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!

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

perhaps I should re-install it!

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

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.

thank you, for your further replies, fellows!

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!

They were just two points i had thought of.

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-10-2000 02:52 AM 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.

Not correct. Oceans are not mearly depressions in the earths surface. Rather, the continents are bumps over the ocean surface. The rock that the ocean (not including continental shelf which is just continent underwater) is different to continental rock. I don't know if this will affect anything but there it is.

------------------
- Biddles

also, it's the first thread that deals with a terrain model, though noone replies to it. why doesn't anyone want to make proposals, eh?