the shots alone my first concerns were:

Where are the colonies? one possible colony may be visible on the edge of one screenshot.

Where are the farms and railroads? No modern shots.

The Industrial age seems to have been reached with most cities still in the 8 size range and none over 12?

Units seem to be more colour coded to their respective nations. Knights in head to foot pink wash?

Cities seem to be packed in quite tightly so optimising city space does not seem to be high on the priority list.

Very few workers out and about. Are they too expensive to maintain?

The road/mountain overlap issue (enough said). Snow capped mountains would be nice!

I don't much like the light green mushy forest/jungle or the overly sparse conifer forest gfx.

Trees in general seem to be very rare. Pre-industrial Europe and Northern America/Canada was massively forested.

July 13, 2001, 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
I do not understand how there can be irrigation in certain spots when there is not even any water source next to it.

The change from water to no water was made on CTP two this time around.
Firaxis maybe is doing the same.

Sabre2th · July 14, 2001, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944

The change from water to no water was made on CTP two this time around.
Firaxis maybe is doing the same.

I think it would be foolish to not have SOME kind of requirement. But, like I've been saying (over and over and over), it's too early to be making assumptions and drawing conclusions.