Topic: Tree growth in practice
No0815 Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2017-12-19, 14:49
With the introduction of the new model for tree growth quite a while back, things have become somewhat complex. For most players it's sufficient to look at the editor or use the rule of thumb (the greener the better for tree growth) to get a good idea where trees will grow well enough. For map creators and obsessive optimizers though it can be quite difficult to asses what terrain would be optimal to use. So it would be interesting to know a bit more about how stuff works. So far I have caught that
The questions I have now:
Also, things are getting really crazy when you would like to know how well trees might grow on mixed terrains. Since I plan to remake the map for the second mission of the barbarian campaign it would be really helpful to know about suitability of mixes for trees. It uses a mix of terrains around the allowed area for playing that doesn't support buildings but is suitable for a thick forest. I'd like to keep this idea but I'm not sure if I can find out which terrains might work best, as the current choice of Beach (winter) and Tundra 2 is not so optimal. The forest on it gets quite some holes over time from dying trees. Top Quote |
teppo |
Posted at: 2017-12-19, 17:41
There will always be six trees. Some are just horribly unsuitable.
The weight of each tree is the square of its probability to grow in that spot. If one tree has a growth probability of 20% and other the probability of 1%, the weights are 0.04 and 0.0001; the former is planted 400 times more often.
The editor should show the combined forestability, instead of the raw numbers. I wonder if the humidity will be used to tinker with the performance of empty wells in the future. Top Quote |
No0815 Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2017-12-19, 18:52
Oh, that makes it a bit harder to calculate since trees with an extremely low probability (below 1%, I presume) aren't displayed in the editor. On the other hand, if that value is squared for the choice it's basically irrelevant anyway.
That should give even better results than weighting the raw values. I'll have to change my formula first to compare the results.
The probabilities to grow are shown in the editor's help window and only there. Therefor one can only check the probabilities for a specific terrain, not a mix of several. Since I assume, that the raw values for fertility, humidity etc. are averaged for mixed terrains instead of the calculated growth probabilities (which wouldn't make sense), the growth probabilities for a specific mix of terrains would need to be either calculated by hand or with a script since there are many possibilities. I hope I can find a way to make that easier ...
I'd like that since these values would probably fit well, but it seems my suggestion isn't met with much approval Top Quote |
GunChleoc |
Posted at: 2017-12-19, 18:55
We have just been discussing in another thread that we need tooltips here. The bottleneck is developer time. Busy indexing nil values Top Quote |
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2017-12-27, 19:02
So let's reduce this number to... One?
Oh, wow. Another top secret law of tree growth. But I like it! The confusing thing is that as a rookie map-maker you don't know that "Forested Mountain 2 / Wasteland" is the best ground for trees, you rather think that it's not a very good ground. Even grounds like "Hard Ground 3" are worse, even though you think that they are probably better Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |