17-09-2000 04:58									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I am officially putting this model on hold. I will be concentrating in technology, population, and learning Java until after Demo 5 is completed.

Whenever I continue work on this model, it will probably include the map generator model (plate tectonics, terrain and resource placement, etc.) No one else is currently working on that and it already has a lot of overlap with the ecology model.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited September 16, 2000).]

	28-09-2000 07:01									#62
	Support Apolyton

Okay, my last post is now null and void. The ecology model has unexpectedly shifted from neutral directly to fifth gear and I won't be available to drive it due to real life commitments.

Most of the posted stuff is very out of date. FE F_Smith posted an excellent idea for treating crops like the rest of the vegetation and we should work that in. There is also a bunch of other stuff that has been discussed in the months since the last model came out. There are issues regarding rivers, disaster modeling, mapsquare modeling plans, and much more.

I have a feeling that the entire model will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (literally!). So you probably don't need to worry much about what is in my mythical version three. It is getting almost as dated as the current version.

So let's see if we have learned enough about communication to collectively build the revised model from scratch. Be original and don't feel like any of the existing stuff is set in stone. Consider my exiting stuff to be mere suggestions, with as much merit as your own. Nobody has really done an ecology model like this before, so we should be able to start without any preconcieved ideas of what should happen. Let's hear from everybody.

I hereby divest myself of all ownership of the Ecology Model! It now belongs to the entire team! Let the new ideas fly!

[/Ridiculous Melodrama Mode]

	01-10-2000 17:56									#63
	Tired of ads?

Well, I don't have any grand unifying plan at this point, but rather a couple of comments / bits of info assuming we base what we use on Richard's model.

1. We should try doing ecology on a square-by-square basis first. I have to take responsibility for pushing Richard into the ecological provinces idea in the first place to keep a lid on clock cycles used .
But I think that if the default model takes too much time when run square-by-square, we can trim it down and still keep the flavor the same.

A lot of the problems Richard and I had in docking this model and econ go away if you do ecology on a square basis.

2. Richard had a way in here to handle irrigation that is different from what I had in the econ model. In econ, irrigation was treated as just another capital expenditure on farming. For those familiar with the econ model, irrigation potential would boost the tech factor T above normal, allowing for additional investments that improved productivity. When the initial OO models in this area come out, I will check to see if they're consistent with what I think is the best way to handle this, and comment at that time.

	01-10-2000 22:11									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

There is a lot of Ecology discussion in the Mapsquare Class OO discussion thread. The core of our ecology model will most likely come out of that discussion.

	02-10-2000 01:15									#65
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think the basics of the ecology model are sound, but for the purpose of Demo5 I think we need a plan for a simple, maybe slightly modified version of Richards model.

I suggest we stick to having the ecology model influence the map at start-up, very much like what's being proposed in the OO Mapsquare thread:
Define climate zones
Implement NWR and PWR
Let the climate zones and water values affect output of individual squares

I think we should stick to a few terrain types (in said thread I suggested Deep Sea, Shallow Sea, Flatlands, Hills, Mountains, but your guess is as good as mine) and a few vegetation types (barren, grass, forrest, farmland, human habitation, same applies here). This gives 2 types of ocean squares and 15 types of land squares. Maybe even this is too many.

This way we could get a gametesting shot at some of the relations between the ecology model and the economical model

Next step (demo5.000001 )would be to implement rudimentary ocean current and wind systems, just to see how it works.

Later we could include dynamic ecological changes one-by-one

	05-10-2000 16:40									#66
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

LGJ and I have discussed some basic map graphics issues in the map graphics thread. I'll crosspost some of my ideas here, since it is very relevant to the ecology model. At present LGJ has not had an opportunity to respond, so blame it all on me.

Previously I assumed that ocean had to be a separate terain type, but thinking a little more about this, I realise that this completely ignores the state of the ground beneath the ocean. I think instead it should be something like this:

There are two different base terrains, with a number of different variations:
Landlike: Flat, hills, foothills, mountains
Oceanic floor: Flat, ridge, trench
The transition zone betwen the two is shown by a cliff (either at the squareedge or inside the square). This consitutes a separate terrain type.
Water is handled like any other ground cover: In theory all of the above can be either above ocean level, partially above ocean level, or below sea level.
Each square should then have a base altitude, sqAlt, above some arbitrary zero level. Each terrain (flat hills etc) should have a base average height, teHeight, above the sqAlt. The planet object should have a ocean level value relative to the zero level.
If oceanic level < sqAlt then the square is above water level, water ground cover = 0%
If sqAlt < oceanic level< sqAlt + teHeight then the square is partially covered with water, 0% < water ground cover < 100%
If sqAlt + teHeight < oceanic level then the square is below sea level, water ground cover = 100%

By giving ocean floor squares a base height 1500-2000 meters below actual ocean-level we ensure that they are effectively kept as ocean.

Thus the landlike terrain types with the lowest altitudes would be submerged, and handled like shallow sea. If ocean level changes varying amounts of squares will submerge/emerge fully or partially, hiding/revealing the terrain.
This way it would not be possible to have other types of grouncover in a completely covered ocean square, but I think this makes sense. Kelp would be modelled like a ressource, only affecting production, but neither movement nor combat.

Graphics wise we would have to design tiles for above, partially above and beneath sea level for each of the basic 8 terrain types. The beneath sea level ones are easy, but perhaps it would be nice to distinguish betwen the two major types of square (landlike and ocean floor) by having varying hues of blue. Actually we could have the blue colour darken with increasing depth as calculated by: Depth = Ocean level - sqAlt - teHeight. This would give a very beautifull map.

New ideas since the posting in the map graphics thread:
There's a possible exception to this: Polar icecaps. In a way they function very much like water, completely obscuring the underlying terain. The ice cover could be modelled exactly like water. A square could be above, partially above or below ice level, which would also be a Planet attribute, but modified by a local temperature/climate zone variable. Ice on the ocean would be represented by replacing the ocean with ice. This will neglect the fact that beneath the ice there's water, which could have minor setbacks regarding movement of naval vessels, and the influence on ocean currents. But if we simply handle an icecovered square with sqAlt + teHeight < ocean level like ocean anyway this should be solved (of course while taking care of the effects of ice).

Actually we could also have local variables affect 'ocean'-level, reflecting the fact that FE the great lakes have a water level somewhat above the level of the Atlantic. These effect would however be minor, and would probably only be included becasue it would give a nice symmetrical design.

The modelling of water/ice this way will also allow for slow changes in underlying terrain. In coastal areas hills that are partially submerged by rising water-level can gradually loose teHeight, disappearing completely. Mountains covered in ice can gradually loose height and become more like foothills.

[This message has been edited by Beör (edited October 05, 2000).]

	05-10-2000 20:23									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sounds good. I like the idea. But we need to distinguish between surface movement and submerged movement. Kelp can impact the movement and combat of submarines. And when the player starts building undersea colonies, they should be able to interact with the ocean like they could with land.

	11-04-2001 20:08									#68
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Gaining land from the sea is such a good idea.. as dutchmen i would really love to see it. Just the dike as square improvement is a good idea

	17-04-2001 13:54									#69
	Suffering from ads?

Hi guys,

This is a new ecology proposal. It builds upon Richard's model, of course: that was pretty good, but needed to be integrated IMHO. The new model is a simplification, it also has less subsystems (like the difference between water quality and soil/land value). It might be an oversimplification and all sorts of other things might be wrong, but I leave it to you to judge. Please ask questions.

GENERAL
-------
Each map square's ecology is basically described by three numbers:

* Terrain: Basin, Flat, Rolling, Hills, Mountainous
Climate: Arctic, Sub-Arctic, Cold Temperate, Warm Temperate, Sub-Tropical, * Tropical; Ice Cap, Ocean, Sea, Lake
* Vegetation: Wasteland, Desert, Low Cover, High Cover, Light Fores, Forest, Climax Forest

5*10*7=350 combinations, some of which will be impossible. Most will be very rare.


MAP GENERATION
--------------
The map generator generates in order:

1) Height and geological specials
2) Terrain
3) Streams and sources
4) Ocean currents and Wind currents
5) Climatic zones
6) Potential Biomass (PBM) and Vegetation
7) Ecological provinces and Specials


1) Height and specials: as determined by tectonics and other geological processes: see map generator model. Geological specials, like volcanoes and geisers, ought to be generated there also.


2) Terrain

Basin: Depressions in the landscape. Only these squares can possibly become wetlands or lakes.
Flat
Rolling
Hills
Mountains

Guidelines: We need erosion rules!
75% of Earth is below 1000m.
Everything from 200m to -200m is probably flat.
Everything from 200m to 1000m is probably rolling.
Everything from 1000m to 3000m is probably hilly.
Everything above 3000m is probably mountainous.
Rivers erode their surroundings.


3) Streams and sources

Once a source is determined, the river flows downwards via the lowest possible route. The volume/turn is not much in the first square, and increases lineary until a basin (big enough, if the river will continue flowing) or sea/ocean is reached (we might put a limit on ). Rivers reaching the Ice cap become glaciers = ice covered terrain, so effectively they just stop.

Volume/turn is important for water mills and for water use in general for industry, farming, etc. Only a certain fraction (depending on the climate) of the water that is used returns to the river and it will be polluted/ carry disease/.. depending on the particular use.

The terrain of the squares the river flows through becomes on level less rough (fe hills->rolling). If the river meets another, then its volume/turn is added to the second river downstream. The first river stops there (in the second river). If a river meets itself, it forms a BIG lake or sea.

Sources don't need to be generated apart from rivers, because they are common enough to take a statistic mean. In deserts a source forms an oasis, and in basins a lake, but there they don't form a river.

Waterfalls: if they have a function (fe hindering navigability), put them in Mountain and (possibly) Hill terrain, or when the previous river square was much higher.

Navigability: Putting all navigable streams on the map can turn out to be too ambitious. In spite of that I think that is the minimum we should go for. Non-navigable rivers are so common, we simply can't include them. Their impact on fishing and water availability is also usually small enough to ignore them or handle it statistically (like sources).

Fishing and Farming: see below


4) Ocean currents and Wind currents

These currents are generated randomly. Guidelines:

Ocean currents:
On the southern half of the planet the ocean currents go from west to east (at appr. 40° latitude) and turn northwards. On the Northern half it's mirrored, but it isn't as clear there because the land masses are in the way. (coriolis effect)
Their starting point determines their temperature. Their lenght determines their force and hence their influence on the land temperature.

Wind currents:
Many of them go from the poles to the equator. They are more random than ocean currents.
Their starting point determines their temperature. Their lenght determines their force and hence their influence on the land temperature.
The 40°'s latitude (on both hemispheres) are called the 'roaring forties'(coriolis effect).


5) Climatic zone

A Arctic: pole-70°
SA Sub-Arctic: 70°-50°
CT Cool Temperate:50°-40°
WT Warm Temperate:40°-30°
ST Sub-Tropical:30°-15°
T Tropical:15°-equator

These zones are determined by latitude. They are modified by altitude (every 111m above sea level = 1 square colder) and nearby ocean currents (warm currents = warmer, cold currents = colder land).

In addition, their are climates for water-covered squares:
If these squares become uncovered, they are assigned a climate normally.

I Ice cap: Arctic squares are automatically ice-covered. It depends on their height wether they are land squares or ocean squares when the ice is removed.
O Ocean : Salt water-covered squares that are not on the continental shelf (-200 below sea level, usually).
S Sea : Salt water-covered squares that are on the continental shelf or for inland seas.
L Lake : Fresh water-covered squares. They can be at any height above sea level, but only in basin/wetland squares.

Note: If we use a cilindrical map, we could use the proportions 15-15-10-10-10-10 (or even 15-15-10-10-5-5) squares from Arctic to Tropical instead of 15-15-10-10-20-20 as indicated by the division in degrees, to correct the deformation.


6) Potential Biomass (PBM) an Biomass (BM)

Potential Biomass means the amount of vegetation a given piece of land could support.
It is a hybrid of the previous soil, water quality, NWR, PWR and farm sites in the 2.0 model. I put them together because so much things that affect soil, also affect water and farming. The exact values of the PBM and BM can be adapted to the kind of numbers that are needed by the other models, especially the economy model.

To generate the PBM, we need three things:

* Climate: already assigned, represents temperature
* Moisture: use a temporary value. It is determined by
-- Rivers : the squares with a river are much moister, those adjacent very little (eg. Nile), according to volume water/year.
-- Water currents: warm currents cause more evaporation, the condensation causes preciptiation. Cold water causes less evaporation.
-- Air currents: rain shadows
-- Climate: atmospheric convection cycles: T: large bonus, CT, SA: small bonus, WT: no bonus, A: small penalty, ST: large penalty
* Terrain: already assigned: rougher terrain means smaller PBM

The PBM in Arctic and Sub-Artic climate is limited by temperature.
The PBM in other climates is limited by moisture.
The PBM in water-covered climates is rather uniform.

***Regeneration
The game starts with the Biomass of each square equal to the PBM. Every turn if BM < PBM then the BM goes up with a small amount (relative or absolute). This amount can vary, fe in a Tropical climate this amount could be +4 to represent the fast growing and total cycle of Biomass in those climates. Or it could be dropped in this case, since these climates are evergreen.

In seasonal turns (see also Fishing and Farming): (example: Cold Temperate)

Spring--- (+2 BM, up to PBM)
Summer--- +2 BM, regeneration from winter decrease in BM
Autumn---
Winter--- -2 BM

Vegetation types.

Wasteland (nothing)
Desert (scattered)
Low Cover (grass, low herbs, creeping vegetation)
High Cover (long grass, herbs, bushes, small trees)
Light Forest (savannah, partly deforested area)
Forest (fully covered with trees)
Climax Forest (very complex and ancient ecosystems, fe rain forest)

These types might be renamed for use in water-covered Terrain (fe cover=krill, forest=kelp, climax = reef).

This depends on the BM. We have two options:
1) a certain BM equals a certain degree of vegetation, fe 35 BM is always Forest.
2) a certain ratio of BM/PBM equals a degree of vegetation

Of course some climatic zones and terrains are exempt from having a certain vegetation type, for example no trees on the Arctic Ice Cap (nothing more than desert is possible there).
No Climax Forest in the Sub-Arctic. Taiga=Forest

(You can find a potential biomap, besides other climate maps at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/...te/EIsp0002.htm
There are also many good maps at: http://www-cger.nies.go.jp/grid-j/griddl.html


7)Ecological provinces and specials

Areas with the generally the same terrain, climate and vegetation become ecological provinces. These are treated as a single entity for ecological changes.

Lakes and seas are automatically one separate ecological province per entity. Rivers should also form a province apart, because the water animals have nothing to do with the surrounding terrain. Imagine an ecological province that includes the Nile and a piece of the Sahara.

Ecological provinces don't need to be in one piece. If you have five mountains separated by one square of lower terrain (with other vegetation), making them five separate ecological provinces does no good. They should be within a certain distance, however.

Important species are each (or not all of them, or maybe more) randomly assigned at the start of the game to one (or more) ecological provinces with the appropiate climate, terrain and vegetation (fe no horses in woods, or dromedaries in sub-artic forested hills). This indicates wether the animal is native in that region. If they're domesticated, they're treated as infrastructure. They automatically spread to an adjacent eco-province if it is of suitable climate, terrain and vegetation (check if provinces change or once every century). Also, they can be spread by humans (mustangs), intentionally or unintentionally (rats).

The same goes for plants, but ecological provinces can also be very well suited for the cultivation of a certain species (as a special). The species doesn't need to be native to the region, but the climate etc. must be suitable.

Reefs only in Sub-Tropical or warmer climate.
Wine and palms only in Warm Temperate or warmer.
Cereals only in Cold Temperate or warmer.
Krill and kelp only in Sub-Artic or warmer.

Some important species:
rats (spread of diseases, damage vulnerable ecosystems, eat supplies), cats, dogs
cotton, silkworm, sheep, flax, rubber, hardwood, fur animals
spices, sugar cane, coffee, tea, tobacco, cocoa; olives, figs, dates, wine, bananas, peanuts
horse, camel (cold deserts), dromedary (hot deserts), donkey (mules are infertile crossbreeds)
cereals, maize, potatoes, rice; onions, beans, soya beans, peas, lentils

Tribes and ecological provinces

When farming started, the human population was 6,000,000 and appr. 90% of the land mass was inhabited by humans. 6,000,000 people / 0.9*0.3*510,066,000 km˛ = a population of 435 people/10,000 km˛.
In The Beginning each inhabited eco-province would have its own tribe, accustomed to the climate, food and with appropriate customs to sustain themselves in that province. For example, a tribe in a hilly forest might be hunter-gatherers, while a tribe on the low-covered plains might be herders, driving around their herd; a tribe in a river ecological province might already be settled and farm minimally. Such a tribe has at most one center that is more densely populated then the average and is centre of the authority in the tribe. Those tribes might develop into civilizations at any time; they can also remain tribal, which is what most will do (until they are forced to modernize in some imperialist's empire).

On an earth-sized planet there will be appr. 13,771 squares inhabited. I suggest ecological provinces AS BIG AS POSSIBLE to keep them to a reasonable number to start with. An average size of 200 squares would give appr. 75 provinces on land mass, 25 provinces in oceans, seas, etc.

If civilizations grow beyond tribal structures, they will divide their territory into provinces. If such a province doesn't match an existing ecological province, the ecological province is simply divided into two parts: one outside and one inside the human province. They then form two separate provinces, that are checked separately for changes, since one suffers (most likely) from human influence, and the others doesn't.


EXPLOITATION
------------
Farming and Fishing essentially force the ecosystem to turn part of its Biomass into products usable by humans.

Farming is impossible in certain Terrain : Mountains, Hills (except with terracing)
Farming is impossible in certain Climates : Arctic, limited in Sub-Arctic
Farming is impossible in certain Vegetation types: Wasteland, Desert, Forest, Climax Forest

example: Cold Temperate, cycles:2 BM, regeneration: 2 BM, BM 35/48 PBM

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor: 1) = 36
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4* (farming tech factor: 1)) = 32.
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 32 + 2 = 34.

This method of farming will of course exhaust the ecosystem/fields rapidly. Another method of farming consists of farming only half of the fields, while leaving the other half fallow.

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 0.5) = 18
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 0.5)) = 34
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

This method of course has decreased yields, but they remain constant.

In seasons:

---------ECOLOGY-----FARMING/FISHING
------------------------------------
Spring--- +2 BM------Sowing---------
Summer--- +2 BM------Maintain Fields
Autumn---------------Harvest: -4 *(farming tech factor) BM
Winter--- -2 BM---------------------
------------------------------------

Another method is: 1/3 field summer grain, 1/3 fields winter grain, 1/3 fallow + cattle.
The varied cultures on the fields and the manure of the cattle (which is partly fed by the winter grain) reduces the need for the soil to recover. Tech factor: 2/3

Modern farming methods would have a farming tech factor of 20 or something, due to the use of pesticides, genetic engineering, very good tools, mechanization etc.


Rivers and irrigation.

So, what's the benefit of rivers in this system? A river adds a certain amount (depending on volume/year) to the regeneration of the BM each year. FE, a Cold Temperate climate square with a river on it gets +3 or +4 regeneration instead of the normal 2, due to the nutrients in the silt.
Furthermore, a river always increases the humidity of the squares it is on and consequently the PBM. Irrigation also increases humidity, except that it is a human-induced change (a terrain improvement), but the river (or a canal) only needs to be adjacent, not right on the square.

Fishing
Sea Fishing works exactly the same. The marine BM gets +1 regeneration if it is on the continental shelf (due to the nutrients washing off the land) and +2 or even +3 nearby a river mouth.
River Fishing can be treated as farming.

Hunting
Normally, farmers are supposed to supply their diet by doing a little hunting. The Ecosystem can support this. However, when they have advanced farming methods and produce their own meat, they no longer have time for hunting. But the animals eat grass and the expanded settlements need space, so its just the same for the Ecosystem.

Intensive hunting
This is usually done by commercial hunters. They can hunt a special of fur animals, or of especially abundant or easy to catch birds (dodo) until it disappears (usually within a few years). They can also intensively hunt a terrain for meat, furs, ivory,.. . The PBM is then decreases a certain number, and intensive hunting is then impossible. The specials could be exploited for a longer time, but only -very- carefully.
(examples: Bizon, many North American fur animals).


MISCELLANY
----------
-If you want to know if it snows on a square (fe alpine troops): 35° latitude is the snow limit. If it has a wet climate, then there's snow. From 70° to the pole is permafrost. From 80° to the pole is alway ice-covered. Depending on the exact position between, you could figure out in which months or seasons there's snow.

-Groundwater reserves: They are no part of the ecosystem and are therefore treated as mineral reserves. A realistic amount of regeneration of the reserves would be barely distinguishable, so if they're used, they're gone (unless they're used very carefully, just like huntable specials)
I suggest to assign the groundwater reserve to an ecological province as a whole. This simulates the huge underground streams and lakes that are stretched over great distances. Groundwater level might be a percentage of the total heigth of the terrain, so it is easy to reach in lowlands and difficult to reach in highlands.

-My next post will handle pollution.

	17-04-2001 22:00									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wow, Simon good stuff! I've only been able to give it a cursory read, and only have a few minutes, so I can only comment on a general level.

I think some things are a bit too complicated, I'll elaborate later. But you probably already knew that . Also, the idea of ecological provinces might be obsolete with the new architecture. For right now I'm doing the economy at the map square level, and so the ecology model should be done there also. If we need to, we will agregate up levels (FE to province) later. But this model is not very computationally expensive after the world is set up, at least as far as I get from my quick read.

On the agricultural productivity stuff, if the new model is accepted, you'd have to give me info in terms of sites. The whole production model is built around that concept, so your inputs would need to be put in that context. But that shouldn't be difficult. If needed we can turn the production function inside out to see what the number of sites should be for a given level of productivity.

What does everyone else think on the model?

	18-04-2001 04:25									#71
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

This looks good overall. Thanks for taking it on.

A few comments:

I don't think that water type should be listed as a climate. It seems like you have all ocean squares defined in the same climate, and this doesn't make sense. There can be a big difference between oceans at the equator and ones neat the arctic. Can we have Ocean and Lake be classified as terrain, and then assign then to climate zones like everything else? I'd recommend:

• Terrain: Basin, Flat, Rolling, Hills, Mountainous, Ocean, Sea, Lake
  
• Climate: Arctic, Sub-Arctic, Cold Temperate, Warm Temperate, Sub-Tropical, Tropical
  
• Vegetation: Ice Cap, Wasteland, Desert, Low Cover, High Cover, Light Forest, Forest, Climax Forest
  

quote: I suggest ecological provinces AS BIG AS POSSIBLE to keep them to a reasonable number to start with.

We were planning on dealing with this by making vast provinces in places like the Sahara and much smaller ones in places like Europe. The sahars can be two or three provinces, while places like Europe need to have a lot more. But that may be a moot point if we don't use provinces.

We may decide to have rivers run between squares instead of through them. Keep this in mind when dealing with their effects.

	18-04-2001 14:18									#72
	Suffering from ads?

Thanks for the comments.

The rivers probably are the most complicated, they require rather much bookkeeping. If they will be placed between tiles, their turns will always be 90°. Also, many cities were created on rivers, due to trading opportunities and water supply. If they are between tiles, a river can never run through a city, or the cities should be able to occupy multiple squares (10,000 km˛) fairly early in the game. However, in that case the river will give adjacent squares at both sides a bonus to PBM due to silt. The PBM can (possibly) be further increased by irrigation. Note that irrigating a square with a PBM able to support light forest or higher vegetation will cause an increase in PBM, but farming will not benefit from that because vegetables, cereals or orchards are considered Low cover, High Cover and Light Forest. Other vegetation types can't support farming (because the trees are in the way or the crops don't grow in deserts), with possible exceptions like rubber trees. Farming consequently needs a suitable ecosystem, which forces humans to adapt it to their needs.

Eco-provinces are not really needed in game, their biggest importance is regulating the spread of species and climates when the map is generated.
Everything that happens with an eco-province can also happen with a map square if desired. However, most properties of and effects on provinces have a large area of effect, so they should affect multiple squares at once. FE 'native' animals (this just means an animal lives there in the wild, by the way), soil suitable for a specific crop (if the province disappears or changes greatly, the suitability also vanishes).

Also, the unifying factors for an ecological province are PBM and Climate. So a eco-province able to support forest could be deforestated and still remain intact in the process. Deforestation on that scale, however, would certainly reduce the PBM (of the squares), so the forest might or might not be able to regrow spontaneously; the province is not needed in any way, unless some areas are more gravely affected than others. Then it could split.

When an ecological and an economic province overlap, nothing happens at first. Only when the PBM is influenced (=permanent effect) by the humans, the provinces split: one influenced part, within the economic province and one part outside.

For PBM, I was thinking for minimum 160 for climax forest: it would then take 160 years to grow in a suitable area.

Wasteland-----0 to 5
Desert--------5 to 10
Low Cover-----10 to 20
High Cover----20 to 40
Light Forest--40 to 80
Forest--------80 to 160
Climax Forest-160 to 320

Ice Cap: I consider this desert on ocean and wasteland on land (but I believe you mentioned in this or another thread, Richard, that there was vegetation in the middle of Greenland: if so, it would also be desert or low cover.) The ecosystem on ice is very different, however: it could be considered a particular vegetation level.

I put ice, ocean, sea and lake on the climate list not because they are separate climates, but because water temperature is rather stable and the differences are not that big. There are huge krill concentrations at 40°, kelp at 20° and reefs in the tropics. I was considering them specials in large areas. These specials would then boost the PBM.

I didn't put the water types on the terrain list because that way, you can't have water(or ice)-covered mountains, basins, etc. When such a square is uncovered due to dropping sea levels, rising land mass or installing a dike, the terrain is already there and in tune with its proximity. The land PBM could be based on the sea PBM.

The water squares certainly must have an adjustment to PBM for latitude, since hotter areas have richer aquatic ecosystems.

Maximum vegetation levels for climate and water zones:
Sub-Arctic: Forest
Arctic: Low Cover
Ice: Desert
Ocean: 'High Cover'*
Sea: 'Forest'*
Lake: no limit

*These are abstractions, of course: trees don't grow on the water, but it's the same level of vegetation, not the type).
Note that ecosystems in the middle of the ocean are not particularly rich: coastal areas are the richest due to solar light that reaches the bottom and nutrients from the land.

Maximum vegetation levels for terrain:
Hills: forest
Mountain: light forest

This post is almost as long as the previous one.
[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 18, 2001).]

	18-04-2001 14:34									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

I just had an idea about wetlands!
They are essentially one-square rivers (only a source).

Every basin has a chance to become a wetland, that decreases in drier climates. Every wetland has a chance to become the starting point for a river. River reduce the roughness of the terrain by 1 category, so when a river runs through flats it creates basins and those basins might become wetlands.
Wetlands in desert are oases (places with a higher PBM due to more moisture), so oases don't need to be a special, only exceptional.

I think this makes the model more integrated.
[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 18, 2001).]

	18-04-2001 15:08									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm being silly, but...
What is the difference between ocean and sea? Do you mean open water and coastal water?

	18-04-2001 16:03									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Exactly. Ocean means deep, open sea. Sea could be either an inland sea of limited depth or coastal sea on the continental shelf. Both of these are salt water. Lake has fresh water.

If made a differentiated these types because the PBM and the type of ecology is different in these groups.

Silly questions don't exist, only silly answers .

	19-04-2001 04:00									#77
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Uh, I would really not like to get into lots of detail on animal species as we have discussed many months ago. At least I think we need to keep the realism in check in this area. My proposal is we only worry about species that are specials in the econ model and have clear economic uses. I think the player will get rather little out of the rest. Evolution of things like draft animals can I believe be adequately handled in the tech model, using Techs like Draft Animals. Its simple and already has code to support it.

Everything in the models should be able to answer the question "Will the player derive fun from this aspect of the model?" with yes. If we take the 'complete world simulator' route we will never get to a game IMO.

	19-04-2001 18:30									#78
	Inflate your Upload Space

LGJ:

'Wetlands can occur on flat land if they are sea level. Florida is a very good example of this. As is Louisiana to a lesser extent (well before the levees were put in).'

I was thinking of 'basin' as a depression in the landscape, so if a basin was near an ocean or other wet square it would become wetland. FE The terrain gained from the sea by the Dutch (up till now) would be considered basin.

'Also i think you should add into the specials trenches for both oceans and inland.'

Here also I thought basin might cover this. But it could as well be put in the specials if that's more practical.

'One thing to add to this is that often rivers in deserts may disappear before they ever reach the coast or form a lake. Also many rivers go underground.'

Surely. Where they go underground they would add to the ground water reserves.

Since wet terrain seems problematic, if propose another categorisation.

Terrain: (Trench?,) Basin, Flat, Rolling, Hilly, Mountainous
Climate: A, SA, CT, WT, ST, T
Vegetation: W, D(also ice desert?), LC, HC, LF, F, CF
+
Water: Ice, Ocean, Sea, Lake, River, Source/Wetland

If there's much water in the terrain, one of these is applies.

'Don't know if you were going to put this here, but pollution and human habitation should impact this.'

Basically, permanent damage means adjust the PBM, temporary damage means adjust the BM. I have sketched out pollution and will post it. I don't know when, since the barbarian Deadlines are heading for my border and I have to stop them before letting myself in with the more pleasant aspects of civilized life .

'Insects should be added, but also how are we going to deal with evolution of new animals/plants. I don't want to do much, but even within human history there have been new species created, or maybe you could say sub-species moreso (Dogs and Cattle and some plants being the only truly new species).'

Farming is impossible in certain Climates : Arctic, limited in Sub-Arctic
Farming is impossible in certain Vegetation types: Wasteland, Desert, Forest, Climax Forest
[/QUOTE]
Ok the last two are wrong in some cases.

'In the summer, sub-artic can grow some of the biggest crops in the world if its in the polar regions, of course that is only for 2-4 months.'

I meant the average production for a year.

'Farming is possible in Deserts and Forests (atleast rainforest). Deserts if there is irrigation are among the best places for farming because the nutrients there don't get used up.'

Well, if desert squares are irrigated, the PBM goes up, and then they are able to support more vegetation (exactly how much depending on the circumstances).

'As to the rainforest, many natives in Brazil are semi-nomadic and do some farming there, but it is not standard western farming. In fact, many S.A. countries a pursuing this avenue because it can be used much longer than the traditional method of farming.'

I thought mainly of the classic intensive farming methods. Those tribes use other food production 'technology' in game terms, with less limits to terrain but probably also less productive.

'Should add fishing to this.'

Fishing has been proven to be more sustainable than hunting. Most likely because fish doesn't share living space with humans like land animals. Maybe hunting and fishing need a variable in the production equation that shows how much % of the land is still usable as habitat for the species.
You can go out hunting in a city but it won't be worth the effort .

	19-04-2001 20:02									#79
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Mark:

Those species are specials of provinces, they can be left out without causing problems.

	25-04-2001 03:42									#82
	Suffering from ads?

This is both to Mark and to Simon, but on differnent points:

First to mark: Is there anyway you can seperate out from the econ model just the agricultural section and post it somewhere?

To Simon: Another thing that is important with reguards to farming is that certain crops either enrich or deplete the soil. This is very imporatant and right now I can see no way around atleast doing some kind of different crops used because of this. Even with fertilizer, there is only so many years you can farm before a feild cannot produce and becomes a desert, yet the year before you could have had a descent harvest if you used fertilizer.

	27-04-2001 15:24									#84
	Support Apolyton

LGJ: I thought different farming methods also included different crops. FE the three-field system uses 2/3 of the land instead of 1/2 because the crops are different in that system, and deplete different nutrients. Exactly what crops are used is less important, since a moderately good set of crops was/is probably available everywhere. They will be inevitably be different in different climates anyway.

Maybe this can work:
BM * (farming method factor) = number of sites ?

Pollution coming within a few days, I just had a test week at the univ.

	27-04-2001 16:44									#85
	Remove this text

Hi Simon:

I think your site numbers may come out a bit high using the exact equation you have, but I think you're getting close! I'll copy a post from earlier in this thread here so its convenient for you to use. Its from my post of June 3 2000 if you want the context.

quote: Some numbers for sites... I think I've already given numbers for this in the discussions above. For the record (and this may change with playtesting) a lousy square (desert, tundra...) might have one agricultural site, steppe might have a few, rainfall agriculture-type squares would probably range from 5 to 20, and vastly productive agricultural lands like ancient Egypt might have something like 50 sites per square along the Nile. Irrigated desert agriculture poses a bit of a problem, since unless the irrigation is there, the lands almost useless. So I think we might need a special case to handle such lands. But for demo 5 I think we can't ignore the distinction and see how the system works in general. The rule of thumb is there should be as many sites as ancient agrictulture could support population over the area of the square. So if on average a square in China supported 30K people, then there should be 30 sites. The exception is lands where heavy investments in irrigation are required. There I would cut the pop number by 2/3 or so since the investments in irrigation will increase the yield above the usual amount just given the sites. Hope this is what you need... For resources I would just wing it for now. Sites will usually be in the range from 1-10.

	28-04-2001 00:53									#86
	Got spare money?

Simon:

What you say is generally true, however, with the use of fertilizar, esp. industrial fertilizer many farmers would farm only 1 type of crop because its price was so high. Tobacco was an example of this and it depletes the soil rather quickly.

	28-04-2001 18:47									#87
	Put an end to popups!

POLLUTION .
___________

Pollution is linked to resource extraction, production and consumption. The severity of the effects depends on the particular source of pollution. Basically, permanent damage is a penalty to the PBM while temporary damage is a penalty to the BM. The effects can be random, since pollution often has unexpected results. The environmental damage is always an instantaneous event. The recovery is handled with the normal ecology rules (BM regeneration).

See also disaster model. Toubabo_Koomi, can you comment?

There are three types of polllution: Gaseous, Liquid and Solid.

1. Gaseous
----------
- local effects: Large quantities of exhaust fumes and industrial pollution from smokestacks cause diseases, damage to infrastructure (soot) and acid rain.

- range effects: Part of the acid rain also occurs following any local wind current. If there is no wind, this part also occurs locally.

- global effects: All air pollution is recorded. If the total exceeds a certain fraction of the atmospheric volume, global warming may occur (possibly delayed). Also everywhere the chance to acquire cancer increases.

2. Liquid
---------
- Liquid pollution on land, ice and in wetlands is treated as solid pollution, except in wetlands that are the starting point of a river.

- river, source: If a square containing a river is polluted, next turn all squares downstream suffer.
(How much? 3 options: 1) total pollution / nr of river squares, 2) every square suffers from the total amount, 3) the effects decrease gradually downstream. The pollution ends up in a lake, sea or ocean and is processed as described below.)

- ocean, sea, lake: Immediate effects may occur. Apart from that, total pollution is recorded for each separate eco-province of water. If the total volume exceeds a certain fraction (based on PBM), permanent damage to the whole province occurs.

- If the all oceanic pollution exceeds a certain fraction (based on PBM) of the total oceanic volume, worldwide damage to the oceans could occur (massive fish starvation etc.).

3. Solid
--------
- Burned solid pollution is treated as gaseous pollution.

- Leaking solid pollution is treated as liquid pollution.

- Solid pollution causes immediate local temporary effects. It is also stored as a special and will do damage again with intervals, decreasing in amount each time until removed, recycled or depleted. (Alternately, it's also possible to have it cause permanent damage just once and disappear, as a simplified rule)

4. Special types
----------------
- Acid Rain: BM penalty; possibly PBM penalty; infrastructure damage (especially historical buildings made of limestone)

- Nuclear Explosion: BM=0; PBM reduced to 1/10 of its original value; the square now has a special: Radioactive Elements: decrease pop. growth, increase mortality rate (because of various cancers)

- Global Warming: adjust climatic zones according to chosen theory; re-generate ocean and wind currents and make appropriate adjustments.

- Volcano: The terrain of the square becomes mountainous; a Volcano geo-special is created; the BM is reduced to 0 and the BMP to desert or low cover at maximum; air pollution occurs.
Note that this is a very big volcano, one that affects 10,000 km˛; we might leave it out or adjust its effects downwards.


ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION.
___________________________

- Draining: reduces PBM a little and halves BM. However, the water disappears and the square becomes ordinary dry land as long as the draining is maintained. It still has its previous BM (up to its new PBM) and possibly still needs to be deforested to be suitable for farming

- Deforestation: reduces the BM to the level desired. Possibly reduces the PBM (erosion). Chance for this to happen, this is (BM reduction+ possible increase)/PBM, rises if the climate makes the soil vulnerable due to much rain or high temperature and wind (WT+1,ST+2,T+4) and when the terrain is steep (D-1,F=,R+1,H+2,M+4). Thus, cutting trees on a tropical mountain is most likely to reduce it to desert, while doing so in a cool temperate valley (depression) has a very low risk. Doing this in small steps reduces the risk somewhat, but increases it at vulnerable places.

- Construction:
* Roads: Road construction does not cause any changes (besides open space reduction), except in forests: climax forest is reduced to forest, forest has a chance to become light forest and light forest stays the same.

* Buildings: Either we could give the squares a rating (from uninhabited to metropolis) or keep record of the land use in 3 percentages: nature, settled, city. What these 3 mean needs to be discussed. FE, my country is (in the statistics) considered to be 99% city, but all I see when I look out of the window are fields and orchards. These data could be used for farming and hunting yields, health risks for the population, access to services, etc.
Note that farmland is considered high cover for vegetation purposes, and city is considered desert. So squares that are highly settled (>50% farmland) or urbanized (>50% city) are limited to light forest and low cover respectively.

- Burning: Causes air pollution and reduces BM to (almost) 0. Vegetation regenerates at normal rate. Additional measures like planting trees can speed this up.

- Farming: For food as well for other products:

BM ranges
0 waste 5 desert 15 low cover 30 high cover 60 light forest 120 forest 240 climax forest 480

sites based on BM
0 waste 1 desert 3 low cover 20 high cover 50 light forest 20 forest 10 climax forest 5

Produced Amount (Y) = A*L^a*R^b*K^c
A = 5 (production technology near subsistence level) L = 1 head (1000 people) R = 1 farm site K = 1 (representing farm tools) a = 0.5, b = 0.3, c = 0.2, which satisfies a+b+c = 1

Disastrous events etc. (fungus, rats, floods, army, ...) reduce the production after it is produced, so it is a loss and not just reduced production.

Each year,
BM = BM +fertilizer/manure +natural regeneration +river silt +... -produced amount


example: Cold Temperate, cycles:2 BM, regeneration: 2 BM, BM 35/48 PBM (alternate rotation)

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 0.5) = 18
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 0.5)) = 34
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

* Pesticide: adds a bonus to farming yields

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 0.5 + 0.5 pesticide bonus) = 36
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 0.5)) = 34
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

* Fertilizer (chemical): adds a bonus to BM recovery, up to a limit, possibly solid pollution occurs, chance increases with amount used and with vulnerability of ecosystem (=low PBM)

(continuous use, primitive methods but with synth. fertilizer)
Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 1) = 36
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 1)) = 32
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 32 + 2 + 4 = 36.

* Fertilizer (natural): adds a bonus to BM recovery, up to a limit, degradation of soil may occur (PBM penalty), chance increases with amount used and with vulnerability of ecosystem (=low PBM)

(three field system)
Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 2/3) = 34
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 2/3)) =
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

- mining:
* Shafts cause to change terrain and PBM only when collapsing. The storing and transport is heavy industrial activity and this may cause pollution. Also the risks associated with road construction normally apply (see above).

* Strip mining reduces the BM and PBM to 0. When the mining activities stop the PBM rises again to desert. Reforestation programs are possible with a better chance than in normal deserts because the climate probably was better before the mining started.


PBM CALCULATION:
________________
To generate the PBM, we need three things:

* Climate: already assigned, represents temperature
A: +0, SA: +15, CT: +30, WT: +60, ST: +120, T: +240

* Moisture:
-- Rivers : the squares with a river are much moister, those adjacent negligibly (eg. Nile), according to volume water/year: +50 to +200. Wetlands have a bonus in the same range.
-- Water currents: warm currents cause more evaporation, the condensation causes preciptiation. Cold water causes less evaporation: cold +0, warm +100 (not always 50, but depending on the strength of the current)
-- Air currents: rain shadows +50, dry slopes -50
-- Climate: atmospheric convection cycles: T: +140, CT, SA: +70, WT, A: -70, ST: -140

* Terrain: already assigned: Steeper terrain means smaller PBM (retaining moisture and accumulating soil is more difficult).
Depression +20, Flat +10, Rolling +0, Hilly -50, Mountain -100

Note: I winged the exact numbers so far, they can and should be adapted (to the economy mode FE). Also, they should be randomized a bit. However, the BM ranges for vegetation are also the number of years that vegetation needs to grow:

0 waste 5 desert 15 low cover 30 high cover 60 light forest 120 forest 240 climax forest 480

examples:
square along the Nile: SubTropical - Flat - River
PBM = 10 (base) + 120 (Subtropical Temperature) + 180 (Major River) +10 (flat)
- 140 (Subtropical Rainfall) = 320 - 140 = 180
This square could support forest type vegetation.

oasis in the sahara: SubTropical - Depression - Wetland
PBM = 10 (base) + 120 (Subtropical Temperature) + 90 (Wetland) +20 (Depression)
- 140 (Subtropical Rainfall) = 250 - 140 = 110
This square could support light forest type vegetation.


The procedure for PBM generation above won't work well enough . It's here anyway to get comments. I'll now be using a separate formula for each climate (based on the Köppen system), with the appropriate limitations.

	28-04-2001 18:48									#88
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sorry, double post .
[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 30, 2001).]

	28-04-2001 19:21									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have one question about "pollution".
How do you consider useful/not useful fauna/flora?
For instance, in the sea, there is an increase in pollution, there can be an increase in the number of men-o-war, which means a shift in the BM, not a shrinking. So you have a difference between useful and useless biomass. Another example: Weed in channels. There are weed, imported from America, that proliferated a lot in Europe and tend to make channels hard to maintain.

	29-04-2001 08:44									#90
	Support Apolyton

Hi Simon! Thanks for the detailed model.

I have to admit that I have only had time to skim your post. I'll pretty much only comment on things that directly affect the agriculture sector. I just noticed now that you said some numbers were from 'wingging it' so I'll just give some initial ideas on those tentative numbers.

Drainage and deforestation look reasonable. I'm not sure about the buildings part, but there is lots of time to playtest effects of that sort...

Farming sites: "20 high cover 50 light forest 20 forest" I think the 20s are too big, and the 50 is Way too big. There are exceptions to a max of about 10-20 sites for ancient agriculture that I posted a few posts above. One is rice cultivation, and the other is irrigated land as in Egypt. But I think having large parts of the land with greater than 10 sites is just not going to work out. But I think every place that has forests having those large amounts of sites is extreme.

quote: BM = BM +fertilizer/manure +natural regeneration +river silt +... -produced amount