Work with me here...

[Valles]

It'd feel really weird to be playing a 'deathworld' game on what was effectively Earth, even a spun one. I'd rather reserve that variant for something with a more orthodox premise. Something that I've been considering I'd like to try if we used an actual Venus map would be a state that's specializing in clearing one of the two main continents, rather than smaller islands, precisely because it's a lower-payoff option that no one else is likely to compete for.

I'd figure that the rules would divide the land map up into 'provinces', and that each province would cost twice as much to clear initially of native life as it was likely to produce once developed, and that holding provinces clear would cost, say, 10% of the 'clearance cost' in areas reseeded only by the wind, 25% in areas reseeded by sea, and 75% in areas immediately adjacent to 'uncleared' land provinces.

Do the newer Civilization engines include an option for estimating plate tectonics, or would we essentially be looking at some kind of 'alternate Venus', terraformed to human taste?

[Carthaginian]

No need to start killing a great idea talking about 'clearing costs' and bean counting at this stage.
Let's just let the idea develop before we start talking about stuff like that- lest we kill it before it starts.

And the map would be as fictitious or realistic as we want it to be. Since the generator in the Civ games can make plausible, totally fictitious maps- well, the only limitations on this will be the random number generators in the game.

I don;t see Venus working- even terraformed- simply because the proper landforms for Rocky's proposed situation do not exist. It will have to be a new world, cut from whole cloth to accommodate our plan.

[Valles]

Fractal-generated maps, from what I've seen, don't look realistic or plausible to people who've spent too much time studying Earth's actual geology. Certainly they don't to me. That's why I asked if Civ could actually simulate surfaces from the plates up, rather than just throwing random pixels at the map - if it doesn't, then the planet we came up with would have to be some planet that, like Venus or Mars, lacked an Earthlike mantle and therefore was not originally habitable.

In mechanical terms, I'm aware that it makes no difference, but I think the fluff distinction is important. Depending on the water level chosen, too, I think that Venus itself could be very suitable, with a number of extensive chains of large islands, several open seas, and a couple of considerable continents. Just right.

I have no intention of getting into any permanent positions regarding rules at the moment, but I don't think it's too soon to be turning over concepts for same - what I'd suggested would, I hope, be the sum total of our terraforming rules, so I'd hardly think that that'd count as 'bean counting'.

[Carthaginian]

Fractal-generated maps, from what I've seen, don't look realistic or plausible to people who've spent too much time studying Earth's actual geology. Certainly they don't to me. That's why I asked if Civ could actually simulate surfaces from the plates up, rather than just throwing random pixels at the map - if it doesn't, then the planet we came up with would have to be some planet that, like Venus or Mars, lacked an Earthlike mantle and therefore was not originally habitable.

In mechanical terms, I'm aware that it makes no difference, but I think the fluff distinction is important. Depending on the water level chosen, too, I think that Venus itself could be very suitable, with a number of extensive chains of large islands, several open seas, and a couple of considerable continents. Just right.

I have no intention of getting into any permanent positions regarding rules at the moment, but I don't think it's too soon to be turning over concepts for same - what I'd suggested would, I hope, be the sum total of our terraforming rules, so I'd hardly think that that'd count as 'bean counting'.

OK... I think that Rocky is just feeling out things ATM- and from how he describes wanting the world, neither the topography of Venus or Mars would work. Anyone who knows anything about 'xenogeography' (closest thing I can come to a proper term) knows that they lack the necessary geologic features to use them as a basis. Mars lacks any kinds of real 'choke points' as it largely would consist of a single global sea; Venus would work a little better, but it has your 'issue' of being 'not believable' due to lack of plate tectonics.

MARS:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/blok/rgb1440_copy.jpg

VENUS:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/venus/pvo_topo_mercator.jpg

As for your issues, Valles:
Offer, scientifically and conclusively, proof that life cannot arise on a planet without tectonic activity. Please give at least one example- excepting Earth- of a planet which required tectonic activity to develop life and one planet within a star's habitable zone- again, excepting Earth- which did not develop life because of a lack of the same, in order to support your hypothesis.

I can sum things up without you doing this, though, by saying quite bluntly that we have no idea what a planet requires to begin the development of 'life'- either in our narrow carbon-based, DNA-template definition or something more exotic and yet undiscovered- and thus cannot say either way what the 'minimum system requirements' are for life to develop. You are basically making an issue out of a non-issue, and thus adding an unnecessary degree of complexity and effort to an exceedingly simple concept for recreation.

Can we have PLEASE a sim without trying to write a doctoral dissertation prior to starting it... and having the sim wind up stillborn as a result?


And here are an example of some Civ IV 'random maps' to ease your troubled mind that plate tectonics can indeed be taken into account.
http://www.wuphonsreach.org/Games/CivilizationIV/Tectonics/60PctWater/Civ4BtS-Tectonics-60PctWater-ContactSheet.jpg

[snip]

On the Civ notes: I currently have access to and could get access to more custom map scripts that allow for more realistic simulation of a planet rather than just plopping pixels down. The really nice thing about Civ maps IMO that other maps do not really allow for is that with the built-in squares (or Hexes if Five is used) a min or max distance represented by each square or hex can be set. This would allow for all distances to be known from the getgo, with IIRC is something that is of great concern to those who do not wish to play a fantasy map. While the inherent lack of detail can be minimised be going to a very large grid, this ability to calculate distance gives such a large advantage over a drawn map that I think it is the only way that a custom map could really work. In addition, the random generation makes things much easyer on any mapmaker as well.

[Valles]

As for your issues, Valles:
Offer, scientifically and conclusively, proof that life cannot arise on a planet without tectonic activity. Please give at least one example- excepting Earth- of a planet which required tectonic activity to develop life and one planet within a star's habitable zone- again, excepting Earth- which did not develop life because of a lack of the same, in order to support your hypothesis.

I can sum things up without you doing this, though, by saying quite bluntly that we have no idea what a planet requires to begin the development of 'life'- either in our narrow carbon-based, DNA-template definition or something more exotic and yet undiscovered- and thus cannot say either way what the 'minimum system requirements' are for life to develop. You are basically making an issue out of a non-issue, and thus adding an unnecessary degree of complexity and effort to an exceedingly simple concept for recreation.

I know very well that there's no evidence to support the assertion a plate-divided crust causes life. Fortunately, that's your misinterpretation rather than what I was actually saying. Rather, I think there is enough evidence in our understanding of the role of water in tectonics to suggest that significant surface oceans are a major cause of plate behavior when present over geologic timespans.

A terraformed world which had not previously had liquid surface water would have less familiar landforms and processes, and the decades or centuries of the transformation wouldn't be enough time for the equilibrium to change significantly. Hence, I have no real objection to saying that a fractal map is a terraformed world. Granted, that between Venus, Mars, and Io, we have some significant clues as to what those 'alien processes' would look like, but reverse-engineering them is heavy PhD territory that exceeds even my interest/patience threshold.

Was I unclear? Possibly, and I'm sorry if so, but that was and is the logical half of my reasoning.

The illogical being a sort of plaintive wail of 'But it just doesn't look right! It's so sloppy!', but I don't expect people to indulge that.

Can we have PLEASE a sim without trying to write a doctoral dissertation prior to starting it... and having the sim wind up stillborn as a result?

...Worldbuilding is fun. I don't see the problem, here.

And here are an example of some Civ IV 'random maps' to ease your troubled mind that plate tectonics can indeed be taken into account.
http://www.wuphonsreach.org/Games/CivilizationIV/Tectonics/60PctWater/Civ4BtS-Tectonics-60PctWater-ContactSheet.jpg

Honestly? I don't think they work. They come closer than I'd expect from a random-generated seed, but... not quite.

Also, depending on whether we go with the seaborn settlement model from the original Drake books or a 'cleared land' model, they may be insufficiently fragmented, but that's much easier to deal with.

On the Civ notes: I currently have access to and could get access to more custom map scripts that allow for more realistic simulation of a planet rather than just plopping pixels down. The really nice thing about Civ maps IMO that other maps do not really allow for is that with the built-in squares (or Hexes if Five is used) a min or max distance represented by each square or hex can be set. This would allow for all distances to be known from the getgo, with IIRC is something that is of great concern to those who do not wish to play a fantasy map. While the inherent lack of detail can be minimised be going to a very large grid, this ability to calculate distance gives such a large advantage over a drawn map that I think it is the only way that a custom map could really work. In addition, the random generation makes things much easyer on any mapmaker as well.

