Polls

Best Build 21 Screenshot

Log in to vote!

Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: wouldn't it be nice to have a minable tree-friendly terrain?

king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1639
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2015-11-09, 18:32

right now, there are grassland terrains where trees grow and buildings can be made, and mountain terrains that are barren and support mines. But in real life, not all mines are in barren high mountain terrain. In fact, most of them are not. From the rhur coal basins, to the norilsk nickel deposits, to the cilean copper mines, there are plenty of mines in plains. Historically, mines are assoociated with mountains only because the rocks are more exposed there, so they are easier to access with preindustrial technology. But even then, most ancient mines were well below the treeline, and there was still enough soil cover on the rock to allow for trees. So I thought I would like a similar thing in widelands, a terrain where you can build mines but where trees can grow.

From a coding point of view, it is a very simple thing. It is no different from a regular mountain terrain, but with values of humidity, fertility and temperature that are more freindly to trees.

The problem comes from a graphical perspective. Succh terrain must clearly present grass, to show that plants grow on it. It alsoo must show rock, because players associate rock with mining, and because it must be easily distinguished from meadow. So it must have a combinatiion of meadow and rock, but at the same time it must be clearly distinguishable from mountain meadow.

I have no graphical capabilities, or I would have done it myself. I'm posting this in case someone else is intrigued by the idea and can make it work.


Top Quote
Vassili
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-12, 19:19
Posts: 169
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Location: France
Posted at: 2015-11-09, 20:12

I like the idea if we can also build regular buildings on it.


Top Quote
einstein13
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1108
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Poland
Posted at: 2015-11-09, 22:38

Why regular buildings? Mountains in all Settlers (all parts from 1 to 4) are only for mines. That is basic for the game. In Widelands we can add something else, but in my opinion we shouldn't change that.


einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top Quote
Vassili
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-12, 19:19
Posts: 169
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Location: France
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 00:00

Maybe because king_of_nowhere speak of plain land and not of montain lands? We already can build on flat lands (if the creator of the map have some logic). So yes i am ok with a new type of flatlands, who are minable, but not ok if that make a loose of building places. I see that alot of maps are made in a certain way where it's not easy to have building places and ways to expand, so i will not the creators of this maps have in theyr hands,a new type of land who are blocking expanding way.


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1882
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 00:09

But in real life, not all mines are in barren high mountain terrain. In fact, most of them are not.

I think the widelands mountains are not as steep enough to give a feeling that they could have a treeline. Most mountainous regions with a treeline are steep...

So in my opinion there is no need to make all of current mountain terrains barren (treeless).

Each biome (summer, winter, wasteland, desert) have 4 terrains which represents mountains. We could just define 2 of them (for each biome) as tree-friendly. But we should have a general marking of tree-friendly terrains in the editor though, to clarify such terrains for the mapmaker.


Top Quote
Vassili
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-12, 19:19
Posts: 169
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Location: France
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 00:42

+1 for kaputtnik


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1639
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 02:28

kaputtnik wrote:

But in real life, not all mines are in barren high mountain terrain. In fact, most of them are not.

I think the widelands mountains are not as steep enough to give a feeling that they could have a treeline. Most mountainous regions with a treeline are steep...

So in my opinion there is no need to make all of current mountain terrains barren (treeless).

Each biome (summer, winter, wasteland, desert) have 4 terrains which represents mountains. We could just define 2 of them (for each biome) as tree-friendly. But we should have a general marking of tree-friendly terrains in the editor though, to clarify such terrains for the mapmaker.

The problem with this is that the current mountain terrains are barren, by look. And they are also fairly monotone. I doubt there's many people who can tell mountain1 from mountain2 by sight during a game. I certainly cannot. So it would not make sense for trees to grow on one and not on the other. desert and winter have two recognizable shades of mountain - reddish mountain and gray mountain in winter, reddish and brown in desert - but again it makes no sense, visually, for one of them to be fertile and the other not. Terrains with diifferent characteristics must be recognizable for a player. So, it would need someone to draw some new texture. Just that.

@ vassili: I believe ypur concern that mapmakers will have a new terrain to block expansion to be misplaced. Mapmakers can already block expansion in a variety of ways. If nothing else, nothing prevents them from just using regular mountain for flat ground. There are many other ways to make a terrain unbuildable, from a smart use of elevation to an impassable debris immovable that is almost unnoticeable against a mountain, mountain meadow or meadow1 background.So, if a mapmaker wants to block expansion in a certain way, he can do it. He doesn't need another tool. Also, if a mapmaker wants to block expansion, it's his map, there's no reason he should not be able to.


Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3199
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 12:53

The engine already supports this, so it would be a matter of adding some new terrains with tree-friendly values that allow mining resources. I think having flat mining terrain with trees on it could look rather nice. face-smile.png

We shouldn't fiddle with already existing terrains, as this would change the behaviour in old maps and might not be what each map designer had in mind.

Allowing both mines and normal buildings on the same spot would require a non-trivial engine change.


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1882
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 14:57

GunChleoc wrote:

We shouldn't fiddle with already existing terrains, as this would change the behaviour in old maps and might not be what each map designer had in mind.

I forgot always the compatibility with old maps. Otherwise we have already incompatibility with older maps.

Creating such new terrain patterns could be very simple in theory: Just replace the black pixels on mountain terrains with some kind of green pixels.

But i am unsure about the relationship of the numbers of terrains. Having 6 mountainous terrains (assuming we define 2 tree friendly mountainous terrain in addition to already 4 existing mountainous terrains for each biome) is a lot of stuff against 6 arable terrains. Otherwise the new terrains could also be used to give the surface more "life". In the end there is no need to put resources on this type of terrain. Just thinking face-wink.png


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1639
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2015-11-10, 15:47

kaputtnik wrote:

Creating such new terrain patterns could be very simple in theory: Just replace the black pixels on mountain terrains with some kind of green pixels.

I don't know, the black in mountains is barely noticeable. I think some more green would be needed. but anyway, if there is a simple tool to substitute black for green, can someone make an experiment and try how it would look? I tried to use paint, but i found no such instrument. I tried to put some green on a mountain terrain, but I think it looks too artificial. nevertheless, if someone explains me how to post an image, i may post it. maybe you'll be able to grasp exactly what is wrong with it and I can eventually learn how to make it right.

But i am unsure about the relationship of the numbers of terrains. Having 6 mountainous terrains (assuming we define 2 tree friendly mountainous terrain in addition to already 4 existing mountainous terrains for each biome) is a lot of stuff against 6 arable terrains. Otherwise the new terrains could also be used to give the surface more "life". In the end there is no need to put resources on this type of terrain. Just thinking ;)

well, nobody forces people to use that terrain, or to put more mountains in a map because there are more mountain textures. my own idea was to use it either in place of regular mountains, or at their base, with regular mountains at the top. In particular, since I'm working on a large mountain map, I am using rocky mountain for the top above the treeline; the valley floors are green and full of trees, becoming progressively more barren with elevation. players do not have access to most mountaintops, they have places to make mines on the valley flanks, and I would use that forested mountain (let's call it that) to avoid breaking the visual composition.


Top Quote