Terrain model for Civilization III

TERRAIN MODEL FOR CIVILIZATION III - ANDZ83, VERSION 1.0

1. INTRODUCTION

OK, now this is my first post in the Civ3 General forum after ages of not posting here...

I think this topic has been discussed several times, but I can't find a thread in our thread list about it nor is there an active topic on this issue on page 1

2. THE HISTORY OF A GAMEPLAY FEATURE
For a start I want to show you my general thoughts on the issue. The terrain model we could find in Sid Meier's Civilization by MPS was a very badic one. We had plains, grasslands, forests, deserts etc, and even a whole terrain type called river. In those days this model was quite satisfying as Civ was the first game to actually deal with such matters. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Now in Civ2 we had two major improvements concerning the terrains directly: Rivers became a property of a map tile and were no longer a terrain type, and there were finally two instead of one special ressource goods possible for each terrain, the grassland terrain not counted (tell me, why is this terrain type not treated like a standard terrain type :confused . Another very nice improvement in Civ2 was the customisability of the game via editing the *.txt files, but that affected the terrain model only indirectly.

But between those two games there was another great MPS hit - Colonization. In this great game ( ) there were two types of rivers, different types of ocean squares and finally a certain amount of different basic terrain types, as well as an additional type of forest for each basic terrain. Now this idea was relly great and I do think we shouldn't forget it too fast.
I don't intend to talk about Civilization: Call to Power by Activision here, as this game is just a piece of crap and, in fact, still dealt with standard terrain type as in Civ2. But there was another successor of Civilization II - and that was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri by Firaxis. This game was the first Civ-related game with improved unit and government models, and here we coudl find some innovations in terrain models too: it was the firts time that the height of a terrain square did actually make a contribution to the gameplay. And after all we learned one thing - we can create as many different types as we want - flexibility and customisability are the only things that will stand forever! Let's say BAH! to static units, government types... and terrain types!
...

3. "NOW WHAT IS THAT GUY ON ABOUT?" - THE ACTUAL TERRAIN MODEL IDEA

...So my conclusion is: We don't need static numbers, values or even names for the different terrains! We need properties, characteristics to make all squares of a map be different terrains! And you know, there's no place on earth that has the same characteristics as any other !

The core idea is the following: There are several characteristics to be set for each single terrain tile of a map (Memory ), and the combination of different settings will then affect the productivity, the trade possibilites (no trade arrow production without real trade done!), food production or even the possibilities for a defending army to gain advantages of the terrain - what we call "defense bonus" since CIV!!!

I already collected some of those characteristics. For each ground square there should be a figure for:

Height (in m/ft)
Structure (plateau/unregular)
Humidity (in levels)
Soil Type (rocky, desert, etc.)
Intensity of Vegetation (in levels)
Type of Vegetation (grassland/savannah/forests etc.)
Zoological Population (in levels) (?)

For sea squares there are of course other characteristics to be considered:

Depth (of the water, in m/ft))
Seaground: soil type and structure (later game, don't make too much sense in ancient era )
Vegetation strength/type
Zool. Population strength/type (Whale/Fish etc. you know )

For ground and sea squares yet another important property: Resources. Is there coal to be found? Iron ore, gold, gems? If yes, how much of those resources can be found and consumed?
Agricultural aspects like the quality and quantity of wheat or crops in general can be grown there, are calculated of humidity, soil, height etc. Also, out of those figures, the resource production capability is calculated, although I do think that there should be a possibility to force the production values for scenarios.
There was also CLIMATE mentioned in threads before, but I think this should just be affected by geographical circumstances and not just written as a number into any rules.txt

So some of you might now say: hey, so we have to keep even more numbers in mind ! That's wrong however, as you just have to look at the tile/move the cursor there and then read the terrain name, just like "Fertile Hills" and then can figure out the appr. production of that tile... More information you can then get by reading the terrain informations more careful, and that's about it!

4. FINAL DESTINATION...

OK, I hope I won't be bombarded with links to older threads like this now

However, any comments, ideas and proposals welcomed! Just don't insult me, that's the only rule!

oh, and of course: no spam!

edit1: silly me, had to fix UBB code...
edit2: fixed more UBB... some people wanted to have it even easier to read...
[This message has been edited by Andz83 (edited November 09, 2000).]

oh, this must be the most intellectual post I ever made on these forums...

[airdrik]

I've often though about posting a similar thread, only not quite so much detail, namely each square has an average yearly temp(which you forgot to mention), amnt of vegitation (forest/grass/none), and elivation (that's all I had thought of as of yet).

You could also include a slope (under structure?), where the higher the slope the less likely it is that a unit will be able to pass through that square.
IDEA: the shape of the squares would depend on each of it's corners (each corner would have it's own elivation) in addition to the square (or center of). then you could have a mountain that the center is really high, but it's base is only a few feet from sea level, or a saddle between two mountains.

thank you!

in fact, elevation of a whole square is BS

but elevation of the CENTER of a square is cool!

and the corners and edges have the same elevation as the center of the certain adjacent squares!

YIPPIEEE!!!

bump

[DarkCloud]

Ocean squares should have depth and elevation as well.

A bump within 5 minutes after your last post Andz, how could you

[airdrik]

There are only two differences between ocean (or water) squares and land squares. One is the fact that there is water covering the water squares and air covering land squares. The other is that you would have different terrains on the ground of a water tile(or just one 'sea bed' terrain on the bottom of large bodies of water). Otherwise, in terms of elevation, you could have a sea level for every body of water, and the elevation of the bottom of that body at a certain tile is the depth of that tile plus the sea level of that body of water.

by airdrik's last post

I don't think we need the elevation of the seaground.. that's what you said, isn't it?


come on fellows... a bit more appreciation towards this thread, please. goddamn, why doesn't anyone ever reply to my threads?

must be my spammy rep

[airdrik]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying that ocean squares are land squares with water on them, thats all. In fact I think it's a great idea

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: come on fellows... a bit more appreciation towards this thread, please. goddamn, why doesn't anyone ever reply to my threads?

Sorry Andz, I didn't replayed because I think is a bit too complex model.

I need to understand terrain type with a glance to the main map, not crawling here and there with my mouse pointer.

Part of the model can be interesting just during map generation, if it can help, not inside gameplay, because of too many info you throw in.

I really would like to see more kind of "map seed", to have more different looks, and smoother change of terrain. I would also like to see a good earth map an some "geologically plausible" map of very joung earth (Pangea and the like), not because of full realism (mankind wasn't there, still), but because of "what if" feel I like it.

About elevation: I saw it used in SMAC, I think there it was only "half baked", but the concept should be implemented. Deep of ocean has more sense if in later part of game we can try to build undersea cities, otherwise is not very useful IMHO.

An enhancement about the climate model will be nice, but less useful than in SMAC: I don't think it will be realistic in Civ 3 to let player do main terrain modification.

Some dynamic change of map will be welcome, as forest expanding in SMAC, desertification of terrain, more visible effect of planet change because of human action (large production, city crowding, etc.)
By example, a long war fight in a region can temporary reduce food production (crop loss, excessive hunting, etc.), same for excessive fishing, etc.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

well, of course they could make the actual terrain details visible on the map tiles,

so that the player is able to see the general terrain properties on the map

and doesn't have to use his mouse pointer

and then, there's the micromanagament option which allows the player to check even more details of that square
goddamn, perhaps I should make a single thread about my level-based managment idea...

you raised some interesting points, airdrik, and so did Naismith.

so, has there actually ever been any thread about a terrain model?

[N35t0r]

Yeah, great idea...

vegetation/fertility/etc. could be worked out with the color of the tile. (much as the mountains in CTP)

oh... I always wondered what the colour of the mountains in CTP stood for....

perhaps I should re-install it!

thanks for your appreciation! any post made in this thread will give me the opportunity to reply and by that raise my post count AND bump this thread

Bow to me, fellows!

[N35t0r]

good, that's better.

[ColdWizard]

dump humidity and replace it with climate

hmm... I already said that climate should be affected geographically.... but sure, the humidity of a map tile is affected by the climate of that region... but though a player should be able to get information on the humidity (that is a product of climatic effects, ok)...

see the point? why totally ban it?

[ColdWizard]

humidity is part of climate so it should be listed under climatical information if its included

ok then... climatical information on terrain... and as it changes over the region, every tile has its own informations... as the humidity on that tile

I hope we two are still talking about the same thing... ?

[Dom Pedro II]

I like this terrain idea. If you think about it, if you strip everything and nature down passed the biological aspect, its nothing but rock, dirt, and sand. The only thing that makes one patch different from another is altitude and moisture. Therefore, the tiles should be built up from the skeleton of rock or sand using the factors Andz83 gave. Altitude and latitude would affect type and quantity of vegetation as well as animals as would the level of moisture.

SMAC had a primitive system of this, but it could certainly use improvement. I would like to take this new concept one step further. I say eliminate oceans as we now know them. The reason is that if you drain away the oceans, they are just depressions in the earth's surface. They should, therefore, be simply basins beneath sea level in the game. Water collects there. Thus you would not have ocean shelf or deep sea, it would just be negative altitude. And the depth determines vegetation (kelp) and animals like fish, whales, etc. Water would be able to appear at higher altitudes if the land around it is higher like with some mountain lakes.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

[Adm.Naismith]

Pedro, you are pointing on interesting problem

quote: Water would be able to appear at higher altitudes

SMAC hasn't the concept of internal sea / great lakes at different level than sea level. This was a problem when sea level raised or dropped because of various events (climate change and the like).

Netherlands as we know can't exist on SMAC model (Netherlanders here on Apolyton must protest about this, I suppose ).

In fact, I'm now asking myself if a more complex terrain model is needed in CIV 3 because of:
- better playability
- better simulation / feeling /realism added

With my link from human activities (AKA player decisions) to terrain effects I'm trying to answer myself, but may be isn't the right feeeling for others players out there. Let me know your opinion, please.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[airdrik]

Thanks, Pedro, for posting the idea of ocean just being water covering land. I've been trying to say that on this post, but it just didn't come out right.

I'm surprised that there are still people willing to post in this thread, after my slight fauxpas...

thank you, for your further replies, fellows!

airdrik - I noticed your point before, I was just too freaked by that to reply to it

[airdrik]

I think that all the topics of this thread have just about been dried up, there's hardly more to say, so stop bumping.
(I mean that in a good way though ).

well, there has still been no reply from a FIRAXIS official

[airdrik]

Well, I guess it's okay to bump it until they reply, but there really isn't much more to talk about.

a friend of mine just bumpered a Porsche

I hereby bump this thread, to make sure it's not only on page 1 but on its top, yeah

[N35t0r]

the problem with the negative altitude and stuff would be the vegetation change of everything when sea levels rise or drop.

and there are tides

I haven't ever seen such a spammer like you, HsFB!!!

you're even worse than me!

airdrik: maybe you're right! I should have made it a little worse and not as perfect as it is now... then there wouldbe more discussion here...

I'm too clever!

but seriously - the tides idea is a question for a climate model, not for the terrain squares themselves! also, the elevation of a terrain area is not the only factor that influences the vegetation!

also, I agree on what some people said, that there's just too many properties given in my version. perhaps some should make proposals on more ration al ideas, I don't know...