 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
We aren't slowing the early game down... what we are suggesting here is that
- The relative difference in production between cities with productive tiles and those without, should be made smaller... I.E. grassland cities shouldn't be massively penalized
- Food (and fertile areas) should be more important in producing and maintaining Settlers
The intent certainly isn't to slow down the game. Average production will remain about the same... and Settler costs probably reduced (which might speed the game... slightly.)
The intent is to give added importance to early food. Right now its production which is key, pretty much throughout the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
*SNIP*
Grassland in such an amount is nearly impossible to find and never really existed. It was most of the times prarie converted to grassland, our good old irrigation systems  . The only area I could think of in RL would be either the area going from Germany over Poland to Russia, it was known as the corn-chamber of Europe before WWI. But again, it was normally humans changing it into this state.
*SNIP*
|
Erm... no?... Savanna, and (high) veldt would be two typical forms of natural grassland (and although you could artificially make a Savanna, the majority of that enviroment is naturally derived)... and there are other instances of grassland environments in floodplains, depending on the geologic specifics of the area.
quote:
From "The World's Biomes" from Berkeley(link)
Grasslands are characterized as lands dominated by grasses rather than large shrubs or trees. In the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, which spanned a period of about 25 million years, mountains rose in western North America and created a continental climate favorable to grasslands. Ancient forests declined and grasslands became widespread. Following the Pleistocene Ice Ages, grasslands expanded in range as hotter and drier climates prevailed worldwide. There are two main divisions of grasslands: (1) tropical grasslands, called savannas, and (2) temperate grasslands.
Savanna
Savanna is grassland with scattered individual trees. Savannas of one sort or another cover almost half the surface of Africa (about five million square miles, generally central Africa) and large areas of Australia, South America, and India. Climate is the most important factor in creating a savanna. Savannas are always found in warm or hot climates where the annual rainfall is from about 50.8 to 127 cm (20-50 inches) per year. It is crucial that the rainfall is concentrated in six or eight months of the year, followed by a long period of drought when fires can occur. If the rain were well distributed throughout the year, many such areas would become tropical forest. Savannas which result from climatic conditions are called climatic savannas. Savannas that are caused by soil conditions and that are not entirely maintained by fire are called edaphic savannas. These can occur on hills or ridges where the soil is shallow, or in valleys where clay soils become waterlogged in wet weather. A third type of savanna, known as derived savanna, is the result of people clearing forest land for cultivation. Farmers fell a tract of forest, burn the dead trees, and plant crops in the ashes for as long as the soil remains fertile. Then, the field is abandoned and, although forest trees may recolonize, grass takes over on the bare ground (succession), becoming luxuriant enough to burn within a year or so. In Africa, a heavy concentration of elephants in protected parkland have created a savanna by eating leaves and twigs and breaking off the branches, smashing the trunks and stripping the bark of trees. Elephants can convert a dense woodland into an open grassland in a short period of time. Annual fires then maintain the area as a savanna.
*SNIP*
The piece goes on to mention Temperate grassland, and Steppes as separate forms of natural grassland biomes.
|
Irrigation certainly isn't the only source of water in such environments... sepage, perenial flooding and rain (with rainforest and jungle typically being traps for this moisture) are typical method of natural water propagation.
So... I'd vote "No" to the change you mentioned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
To quote myself,
quote:
In Const.txt i changed UNIT_WORKDAY to 0.005 it was 0.015. |
I got that wrong. It WAS 0.15 (15% increments) and i changed it to 0.005 (0.5% increments), so the change was alot greater than i intended...
The city square was the main influence on the test anyway and Ill still need to test again when/if we have food support for settlers etc... but for now i am stuck for what to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
In the Miocene and Pliocene Epochs, which spanned a period of about 25 million years, mountains rose in western North America and created a continental climate favorable to grasslands. |
Let's see:
I think it is rather clear:
During this period, which covered 25 million years, mountins rose and created a climate for grassland. Meaning it happened before 'civilization'. Those two epochs are OVER!
That's how I understand it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Right... grassland environments have existed in North America for 25 million years. Humans didn't do massive irrigation to make grassland in the USA. They might have improved some existing grassland with irrigation and done farming there...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Right... grassland environments have existed in North America for 25 million years. Humans didn't do massive irrigation to make grassland in the USA. They might have improved some existing grassland with irrigation and done farming there... |
But when humans didn't do it (assumption, as it can't be proofed disproofed) it turned to 'plains'. Just a process we see/saw everywhere in the world. OK humans also increased this process, but America for this a good counter-example, as the Indians where living with the nature and not off the nature. Just the earth coming out of the last 'ice-age'.
If you take Egypt/Babylonians and those old cultures, they always had to preserve/irrigiate what they had to keep it in this stage. (not sure about China)
That was my idea behind not having grassland as a default, but just as a TI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Erm.. from personal experience, I'd have to say... "No".
The central US, where it isn't heavily populated, or currently farmed is grassland... I know this because I look out of the window occassionally when I fly over it.
There aren't enough significant lakes and reserviors to irrigate everywhere, but a large portion of the central US is filled with endless fields. Those work, because it is relatively warm, and rains every so often, in the US. The ice age warmed things up, making grass growth possible again... it didn't turn grassland in the US into plains.
The (west to central) southern US, however, does have more prairie (plains) due to the fact that it's got a drier, more arid climate... this is because it isn't in the shadow of the Rockies, which squeeze the moisure in weather systems into tight cloud formations, which release precipitation over the central and eastern US.
If it rains for 6-8 months, and has a relatively dry spell for the remainder, you'll get grass, on appropriately even ground.
There are lots of environments in the world that fulfill this.
You're also dramatically overestimating the degree to which human irrigation affected water in Egypt and the Gangees.
These areas sit in river deltas... both of those rivers annually flood, which distributes water over a wider area... which permeates the land, and spreads rich silt. Thats the reason why those areas are so fertile, and are grassland biomes.
Human irrigation is effectively a pinprick in comparison, until recently, where electric pumps have made controlled irrigation possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
How long has this area been grassland?
A lot of what we see nowadays has been brought into this state by us. I am not even sure if there is still some old grassland existing anymore.
quote:
You're also dramatically overestimating the degree to which human irrigation affected water in Egypt and the Gangees. |
I think you shall re-read espacially Egyptian history. They were only able to exist in this size because of the extensive irrigation they did. Or better to say, Egypt was createdable to expand to this size, because the farmers irrigiated.
The floods did help, but only for fertilisation, not for watering. This enabled them to have 2 seasons per year (missing the term for when you collect the stuff form the fields).
Similar goes for what is nowadays Iraq/Mesopotania. This has been green lands and nowadays a lot of it is desert, but defenitly not grassland anymore.
I know there have been plains with buffalo-grass existing in the US. But they were referred to as plains not grassland.
So again I would say, grassland perse doesn't exist for a long time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
That biome map shows plenty grassland and savanna, and savanna is classified as grassland. Therefore you've just posted something stating that grassland obviously exists.
As for the forest covering Europe... its because it would be forest, if the Europeans didn't chop it all down, and plant crops and or buildings all over it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Still all just supposition...
Show me a map, or scientific reference stating that grasslands are solely human derived... and I'll agree with you.
Everything I've read about grasslands says they are formed mainly due to climate... not human influence, except in large deforestation.
Give referential proof, Gilgamensch
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
Again:
I am not saying it doesn't exist.
All historic references/books/whatever are saying that wherever humans went, they irrigated since they climbed of the trees and changed from collectors to 'farmers'. This is where we are starting the game (actually a few thousand years after ~4000 BC, they started around 10.000 years ago)
Only people with better irrigation/farming was able to expand.
You agree?
So if it is like this, the idea of your grasslands isn't the same of history. The Biomes are just generalisations. Nothing else.
We use plains, did you see any reference for plains in the Biome-definition? No, they do not exist, so shall we remove them then from the game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gilgamensch
We use plains, did you see any reference for plains in the Biome-definition? No, they do not exist, so shall we remove them then from the game? |
Yes I did, actually... They are a subclass of Temperate Grassland... just a short variety... so technically theres no such thing as Plains. However, for our purposes, it's a useful terrain type to differentiate between high precipitation and low precipitation grassland.
http://www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLAS...ss/prairie.html
Short Grasslands occur where there are the same climatic conditions that taller grasslands exist, but have less precipitation.. typically only 10-12 inches.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
(and I think this stuff we're finding will be fabulous to assist in map generation)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
(and I think this stuff we're finding will be fabulous to assist in map generation)
not sure, it could be, at least there are some 'rules' in there.
But if plains are a subclass, shall we now get rid of plains?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
No... because its acceptable to model low and high precipitation grassland... they support different crop types. Low precipitation land is better for (e.g.) cattle grassing, and high precipitation better for (e.g.) thirsty crops, such as corn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
You create the continents... shift them, to create mountain ranges... create weather patterns, which will be altered by the mountains, hills and oceans to create more rain in certain places...
The places that have most rain would be Jungle (and swamp?), then next Forests, then grasslands then plains and lastly desert.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:33
|
|
would make sense, but how do you 'determine' wind paterns? Or shall we just assume it is from west to east (like in SMAC)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Yep (with one strong central flow over large bodies of water)... and I believe reversed near the equator, with a mirror image south of the equator.
I'm not an expert though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Also the doughnut map has the same composition with the poles and climates etc, surely it would be different? Same goes for Neptune map. Perhaps you could exclude the poles from random flat maps, make it feel like a small scenario, instead of trying to look like the whole world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
True... that climate would only exist for standard worlds
You'd not use it for flat maps.
I have no idea what you'd use for neptun and torus... since they won't really exist...
Last edited by MrBaggins on 20-02-2004 at 19:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:33
|
|
The major problem in this terrain discussion (esp. Plains vs Grassland) is that the current terrain types basically don't make much sense. The designers (and basically these are Sid Meier & co, since Activision just copied their system from Civ1/Civ2) mixed up several ways of viewing terrain in a very confusing and random way: elevation, soil type, climate and vegetation.
If you look only at elevation, you get terrain types like Mountains, Hills, Plains, Coastal (and then some sea terrains). (If you want to properly model real terrain there should probably be even several more terrains in between: High Mountains, Low Hills, High Plains, etc.) In Civ and CtP, other types like Forest, Swamp, Desert, Grassland, etc are simply implied to be similar to Plains.
If you look only at vegetation, you get terrain types like Jungle, Forest, Grassland, Plains, Desert, Swamp. In Civ and CtP, Hills and Mountains and the like are simply implied to have a certain standard type of vegetation (Mountains are bare, Hills are covered in grass, Coasts are bare beaches).
If you look only at climate, you get terrain types like Jungle, Desert, Tundra, etc. Common terrain types like Hills, Grassland, Plains, etc are simply implied to have a moderate climate (though at least CtP differientates in different types of Hills and Mountains).
Finally, if you look only at soil type, you get terrain types like Rocks (Hills/Mountains), Clay (Forest), Sand (Plains, Desert), Loess (Grassland, Swamp), etc. They're usually not represented directly in CtP and Civ, but are implied.
In the real world of course, these factors (and others) can be combined almost without limit to create hundreds of different types of terrain: you can have low and flat terrain with a clay soil, lightly forested and a mild climate: the terrain you'll find in the Netherlands. Or you can have the same terrain but with a hot climate and you have something you might find in a Mediterrean country, or (more accurately) Mesopotamia before climate change and deforestation turned much of it into desert. You could also have high hills/low mountains, rocky soil, hot climate and little to no vegetation: fits much of inland Turkey and Iran. Change the climate to cold and you get Siberia. Or change the vegetation to dense woodland and you find yourself in South-East Asia or Northern Italy, depending on the type of wood (and climate, since that's very much connected to vegetation of course).
I'm not saying we should model such a complex system in CtP (though they can be useful considerations for the map generator), but we should realize how random our current system basically is, and possibly consider adding a few more terrain types like Forested Hills, Flood Plains, Wooded Plains/Open Woodland, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-02-2004 20:37
|