Topic: Identify terrain

mxb2001 wrote:

Trees can be a pain to grow sometimes. Although it seems that there is almost a tree type for every sort of terrain and thanks to the planters being "upgraded" to plant the best tree at the best spot it's become easier than earlier versions of WL were.

Still it feels like on snow you pretty much need perhaps 4 planters per lumberjack instead of two. The space 4 plus their roads would take though seems like one would get nowhere. Of course I usually remove planters roads (except for Amazons, I got hugely screwed with that until I learned they need to be connected so that they "know" what type is in demand!).

It would be nice if one could point to a node and it would tell you the % chance for a tree to grow there. Dunno, maybe that's a cheat though and we're supposed to use our Fingerspitzengefühl.

The only map where trees are a problem is Last Bastion imho. But this might also be intended by the maps author, i don't know

Personally i am not convinced about the idea. It might force players to click around on the map to find good terrain for trees. But this information can also be misleading in case where two (or more) terrains adjoin, because then the result is unpredictable then… on the next node there might be only one terrain around (or other terrains adjoin) and the result is totally different. So to get a good idea of the chance of tree growing clicking on one node might not help.

BTW: The problem of different terrains and the unpredictable chance for tree growing was a reason to implement the "Automatic Trees" functionality in the editor, which places "good" trees depending on the terrains around a node.

Side note: As the intention was to implement the "terrain affinity" for trees i was against the idea. And it turned out that it produced a lot of other problems (like map authors who do not know on which terrain trees grow well). Anyway, today i think most problems are solved and having e.g. dry terrains where trees grow very bad adds a lot of atmosphere to the game. Although i am also not satisfied with some settings, e.g. trees on winter forested mountains do grow too bad in my opinion.

Top

Quote

Ron_of_Nord wrote: Tribal, yes, to the point of some fun pranks played on users of other systems
I don't own a linux box at the moment, but I do remember the fun I had years ago installing Redhat and getting it to work on the
386-sx system I had ( with it's hodge-podge of collected parts )

That's crazy! I also used Redhat and have a 386sx but I never tried to install it there. 2 MB RAM and a 105MB HDD, Ooof, no thanks. I did install Redhat on my Pentium 166mmx with 32 GB. Heh, after the old HD died I eventually reinstalled the same old redhat on it on the replacement HD. Netscape browser... it doesn't get to many sites now... That PC is a TRIPLE boot btw. MSDOS 6.20/Win95C/Redhat6.2

Not as good as you think, most people though they were some sort of drinks coaster which if used that way would ruin the disk
I had one plugged into my first computer, a Texas instruments TI99/4A, and had nothing but read/write problems
That's why I went to the C= SX-64 with built in disk drive, didn't know at the time that 1541's had their own quirks

Oh cool, see a lotta TI99's in the old mag. I should look up the SX-64, gotta say I don't really recall that model. I recall there was a Plus 4 and a C=65 (I think) as well as the C=128D but SX-64 just doesn't seem to ring a bell.

Friends of mine had a C=64 and 2 1541's. They actually modified them with extra switches that overrode something. Man, I've forgot what. : ( Maybe it was the write protect.

--
To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before

Top

Quote