View Full Version : Standard (80x52) World Map TSL


Veneke
Oct 10, 2011, 06:45 PM
Standard Sized Earth Maps

http://i.imgur.com/GFYSy.jpg (http://imgur.com/GFYSy)

A standard sized world map (80x52) with upscaled Europe and Japan, all Civs and City States are as close to their real world locations as good gameplay will allow.

A note should be made about resource placement in this map. Resources are very localized, for instance there's no sugar outside of the Caribbean or cotton outside the southern United States. That's not entirely realistic, but it should help create some interesting situations and encourage long-range expansion and colonization (for the human players anyway). This is especially true for oil, uranium and aluminium which are confined to a limited number of areas and/or located in very small quantities in rather remote areas.

Civilizations (20/21):

African: Carthage, Egypt, Ethiopia, Songhai.
American: America, (Inca - only in DLC version), Iroqious, Maya.
Asian: China, India, Japan, Mongolia.
European: England, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden.
Middle-Eastern: Arabia, Byzantium, Persia.


City-States (17):

African: Cape Town, Marakech.
American: Cahokia, La Venta, Rio de Janeiro, Quebec City.
Asian: Colombo, Hanoi, Jakarta,Kuala Lumpur, Lhasa, Manila, Singapore, Sydney.
European: Vatican City.
Middle-Eastern: Almaty, Jerusalem.


Limited Map: Civilizations and City-States:

Europe: France, Russia, Vatican.
Middle East: Byzantium, Almaty, Jerusalem.
Africa: Egypt, Cape Town, Marakech.
Asia: India, China, Lhasa, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hanoi, Jakarta, Sydney, Colombo, Manila.
America: America, Maya, Rio de Janerio, Quebec City, La Venta.


Brave New World: Civilizations and City States:

Europe: England, France, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Russia. Vatican, Kiev.
Middle East: Byzantium, Assyria, Arabia. Kabul, Samarkand, Jerusalem.
Africa: Zulus, Egypt, Songhai, Carthage, Morocco. Mombasa, Mogadishu, Cape Town, M'Banza-Kongo, Antananarivo.
Asia: India, China, Japan, Indonesia. Lhasa, Kyzyl, Kuala Lumpur, Hanoi, Colombo, Manila, Singapore.
Oceania: Sydney, Melbourne.
America: America, Shoshone, Maya, Brazil. Panama City, Quebec City, Vancouver, Buenos Aires, Cahokia.



Screenshots:

Worldbuilder view of map (http://imgur.com/Mgbyo)
England versus the Russian bear (http://i.imgur.com/ZaBBr.jpg)
A very British Middle East (http://i.imgur.com/8RaRV.jpg)




Installation Instructions

Extract to C:\Users\...\Sid_Meiers_Civilization_5\MODS
Load Civ 5
Navigate to the Mods section
Activate Vens Gods and Kings Standard Earth Map
Go to Set Up Game
Select the appropriate Map
Click Back
Select Load Scenario
Select Civilization and other settings
Enjoy!

To play with achievements

These Maps do not change any default settings and so it is possible to enable Steam achievements whilst playing.

As above but after the game has started:
Save game
Exit to Main Menu
Cick Single-Player
Load the saved game
Play as normal

Abbreviations:

V Earth 2 - Requires no DLC nor expansions to play.
VGK Earth - Requires Gods and Kings to play.
VGK Earth DLC - Requires Inca DLC to play. <-- This is considered to be the primary map.
VGK Earth Limited - Requires Gods and Kings to play. Has only 8 Civs and 16 City-States.
VBNW Earth - Requires Brave New World to play. Not yet included.


Changelog:

Brave New World:

Version 1.0 - Updated for BNW with hotfix for Panama City starting position.

Gods and Kings version:

Version 6.0 - Balancing pre-BNW. Expected to be the last update to the G&K maps.
Version 5.0 - Changed Map Pack name, added 'Limited' map and fixed Egyptian starting position in all maps.
Version 4.0 - Added Manila and La Venta, shifted Mayan starting position south and adjusted resources and terrain in central America. Minor adjustments elsewhere, see changelog for more information.
Version 3.0 - Variety of issues addressed relating to Victory conditions, starting positions and England.
Version 2.01 - Fixed issue with map names.
Version 2.0 - Added CSs, Civs and additional maps to cover DLC and advanced options.
Version 1.0 - Initial release.

Initial vanilla version:

v3.00 - Minor map changes, see Readme for more details. Expected to be the last update for the Vanilla map.
v2.00 - Various map changes to the Vanilla version. DLC version added. Diplomacy mod added.
v1.00 - First release


Credits:

The initial map design was the Large world map done by Vadus, which can be found here: Vadus World Map (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394987). As it turned out I ended up placing every resource by hand but the initial map sculpting was Vadus' and I'm quite grateful for having such an excellent starting point.

Special thanks to markusbeutel as well for kindly allowing me to use the diplomacy component of his Nights mod with the Vanilla map.

Special thanks to bwoww78 for his valuable contributions to the map.

MAGBaxter
Oct 11, 2011, 02:27 PM
It looks pretty good !

Lachlan
Oct 11, 2011, 10:01 PM
Nice map !

But if you want creating scenarios with only the map file, using DLCs would be required...

In 1000 AD you must have Incan Empire, Danish Empire, Korean Empire and Spanish Empire, 4 DLCs at least...

Veneke
Oct 12, 2011, 03:00 AM
The plan is to avoid DLC if at all possible. As there's a need to add some city-states (current version has renamed CS's, but that doesn't appear to carry over to notifications arising from them), it may be that those Civs will be modded in.

At the moment, however, there appears to be a problem in that the small size of the map, coupled with the close border proximity, is making the AI even more volatile than it usually is. Hopefully a bit of modding will solve this (I'm thinking of the NiGHTS mod's diplomacy system).

Veneke
Oct 13, 2011, 06:13 AM
I've removed the offending City States and made some other minor changes to the map. A DLC version has been added and both now come packaged with the NiGHTS diplomacy system although its very easy to return to the Vanilla diplomacy system by moving/deleting a single folder.

The 1000 AD scenario is about half-way done, although the project has encountered a small hiccup. If anyone has any experience in combining Civilization packs into one mod I'd appreciate it if they could send me a message.

Veneke
Oct 19, 2011, 12:17 PM
The map pack has been updated. The scenarios, however, have been delayed because for some reason I can't figure out how to get the extra Civs to work with the map. The extra Civs load perfectly for a normal game, but don't display on the Civ selection screen when Load Scenario is picked on the Map. In fact, attempting to load the map causes the game to crash. If anyone knows why this is, or wants to help create scenarios for this map (those listed or otherwise) please feel free to message me.

Flamegrape
Nov 06, 2011, 08:18 AM
I just don't understand what I'm doing wrong or how it's supposed to work. I have tried to install this mod both manually and automatically through the in-game download. When setting up a new game, I cannot find any map or scenario titled "Standard World Map" or "Standard World Map DLC".

Veneke
Nov 06, 2011, 11:52 AM
Hmm... I'll walk you through the manual installation process, as that's the one least likely to produce a problem you can't overcome. Although it's odd that the Mod Browser failed to install it properly.

First step is to delete the Mod from ".../My Games/Sid Meier's Civilization 5/Mods", just in case it's a single bad install that's throwing things out of kilter.

* Download zip file.
* Extract zip file to .../My Games/Sid Meier's Civilization 5/Mods (Delete diplomacy folder if you want Vanilla Civ 5 diplomacy).
* Launch Civ 5.
* Open Mod Browser.
* Press Install Mods.
* Wait until completed.
* Go to Mods.
* Activate Vens Standard Mod Pack.
* In the Mods menu select Setup Game (Do not select advanced setup).
* Click Maps on the left hand side, Pangaea, Continents etc should display on the right.
* Scroll down on the list to the right hand side.
* Two versions of the same map (one using DLC, one not - the difference is marked in the name) should be visible, select the appropriate one.
* Click Load Scenario.
* Select Civ etc and play away.

I'm assuming that this isn't a common occurrence as this is the first I've heard of the mod failing to install properly. Then again, I've had very little feedback (none, to be precise) and perhaps that's because nobody has managed to get it to work. <.<

Lachlan
Nov 29, 2011, 09:39 AM
What are the news of 1000AD scenario ?

I'm currently playing your DLC version map :good job:

Your map is very nice, not too big...
And civs at theirs right locations...

Why not adding Korea in DLC version ?
Clash between China Japan and Korea would be nice to experiment :)

And Siam ?

Only one victory type possible ?

Cultural victory ? Scientific victory ? Diplomatic victory ?

Veneke
Dec 01, 2011, 05:59 AM
Thanks for the feedback. The reason why Korea is missing from the DLC map is because I don't have that DLC. :P I'm hoping to update it in the near future into a single map where no DLC is required and custom Civs are used. Unfortunately, Civ 5 doesn't appear to support that type of mod/scenario very well at all. The same thing applies for the limited victory conditions, you'd have to create several versions to account for the different possibilities.

Siam was left out though in order to fit three City-States into South-East Asia to try and recreate the dynamic feel of the region in a way that adding Siam would not.


Tthe 1000 AD scenario which has been much delayed due to the backwards way you have to design scenarios to get them to work with custom Civs.

* The good news is that the first release (Beta version) of the 1000 AD scenario has been completed and works.
* The bad news is that ModBuddy is refusing to allow me access to Online Services, so I'm unable to update the map already released or upload the 1000 AD scenario. It crashes after logging in, and creating a new account does not fix the problem.

Veneke
Jul 02, 2012, 04:14 AM
I've decided to discontinue support and updates for the vanilla version of this map unless there is strong support for the vanilla version to be updated.

The map itself now only uses the Gods and Kings DLC and has been updated to take into account the new Civs and resources. I've also buffed the European starting positions in comparison to the Vanilla map and made it slightly less difficult to obtain strategic resources like oil, uranium and aluminium.

Feedback and commentary welcome, as always. As well as being found here, it is also available on the Steam Workshop and the CivFanatics download centre.

bwoww78
Jul 02, 2012, 11:35 AM
The map itself now only uses the Gods and Kings DLC and has been updated to take into account the new Civs and resources.

one quick note: I see there are several "coastal" resources in lakes (i.e. Crabs near Iroquois start location). I haven't actually play tested this, but can cities on lakes NOT coasts (i.e. connected to ocean tiles) still produce work boats?

If they can't then, then all lake resources would be unattainable (in particular for AI who might not settle directly on the lake).


this looks like a great map and wanted to make sure you were aware

Veneke
Jul 02, 2012, 06:57 PM
Honestly I missed that. I'm not in a position to test right now but will check asap and fix if necessary.

Thanks for the feedback!

Edit: It would appear that you can't create work boats unless you have access to the ocean. I've added it to the list of things to be fixed in the next release (likely Thurs/Fri). Good catch.

overkill9
Jul 03, 2012, 04:03 AM
I was wondering if it might be possible for you to somehow make it so that we can win only through domination and diplomacy? Also, allowing saving policy and promotion would be great. Please let us know if both of these things are somehow achievable since as it stands now if you select load scenario you cannot adjust these things in advanced settings.

Edit: I seem to recall there have been TSL world maps that allows the user to not only adjust those things, but many other options such as participating civs, etc. ((yet another earth map mod). I was wondering since you have done a great job with this, if such options would be possible. Thank you.

Veneke
Jul 03, 2012, 04:23 AM
Overkill9 - You're quite right, the Yet Not Another Earth Map pack does give you these features. Unfortunately, I've never managed to get that particular mod to work and my attempt to replicate its functions failed spectacularly. However, I'll certainly have another look into it for the update as it is easily one of the best mod components for 'scenarios' like this one.

Because I'd hate to leave you empty-handed after you've taken the time to share feedback, here's how you can mod the map to suit your own particular preferences:
- Start the Civ 5 SDK (available through the Tools menu under View in Steam).
- Select Worldbuilder.
- Load Map and go to C:\\...\Mods\Vens Gods and Kings Standard Earth\GK Standard World Map. Click Open.
- Along the top of the screen you'll see a button called Scenario Editor.
- The options you want are in checkboxes along the top of the screen, select appropriately.
- Hit Save.
- When you load up the scenario again those options will be automatically available to you.

Far from ideal, I quite agree, and I'll see about getting the options interface screen to work asap.

overkill9
Jul 03, 2012, 05:08 AM
Thank you for your quick response Veneke. It seems that particular mod creator have stopped updating since last year, so I was at a loss. If it is too difficult to do it his way, how about just making a map that 1. large/standard earth w/ TSL (same size as the current one), 2. real resource placement, 3. scripted only for domination/diplomacy, 4. appropriate civ number (20 sounds fine) ?

Veneke
Jul 03, 2012, 06:01 AM
Well, it would be fairly easy to include a dozen or so of the same maps just with different victory conditions. It'll be a lot of repitition but won't be too much of a hassle. If I can't figure it out by the weekend I'll update the pack with a diplo/domination VC variant (and any other combination that is requested).

Civ numbers could be more complicated, so until I can figure out how to implement a setup screen these are going to have to remain static. It has been pointed out that 20 Civs and 10 City States is quite a large number to have on a standard sized map. I have considered a more typical 8 Civ/16 City State combination that focuses on the older civilizations (Iroqouis, Mayan, Egypt, India, China, Japan, Russia, Rome, Byzantium with the existing City States plus Valetta, Lisbon, Quebec, Jerusalem, Edinburgh and Antwerp) which I think could make for an interesting game but frankly there are quite a number of variations.

Like the Victory Conditions these are easy to implement but there will very quickly be a huge number of variants of the same map (especially so if different VCs are added on top of the different Civs) which could all be easily solved if the custom screen works out. On the other hand, that is a very big if.

overkill9
Jul 03, 2012, 07:16 AM
Of course. The VC would be the first priority really. As for civ numbers, I personally do not have much problem with it but if reducing them is your goal, perhaps 14 or 15 would better fit a standard size map?

Anyway, thanks for working on this - if you can get the same map with TSL and diplo/domination conditions only soon, I think many will greatly appreciate you efforts.

Edit: Is allowing policy/promotion saving similarly simple? If so, you could include that as well. Also, is it possible to choose which civs will be included in a particular game? I personally try to include all the major historical players (US, Rome, Arabia, Russia, China, India, Egypt, etc) whenever I play earth games, and try to include appropriate number of civs in each regions so that runaway civ situation is not present in my games. If this is not as easy, I understand.

Veneke
Jul 03, 2012, 08:47 AM
I'm actually perfectly happy with the current number of Civs and City-States but I do appreciate that there are large number of them.

Policy/promotion saving and, indeed, Civs are all pretty simple. The problem is that you'd probably need to include 3 maps just to cover the VC variations (all, diplo/dom, culture/science/time). If you add in policy/promotion saving you're up to 6 at a minimum (3 with and 3 without), then if you try and vary the Civs you're up to at least 12 (the aforementioned 6 with one group of Civs and another 6 with a different group of Civs). This is the major problem I have with it - there'll be a huge map pack of some 20+ different maps that are all exactly the same map just with some differences in settings.

The sickening thing is that it's actually all very easy to do and for the life of me I cannot figure out why it has been designed in this fashion. The only solutions I can see is to implement a whole new screen yourself (which is what YNAEMP does), ask people to fiddle around with the map themselves in the SDK (which kinda defeats the purpose) or else publish a huge number of maps that are little more than setting variations.

I have contacted Gedemon and a few other modders to see if anyone knows of a solution that isn't immediately clear but working under the assumption that it will take a small bit before a settings screen is available for this map I think we're stuck with option 3 and I'll take requests to include various different settings on the map.

At the moment I'm planning on the initial 6 I described above (VCs and promo/policy saving) with the existing Civ and city placement due for release sometime tomorrow. If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'll tailor each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary solution just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter the advanced settings on the map themselves.

bwoww78
Jul 03, 2012, 09:13 AM
Honestly I missed that. I'm not in a position to test right now but will check asap and fix if necessary.

Thanks for the feedback!

Of course! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate such a well made TSL earth map that can function in the late game on a non-super-computer (like mine)

If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'll tailor each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary solution just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter the advanced settings on the map themselves.

I did some personal edits to the GK map in WB last night (some terrain, but mostly changes to Civs & and added a few City States), which I'd be happy to post here for your reference or future use in this process.

Veneke
Jul 03, 2012, 09:18 AM
I did some personal edits to the GK map in WB last night (some terrain, but mostly changes to Civs & and added a few City States), which I'd be happy to post here for your reference or future use in this process.

Definitely post it here. I've been tweaking around with the terrain (still not 100% happy with it) and would love to have additional feedback. Although, I am slightly more interested to know which City States you managed to sneak in.

PawelS
Jul 03, 2012, 09:25 AM
The map looks nice, perhaps I'll make my version as well, using some DLC civs, like the Inca.

Rio de Janeiro and Jakarta are placed in wrong locations, also the Mayan starting location is where the Aztecs should be.

bwoww78
Jul 03, 2012, 09:50 AM
The map looks nice, perhaps I'll make my version as well, using some DLC civs, like the Inca.

Rio de Janeiro and Jakarta are placed in wrong locations, also the Mayan starting location is where the Aztecs should be.

Those are exactly the things I adjusted.

I also added Mapuche and Colombo CSs, swapped Persia for Inca (and added Persepolis as a CS), removed Rome and added Vatican City CS, removed Almaty and added Ottomans in their place (just for kicks, even though Istanbul capital there may look funny, it frees up some of Europe and creates a very enticing CS to conquer in the Vatican).

I also made some changes to resource placement (lake issue previously mentioned---fish w/o boats are ok in lakes, but not crabs or pearls...). I changed some European terrain: less mountains in the Alps, boosted some of England's terrain (bigger Ireland, taller main island), moved Madrid to the western coast (they have a chance to accurately place Barcelona or lose out on that space to France...) and moved Berlin from it's coastal start (that way both France AND Germany have to settle on a coast...)

