Does something make no sense to you in the world map?
Any improvement suggestions?

maybe a european map, or of some particular area of the world?

possibly smaller arees with less civs to increase speed.

Area specific maps with no more than Large size would be v nice.

Area specific maps would also reduce the problem of Warlords introducing 7? new civs. 24 civs would create an insane amount of lag to have on one map with the realism mod. You might also want to have the maps set in certain eras. (Starting in different ages.)

USA Map:
English, French, Spanish, American?
Colonial Times
Large

Central/South America Map:
Aztecs, Incas, Spanish, French, English
Colonial Times
Large

Africa Map:
Mali, Egypt, Zulu, Cartheganian
Ancient Era
Large

Middle East Centered Map
Arab, Ottoman, Persian, Egyptian?
Ancient Era
Regular

European Map
Celts, Romans, Greeks, Vikings
Classical Era
Regular

European Map 2
English, French, German, Spain, Vikings?
Medieval Era
Regular

Asia Map
China, Mongols, Japan, Indian, Korean
Ancient Era
Large

Where's the cofee in Brazill ?

Hi all,

Yes Anaztazioch is right.
Some ressources are missing or are not on the right place on TR World Map:

- coffee in Brazil and Ethiopia. Perhaps, in southern part of Arabic Peninsula.

- Incredible but there is no Coal in Germany, neither in Poland. Two great producers of Europe.

- There is a wheat in France (the south one) that is useless. No wheat here in my country but wine (again ! we are always thirsty if France ;) )

- Before discovering America, the great producer of sugar in Europe was the island of Creta. This very precious ressource (in middle age) makes Creta a contested Island (Venezia, Egypt, Ottoman,...)

- Sweden also produce great amount of Copper. Mines were in the province near the Norvegian frontiers and Oslo.

- Iceland is too small. The moutain is useless. I would rather saw a tundra hill with a sheep. It's the main ressource of this island with Wales.

- You should add a Wheat or two in eastern germany, poland, west russia. These lands always were and still are great producer.

- Egypt: It's nearly impossible to play Egypt. First, Nubia is too close (but it's an other problem...) Second, where are ressources such as Wheat, Horses ?
Nile valley was very rich. You should also add an elephant, some were used as "mounted-shock" troop....

- Egypt again: Oil in Egypt? That's new or i had to study my geography again...

- Mali: You should add an other Game in the lands south of Niger River. These lands were full of game....

- Caribean Islands: Because there is no Jamaica island, perhaps adding an Hemp in Cuba could be fun. ;) Also all small islands of western caribean are sugar producer.

- Where are the Potatoes of the Incan ? There are all in Amazonia ! Strange... I would add one or two in what is todays Peru, Equador or Bolivia...

- Look at a map and find the Sultanat of Bunei. It's a very small country but very very rich of Oil. Its Sultan is one the richest man on Earth... Brunei is on Celebes Island if i'm right.


Waiting for comments, guys...

The Frog.

If anyone is tired of the same ole maps (i know i get tired of the same map each and everytime), thats why i made a CandyLand map just for Realism, d/l here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2707,
it has the new resourses just for Realism. And if anyone needs a map of almost anything, let me know.

@ Hian

Yes your right to most of 'em. But we got Oil in Poland !!! We have large sources, but they areen't clea, and refining "ore"oil and than cleaning it to recive pure oil will cost more than selling it, thats why we dont "dig" it.

Also what about tabacco, or its a hemp.

But the resources on World Map are made more for ballance than reality.
Like Japan Never had big sources of iron. It was enought for weapon (as you can make Hypaspist whith no resources, means you dont have good sources, but enought to make some swords.

@ Hian

Yes your right to most of 'em. But we got Oil in Poland !!! We have large sources, but they areen't clea, and refining "ore"oil and than cleaning it to recive pure oil will cost more than selling it, thats why we dont "dig" it.

Also what about tabacco, or its a hemp.

But the resources on World Map are made more for ballance than reality.
Like Japan Never had big sources of iron. It was enought for weapon (as you can make Hypaspist whith no resources, means you dont have good sources, but enought to make some swords.

Hi man,

Yes i know about Polish oil. Don't are they in the north or near the Baltic sea ? I don't remember. :confused:
Hemp: if i traduct in french, it sould also be a drug... a very common one, indeed ;) It's a kind of grass. You can use some of them as clothes, and others like a drug (you can smoke it for exemple ;) ) ... Have a look, traduct it in Polish....:p
Right, many ressources are here for balance. But, why not trying to be as close as possible to the reality ? It's TOTAL REALISM, no ?;)

In fact, my goal was to give some civs a better starting position. My country (France) always start quickly and either Roman, either Spanish suffer from this. Perhaps some ai had to be also changed....

The Frog.

@ Definitely agree with you, there should be coffee in Ethiopia as this is where the plant was first cultivated. In fact the Auxumite Empire had a number of shock troops who went into battle literally wired on coffee beans. They would eat grinded coffee beans straight up. The resulting caffeine rush was supposedly similar to the rush that is felt from ingesting the leaves from the Khat plants found in East-Central and North East Africa. Just imagine having about five 1liter jugs of espresso! :eek: I would feel like the Terminator. :scan:

Coffee was also grown in Puerto Rico; sugar cane was big in all of the big to medium sized islands (Cuba, Hispaniola (Haiti, Dominican Republic), and Jamaica). Florida was also a major sugar cane producer for the Spanish.

As for oil in Egypt I do not think they have found significant deposits as of yet; but up until 20-30 years ago no one thought there were significant deposits in the Sudan either. Oil is the main impetus behind the genocidal campaigns that went on in the southern Sudan and is now going on in Darfur. The most significant deposits are found in the African (Christian) south and not in the Arab (Muslim) north.

Hemp, yes it has sooooo many uses.....hmmmm.....making clothing, textiles, and a very popular recreational usage....:lol:

As for oil in Egypt I do not think they have found significant deposits as of yet; but up until 20-30 years ago no one thought there were significant deposits in the Sudan either. Oil is the main impetus behind the genocidal campaigns that went on in the southern Sudan and is now going on in Darfur. The most significant deposits are found in the African (Christian) south and not in the Arab (Muslim) north.


Right about Darfur. It's very ugly what happen in this part of the world... And nobody seem to be interested by this awesome genocidal campaign. It's one of the many problems of Africa: many ressources (not always exploited), ethnical hate (Rwanda, Zaïre,...), religious strife (Nigeria, Ivory Coast,..), corruption (nearly all the countries), civil wars (Ivory coast, liberia, Equatorial guinea,...) and the list could continue.....


Hemp, yes it has sooooo many uses.....hmmmm.....making clothing, textiles, and a very popular recreational usage....:lol:


How do you say ? "recreational usage" .... :lol: :lol: :goodjob: Good sum-up :goodjob:

The Frog.

Most of our Oil is near Baltic sea. We had one small source refined allready and used. Wasnt a good buisness. We have some in south west part far from German border. And one near the Ukraine border. The pain is that the earth shape and source placing is made this way, so if we start digging the oil pressure will burst most of the oil into our border. And we have like 20% of that source in our borders, so diplomacy is set to some cheeper fuel for us, or so I've heared.

End yes France has best start in world map. Not only that, they are nOOb spawn killers. Starts a war in 40th turn, when u barelly finished 1 settler 5 warriors 1 barracks and 1 or 2 fishing boats... Freakin hate this. Allways finishes off Germany or Spain. And when im Rome I'm first in line :(:(:(:(:(
Hate it.

One of these days, I'll play as the Germans just so I can hammer out the French. Getting tired of having Napoleon jump me out of the blue as the Americans.

The primary problem with the world map is that it's just too small. In Scotland we have two major cities and several amaller ones, but Scotland on the TR map can only fit one city.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a processor in the world today fast enough to run a full scale world map at a playable speed.

Bring on optical computers!

WarKirby

What about a map that distorts the earth according to poplation density or global historical impact? So Europe would be bigger to accomodate all the major cultures that started off there, as would say Japan, Rome, Athens, but other empires would have a smaller area, reflecting their lesser long-term impact. I realise this could be contentious ground, given the significance of different empires in different times and places, but would solve some of the problems.

Frinstance, I like Spain because I get no hassle from barbs in the early game, and France seems to leave me alone, but I have to attack to get any sort of empire before heading off to the New World...Spain only had a European Empire in the netherlands, and had a pop at England a few times, but didn't really need to dominate the whole region to acheive what it did.

Have you ever seen the physical representation of nerve sensitivity in humans? I can't seem to find a pic of it online, but the lips, hands, and erm genitals were all far larger than the torso of the model, because the body dedicated more nerve 'bandwidth' to these organs. It looked a bit like gollum. I've also seem it done for carbon emissions and population size. This report on the BBC about burgeoning megacities gets close to showing what I am on about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/06/urbanisation/html/urbanisation.stm

Maybe the map should allow this sort of late-game world to develop in Civ...

found him - the sensory homunculus.

http://www.juergenhaenggi.ch/index.php?mcid=1&scid=141&contentset_id=198

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=sensory%20homunculus&fr=FP-tab-web-t340&ei=UTF-8&meta=vc=&fr2=tab-web

Houman,
As I'm sure your aware... Besides the Egyptian pregame contact with the Mali, they also have a starting gold amount of 30 gold... Anyway I thought I would mention it so you wouldn't overlook that when your able to release the patch...

Did the 3 City Start world map go away?

I've installed 2.1 and 2.1.3.

Shouldn't Japan have horses? I believe the Takeda clan relied heavily on cavalry, but I had to invade China to get some horses.

WarKirby

I noticed that there is still a problem with the world map (specifically Cathage, starting position) that I had mentioned during Beta 1, perhaps overlooked. Nonetheless, here goes again, the initial settler unit square is also occupied by two barbarian units, one of which is a settler and the other a warrior, I figure your team must've forgot to delete them from the map.

with regards to Cathage starting off with barbarians in their starting position...
the accompaning warrior that comes with Cathage seems to be randomly placed as the position tends to vary from game to game, why I mention and the possible flaw is, I just started a game were the warrior started off on the square, what would be geographically sicily meaning the intial (defensive warrior) is pretty much on the other side of the world since I can't just frolick through Rome, Athens etc.. and I obviously don't have ships or whatnot the first turn. its all good though thought I'd just mention these map errors

Cathage Again, again??,

Carthage appears to be in contact with Egypt at the start of turn one, obviously without actually exploring that far.

Cathage Again, again??,

Carthage appears to be in contact with Egypt at the start of turn one, obviously without actually exploring that far.

You could edit that out in notepad.:)

Any one have an idea how to make both Celts and England ballanced ?

Both have very limited expand place, and need astronomy/opened borders/culture big to allow galleys to swim to iceland and further.

Any one have an idea how to make both Celts and England ballanced ?

Both have very limited expand place, and need astronomy/opened borders/culture big to allow galleys to swim to iceland and further.

Sure i have an idea. Remove the Celts from Ireland and aalow them to have a starting position in Central Europe (Hugarian plains for example). If you look at an history nook, you will read that their birth lands wher in fact South Germany, East France, Austria, West Hungary. Only after they settled in all western europe and also in Turkey (Galate people).

The Frog.

You mean the tribal hut (goody hut) north of Constantinopole spot ? If yes Alans(or Huns, never know witch one is closer) city should be destroyed, to allow Brennus have more space to settle with Germany taking "Warsaw" spot and Cathrine's mad creative trait.

I was thinking of putting them to New Zeland as Christchurch or Dunedin :lol:
sailing gives them chance of capturing North Island and settle in Tasmania.

The problem is that Brennus says when you meet him "my druids shall make a huge circle stone construction to hinor this day", and i belive he was refering to Stonehange and we know where it was built...

im working on a total realism 1000ad map its allmost finished it. beta1 should be finished Tomorrow. i jst need to edit all the cities and set the game to the correct turn for 1000ad and add the resources added in the mod... i think thats all anyways heres the unfinished version for you night owls who want to play now:lol:
edit i forgot to mention its for warlords beta2 mod

im working on a total realism 1000ad map its allmost finished it. beta1 should be finished Tomorrow. i jst need to edit all the cities and set the game to the correct turn for 1000ad and add the resources added in the mod... i think thats all anyways heres the unfinished version for you night owls who want to play now:lol:
edit i forgot to mention its for warlords beta2 mod
Good Work. We need more independents like you who do their own maps and scenarios. Thanks. :goodjob:

Area specific maps would also reduce the problem of Warlords introducing 7? new civs. 24 civs would create an insane amount of lag to have on one map with the realism mod. You might also want to have the maps set in certain eras. (Starting in different ages.)

