The last step in climate is to apply the Koppen or Holdridge mappings, based on the local temperature and precipitation properties.
I'm not at all convinced that Holdridge is working for me. But I like to keep it around just in case.
 |
| Holdridge key |
 |
Holdridge
|
Overall, Koppen seems more intuitively correct.
 |
| Koppen key |
 |
Koppen
|
A nice mix of types of terrain. For some reason I feel like Koppen is easier to work with. Maybe it's the palette. Using all this data, I assign a terrain value (such as forest or savanna). This lets me make a map which is more human friendly.
 |
Terrain
|
There's a lot of savanna here, as it turns out. I can live with that.
I think the next thing I'll dive into is individual resource research. I want to start gaming at some point in the next ten years, so it's necessary to get some actual
stuff a party could use (as well as the historical simulation for background). That'll be a project in itself.
I do think the Koppen classification is better, it is based on numbers and not subjective descriptors. The descriptors are there to give the layman an idea of what the numbers represent, but the actual system is based on the 3 letter variable code. This is the same reason I dislike later revisions to the system that add 'alpine' regions, alpine is an explanation of why the climate shifts not a quantification of what the climate is.
ReplyDelete