I wonder if any thought has been given to trying to fix what I call the Siberian Land Rush syndrome . . . On any given historically accurate map, it seems that the balance of the map is thrown off by large amounts of habitable land that are outside what should be the focus of the map. The winner of the map becomes the first player to make a rush for the vast expanses that historically were completely ignored. On classic "earth" maps, that would be Siberia and/or Canada; in fact, the usual formula for winning on an Earth map is something like "run to Siberia->colonize like mad->grow out of control->win" :dubious: .

It seems that the easiest solution would be to play a little fast and loose with the tundra, ice, and desert terrain. While southern Siberia is technically habitable, that doesn't really capture the fact that no one in their right mind wants to live there . . . and the same goes for the Northwestern Territory, I don't care how nice Yellowknife is in the summer, you're not going to convince me to move there any time soon (most sane people would consider Calgary and Winnipeg to be borderline habitable ;) ).

Pulling the tundra way south--I think I would suggest all the way to the Central Asian deserts, and fairly close to the U.S.-Canadian border--would solve the problem of the Mongols or Americans building a 20+ pop city in the sort of place you'd expect a penal colony to be. The ice could also come a fair distance south as well. I realize that it isn't ecologically correct, but the game design as it stands doesn't capture such nuances as radically shortened growing seasons, frozen rivers (a serious hindrance to pre-railroad trade), and the generally higher effort of maintaining colonies in cold, remote areas :snowcool: .

Thoughts?

Ignoring the general caveats associated with any kind of "land rush", I'd point out that this is a viable strategy in most any Civ game, not just Earth maps. In the long run, expansion is the key to victory, and that includes expanding to sub-optimal lands. That being said, the solution of this is NOT to change the Earth... I question even the desirability of a 'solution'. Canada is hardly an inhospitable wasteland, and the Soviets got a lot of use out of Siberia in their day. They aren't quite as good locations as some others, but they can still be quite useful... and can tilt the balance of the game if ignored or monopolized.

That being said, the solution of this is NOT to change the Earth... I question even the desirability of a 'solution'. Canada is hardly an inhospitable wasteland, and the Soviets got a lot of use out of Siberia in their day. They aren't quite as good locations as some others, but they can still be quite useful... and can tilt the balance of the game if ignored or monopolized.

You say they "aren't quite as good locations as some others", but in most Civ maps, they're actually some of the best locations on the map--they might not have as much food production (they're typically modelled as plains and forests), but with lots of resource bonuses and rivers, they end up being outstanding locations to colonize. That just isn't historical in any way. The Soviets did get a lot of use out of Siberia--by force colonizing it with penal colonies.

The typical approach to modelling tundra appears to be to follow strictly ecological definitions--but that doesn't reflect how useful the lands really are to humans. Wide open areas that are technically not under permafrost can still be virtually useless because they're frozen over eight months of the year. Bear in mind that virtually all of the development of Canada and Siberia has come since the invention of modern heating. Prior to that, the populations of far North America and northern Asia were hunter-gatherer populations with very low population densities even by hunter-gatherer standards.

No, the game doesn't have to reflect reality in every way, it's just a game. But it should at least try to capture some semblence of the course of civilization, and when smart players virtually ignore the Mediterranean and make a beeline for areas that are considered by most to be some of the least desirable locations on earth, something's wrong.

You say they "aren't quite as good locations as some others", but in most Civ maps, they're actually some of the best locations on the map--they might not have as much food production (they're typically modelled as plains and forests), but with lots of resource bonuses and rivers, they end up being outstanding locations to colonize. That just isn't historical in any way. The Soviets did get a lot of use out of Siberia--by force colonizing it with penal colonies.

The typical approach to modelling tundra appears to be to follow strictly ecological definitions--but that doesn't reflect how useful the lands really are to humans. Wide open areas that are technically not under permafrost can still be virtually useless because they're frozen over eight months of the year. Bear in mind that virtually all of the development of Canada and Siberia has come since the invention of modern heating. Prior to that, the populations of far North America and northern Asia were hunter-gatherer populations with very low population densities even by hunter-gatherer standards.

No, the game doesn't have to reflect reality in every way, it's just a game. But it should at least try to capture some semblence of the course of civilization, and when smart players virtually ignore the Mediterranean and make a beeline for areas that are considered by most to be some of the least desirable locations on earth, something's wrong.

Well if it bothers u so much why don't u mod tundra to be very infertile so that farming can't occur easily, make only tundra squares next to rivers have food and make irrigation and farming of them a very late tech. People can still colonise it, they just can't abuse it then:crazyeye: