Terrain Specific Civs

[UltraSonix]

Don't all scream at me if this has been posted before, but I thought that civs which specialise in living in certain terrains could be developed.

So it's a bit like in SMAC where the civs specilised in specific social enginnering areas, but instead we would have a desert civ, a civ adapted to living in mountains, civs that live in tundra/arctic. All these would get food/production bonuses in using their specialist terrain. This is very similar the Pirates faction in SMACrossfire, who were the only with the ability to build in deep sea areas.

I do realise that a normal map encompasses a wide range of terrain, but this touch would add a nice flavour to the game. Besides, it would allow the construction of scenarios based on a local region, like in the desert.

Terrain specific/specialist civs, together with civs that specialise in an area (eg research, war) would result in a huge variations in the game!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited May 23, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

That's not a bad idea.
I see it in this way: if after 500 (or more) years the terrain around your cities is at least 50% (or maybe 40 or 60, I don't know) the SAME terrain type, then you get a bonus for that type of terrain (food bonus, military bonus, etc). In the same way, if you don't have at all one kind of terrain, you receive some penalties later, if you expand in that terrain. (if you lived 1000 years in desert, it's pretty hard later to conquer a jungle surrounded city).
Let's take an example: if I am surrounded with mountains and hills, after 500 years I get +1 food and +25% military bonus in mountains and hills, but when I go to fight in grassland, I will have -25% penalties, because I don't know how to fight in open fields.
Or with a lot of see around, you got +1 movement, +1 food and +25% military bonus on see.
This idea could help our desire to have more differences between nations, not only the name and colour. (that's another discussion, but I would like to see some nation specific units, like in AoK).

[Urban Ranger]

The idea is good for creating neutral cities and nations, if these are to be implemented in Civ3. It seems a tad limiting for player controlled civs that are supposed to span continents
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 24, 2000).]

[Napoleon I]

Very interesting idea here. I agree that it would add to the uniqueness of each civilization and be helpful in developing scenarios. Also it has a nice side effect of somewhat limiting ICS because now it would be more difficult to players to spread out recklessly.

However, there is one concern that I would like to express. Civ series is supposed to let the player live out his or her own vision of the future that will not necessarily follow the historical model. If we implement many function such as this one some nations can gain a permament disadvantage and not be able to do anything about it. For example a nation starting out and developing in a dessert will eventually be unable to expand into the grasslands and will have to live out their destiny in the dessert with the associated disadvantages in the areas of food and energy production.

------------------
Napoleon I

[MidKnight Lament]

You're probably right. It is a nice idea, but starting positions are already so important that it might just be limiting.

Good idea about using it for minor civs though. That could work...

- MKL

[tniem]

Thought that with the release that Civ III would have some type of civ specifics that this idea deserved a bump.

[airdrik]

Good idea, though you could expand it to two good terrains and two bad terrains. The first good terrain gives all the bonuses that that terrain gives, and the second terrain gives only those bonuses associated with both the first and second terrains. Same thing for the bad terrains.

Ex: A civ is in the middle of the desert and near flatland. There are some spotty areas of grasslands and hills as well as the coastline in the distance. That civ's first good terrain is the desert, and it's second is the flatland since those are the closest and most abundant terrains. It's two bad terrains are forest and mountains since there are none of those arround.

Some of the bonuses associated with the desert are +1 move, +1 range (to ranged attacks) and +25% trade. That civ gains all three of these bonuses on desert. The bonuses for flatland are +1 move, +1 range, and +25% food. Since only the move and range bonuses apply to both terrains, those are the only two bonuses they gain on flatland.

The penalties associated for forest are -1 range to ranged weapons, -1 move and -25% trade, so those are the penalties that civ gets when in the forest. The penalties for the mountains are -1 range, -1 def and -25% trade. Since the only two penalties in common with forest are the range and trade penalties, those are the only two penalties they have for mountain.

[hHydro]

These ideas are interesting, but humans adapt pretty quickly. If this were to be done, it should only be relevant for the first age or two.

Our ability to adapt makes this kind of a moot point though. The early native americans who crossed over from Siberia adapted to North America just fine, as did the Europeans when they later came to the new world. Previously underdeveloped countries have been taught to irrigate and farm and human kind has gone just about everywhere there is to go on this planet, save the deepest trenches of the ocean or deep beneath the earth's crust (neither of these are likely places for your tribe of Visigoths to set up their next village. )

i agree. such specifications should only be relevant in ancient times and middle ages.

somewhere i started a thread about specific boni depending on the starting location
*digs, finds nothing*
[bruno kreisky rhetorics on]i don't find it but it's here, anywhere [bruno kreisky rhetorics off]
sorry, that was an "autolaugher", only austrians can understand this one...

i suggested that starting on the coast could make seafaring techs easier to achieve and makes ships a bit stronger, starting on plains eases horsing and archery techs and units, starting on a river gives some advantage in economical issues etc.

[airdrik]

how about the more time you spend near one terrain, near the beginning of the game, then the more resourses you can eventually extract from that terrain.

Ex. If you spend a lot of time near a desert then eventually you could extract more resources from a fully developed desert as you can from a fully developed grassland.
Or if you spend lots of time arround hills and mountains then you could quite easily generate more food from those areas than any grassland (terrace farming, more surface area to work with)

[DarkCloud]

If they are minor tribes this will work good.

------------------
Apolyton- The Book (Webpage and Topic Thread)
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum23/HTML/018747

Visit the Civgaming Network Forums:
http://www.civgaming.net

Visit Apolyton- The Book (The Website for the people of Apolyton)
http://home.att.net/~sjcfg/main.html

[The Mad Viking]

I disagree somewhat with airdrik and wernazuma.

I think UltraSonix idea is great.

If you look at difficult terrains- jungle, desert, tundra- the most advanced and adaptable peoples in the world still cannot compete against indigenouse ones, despite huge advantages in technology. We have to "terraform" their land.

Certainly, airdrik and wernazuma are correct that this is more pronounced at earlier ages. But for "bad" terrain, it really never goes away.

For human players who start as such, they would recognize the limitations and make the difficult transition to plains/grasslands. After a transition period, the terrain bonus/penalties would disappear. This mirrors what happened in history.

Of course if you fail to make the transition, you will not have an empire...

[airdrik]

How about, the first good and bad terrains never lose their bonuses/penalties, but the second good and bad terrains lose their bonuses/penalties as you take more territory.

[Mihai]

The idea is very good.
IMO that should make the starting position not that important. I mean a desert nation will have a big attack/defence/food/production bonus in desert, but they will freeze in tundra at once; and vice versa. A civ who start in a mountain region will grow very slow but it will be very hard to conquer - for Alexander the Great it was almoust equal difficult to defeat big armies in the plais as to defeat small tribes in the mountain.
And don't forgot the problems that US troops had in Vietnam jungle! Their hi-tech staff didn't help them as much as they expected.
I like the airdrik's idea of one first good/bad terrains that never lose their bonuses/penalties and the second good/bad terrains lose their bonuses/penalties as you take more different territory (or maybe with tech advances?)