Welcome to the second iteration of my front-end globe biomes feedback thread. In this thread, I intend to draw one last attention to the long-standing issue of front-end globe biome accuracy and consistency before support ends.
As I explained in the first thread, the Wikipedia source map used to make PZ’s front-end globe was a rather problematic one with quite a few errors. It was basically a hybrid map of potential natural vegetation, current land cover and FAO ecozones. The map later underwent thorough review and editing to ensure consistency. It is now an accurate representation of potential natural vegetation and is live on the Wikipedia biome article. For sources, please refer to the Wikimedia Commons file description.
There have been some improvements to the map since the first thread as well, particularly in montane regions. Smaller mountain ranges were missing from the first iteration, but have since been included in the updated version, providing a more comprehensive representation of montane regions. Additionally, the key has undergone some corrections.
The up-to-date and accurate version of the Wikipedia source map - level of detail includes small oceanic islands the size of a single pixel:
Custom map made specifically for PZ, based on the map above - level of detail includes small oceanic islands the size of a single pixel:
The biome classification in the provided map follows the same simplified approach used in Frontier's original globe, which condenses 18 biomes into 6 broader categories:
Instead of reviving a three-year-old inactive thread, I wanted to start anew, with a slightly different focus this time.
The first iteration focused on bringing together different front-end globe biome feedback threads scattered across the forum and Frontier’s stance of not making any further changes to the front-end globe at the time.
Now that Frontier has shown intent of making additional changes to the globe, with the addition of ‘Temperate’ biome for Oceania, speaking about the benefits of making more changes to the globe, in order to change their stance, is no longer necessary. In this iteration I will also omit linking various threads by different users requesting front-end globe biome changes, as the previous one has already fulfilled this role.
Instead, what I will do this time is, offer alternative approaches to certain regions that can be classified differently based on the designation used. This way, Frontier can choose the approach that best suits intended gameplay concerning those regions. The reason I’m doing this is, since then, we have gotten new biome skirts specific to certain regions, and asking for biome changes that completely ignore new content in the game is counterproductive. All suggestions will still be accurate, but I wanted to leave some room for flexibility.
Another novelty in this iteration will be higher community input. This isn’t exactly a community meta wishlist, but the new flexible approach will allow for greater collaboration. So if you think an alternative approach to a specific region is needed, one that you believe is more appropriate, please let me know in the comments, but please include sources and your reasoning.
The first iteration focused on bringing together different front-end globe biome feedback threads scattered across the forum and Frontier’s stance of not making any further changes to the front-end globe at the time.
Now that Frontier has shown intent of making additional changes to the globe, with the addition of ‘Temperate’ biome for Oceania, speaking about the benefits of making more changes to the globe, in order to change their stance, is no longer necessary. In this iteration I will also omit linking various threads by different users requesting front-end globe biome changes, as the previous one has already fulfilled this role.
Instead, what I will do this time is, offer alternative approaches to certain regions that can be classified differently based on the designation used. This way, Frontier can choose the approach that best suits intended gameplay concerning those regions. The reason I’m doing this is, since then, we have gotten new biome skirts specific to certain regions, and asking for biome changes that completely ignore new content in the game is counterproductive. All suggestions will still be accurate, but I wanted to leave some room for flexibility.
Another novelty in this iteration will be higher community input. This isn’t exactly a community meta wishlist, but the new flexible approach will allow for greater collaboration. So if you think an alternative approach to a specific region is needed, one that you believe is more appropriate, please let me know in the comments, but please include sources and your reasoning.
- China: At launch central China was designated as part of the ‘Tropical’ biome. Following player feedback, the designation was changed to ‘Temperate’. A good step towards achieving a more accurate and consistent division between tropical and temperate forests on the game’s globe. One minor suggestion for improvement would be to refine the current border, as a straight line may appear less natural.
- Australia and New Zealand: Originally, Oceania was entirely missing ‘Temperate’ biome representation. Adding this biome to the continent was a game-changer. One small constructive criticism would be that the ‘Temperate’ biome on Australia’s eastern coast stretches a bit too far north. Right now, if you build a zoo right next to the Great Barrier Reef, you get snow.
As I explained in the first thread, the Wikipedia source map used to make PZ’s front-end globe was a rather problematic one with quite a few errors. It was basically a hybrid map of potential natural vegetation, current land cover and FAO ecozones. The map later underwent thorough review and editing to ensure consistency. It is now an accurate representation of potential natural vegetation and is live on the Wikipedia biome article. For sources, please refer to the Wikimedia Commons file description.
There have been some improvements to the map since the first thread as well, particularly in montane regions. Smaller mountain ranges were missing from the first iteration, but have since been included in the updated version, providing a more comprehensive representation of montane regions. Additionally, the key has undergone some corrections.
The up-to-date and accurate version of the Wikipedia source map - level of detail includes small oceanic islands the size of a single pixel:
Custom map made specifically for PZ, based on the map above - level of detail includes small oceanic islands the size of a single pixel:
The biome classification in the provided map follows the same simplified approach used in Frontier's original globe, which condenses 18 biomes into 6 broader categories:
- ‘Tundra’: Ice sheet and polar desert, (polar) tundra, alpine tundra.
- ‘Taiga’: Taiga, montane forests and grasslands.
- ‘Temperate’: Temperate broadleaf forest.
- ‘Grassland’: Temperate steppe and savanna, Mediterranean vegetation, dry steppe and thorn forest, (tropical/subtropical) grass savanna, (tropical/subtropical) tree savanna, (tropical/subtropical) dry forest and woodland savanna.
- ‘Tropical’: Tropical rainforest, monsoon (seasonal) forests and mosaic, subtropical evergreen (and tropical montane) forest.
- ‘Desert’: Arid desert, xeric shrubland, semiarid desert.
- ‘Temperate’ biome instead of ‘Grassland’ to represent the conifer savannas of the southeastern US. Depending on the classification used, this ecoregion can be considered a temperate savanna or a temperate mixed forest. Since the game has a North American career scenario with a coastal ‘Temperate’ biome skirt, and this ecoregion spans half of the eastern US coast where the ‘Temperate’ biome is located, asking for a biome change could be considered counterproductive. Therefore, I wanted to offer an alternative approach. Terrain textures of the ‘Temperate’ biome level are also better fitting for this region.
- However, since the scenario pin is located north of this region, within the area designated as 'Temperate', it could still be made to work, especially if the game adds a 'Grassland' biome skirt for North America to represent the Mid-Atlantic or Southeast US conifer savannas. Although this skirt and its level's terrain paints would have to be green and moist, comparable to those of 'Temperate' biome skirts. The setting can be coastal, based on Mid-Atlantic coastal savannas, or inland, depicting Southeast US conifer savannas. This way the two halves of the aforementioned US coastline north of Florida would be represented by two different levels.
- ‘Temperate’ biome instead of ‘Tundra’ to represent the Magellanic moorlands. This region can be classified either as polar tundra or part of the subpolar forests ecoregion, which is included in the temperate broadleaf forests biome in South America. Therefore, both approaches would be accurate and acceptable. A treeless coastal ‘Temperate’ biome skirt with islands can be added to South America as a second skirt (to a forested Valdivian forests themed skirt) and it would work perfectly fine.
- ‘Grassland’ biome instead of ‘Temperate’ to represent the Zagros forest-steppe. While the region harbors both forests as well as woodland steppe, modern classifications usually designate the ecoregion as part of the temperate broadleaf forests and woodlands biome, but honestly both could work. This approach can also apply to parts of the Eurasian steppe and the North American prairie-forest transition, not just this ecoregion. However, attention should be paid to consistency in approach.
-
This isn’t really an alternative approach to a specific region, but rather an attempt, for completeness, to address an inconsistency issue in how a certain biome on the source map is treated when lumping biomes into broad categories. In Frontier's globe, there has always been some disparity regarding whether dry steppe constitutes 'Grassland' or 'Desert.' For example, dry steppe in southern Africa is part of the 'Desert' biome, whereas it is 'Grassland' elsewhere on the globe. This inconsistency is probably a mere oversight but it still compelled me to adopt a similar inconsistent approach for the northern and southern hemispheres in my custom map presented in the first thread. However, in this iteration, for the sake of consistency, I have chosen to create two versions. In the main version, dry steppe constitutes 'Grassland,' aligning with the more common approach used by Frontier and because I believe the 'Grassland' biome level best represents this habitat type. In the alternate version, I have included dry steppe in the ‘Desert’ biome, although I would not typically advocate this approach.
Last edited:
