Topography suggestions

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Just a couple of ideas/suggestions concerning topography:

1)   Reseeding certain terrain types with other terrain type variants has surely made a difference (towards the better, that is!). However, personally, I feel that the wooded and mountainous areas need some further "lightening"...
I don't know if it's possible, but has "lightening" the graphic itself (meaning reducing the number of trees or mountain peaks of a graphic) crossed your mind? Referring to wood-rich terrain, I believe that, since they appear with different types of trees, even if you used the same or similar SMALL number of trees in their graphics, it wouldn't really matter. In time, players would become accustomed with each graphic and would distinguish/know right away whether it's a Thick/Dense Forest or Wooded Land/Glade.

2)   Unfortunately, I find myself in the same situation as WildBill, i.e I had the impression that the terrain would remain unchanged in a distance of 5 squares around cities... Thus, my newly settled town has no interesting enough (for me) squares around it anymore. Quite frustrating, as a big amount of my little free time has gone to waste and future plans for the game have fallen apart.
As I'm sure there are more players facing the same problem and are thinking of taking advantage of the "one-free city move" , along with others who have built their armies taking into account the surrounding terrain type, here's my suggestion:
In order to make a number of players happy again (without making more unhappy) and to save the GMs from a rather big number of city movements, why not leave all 8 squares around cities unchanged, instead of only 4 of them?

Awaiting for your comments ...

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Nautilus Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List New Poster Joined: 24 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 8	Topic: Topography suggestions Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 20:28
	Just a couple of ideas/suggestions concerning topography: 1) Reseeding certain terrain types with other terrain type variants has surely made a difference (towards the better, that is!). However, personally, I feel that the wooded and mountainous areas need some further "lightening"... I don't know if it's possible, but has "lightening" the graphic itself (meaning reducing the number of trees or mountain peaks of a graphic) crossed your mind? Referring to wood-rich terrain, I believe that, since they appear with different types of trees, even if you used the same or similar SMALL number of trees in their graphics, it wouldn't really matter. In time, players would become accustomed with each graphic and would distinguish/know right away whether it's a Thick/Dense Forest or Wooded Land/Glade. 2) Unfortunately, I find myself in the same situation as WildBill, i.e I had the impression that the terrain would remain unchanged in a distance of 5 squares around cities... Thus, my newly settled town has no interesting enough (for me) squares around it anymore. Quite frustrating, as a big amount of my little free time has gone to waste and future plans for the game have fallen apart. As I'm sure there are more players facing the same problem and are thinking of taking advantage of the "one-free city move" , along with others who have built their armies taking into account the surrounding terrain type, here's my suggestion: In order to make a number of players happy again (without making more unhappy) and to save the GMs from a rather big number of city movements, why not leave all 8 squares around cities unchanged, instead of only 4 of them? Awaiting for your comments ...

some random guy Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 26 Aug 2010 Location: saturn Status: Offline Points: 378	Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 05:27
	i agree that the moving is going to be a huge headache. How are sovereignty squares going to be affected? what happens if you move while being sieged or blockaded? And lastly, how are the "unchanged squares" around cities going to be dealt with. 100% with ya on the "lightening" nautilus.
	Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo....

KillerPoodle Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853	Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 20:21
	1) Make food bonus squares for all terrain types. Food production is the limiting factor on city growth and army upkeep, I expect to see a rush towards plains and away from all other types as a result of the topography changes. There are simply too many penalties on other terrain types (slower travel in mountains, bad performing troops in forests, etc.) 2) Change the restrictions on population for settling new cities. With all the "cool new stuff" you will be bringing out the 8-10 cities most people will have will not be enough to participate properly. That restriction made some sense at the start when the plan was for a one year server life, but is too restrictive now that you plan to continue with the server "forever". 3) Have major additional structures (visible on the map) built outside the city, or have larger cities sprawl over more than one map square. E.g. A major harbor would be built in the square adjacent to the actual city (also adds interesting combat options for attacking those structures). Edited by KillerPoodle - 16 Sep 2010 at 20:37

col0005 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Apr 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 238	Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 05:31
	Kp I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the food problem, although I don't necessarily agree with your solution. Once you realise that growth is limited by food production there isn't really any stratergy in choosing a good square to settle. You simply find a tile with 7 food preferably near a dolmen with high food for sov and preferably near allies. However there are many other options to increase the food available other than reducing the expansion population. What'd be a good way to even it up between areas would be making fishing in lakeside towns automated and slightly better than 7 food near a dolmen but can be attacked by ships. Hunting could be introduced in forest. Seasonal rains that give HUGE food production bonuses in deserts. Im not sure about mountains but remember that trade hubs are soon to be introduced. The GM's can simply make food not an issue by ensureing that trade hubs will always export food at a realatively reasonable price, perhaps food can always be traded 1 for 1 with any other resource. All said and done though yes something should be done about food availability being everything.

KillerPoodle Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853	Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 19:49
	I think you're mixing two points. Independent of improving food for non plains terrain (I like your ideas btw) you also need to revist population requirements to settle cities. My point (2) is to lower the population requirement for settling new cities, not so that people can keep smaller cities to solve the food problem, but because even with more food available the upper limit is about 10 cities. City 9 requires 130K pop that means all 8 existing cities at 16.25K pop which is the upper limit for me even on plains with decent food sov bonuses, much higher than that and you cripple your ability to support large armies. Based on previous progression that indicates City 10 will require something around 180K+ pop (E.g. 20K per city) and City 11 will be 250K pop (25K pop per city) - e.g. not feasible even with the best food bonuses on every city.