This is a very good point, and very good news all around. Thanks, Snip. I'd love to see some examples of what the custom scripts come up with, and if they pass I'd certainly be first in favor of using them, but, as I noted above to Carth, even a fairly raw fractal can work for a terraformed planet - and the measuring function will be very useful.

[The Rock Doctor]

I am just kicking the tires, as Jamie notes.  I'm not yet pitching it as a sim to sign up for, though that may come to pass later.

I cited Venus as it's the only example I had at hand of wet-naval stuff on non-Earth worlds, and it has a built-in excuse to focus on naval stuff rather than air and land stuff.  I know there's a series called The Destroyermen, but I haven't read the books and I'm not sure how much the alternate-Earth setting differs from our world.

On that basis, the precise story behind the setting is not critical, yet.  The scenario simply requires that, somehow/some way, humanity settles on a world that is not Earth.  Once that basic requirement is accepted, we can move on to looking for a map that appeals to us. 

Given the naval focus, as Kirk mentioned, we'd want to generate or select a map that provided a cool playground with a variety of neat naval puzzles - choke points, straits, passages, archipelagos, canals, shallow seas, deep oceans, and what-not.  I would also want to ensure the world is similar in general characteristics - gravity, diameter, air pressure - to Earth simply to ensure mechanics of flight, ship design, and gun design can be carried over en masse to the new place.

I agree that a distance-measuring system would be very helpful. 

Questions I'd pose to potential map-makers would be:

-Can you tell your software what basic land/water ratio you'd like?

-Ditto the ruggedness of the terrain (mountains on land, ocean depths at sea)?

-Can you tell your software whether you want a few big land masses or lots of small ones?

-Can a person "touch it up" after the basic generation?

As for map "texture" ala fractals, yes, it does sometimes look odd to my geologist eyes.  Other times, the products look plausible.  Still, we can make a map "work" by mixing and matching a considerations that might affect local tectonics:  age of the planet, amount of internal heating, nature and timing of impact events, etc.  Mars offers an example of a planet with limited internal heating and less erasure of old impact events.  Venus offers something closer to Earth, but with the suggestion of a differing form of tectonics. 

On resources:  I agree we would need to establish a few basics.  This would help underpin the distribution of people and states across the planet as well as the economic system.  Left to my own devices, I would start with a map I liked, sketch out some crude plate boundaries (to establish natural hazard areas and some recent forms of mineral deposits), then bodge together some basics about the geology of the landmasses.  I'd probably just use Valle's notional "provinces" as the basis for blocking out a crude geological map. 

Sea floors are somewhat simpler affairs, being both younger and more homogenous than continents.  "Provinces" wouldn't be necessary - I'd manually add in the neat stuff like seamounts, black smokers, reefs, etc.

This physical world-building may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it'd be something I'd contribute to.

[The Rock Doctor]

Sent a note to a guy that does some world-building exercises on another discussion board, to see what software he uses and such.  I'll report back.

[Carthaginian]

NICE!
That'll knock out a lot of headache for us Rocky- much appreciated.


If you'd share the name of the forum I'd appreciate it as well- my brother and I do Star Wars Saga Edition twice a month, and it occasionally becomes a lot of work trying to come up with new planetary maps every month or so... especially without the requisite degrees (our playgroup is two English majors, two retail, an RN, an X-ray tech and 'a guitarist that drives forklifts during the day') at our disposal.

Also, any books that you can recommend would be nice as well... I can handle anything at undergrad level and am willing to read it by a computer to Google stuff I don't understand. I DO enjoy world-building and I DO understand some of the problems that come with it... but not so much that I generally go beyond the whole 'these mountains here mean a desert there' level.

[The Rock Doctor]

The forum's Alternatehistory.com, and the fellow's called The Kiat.  The last map he generated was not detailed enough for our purposes, but it did include variations for biota and climate, so he's got something, anyway.

There are maps to be found elsewhere on that site, though a lot of it is, naturally, Earth with changes.

And if you do sign up there, don't look for me under this handle.  I go by "Talwar" there.

Still, there's no guarantee this fellow will be able to help at all, so you guys should continue hunting.

I'm not sure what degree of detail is needed for Star Wars Saga.  Basic geology texts could be useful reads.  One potentially useful resource could be the Colonial Atlas for the Traveller 2300 AD RPG.  There's about thirty entries, each with:  System overview, generalized planetary map, planetary description, and some himan geography.  Pretty good "hard" settings, yet most of the planets are somewhat different than Earth in some way.  I don't have a link, but it can be downloaded for free in .pdf form...somewhere on the net.

[snip]

Questions I'd pose to potential map-makers would be:

-Can you tell your software what basic land/water ratio you'd like?

-Ditto the ruggedness of the terrain (mountains on land, ocean depths at sea)?

-Can you tell your software whether you want a few big land masses or lots of small ones?

-Can a person "touch it up" after the basic generation?

For Civ IV, the answer is yes to all of this aside from water depth, tho III would be a bit better at approximating this due to having Coast-Sea-Ocean as opposed to just Coast-Ocean. The terrain ruggedness on land could be represented by flats-hills-Mountains. While this is not as detailed as some would undoubtedly like, it at least gives a very good (and easily tweaked) starting point. Reasouse distrobution is also something that can be done randomly as well, if desired. Off the top of my head, Copper, Iron, Aluminium, Coal, Oil and lots of luctury and food can be randomly distributed to start and manipulated further by the maker. The fact that it gives descreet deposits could make keeping track of trades easy. In example:

Country A has 5 Iron sources, but no coal sources. They could trade one (or more) iron sources for a coal source to enable them to take advantage of coal. Sort of like how resource trading works within Civ itself. Of couse this could be modified further, but as a starting point it works rather well IMO.

[The Rock Doctor]

Thanks Snip, that's good to know.

[miketr]

Rocky N4 looks to be dead to me.  Real life killed all the mods free time at the same time.

The problem with using any non earth world is as always the maps.  Calculating distance, travel, etc. There are ways around the problem.  Plotting out travel distances between key points and with such data other choices can be figured.

If anyone wants to read David Drakes books on the world Rocky Suggested.

http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/03-SlammersCD/SlammersCD/Seas%20of%20Venus/Seas_of_Venus.htm

Michael

[Darman]

I read them a while ago.  It is definitely an interesting premise. 

[snip]

Mike,
The distance thing could easily be solved by using a map creator such as Civilization III or IV that uses squares to create the map. Given a sufficiently large grid, a rather detailed map would be plausible. If we were to then say that each square represents an area that is X km by X km, we then have an approximation that is good enough for the vast majority of our purpaces. The same could also be done for Hexes ala Civ V, but it would take more work. While some detail would have to be sacrificed, I for one would be fine with throwing out an ultra-detailed map for the ability to play a custom-created map. Also, as I stated above, a Civilization-generated map would have resources as well (if anyone wants a complete list feel free to Google it. I have access to the mapmakers for III IV and V) that could be used to add in a trade system with relativity little hassle.

Rocky,
I missed the refference to the Destroyermen books you made until just now. As far as I have figured out from reading the first three (want to get to the fourth), it is just some playing around with sealevels as was proposed in the early N4 talks. I would be aprehensive about going this rout again, if we are going to have a fictional geography, might as well take it all the way. Also, given what my winter break is shaping up like, I would most likely have time to do a few maps in about 3 weeks time.

Given the desire to avoid or minimize land conflict and its inherent paperwork, I have an alternate sugesstion for what a world could look like. Considering all of the current suggestions all have land being at a premium, what about a very arid world? Most of the arable land would be clustered in small chunks along rivers, making that the area in which Civilization develops. Unlike the other worlds proposed, food would be the limiting factor, not space. Due to the climate, most of the population would be in these arable coradors, making travel overland a very risky proposition both from the climate and the nomads who would undoubtedly would live there. Destroying or otherwise inhibiting the ability of any arable land to produce food would all but seal the fate of those who rely on the land. IMO, this would lead to a military and political environment where land invasions and land fighting in general are considered a weapon of last resort, while Naval matters would be at the forfront of any planing. Who would want to fight on land when the very survival of those they are trying to defend is hinging on the crops not being harmed? This would not be a world of sustenance farmers, but one that is very near to, or even at its enviromental caring capacity but is capable of supporting industrial civilization.