USA Map:
English, French, Spanish, American?
Colonial Times
Large

Central/South America Map:
Aztecs, Incas, Spanish, French, English
Colonial Times
Large

Africa Map:
Mali, Egypt, Zulu, Cartheganian
Ancient Era
Large

Middle East Centered Map
Arab, Ottoman, Persian, Egyptian?
Ancient Era
Regular

European Map
Celts, Romans, Greeks, Vikings
Classical Era
Regular

European Map 2
English, French, German, Spain, Vikings?
Medieval Era
Regular

Asia Map
China, Mongols, Japan, Indian, Korean
Ancient Era
Large

Something I saw which would be pretty cool with the above maps...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169293

Basically you'd have yourself a full scenario instead of just starting on a certain "Flavour" of world map. Looks kinda cool. I'll be damned if I know how to actually integrate it tho.... :)

Something I saw which would be pretty cool with the above maps...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169293

Basically you'd have yourself a full scenario instead of just starting on a certain "Flavour" of world map. Looks kinda cool. I'll be damned if I know how to actually integrate it tho.... :)
I see what you mean. Thanks. ;)

I see what you mean. Thanks. ;)

If you ever figure out how to work it, PM me *PLEASE* :D

I'm SUCH a friggin n00b.... :blush: :)

If you ever figure out how to work it, PM me *PLEASE* :D

I'm SUCH a friggin n00b.... :blush: :)
No problem guy....being a noob is a good thing; basically because a lot of you self-proclaimed noobs bring in a lot new ideas from a fresh perspective. And often you new guys have the energy and time to devote to a lot of innovation. Keep it coming. ;) I have been playing and working on Civ since Civ1 and let me tell you each version is different from the other requiring you to learn new techniques of changing /modding the main game. For the most part I am still stuck in Civ3 TAM and TeturKhan's scenario, lol; but I am getting up to speed in Civ4. We will figure it out.

heres the beta1 of my scenario most of the new resources are there. the cities, and units are finished but i dont have the correct starting year any comments are welcome.

btw if anyone has any maps that are for civ4 vanilla or warlords vanilla that they want to play on total realism mod i might be able to get them to work with the mod.

edit:i forgot to mention that i used Zoroastrianism to replace Confucianism in the map
edit2: if the new patch for warlords has been installed i dont know if it will work... i just checked total realism mod doesnt run for the new patch atleast for me though.. so my map cant be played either

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170285&highlight=Trip

European map, not balanced.. needs some added resources.

A Euro map would be a great addition



Another Euro map

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156846

this one has resources in place and might be easier.

I suggest you add the gas resource and add gass fields. Gas playes an important role in the modern world, it can be seen as both a luckury resource, as a strategic resource to propel units at high speed like ships and tanks. But it can also be used for resonaly clean enery production.

here are some suggested locations:
Asalouyeh, South Pars Gas Field (10000 - 15000)
Urengoy gas field (10000)
Shtokman field (3200)
Karachaganak field, Kazakhstan (1800)
Slochteren (1500)
Greater Gorgon (1100)
Shah Deniz gas field (800)
Tangguh gas field (500)
Sakhalin-I (485)
Ormen Lange (400)
Jonah Field (300)
Snøhvit (140)
Barnett Shale (60 - 900)
Maui gas field (?)
Troll (?)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_fields

Fantastic, there is Resources threat in here and gas resource was allready discussed.

I suggest you add the gas resource and add gass fields. Gas playes an important role in the modern world, it can be seen as both a luckury resource, as a strategic resource to propel units at high speed like ships and tanks. But it can also be used for resonaly clean enery production.

here are some suggested locations:
Asalouyeh, South Pars Gas Field (10000 - 15000)
Urengoy gas field (10000)
Shtokman field (3200)
Karachaganak field, Kazakhstan (1800)
Slochteren (1500)
Greater Gorgon (1100)
Shah Deniz gas field (800)
Tangguh gas field (500)
Sakhalin-I (485)
Ormen Lange (400)
Jonah Field (300)
Snøhvit (140)
Barnett Shale (60 - 900)
Maui gas field (?)
Troll (?)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_fields


It is indeed a very good idea. Especially if the resource has alrady been made. The biggest problem we have, and Lopez was going to solve this a while ago, so long without sucess; we need to use up 1 resource for every 3 cities. That would help us out. Right now 1 oil and 1 Iron is enough to make all tanks, choppers etc etc

Regards
Houman

Is there a chance of possible oportunity to have a try with creating a new terrain types, witch will be no differant than their original "parents" exept that it will have a high chance of bringing AI settlers to raise a city on it ?

Like "city spot grassland", +2 food (like "parent" grassland), but it will affect AI so he will LOVE to make cities on "city spot grassland".

This way we can have European civs build all their possoble cities, not only 2 (Rome usually doesnt build any, France builds one to the east, god forgot the name... starts with "B" i think... and one Obove Rome, where Romans should buoild their own city. Also Spain doesnt like to build more than Barcelona, and thank god it has 80% of building in right spot.).

Is there a chance of possible oportunity to have a try with creating a new terrain types, witch will be no differant than their original "parents" exept that it will have a high chance of bringing AI settlers to raise a city on it ?

Like "city spot grassland", +2 food (like "parent" grassland), but it will affect AI so he will LOVE to make cities on "city spot grassland".

This way we can have European civs build all their possoble cities, not only 2 (Rome usually doesnt build any, France builds one to the east, god forgot the name... starts with "B" i think... and one Obove Rome, where Romans should buoild their own city. Also Spain doesnt like to build more than Barcelona, and thank god it has 80% of building in right spot.).

Anaztazioch,

Interesting idea. I could greatly help in Europe and Far East. We will have a discussion about that.

Hian the Frog.

Is there a chance of possible oportunity to have a try with creating a new terrain types, witch will be no differant than their original "parents" exept that it will have a high chance of bringing AI settlers to raise a city on it ?

Like "city spot grassland", +2 food (like "parent" grassland), but it will affect AI so he will LOVE to make cities on "city spot grassland".

This way we can have European civs build all their possoble cities, not only 2 (Rome usually doesnt build any, France builds one to the east, god forgot the name... starts with "B" i think... and one Obove Rome, where Romans should buoild their own city. Also Spain doesnt like to build more than Barcelona, and thank god it has 80% of building in right spot.).

:goodjob: That's actually really clever.

That being said, it's only worth doing if it can be implemented so as to properly grant the benefit when the city is on the space. If that hurdle can be overcome, then definitely go for it.

World Map has to be completelly reworked.
Or atleast barbarians. They still rape America before 3000bc. As i checked with WB he had 3 native archers in Washington and 1 wounded near it.

Also barbarians resarch tech 1000 times slower than AI. In 2500bc EVERY civ exept me had bronze working (prince difficulty) and i had only Mysticism, Hunting, Archery, Priesthood and Dualism (but Incas had both Zoroastranins and Judaism founded...). At this rate Shaka was making his Axeman campany vs barbs (next turn Mozambique will be Zulo or ruins), Rabat got captured by Carthages Hypaspists, The city north from Chooson start location was captured by Chooson (and had LOTS of mongolian and chineese forces arround it, motly archers, but shortswordsmans as well).
Cyrus and India was in early war (i hate that AI declares a war without expanding even if it has place and time). Saladin expands very slowelly (even with imperialistic).
Oulu (Helsinki) is captured by Ragnar or Cathrine or Bismark faster than "instantly".
Barbarian still move his forces from one city to another making them more vulnurable to attacks. Egypt even when not in war doesnt expand much.

And most irritating... One barbarian warrior (no xp) on grassland with no river took out 4 of my attack I mongolian (ottoman)archers... Same with attacking city Scthius (or something) defended by walls 2 mongolian archers(one has city garrison II, other city garrison I) 1 huntsman 2 warriors and worker. I attacked him with 2 stacks:
stack no 1 - 9 mongolian archers(each city raider I) 3 warriors(each had combat I and cover I)
stack no 2 - mongolian archer (city garrison I) mongolian archer (combat I) settler, scout.
After I used all my units i had to retreat my settler and scout... Here is what his defedners had after my "siege":
mongolian archer city garrison II 1.3/3 (turn later he was city garrison IV)
mongolian archer city garrison I 0.4/3 (city garrison II)
huntsman 1.2/3 (attack II, amphibious)
warrior 1.0/2 (combat I)
warrior 0.1/2 (ombat II)
worker
I DONT HAVE SUCH PROBLEMS CONQUERING OTHER CIVILIZATIONS.

I also waited till that defenders get healed and used WB to put 6 janissaries and give 5xp to all of them. 3 of them recived city raider II 3 of them recived Combat I and Cover I. attacked that city... strongest mongolian arhcer killed 3 jannisaries with city raider II and get his hp down to 2.0/3 other 3 jannisaries killed huntsman and weakened weaker mongolian archer to 1.2/3 and killed 1 warrior. The one Jannisary that survived 2.4/9 was kileld by counter attacking newelly created huntsman with attack I.

In beta3 i would not loose more than 5 mongolian archers. In bet4 i played as England so didnt have contact with barbs.

I played again by other civ (saladin) and had same (almost same) problem trying to conquer Babylon (walls 2 archers, 2 huntsman, 1 warrior, 1 warrior attack I) attacked him with 4 shortswordsman city raider II or city raider I (some made in Mecca with great general) and 7 (7!) attack I and attack II axemans (some made in Mecca). I did not capture that city... Axemans took out archers and huntsmans, that 2 warriors killed all 4 shortswordsmans and left them with 0.3/2 and 0.4/2. Next turn i wanted to attack him with my wounded 3 axemans (only those did survive, all had above 2.7 +xp healing when taking promotion). But he just brought backups... 2 skirmishers... and warrior went city garrison I other went attack II. that one with attack II attacked my axeman(as i gave up and moved my nOObs not army to hills that are also protected by river from that city direct attack) who had 3.8/5 and city raider II AND THAT WARRIOR WAS VICTORIOUS ! He attacked me with 2 meshes, and 1 died.

So far i did not see such problems in Random maps. Exept close starting positions and Ragnar who is making army and moves his army for 80 turn (to the other side of pangea) to declare a war with Isabella... When all civs had 3 or 4 cities and mostly archers as units and sometimes shortswordsmans, Ragnar had only his capitol and warrior witch he sent to attack Spain. After war ended his remaining warriors got killed by barbs who had axemans by that time... Shortly after Ragnar got owned by Ghandi who was neghbour of Spain and moved his 10 axemans for 80 turn (other side of pangea) to finish ragnar off.
I REALLY CANT WAIT for Really Better AI.

AI just got updated today. Most of these problems are solved for gold version. :)

Americans would get it a bit easier (removing some barbs).
If it is still too hard, we could give the two starting units also a level 3 City Garrison.

They have 2 units with lvl II garrison.
I think it will be better to gove all starting barbarian archers defance I. This way not only they will not finish civs early, but also their cities will last a bit longer.

well i just finished V. 1 of my Earth1000AD map so here it is.

BTW if anyone wants a premade map changed so it is compatible with the Total Realism mod I'll try to do so(i did so with the Civ IV 1000AD map).


edit:forgot to mention the map is compatible with the pre-gold, beta 4, and beta 3 versions(I'm not sure about any other versions. also i haven't tried it but think you can use it on the Civ IV vanilla total realism version by changing the file extension).

AI just got updated today. Most of these problems are solved for gold version. :)

Americans would get it a bit easier (removing some barbs).
If it is still too hard, we could give the two starting units also a level 3 City Garrison.

Well Reall i would give all barbarians Defance I or Defance II promotions(almost all as barbarians still need to kill scouts etc, but since animals are there... But we need more animals i would think). So he will not get whiped as Archers will defend good and will not attack enemies.

First, let me state that I am not a programmer or modder, so if I put forth forth an idea that is totally impossible to code, I apologize.

In an earlier post, Anaztazioch asked, "Where's the coffee in Brazil?" Well, based on history, there was no coffee in Brazil until it was brought there; but, based on current game mechanics, there should never be any coffee in Brazil. There should also not be any horses anywhere but the steppes of Russia and Central Asia. However, in the real world, coffee is grown in Brazil, potatoes are grown in Ireland, and horses and cattle are raised everywhere. This is because plant and animal resources, unlike mineral resources aren't forever fixed.

So, what would be a realistic solution for this problem. Again, let me apologize if this can't be implemented.

First, there should be two kinds of agricultural resources: original/primary resources (e.g., horses, wheat, and coffee) and optional/secondary resources (i.e., pasture land, crop land, and plantation land). For example, there should be 2 or 3 sources of horses in the steppes of Central Asia and then there should be 'pasture land' resources where horses, cattle, or other livestock could be raised. For other livestock sources of origin, see livestock table 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock#Types_of_livestock) or livestock table 2 (http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm). For food crops, those usually made available by Agriculture, and cash/plantation crops, those usually made available by Calendar, there should likewise be the 2 or 3 original resources where appropriate, see plant map 1 (http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/media/drawings/agriculture/plantorigin.jpg) or plant map 2 (http://arnica.csustan.edu/boty3050/images/Crop_origins.jpg).

Second, there should an agriculture transfer mechanism, similar to the technology transfer mechanism, for acquiring breeding stock and planting stock from a civilization that already has these resources. Actual trading of resources should greatly increase the transfer rate. Planting stock for cash crops should be more difficult to obtain than for food crops; and breeding stock for horses should also be more difficult to acquire than for other livestock. Since, elephants, originating in India and North Africa, were never really domesticated and, in the game, are utilized through camps not pastures, they should remain unaffected by this mechanism.

Last, once a breeding stock or planting stock is acquired, there should be a way for the civilization to then go out and build their own secondary resource on a plot of the appropriate optional resource. These secondary resources should be able to be pillaged or changed. So, if a civilization loses control of all of it's primary and secondary sources of a resource, it must then repeat the agriculture transfer process for that resource. Here, I should note that there is difference in a regular farm and a resource farm. In reality, this is certainly a difference between an area of small-scale, family/subsistance farms and and area of large-scale, profit/surplus farms. There are roughly 20,000 species of edible plants, but only 30 of these provide most of the world's food, see source (http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/media/drawings/agriculture/edibleplants.jpg). So, a regular farm could be assumed to be growing a variety of crops and livestock in sufficient quantities to feed a nearby city, but not enough for exporting to the rest of the empire or another civilization. But, still building a farm without having any type of planting stock on a 'crop land' resource tile should be more beneficial than building one on a plains tile.

Here, I will present a full example of this process.
Playing the Aztecs, I have no chance for horses, wheat, or coffee until I am able to trade with the Old World. I can however trade maize for potatoes with the Incans. So, I either work out a deal with Huayna Capac to speed up the process or I wait until trade routes do the job for me. Then, once I have my planting stock for potatoes, which would most likely mean the Incans also have a planting stock for maize, I send my workers out to build a potato farm on a crop land tile. Now, if I get into war with the Americans and they either capture or destroy all of my potato farms, I then must wait until I rebuild my planting stock before I can again build a potato farm. As for maize, should the Americans destroy all of my maize farms, I simply have to rebuild on the site of a primary source for maize and I again can build secondary maize farms. Much later when I have made contact with Old World civilizations, I can begin to acquire breeding stock for horses and planting stock for wheat and coffee. I still must improve pasture land, crop land, or plantation land to actually have any of these resources.

In conclusion, using a system like what I have outlined here would allow all civilizations to eventually be able have any agricultural resource, including horses, but those that have the primary sources would still have an early advantage.

@ skurdzh

Interesting point of view. Some of your comments are really good. IMO, something had to be done to promote the "spread of agricultural and pastoral ressources" around the world.
But we've got not enough time to do all we want. :( It's probably not the answer you wait for. I'm sorry. :(
But we will look at your suggestions and we will think about a good playable and balanced solution. :D

Hian the Frog.

actually that is possible but to what extent I'm not sure. All i know is that Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod uses something similar to this, but whether or not this can be used for any thing other than the earth map i really would not know.

BTW noticed this after i posted my map but allot of the units will need to be replaced because of the changes that have been done I'm not going to fix it until the gold version is released(mainly because i don't have do it twice).

Hian i love your sig, i hate it when seems like i would be better off with less than 50% chance of wining.

(Low Priority) Suggestion about the World Map, specifically in relation to the naming of the Barb tribes in Australia...

It really doesn't make much sense to have the Alemanni, Ghuzz and whoever else is currently there. Maybe name each of the three barb cities after Aboriginal tribes who actually populated those areas...

Where Alemanni, replace with Nyoongar.
Where Ghuzz (in modern day QLD), replace with Ankamuti (many aboriginal tribes could be used, this is just one example)
The tribe near modern day Darwin (forget the name), replace with Tiwi (again, many tribes could be used, this is just one)

I think given the context of the mod, the Australian continent should remain unsettled except for barbs... While it would be appropriate in other mods to have Australia as an AI/playable civ (Such as XX Century Mod), for TR it should stay as is. Having said that, I think having the barb cities that are placed there should be renamed for accuracy's sake.

Trying to find a way to allow tech trades with Vassals and Permanet Allinace with Tech trading off..<Vassals should always be willing to give up their techs for yours regardless of the tech trading key> I think this is a Warlords bug and not a mod bug but if a solution can be found ;o) it would be great

First, let me state that I am not a programmer or modder, so if I put forth forth an idea that is totally impossible to code, I apologize.

In an earlier post, Anaztazioch asked, "Where's the coffee in Brazil?" Well, based on history, there was no coffee in Brazil until it was brought there; but, based on current game mechanics, there should never be any coffee in Brazil. There should also not be any horses anywhere but the steppes of Russia and Central Asia. However, in the real world, coffee is grown in Brazil, potatoes are grown in Ireland, and horses and cattle are raised everywhere. This is because plant and animal resources, unlike mineral resources aren't forever fixed.

So, what would be a realistic solution for this problem. Again, let me apologize if this can't be implemented.

First, there should be two kinds of agricultural resources: original/primary resources (e.g., horses, wheat, and coffee) and optional/secondary resources (i.e., pasture land, crop land, and plantation land). For example, there should be 2 or 3 sources of horses in the steppes of Central Asia and then there should be 'pasture land' resources where horses, cattle, or other livestock could be raised. For other livestock sources of origin, see livestock table 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock#Types_of_livestock) or livestock table 2 (http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/a/domestication.htm). For food crops, those usually made available by Agriculture, and cash/plantation crops, those usually made available by Calendar, there should likewise be the 2 or 3 original resources where appropriate, see plant map 1 (http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/media/drawings/agriculture/plantorigin.jpg) or plant map 2 (http://arnica.csustan.edu/boty3050/images/Crop_origins.jpg).

Second, there should an agriculture transfer mechanism, similar to the technology transfer mechanism, for acquiring breeding stock and planting stock from a civilization that already has these resources. Actual trading of resources should greatly increase the transfer rate. Planting stock for cash crops should be more difficult to obtain than for food crops; and breeding stock for horses should also be more difficult to acquire than for other livestock. Since, elephants, originating in India and North Africa, were never really domesticated and, in the game, are utilized through camps not pastures, they should remain unaffected by this mechanism.

Last, once a breeding stock or planting stock is acquired, there should be a way for the civilization to then go out and build their own secondary resource on a plot of the appropriate optional resource. These secondary resources should be able to be pillaged or changed. So, if a civilization loses control of all of it's primary and secondary sources of a resource, it must then repeat the agriculture transfer process for that resource. Here, I should note that there is difference in a regular farm and a resource farm. In reality, this is certainly a difference between an area of small-scale, family/subsistance farms and and area of large-scale, profit/surplus farms. There are roughly 20,000 species of edible plants, but only 30 of these provide most of the world's food, see source (http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/media/drawings/agriculture/edibleplants.jpg). So, a regular farm could be assumed to be growing a variety of crops and livestock in sufficient quantities to feed a nearby city, but not enough for exporting to the rest of the empire or another civilization. But, still building a farm without having any type of planting stock on a 'crop land' resource tile should be more beneficial than building one on a plains tile.

Here, I will present a full example of this process.
Playing the Aztecs, I have no chance for horses, wheat, or coffee until I am able to trade with the Old World. I can however trade maize for potatoes with the Incans. So, I either work out a deal with Huayna Capac to speed up the process or I wait until trade routes do the job for me. Then, once I have my planting stock for potatoes, which would most likely mean the Incans also have a planting stock for maize, I send my workers out to build a potato farm on a crop land tile. Now, if I get into war with the Americans and they either capture or destroy all of my potato farms, I then must wait until I rebuild my planting stock before I can again build a potato farm. As for maize, should the Americans destroy all of my maize farms, I simply have to rebuild on the site of a primary source for maize and I again can build secondary maize farms. Much later when I have made contact with Old World civilizations, I can begin to acquire breeding stock for horses and planting stock for wheat and coffee. I still must improve pasture land, crop land, or plantation land to actually have any of these resources.

In conclusion, using a system like what I have outlined here would allow all civilizations to eventually be able have any agricultural resource, including horses, but those that have the primary sources would still have an early advantage.


Missing from the list and missing from the game are 2 of the earliest food sources Ocre <no other animal on the planet ate it so man made it a staple and it still is in a large protion of the world> and Chickpeas <extreamly easy to grow high in protien content and eaten worldwide even today <most know it in the form of humus or falafel or as a protien additive in thousands of of food produce..

Also Missing Canning and canneries <Napoleon commisioned the first metal mass produce canneries on the planet to feed his armys> and tin coated steel cans are the primary means of food transportation and preservation still today and will be far into the future...

Gold version.

Why Incas start with Native warriors, not Quechas ?

I've played a lot with the world map, with many different civs. This is my opinion: playing in America is, in general enough boring, without horses (chariots) is very expensive, in terms of units losses. I didnt play too long with America Civs because even when I conquered completely this continents I realize that my army was less than half than a normal army in the old world, due to battle losses, furthermore without chariots, I cant even imagine the possibility to attack someone in the old world and this makes the game unplayable for an America Civ. If you wanted to make this game realistic you fail because USA, for example, is the strongest empire in the world, but american civ cant never grow up to this level without horses. If we think how important were horses for American history I think this is a non-sense. I know horses were brought in America by Europeans, but this is a game, not a lessons of history. So, I think it would be better to make possible horses resource even in America. Second, playing as Incan for example, jungle is a serious handicap because you cant chop until ironworking, usually enough late, so there are few things to do before this is researched, this means Incas can never reach high levels. This happened already in history, why repeat it in a game? In my opinion the world map must give a starting position for civs, after then, each one must have his chance to raise as leading power, if not for this at least to give some fun to players. Last thing, I think there are too many civs in the west and I've never seen a game where Celtic, England or France got more than 2-3 cities and are all destined to disappear when a major civ attack them. This map is fantastic to play but only with asian and african civs, if you can change a little the balance can be a wonderful and infinite-playable scenario. Thx!

Horses for America, Ever tough about bringing them from old world ?
American Cavalary does not require horses as they are "virtually" brough form Europe. Or at least it was like that, never bothered to check.

For Incas, do not build in Jungles. You have Coast dont you ? And if you play the Incas the same way they lived in history, why you would make it differant ? You must play differant way, to change history.

Celtic - true, but thats mostly becouse there is no place to put them and still call this map WorldMap for Total Realism.
England, you must be joking. Unless they find them selves in early war that stops their economy, they grow in power fast enough to own ANY European civ.
France, they mostly do Early wars to Germany and win often. If i dont stop France my self, AI usually build a big empire.

Horses for America, Ever tough about bringing them from old world ?
American Cavalary does not require horses as they are "virtually" brough form Europe. Or at least it was like that, never bothered to check.

For Incas, do not build in Jungles. You have Coast dont you ? And if you play the Incas the same way they lived in history, why you would make it differant ? You must play differant way, to change history.

Celtic - true, but thats mostly becouse there is no place to put them and still call this map WorldMap for Total Realism.
England, you must be joking. Unless they find them selves in early war that stops their economy, they grow in power fast enough to own ANY European civ.
France, they mostly do Early wars to Germany and win often. If i dont stop France my self, AI usually build a big empire.

Sorry, maybe you misunderstand me. I mean that this is simple a game and a game must give same satisfaction with all civs in the game. How is the map and the resource system and the position of civs, it is a funny game only playing with asian or african civs. I didnt play a game where the first 4-5 leading civs were not asian or african, at prince and noble levels.
I dont understand what do you say about England, usually in my games England disappears from history books as soon as Ragnar has enough units to destroy them.
In my opinion it can be good to separate some resources as coffee, potatoes, sugar (why not even tomatoes then, probably the most important original food ?), but bronze, iron and horses must be common in all continents to give same chances and same fun to all civs. Bye!

but bronze, iron and horses must be common in all continents to give same chances and same fun to all civs.

Maybe giving Oil to all civs as well ? Becouse USA has its own big refineries, so whay they trade with "Arabic" countries, or invade Iraq ?

Aztecz doesnt even require Iron, as Jaguars and Elite Jaguars does not require Iron for production.

Incas ? Their Quecha and Elite Quecha has +75% vs archery units.

Another thing is that its hard for European civs to attack Americas, Only access is from Arctica... They must swin thour England, Islandia, Arctica Green Land to reach America. I say this must be delated. And when you will have transporting units through water, Incas should have Musketmans, They have Slatpater there. With Musketmans and cannons its pretty ballanced.


As for England, it must attack Celts 1st. If not they wont have enough resarch output.

And by saying That World Map doesnt give you expected satisfaction, no one did forced you to play it. You can allways play some Random game, or use in game World Builder and add some horses as well other changes that makes you feel are needed to have fun. But I warn you that with Horses Incas doesnt get stronger by big degree, Mostly couse they mounted units cant move fastin jungle. As for America, with horses they will have no problems wiping out Aztecs.

Horses in 4000BC roam free in the SW and great pains of America ..but they suffer the same fate as the Bison in America did <early explores /settelrs hunted them into extinction or cross bred them into european species till they were unrecogniozable as such>

Oil in America's ..its more plentiful here than in Mid east ..just cheaper to buy from The mid east than to use wahts here..Brazil dosent even bother to use Fossil fuel much anymore theyve swapped to almost pure alchohol for personal vehicals <somethign the US is headed towards ..>

OIL location in America..Texas ..Huge reserves..MIdwest Largest reserve on planet not uitilized except in time of MAJOR war <ie last time it was tapped was 1945.....>
Alaska ..Many Many Feilds HQ and easily accessable..Not fully utilized due to Treehuggers complaints..
Venezuala ..Mexico ..columbia etc all have local sources of oil but its either more expensive to use local or its crappy similar to the Polish oil stated earlier ..but it is there..Gulf of mexico ..Enourmous reserve there..

Forgot that USA actually has lots of Oil...

Still its much to pay for american for oil than "Arabs".

Major Oil fields in the United States/North America:
Pennsylvannia/West New York: Primary Oil production from 1850s to about 1900ish
Texas: Major Oil fields discovered around 1900, still producing to this day, although at a much more reduced rate.
Rocky Mountain region (Utah, Idaho, Nevada): Small amount of Oil, difficult to access, generally considered not worth the investment to extract.
Alaska/Northwest Territories: ANWAR, Largest Oil deposit outside of the Middle East. Environmental restrictions prevent wide-scale drilling.

I am less familiar with oil deposits in Mexico, although they do produce quite a bit of oil on there own. There is also a large deposit of Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, currently this makes up the bulk of US domestic Oil production.

There's really no need for the United States to be importing the oil it does from the Middle East. Environmental laws may play a part, but I believe that there is another reason that every US Administration as far back as Nixon (perhaps farther) has seen it more useful to pump OPEC dry first. Unfortunately, they are keeping it a rather closely guarded secret.

Major Oil fields in the United States/North America:
Pennsylvannia/West New York: Primary Oil production from 1850s to about 1900ish
Texas: Major Oil fields discovered around 1900, still producing to this day, although at a much more reduced rate.
Rocky Mountain region (Utah, Idaho, Nevada): Small amount of Oil, difficult to access, generally considered not worth the investment to extract.
Alaska/Northwest Territories: ANWAR, Largest Oil deposit outside of the Middle East. Environmental restrictions prevent wide-scale drilling.

I am less familiar with oil deposits in Mexico, although they do produce quite a bit of oil on there own. There is also a large deposit of Oil in the Gulf of Mexico, currently this makes up the bulk of US domestic Oil production.

There's really no need for the United States to be importing the oil it does from the Middle East. Environmental laws may play a part, but I believe that there is another reason that every US Administration as far back as Nixon (perhaps farther) has seen it more useful to pump OPEC dry first. Unfortunately, they are keeping it a rather closely guarded secret. No secret ..US naval reserves ..ie if we have another LARge conventional war (ww1 ww2 ) the US has the oil reserves to fight a full scale conventional war for 100 years with no fear of ever being short of oil...

I've played couple (12 actually) of worldmap-TRgold games and i really enjoyed all of them, but some things i've noticed: Gandhi is wiped out or vassalled quite early(med times) in all of my games by Cyrus and Catherine almost always founds zoroathrianism in 10 games out of 12. Anyone noticed something similar?

I love this mod,btw

Yes Gandhi gets wiped out fast.
Cathrine usually gets conquered before she reches Dualism. But thats reasonable, Dualism is Cultural and Spiritual technology, so Creative civs should go for it.

As for early wars, i blane better AI. Its too agressive, AI prefers to attack civs instead to build their own cities. Even if they have lots of space and great spots.

anyone knows reason why civs dont change their religions to their favourite?
As Ragnar had 2 cities with Zoro(as state). and i have infected him with christianity to full number of cities(6) and he didnt convert at all. Why? PS:Wrong thread?

@Anaztazioch
what is your usual difficulty level(noble for me)?
in my games catherine is quite good(holy city of zoro-lots of influence and money makes her considerable foe)

Well.

Mostly i played emperor and diety levels, but since better AI and their 51 stacks in each city garrison +1365workers in capitol, 35 workboats oin every possible coastal city, 10 stacks 78 units each killing slaves... i changed to prince/monarch.

Actually prince is too easy for me, allways have 2 times higher score than everyone else in 500ad and im giving my cities away to my allies.

Monarch can be hard with better AI, but only in military topic. Economy and Culture are allways mine.

Right now im playing SVN versions of TR. We got like update every day, so its hard to keep up savegames compatibile. Mostly i play for testing etc. Thats also why i play on prince and monarch.


As for favorite religion. Ragnar was pogan i belive. Gustav Vasa, new leader for Vikings is Christian. Right now AI needs once city with favorite religion to do conversation asap. Sometimes they must wait 5 turn, as you cant change civics/religion every day.

Is it possible to do some distance restrictions for units? For instance warrior can go only 20 sqares from nearest city at start of the game? I'm asking because I hate to see in World Map Chinese scouts wandering in Europe in Ancient times. These restrictions should be modified by unit types and some "logistic" technologies(wheel, sailing...)

Is it possible to do some distance restrictions for units? For instance warrior can go only 20 sqares from nearest city at start of the game? I'm asking because I hate to see in World Map Chinese scouts wandering in Europe in Ancient times. These restrictions should be modified by unit types and some "logistic" technologies(wheel, sailing...)

Some "supply" model would really be good, but it requires a lot of coding, so I can't guarantee that it will be in anytime soon...

I know you guys already have a long list of things to do, but.....

For the Earth Map:
The one thing I miss about Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (I was waiting for a CTD patch) was the CityNameManager. The game choses city names based on location and founding civ. If a city was conquered, the city name changed accordingly.

Egyptian "Aarru-Hetep" = Arab "Urshalim" = Greek "Ierusalim" =
Persian "Yerushalayim" = Roman "Aelia Capitolina" = Turkish "Kudüs"

Carthaginian "Ziz" = Roman "Panormus" = Greek "Panormos" =
Arab "Balharm" = French "Palermo"

Yes, I can name my own cities correctly, but I would have to into WorldBuilder to change the AI's names. But then you cannot avoid cheating, learning stuff you wouldn't otherwise know.

I think it would add to "realism" to explore foreign territories and have cities where they are "supposed to be."

I know you guys already have a long list of things to do, but.....

For the Earth Map:
The one thing I miss about Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (I was waiting for a CTD patch) was the CityNameManager. The game choses city names based on location and founding civ. If a city was conquered, the city name changed accordingly.

Egyptian "Aarru-Hetep" = Arab "Urshalim" = Greek "Ierusalim" =
Persian "Yerushalayim" = Roman "Aelia Capitolina" = Turkish "Kudüs"

Carthaginian "Ziz" = Roman "Panormus" = Greek "Panormos" =
Arab "Balharm" = French "Palermo"

Yes, I can name my own cities correctly, but I would have to into WorldBuilder to change the AI's names. But then you cannot avoid cheating, learning stuff you wouldn't otherwise know.

I think it would add to "realism" to explore foreign territories and have cities where they are "supposed to be."

This can only be done for a mod that only supports Earth Map, Rhye has stated it quite clearly. Our mod is also random-map friendly - so, we'd be severely narrowing our mod if we implemented this.

If I remember it correctly, the Earth 1000 AD map features a bigger Europe. This would benefit the Celts which could start at at the Danube River. The Turkish Empire could start with Ankara where it belongs. Quite difficult start being confronted with Greece and Persia but a real challenge. There is only room for one Empire in Europe anyway.

I agree. An expanded Europe would be nice. Perhaps if Italy could be one square longer and France one square wider. As it is when I play Rome I change my name to Lorenzo Medicci and the country to Italy. Since I move my first settler north two spaces and settle on the pigs, I name my capital city Florence then go east to one space past the wheat and found Vienna. My third city is on the mountain top on southern Italy which I call Naples.

could you make a very minor change of a city name: ishikari (a barbarian city in northern japan) to sapporo?

ishikari is a small city, which a good number of japanese would not recognize. on the other hand, sapporo is one of the most important cities in northern japan. moreover, the name sapporo came from its original inhabitants (ainu people), while ishikari did not.

In 1868 (the officially recognised year celebrated as the 'birth' of Sapporo), the new Meiji government concluded that the existing administrative center of Hokkaidō, which at the time was the port of Hakodate, was in an unsuitable location for the defense and further development of the island. As a result it was determined that a new capital on the Ishikari Plain should be established. The plain itself provided an unusually large expanse of flat, well drained land which is relatively uncommon in the otherwise mountainous geography of Hokkaidō.

Wikipedia. Thats reason enough for me not to name it Sapporo.

You can say we have simmilar thing with Babylon and Baghdad, but Babylonia is more known than Ainu.

The "Sapporo" entry in en.wikipedia does not clarify a really important thing: Sapporo is on the north west end of the Ishikari Plain. That is why the entry says that 1868 is "the officially recognised year celebrated as the 'birth' of Sapporo" (I do not think it was 1868, and ja.wikipedia rather implies it was 1869, though). There are both Sapporo city and Ishikari city on the Ishikari Plain, just like Albany and NYC are in NY. However, unlike NYC, Ishikari city is not a very important city on the Ishikari Plain, as I explained in the previous post.

I can change it to Ainu to name the tribe, but not to Sapporo. Im very well against city such as Tokyo in game. Not to mention Civilization III where you could plant Tokyo and Edo in differant places... lol

Im not gonna give a city a name it did not had before lets say 1 ad.

1)I like to see Shangrila in tibet... very cool.
2)The city name manager of Rhye is really cool. Implemented this in Earth map!
3)I like to see painted jaguar in south america, is very more comum than black jaguars.
4)The natives of australian is more seemed with africans units than american natives.

1)I like to see Shangrila in tibet... very cool.
2)The city name manager of Rhye is really cool. Implemented this in Earth map!
3)I like to see painted jaguar in south america, is very more comum than black jaguars.
4)The natives of australian is more seemed with africans units than american natives.

1) It's fictional - so no (see mod name) :)
2) Then the mod will be playable only on World Map, like Rhye's. Our mod is designed to be played on both World Map, and random maps.
3) You're right. I can't promise it will make it into this release, though, as it's very close.
4) There are no pre-placed natives in Australia, they're generated randomly.

3)I like to see painted jaguar in south america, is very more comum than black jaguars.
What about polar bears? Could be a real rarity!

I can change it to Ainu to name the tribe, but not to Sapporo. Im very well against city such as Tokyo in game. Not to mention Civilization III where you could plant Tokyo and Edo in differant places... lol

Im not gonna give a city a name it did not had before lets say 1 ad.

Ainu would be great, I presume.

I would like to see in "Total Realism" navigable rivers. In real life there are much importants to logistic of battle. For example: In amazonas river the brazilian destroyers navigable in them. The bigger battle of south america envolved the "River Plate", and the Viking uses the Drakkar to pillage the europe. In USA see the mississipe, (controling the estuary, the French controls for many years the region).

I think, to do this, create a another kind of land, like a "large river" with elements of fort (the water and land units can enter) and a promotion "navegable in large river" to see only canoas, drakkars, and especialized destroyers in them and not batleships.

I would like to see in "Total Realism" navigable rivers. In real life there are much importants to logistic of battle. For example: In amazonas river the brazilian destroyers navigable in them. The bigger battle of south america envolved the "River Plate", and the Viking uses the Drakkar to pillage the europe. In USA see the mississipe, (controling the estuary, the French controls for many years the region).

I think, to do this, create a another kind of land, like a "large river" with elements of fort (the water and land units can enter) and a promotion "navegable in large river" to see only canoas, drakkars, and especialized destroyers in them and not batleships.

I dont think this is related to a worldmap. Its more of a component request. It was allready mentioned few times, but i dont think anyone has managed to make it, and we have our own ideas to make.

I dont think this is related to a worldmap. Its more of a component request. It was allready mentioned few times, but i dont think anyone has managed to make it, and we have our own ideas to make.

Sorry post in here... I played CIV, CIV2, CIV call to power, CIV3, CIV3 with Rhye´s, CIV4, CIV4 with warlords and BTS. Now the game in which I more played is the "Total Realism" and each lauch I wait for this modification... and I modified my "World map" with ocean title the navigable rivers. Just amazon region have 23 thousands kilometers of navigable rivers... in attach navegable rivers of Brazil 157216

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

Also, viking ships were quite special, generally ships that are used on rivers are a suicide to enter open sea with because of their low stability. The same way most ocean faring ships would simply ground in rivers.

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

Also, viking ships were quite special, generally ships that are used on rivers are a suicide to enter open sea with because of their low stability. The same way most ocean faring ships would simply ground in rivers.

I know is not a good idea (using coast for rivers) and because of this I sugest this modification.
Viking ships were special, like a brazilian destroyers... (and there are reals)the moviment is slow because of bank of sands in rivers, for the special modification exists the promotion system. I think the modification is possible because the water units can enter in forts in BTS.

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

What if you created, at strategic locations along the "river", a new resource (call it "pier")? Then, had workboats able to build a bridge (as an improvement)?

This would allow land units to cross (taking an extra turn to do so, for most units) realistically. Bridges are bottlenecks, especially for large formations. Slowing them down keeps it real.

In order to (re)build a bridge, you must control the tile, or your workboats can't improve it (adds to realism).

They should be able to be destroyed by certain (heavy) land units, covert units, or all naval units. If possible, any units on the bridge at the time of destruction, should suffer damage (or be eliminated).

Any unit should be able to use a bridge that's already in place (provided it's not fortified by an enemy).

Longer bridges could be accompished by simply having several "piers" in ajoining tiles.

Perhaps, later in the game, workboats can create "piers", and then build a bridge on them. (Maybe that's the way it should be from the start *shrug*.) This increases the time and cost (multiple boats) of building bridges (again, realism).

Would this be do-able? =)

Eggs -just thinkin outloud- Zachtly

edited to add: The "later" boats (able to create piers) should be able to do so, regardless of ownership of the tile (with open borders or during war).

I think that creating a terrain type that both land and water units can enter would be a ton lot easier.

Also Ive just noticed whats the main problem with ships navigating rivers: In civ 4 rivers are on tile borders, and therefore ships cant really move "on" them. :(

What you really need is a new type of river terrain that "flows" through the middle of the square/diamond, acts like a coastal tile in terms of resources, commerce, etc...but allows land units and water units and air units, etc...to travel on/through it. Now, the problem becomes figuring out which vessels should be allowed to traverse the "navigable river".

Additionally, I have a problem with Montezuma rushing George Washington early in the game to take him out. Is there a problem with George Washington's strategy? The terrain and the barb civs seem excellent, but I'm curious...perhaps the issue is the terrain around Montezuma's start, forcing him to choose to expand to the North, rather than settling and defending his homelands.