That's just what I can recall. I know I'd like to add some mountains around Morocco, but might have forgotten to. I'll post later tonight if possible. My CiV was not loading correctly last night post-patch update though, so I might need to deal with that first...

Overall, my goal is to have a standard earth map that is accurate yet balanced enough that I as a player would want to play as any Civ on the map and subsequently I could swap out Civs & CSs based planned on gameplay and realism for future playthroughs. This way resource placement doesn't have to change, rather the location/perspective of the player does, which is just as exciting and gives me an excuse to depart from playing as my already well-worn favorite Civs.

thadian
Jul 03, 2012, 10:47 AM
Hope ya don't mind, but im also making my own personal versions. I will simply have an "old world" version, "full world" version, and then 2 separate for each one so that i can try to replicate era's. I will also consider replacing some of the resources - but i doubt i will ever upload anything and if i do, ill post my revisions here for you to tinker with as you like.

bwoww78
Jul 03, 2012, 06:41 PM
Those are exactly the things I adjusted.

I also added Mapuche and Colombo CSs, swapped Persia for Inca (and added Persepolis as a CS), removed Rome and added Vatican City CS, removed Almaty and added Ottomans in their place (just for kicks, even though Istanbul capital there may look funny, it frees up some of Europe and creates a very enticing CS to conquer in the Vatican).

I also made some changes to resource placement (lake issue previously mentioned---fish w/o boats are ok in lakes, but not crabs or pearls...). I changed some European terrain: less mountains in the Alps, boosted some of England's terrain (bigger Ireland, taller main island), moved Madrid to the western coast (they have a chance to accurately place Barcelona or lose out on that space to France...) and moved Berlin from it's coastal start (that way both France AND Germany have to settle on a coast...)

That's just what I can recall. I know I'd like to add some mountains around Morocco, but might have forgotten to. I'll post later tonight if possible. My CiV was not loading correctly last night post-patch update though, so I might need to deal with that first...

Overall, my goal is to have a standard earth map that is accurate yet balanced enough that I as a player would want to play as any Civ on the map and subsequently I could swap out Civs & CSs based planned on gameplay and realism for future playthroughs. This way resource placement doesn't have to change, rather the location/perspective of the player does, which is just as exciting and gives me an excuse to depart from playing as my already well-worn favorite Civs.


So please ignore what I said above about Civ/CS changes to the map; I didn't realize that while I was editing the map last night I had the legendary earth mod activated, which changes the available city states (e.g. Persepolis as CS). I guess I'm just wasn't familiar enough with the new CSs added in GK to realize those were not "stock" unmodded CSs. So, with that said:

Attached is an adjustment to Ven's map. I changed the number of playable Civs (20 to 21), opening up Europe a bit and filling out Africa in the process. Likewise, I added more CSs to the Americas and adjusted SE Asia.

Regarding resources and terrain, I added and rearranged some natural wonders (e.g. Cerro de Potosi) for additional flavor (it is a more cramped map than the TSL huge/giant earth maps). I changed the location of some strategic resources based on realism (though this was hardly scientific). Knowing this is one of the drivers for AI settling behavior, I tried not to mess with it too much. I assume a few playthroughs will help to determine any changes in distribution.

I'd be interested to know what you think. Thanks again for the great mod!

overkill9
Jul 03, 2012, 08:10 PM
I'm actually perfectly happy with the current number of Civs and City-States but I do appreciate that there are large number of them.

Policy/promotion saving and, indeed, Civs are all pretty simple. The problem is that you'd probably need to include 3 maps just to cover the VC variations (all, diplo/dom, culture/science/time). If you add in policy/promotion saving you're up to 6 at a minimum (3 with and 3 without), then if you try and vary the Civs you're up to at least 12 (the aforementioned 6 with one group of Civs and another 6 with a different group of Civs). This is the major problem I have with it - there'll be a huge map pack of some 20+ different maps that are all exactly the same map just with some differences in settings.

The sickening thing is that it's actually all very easy to do and for the life of me I cannot figure out why it has been designed in this fashion. The only solutions I can see is to implement a whole new screen yourself (which is what YNAEMP does), ask people to fiddle around with the map themselves in the SDK (which kinda defeats the purpose) or else publish a huge number of maps that are little more than setting variations.

I have contacted Gedemon and a few other modders to see if anyone knows of a solution that isn't immediately clear but working under the assumption that it will take a small bit before a settings screen is available for this map I think we're stuck with option 3 and I'll take requests to include various different settings on the map.

At the moment I'm planning on the initial 6 I described above (VCs and promo/policy saving) with the existing Civ and city placement due for release sometime tomorrow. If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'll tailor each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary solution just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter the advanced settings on the map themselves.

Thanks for taking this on yourself Veneke. The map I would request is one with diplo/domination only, with policy and promotion saving, TSL, and real-life resource placements. You have made this leecher very happy today- time for me to fire up the American campaign and dominate the western hemisphere:cool:

One thing: I think some ppl are not in possession of civ DLCs, so only including the civs that came with GK and vanilla CiV might be a good idea to start with, as in being able to play even if you don't have those DLCs.

Veneke
Jul 03, 2012, 08:29 PM
Couple of points with relation to the Civ placement on my own map - I did simple swap of the Aztecs for the Mayans, it isn't entirely accurate (obviously) but I figured it was close enough to be acceptable. The Iroqoius (who are well out of position) and Jakarta (who are slightly out of position) were moved on the basis of giving them decent breathing room. Rio I believe I confused with Buenos Aires.

Anyone looking to alter the map should feel free to do so, but if you publish it I'd appreciate a quick word of thanks.

==

@bwoww78:

That actually looks very, very good. I rather like quite a number of your changes and if you've no objection want to incorporate them into the existing map. Couple of the most obvious ones that struck me: Mt. Sinai being moved, El Dorado, Colombo, Cahokia, Songhai.

Just a couple of points on some of your changes. I think some of these will be included in some shape or form.

I had kept Madrid's starting location on the east coast in order to ensure that Spain had the potential for a second city (like pretty much every other European power had), however, moving it to the west does get around the problem of Marakech blocking Madrid's route out of the Med. Likewise London was positioned on the southern coast in order to help ensure that the English channel was English and not French. I honestly don't know if these should be moved.

The DLC Civs Inca+Polynesia are Civs I personally play with when playing the map, but I wanted to avoid the DLC/non-DLC version division that happened for the Vanilla version. I'm probably going to include both, however, as the map is significantly better for their inclusion.

Swapping the Vatican for Rome is something I toyed with, but disregarded on the basis that Rome would be more popular than any other Civ that would take its place. Seeing it now though I think I actually prefer the Vatican.

Jerusalem is a problem. I wanted to include it initially but it significantly nerfs Egypt's second city on the mouth of the Nile and prevents a Suez from being built. It also prevents a Kuwait or similar from being built, which means that Jerusalem is now the provider of most of the world's oil... which is a little odd.

Expanding Scotland is probably the right move, but Ireland no longer looks anything close to what it's meant to look like. On the other hand, the English AI simply refuses to settle Ireland as is in my test games so this may be the only fix.

I have to admit that I prefer a larger Alps. All of the European Civs with exception to Germany have decent defensive locations which was deliberately put in place to help ensure that the European AIs survive the early rushes. London has the English channel, Madrid has the Pyrennes, France has the Pyrennes and the Alps to their south and wooded, hilly terrain with rivers between them and Germany, Constatinople has a river to the north and mountains to their SE, Stockholm has wooded, hilly terrain with natural chokepoints etc. I don't think removing it is conducive to helping the AI in Europe stay alive.

overkill9
Jul 04, 2012, 06:43 AM
Veneke:

I found that strategic resources no longer reach 6- they are relatively small amounts. Is this on purpose?

Also, if you can also create 'Large' versions of these maps, I think it will be great for people who prefer them. Some seems oversized - japan for instance. I understand the need to enlarge europe a little to ensure EU civ survival, but the overall small size of pacific oceans and enlargement of japan seems a bit too much

Veneke
Jul 04, 2012, 08:36 AM
There should be several 5 and 7 amounts of strategic resources dotted around places which typically have higher yields than the rest of the world. So the Middle East has a number of 7 yield Oil (and I've added one or two more for the next version) while any Civ that needs Iron or Horse for their UU has 5 of the appropriate resource.

Resource placement has been skewed to localize resources to particular parts of the world with the 1 and 2 yield strategic resource tiles dotted around the place for some kind of balance. It is the case, however, that if you do not expand beyond your immediate starting location it is quite likely that you will seriously lack for Oil, Uranium, Aluminium and potentially all three.

Part of the reason why this is Standard sized is that I want people with lower and middle end rigs to be able to play it with somewhat reasonable turn times. The number of Civs and resources obviously runs counter to this but increasing to Large from Standard is roughly a 33% increase in hex numbers which is quite significant. As you correctly surmise if certain areas weren't upscaled you'd have less viable starting points.


I apologize for not having the update today, unexpected matters cropped up that prevented me from giving it my full attention and I want to avoid a constant streams of half-formed updates. Although I have many changes done, I still want to review the Eastern Siberia and Mongolian region as well as Coal distribution before the next update goes out. Aluminium, Uranium and Oil might also need to be slightly buffed but I want to preserve the philosophy of scarce late-game strategic resources that has driven this map since its inception.

For anyone interested, here are the current provisional update notes:


- Many of the changes bwoww78 has implemented I've taken on board (and I'd still very much like formal permission to utilize those) though there are some that I haven't; largely those that reposition the European Civs.
- There are now 6 versions (3 DLC, 3 non-DLC one of each is as is, the second of each is Diplo/Dom VCs with promo/policy saving, the third of each is Time/Science/Culture with promo/policy saving).
- The DLC version includes Inca and Polynesia in the positions bwoww78 suggested.
- Both non-DLC and DLC maps now feature Songhai while the non-DLC version features Rome and the DLC version features the Vatican (in order to make room for Poly/Inca).
- Jerusalem is now included in both, though is slightly out of position so it can act as a Suez transfer city. A side effect of this is that Persia has its starting position shifted 1 hex east to facilitate a city to be built in the Iraq region.
- The Saudi penisula has been expanded and resources redistributed and altered accordingly. The Arabian starting position has been shifted slightly.
- One mountain and the river have been fixed in Europe.
- Several Luxury and Strategic resources in inaccessible lakes have been removed, replaced or repositioned.
- Salt added to N. America and Iroquois position to facilitate the loss of Crab.
- Uranium has been removed from two islands in the south Pacific and Atlantic and some Uranium tiles increased by 1.
- Removed 1 Iron down by Cape Town that shouldn't have been there.

bwoww78
Jul 04, 2012, 10:07 AM
first of all, OF COURSE you can use my input! I'm glad to help. I'm not much of a modder, but I'm happy to help in testing for balance, etc. Like I've said, a standard size TSL map that I can use to replay with any civ on the board is what I'm looking for (and this is the best I've seen on the forums to date).

Resource placement has been skewed to localize resources to particular parts of the world with the 1 and 2 yield strategic resource tiles dotted around the place for some kind of balance. It is the case, however, that if you do not expand beyond your immediate starting location it is quite likely that you will seriously lack for Oil, Uranium, Aluminium and potentially all three.

I like this principle, however I'd recommend against placing highly strategic resources (e.g. uranium) on single hex islands in the middle of nowhere as it shies away from the realism I think many look to TSL maps for in the first place. I'll defer to your judgement on resource placement, and worst case scenario, I know how to play with WB for my own games...

Part of the reason why this is Standard sized is that I want people with lower and middle end rigs to be able to play it with somewhat reasonable turn times. The number of Civs and resources obviously runs counter to this but increasing to Large from Standard is roughly a 33% increase in hex numbers which is quite significant. As you correctly surmise if certain areas weren't upscaled you'd have less viable starting points.

Totally agree.

For anyone interested, here are the current provisional update notes:

- Many of the changes bwoww78 has implemented I've taken on board (and I'd still very much like formal permission to utilize those) though there are some that I haven't; largely those that reposition the European Civs.

I appreciate your feedback and the inclusion of my edits. I've put some thought into the Europe situation and I have a couple of potential recommendations:


1. SPAIN: Regarding Madrid's placement, the 2nd city issue and access to Gibraltar, you COULD simply swap the western-most mountain tile of the Pyrenees with the eastern-most forest hex (above what hopefully should be Barcelona). I think the argument can be made that this still definitely serves as a choke point in Spain's defense and that Spain would be even MORE likely to place it's second city along the east coast of Iberia, if only for quicker access to that silver. This should be play tested, and if you'd like I'd be willing to do that. Either way, I won't fall on my sword for this one.

(Note: you could always just shift Marrakech southwest one tile as well as it's associated resources to save the strait for Spain).

2. England: You know best from play-testing, but I just hate it when England claims that west-most tile of France (what would be ~Brest). I don't mind, however, if England claims one of "Brussel's" marsh tiles. Go figure. That's mostly why I made the shift northwest. Regarding Ireland, well, it's not exactly the way I wanted it to look either, but you have to do something to make the AI settle sometimes, and if it's any consolation, I think with the plains/stone tile on the east coast will look better in game than as a hex in WB. I would recommend having something enticing there for both the AI (and the player). If we're upscaling Japan, we should do at least something similar for England.

3. Do you agree with my moving start locations of Berlin & Moscow? I might have changed some resources in the process, but thought I would note those differences.

- There are now 6 versions (3 DLC, 3 non-DLC one of each is as is, the second of each is Diplo/Dom VCs with promo/policy saving, the third of each is Time/Science/Culture with promo/policy saving).
- The DLC version includes Inca and Polynesia in the positions bwoww78 suggested.
- Both non-DLC and DLC maps now feature Songhai while the non-DLC version features Rome and the DLC version features the Vatican (in order to make room for Poly/Inca).

Smart choice. I may still make my own changes (since I have all DLC) in play-testing, but for as much as I've played Rome already, I had to do something to remove the temptation...

- Jerusalem is now included in both, though is slightly out of position so it can act as a Suez transfer city. A side effect of this is that Persia has its starting position shifted 1 hex east to facilitate a city to be built in the Iraq region.
- The Saudi penisula has been expanded and resources redistributed and altered accordingly. The Arabian starting position has been shifted slightly.

I'm glad you included Jerusalem, if only because it's neat they (and Vatican City) were included in GK and I'm not sure what the balance is currently for religious city-states. I'm excited to see what changes you've made for Saudi peninsula. If you noticed my edits removed Arabia because I didn't want the challenge of reshaping. I'd be glad to see them in game again.

- One mountain and the river have been fixed in Europe.

I'd be interested to know which... did I do that? ha

- Several Luxury and Strategic resources in inaccessible lakes have been removed, replaced or repositioned.
- Salt added to N. America and Iroquois position to facilitate the loss of Crab.

Just FYI, I might have also changed some resources. If you noticed, I included a river to represent the St. Lawrence Seaway. I think this is really important for North America (a natural dividing line, etc.). Also, it' boosted a location for New York. I'd definitely vie for it's inclusion.


- Uranium has been removed from two islands in the south Pacific and Atlantic and some Uranium tiles increased by 1.
- Removed 1 Iron down by Cape Town that shouldn't have been there.


Great! See my note above about strategic resources. As I said, I'm interested to see your changes.


Thanks again

bwoww78
Jul 04, 2012, 10:20 AM
(See attached to describe what I mean about Spain)

Edit: is there a 2 tile limit on city placement? Or is it 3 tiles? Hmmm

overkill9
Jul 04, 2012, 04:57 PM
There should be several 5 and 7 amounts of strategic resources dotted around places which typically have higher yields than the rest of the world. So the Middle East has a number of 7 yield Oil (and I've added one or two more for the next version) while any Civ that needs Iron or Horse for their UU has 5 of the appropriate resource.

Resource placement has been skewed to localize resources to particular parts of the world with the 1 and 2 yield strategic resource tiles dotted around the place for some kind of balance. It is the case, however, that if you do not expand beyond your immediate starting location it is quite likely that you will seriously lack for Oil, Uranium, Aluminium and potentially all three.

Part of the reason why this is Standard sized is that I want people with lower and middle end rigs to be able to play it with somewhat reasonable turn times. The number of Civs and resources obviously runs counter to this but increasing to Large from Standard is roughly a 33% increase in hex numbers which is quite significant. As you correctly surmise if certain areas weren't upscaled you'd have less viable starting points.


I apologize for not having the update today, unexpected matters cropped up that prevented me from giving it my full attention and I want to avoid a constant streams of half-formed updates. Although I have many changes done, I still want to review the Eastern Siberia and Mongolian region as well as Coal distribution before the next update goes out. Aluminium, Uranium and Oil might also need to be slightly buffed but I want to preserve the philosophy of scarce late-game strategic resources that has driven this map since its inception.

For anyone interested, here are the current provisional update notes:


- Many of the changes bwoww78 has implemented I've taken on board (and I'd still very much like formal permission to utilize those) though there are some that I haven't; largely those that reposition the European Civs.
- There are now 6 versions (3 DLC, 3 non-DLC one of each is as is, the second of each is Diplo/Dom VCs with promo/policy saving, the third of each is Time/Science/Culture with promo/policy saving).
- The DLC version includes Inca and Polynesia in the positions bwoww78 suggested.
- Both non-DLC and DLC maps now feature Songhai while the non-DLC version features Rome and the DLC version features the Vatican (in order to make room for Poly/Inca).
- Jerusalem is now included in both, though is slightly out of position so it can act as a Suez transfer city. A side effect of this is that Persia has its starting position shifted 1 hex east to facilitate a city to be built in the Iraq region.
- The Saudi penisula has been expanded and resources redistributed and altered accordingly. The Arabian starting position has been shifted slightly.
- One mountain and the river have been fixed in Europe.
- Several Luxury and Strategic resources in inaccessible lakes have been removed, replaced or repositioned.
- Salt added to N. America and Iroquois position to facilitate the loss of Crab.
- Uranium has been removed from two islands in the south Pacific and Atlantic and some Uranium tiles increased by 1.
- Removed 1 Iron down by Cape Town that shouldn't have been there.


Of course, the map size is appropriate for the stated purposes. I was just wondering if you would be interested in doing same map but only in large size in the future.

PawelS
Jul 04, 2012, 05:22 PM
I think Siam should be in the game, the Hanoi CS can be removed to make room for it. But if you are already at the 22 civ limit, I'm not sure which one should be removed...

Veneke
Jul 04, 2012, 06:38 PM
first of all, OF COURSE you can use my input! I'm glad to help. I'm not much of a modder, but I'm happy to help in testing for balance, etc. Like I've said, a standard size TSL map that I can use to replay with any civ on the board is what I'm looking for (and this is the best I've seen on the forums to date).

Thank you!

I like this principle, however I'd recommend against placing highly strategic resources (e.g. uranium) on single hex islands in the middle of nowhere as it shies away from the realism I think many look to TSL maps for in the first place.

Fair point and I have removed the offending resources.

With regards to your spoiler'd comments:



1. Playtesting at the moment pretty much confirms that the Spanish AI settles in place and then creates a new city on that NW tile. Unfortunately, unless the XML (I think?) is altered you need 3 empty hexes between each city tile, which means that even if you swap the mountain tiles Paris will still block your proposed city.

Shifting Marakech SW is a good move and will, hopefully, mean that Spain takes the Strait.

2. All of my playtesting so far suggests that even as is France still tends to get one of the tiles in the English channel while England picks up one, or both, of the marshlands in Europe. It is not ideal. Something I am toying with is moving the resources in the English Channel out of there, I'm hoping that will mean that Paris' culture growth will veer elsewhere. Well, the upscaling of Japan is a different game. Civs in Europe, with almost no exceptions, have access to 2 city spots. Japan, however, is competing with China, India and Mongolia all who have access to at least 3 good city spots. Expanding the Scotland is a good move but I'm much more hesitant about Ireland or giving England access to Iceland/Greenland through coast tiles.

3. Regarding Berlin, no not really. This is on the basis that it prevents a city from being founded in Eastern Europe and prevents Berlin's quick access to one of its luxury resources (Pearls). I must admit that I missed the movement of Moscow. I think it cuts into the Caucasus city a bit too much but I'm curious as to why you think Moscow should be moved there.

Vatican, Jerusalem & Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I spotted the Arabs sudden disappearance and while there probably is an argument to be made for their departure I would definitely prefer them to be kept. Completely agree on Vatican and Jerusalem.

Mountain and River in Europe. This is actually something that shouldn't have been in the initial release. The river moving from central Europe along to the sea above Constantinople is broken at one point. The fourth mountain 1 tile NE of the Alps has been changed into a hill.

I'll have to review the New York river again but yeah, that sounds like a good inclusion.


I think Siam should be in the game, the Hanoi CS can be removed to make room for it. But if you are already at the 22 civ limit, I'm not sure which one should be removed...

Early on (way back when I did this map for Vanilla) I decided that it would be more interesting to see a large number of CSs in Southeast Asia than it would to have another Asian Civ. There is actually room for Siam in terms of Civ numbers in the non-DLC map, but I've no plans to include it.

Of course, the map size is appropriate for the stated purposes. I was just wondering if you would be interested in doing same map but only in large size in the future.

Honestly I've no plans for this. I strongly suggest you check out Vadus' map which is linked in the OP if you want a map similar to this but Large. It was designed for Vanilla (and I've not seen any update for G&K), however, and the resource placement and a good deal of the terrain differs but it was a fantastic starting point for this map and would definitely be what I'd use were if I was making a Large or bigger version.

The next 'project' I'm toying with starting is a series similar to Neal's King of the World for Civ IV using this map as a base. Between that, updating my War Academy guides for G&K and RL I'm afraid that I simply don't have the time to explore enlarging the map.

==

Update will be out sometime in the afternoon eastern Aussie time.

Edit: And it's out. OP updated as well.

overkill9
Jul 05, 2012, 02:02 AM
Thank you veneke. Unfortunately, I see there are 6 maps, but they are somewhat hard to distinguish from each other and player can't tell the difference aside from civ and cs numbers. do they also differ in victory condition, etc.? If so, let us know how to tell them apart.

Veneke
Jul 05, 2012, 02:24 AM
Hmm... the map titles should specify the VCs and options enabled. When you go to select the map there should be a series of 'VGK Standard Earth ...' with ...DLC, ...DLC Saving, ...DLC SavingDiploDom and similar variations that tells each map apart.

Edit: Okay, lemme fix this real quick.

Edit: It has now kinda been fixed. Something though is still telling it to display the old names for the maps. Once you click on one though the proper naming comes up.

Veneke
Jul 05, 2012, 03:14 AM
Okay, fixed properly this time.

I believe I will forever be amazed at the idiotic design utilized by the Civ V modding system. It's almost as if they deliberately went out of their way to make things more awkward for you than they had to be. I've seen and attended meetings and presentations which were little more than expressions of collective stupidity that made more sense than what you have to do to get Civ V's mod/scenario/Steam Workship nonsense to work correctly. A grand total of 5 different entries had to be changed to get those names fixed, I no longer have any idea what 3 of them do anymore. I think the other two supercede them once you've included the file. The best part is that there's a whole separate screen that's always active and displays those two properties but which cannot be edited. You have to dig around in the Mod's properties file to edit them.

bwoww78
Jul 05, 2012, 10:52 AM
Thanks again for considering my input. Without any play-testing, I have a few comments on the most recent map changes. In short, I plan to make a few alterations myself to city/natural wonder/resource placement for a variety of purposes. I will then play-test and let you know how the AI behaves. My hope is that this will overall improve realism and the quality of the map for others. It's hard to squeeze TSL earth into a standard map, but I'm up for tweaking this one to perfection. To save everyone's screen space, I'll spoil my comments by region below.

NORTH AMERICA:

1. Onondaga looks good to go now resource-wise. While not 100% historically accurate (it's really an up-state New York start location), I definitely agree with it's placement and think it should work out well for a much more evenly settled North America. One thing: I would recommend placing the Uranium north of Onondaga out west in Alaska for two reasons: (1) if the whales do not do so already, this resource might encourage Hiawatha AI to settle out west; (2) if Hiawatha does not get there, Washington likely will (and most definitely if it's me as the USA player), which also supports in realism (btw, look out Honululu...).

2. Natural Wonders: I would recommend adding one (Grand Mesa) and changing the location of the other two North American natural wonders as you have them. First, Old Faithful is actually located in Wyoming, so further north (more like on the Truffles near Cahokia or the mountain tile directly west of there). Secondly, after moving Old Faithful north, I'd replace it's old tile with the Barringer Crater and put the Grand Mesa in place of the Crater's old position.

(Note: I'm a sucker for using all available natural wonders, when possible (hence including El Dorado before). For example, if I could I would place the Fountain of Youth in southern Florida; however there is an issue with that feature requiring no adjacent coastal tiles. While it's game-breaking in Florida, if one wanted to get creative, it could be put it somewhere in Brazil, though this seems like overkill even to me...)

3. Cahokia & Palenque: Historically Cahokia is really supposed to be around St. Louis. While we're breaking this rule plenty already (see Onondaga), along the same lines as Jerusalem & Vatican City, I view this CS as a ripe target for both AI/player conquest (more on the other two CS later). As such, I'm inclined to move it more to the midwest to draw it's expansion over the available natural wonders and relieve some space for Hiawatha. I mention Palenque here as well because, well, as much as I look forward to Montezuma-less North America map, I think the Mayans are better positioned in the Yucatan peninsula for two reasons: (1) the Cerro de Potosi will draw a second Mayan city north OR El Dorado may draw them south. This should be play tested, but I like the idea of Mayan expansion in either directly (otherwise Inca might get it too easy being basically alone in South America); (2) By placing Palenque closer to that available sugar in the Caribbean, there's a chance the AI will go coastal and expand that way (or at least compete with Washington + Colonial Europeans, should we be that lucky in AI realism behavior).

As such, I plan to change the following city placements (along with Natural Wonder adjustments noted above):
* Cahokia moved to the forest tile triangulated between the current 2 wheats and aluminum along the Mississippi.
* Palenque moved south in the jungle tile (maybe change to a hill tile?) triangulated between the 2 sugars and silver.

4. Quebec City & St. Lawrence Seaway: Thanks for including. I like to make sure the Great Lakes get their due, and on a map this size this is the best we can do. I can't quite tell from the attached image what the river placement you adopted, but here's fair warning I might adjust it to respect it's realism and/or match the natural border. As you likely know, CiV strongly considers rivers in cultural tile acquisition and while I don't think this would mean moving Quebec City south (specifically because I'd want to leave room for New York), I wanted to let you know that I might tweak this area (which might not be obvious at first glance).



SOUTH AMERICA:

I worry that, as usual in vanilla CS TSL maps, the Inca will end up being too much of a powerhouse with little expansion competition until late game (hence wanting to encourage Mayan southward expansion, as noted above). I notice you placed them on a coastal tile. As they remain basically mountain landlocked on the west coast, this seems fair so I'll leave it as is for now and see how the Inca play out.

Aside from creating a special new CS (Buenos Aires equivalent? Some unused "Italian" CS?) to be placed along the Rio de la Plata, I'm not sure I'd have any other solutions. I'd be interested to know how others play-testing goes in South America.


EUROPE:

1. England: I think you may be on to something with moving sea resources out of the English Channel. Remember, France has an inherent advantage in early game with a +2 culture bonus, so France (AI or player) WILL expand faster than England without help. As such, I plan to move those to channel luxuries to the coastal tiles between the main island and Ireland. This might not work exactly every time to make sure England gets those last two (resource-less) western tiles of the channel, but it might have the added bonus of encouraging settlement in Ireland. It's just a hunch. Will play-test.

2. I see your point in placement of Berlin and Moscow. I trust your previous experience here and will leave them as is. I'm curious though: are those marshes between them to serve as "early rush" protection? I removed a couple of them in my initial edits (and moved Moscow south a tile) because I'd like Russia to settle St. Petersburg on the coast (a dream, I know). I'm always bummed Russia doesn't expand enough as AI on TSL maps (which is really too critical, I know), but I'll take a Caucus settlement over a Baltic one if I have to. What would be great is a 5 total city Russia, spread in a circle around Moscow, which then poises Catherine for eastern expansion in the mid game... but then again, I guess that's why this map is great, because that would be my plan as a player...

3. Lastly, regarding Vatican City, I'm very happy they made the cut. I mention it above, but I think it will be very interesting to see how AI handles a city state with such awesome resources at it's disposal, especially given it's defensible position. This way we've got an important religious CS at the disposal of all of Europe and Mediterranean and a conquest option that could really sway the balance of Europe---hard to beat. While you can still miss Rome, I believe this will be much more interesting in replay value overall.


AFRICA:

1. Marrakech: Just looking at the map attached image, you might want to be certain that the starting point for this CS is on the same tile as the pre-placed city. (Personally, I don't like to pre-place cities at all; rather, I only include them for image captures like the one you did and then delete them and rely on designated start locations before running the actual scenario in game. This avoids any potential bugs in cities not having the required buildings (palace?, etc.) or designations. As you've already stated, there are some quirky things about mods in CiV and I think this is an easy fix to avoid some.)

Additionally, I'm going to add some mountain tiles to the Maghreb (maybe a couple, one southwest of the nearby copper tile on the coast, and a couple south of those plains tiles?). Carthage needs some reason to utilize their UA, and unless they take over Vatican City and head north into Europe through the Alps... Just an idea. This does not hurt the map in expansion terms and provides a bit more interesting gameplay. After all this, I'll post the edited map I plan to play with and you can see my mountain additions there.

2. Songhai and Egypt: will need horses, I believe, for their UU. I'm not sure about Ethiopia, but unless both those civ's rush to Madagascar (which I'm also not sure why Uranium is there and not north of Cape Town somewhere...), they will be out of luck. And that's a lot for AI with no coastal start to research Optics early and settle far away... sorry, you get my point. I'll make some adjustments in my map (4-5 horses per civ who needs them, right?) and post.

3. Resources: in writing the above I realize you might want to add another mountain to represent Mt. Kilimanjaro (is that already a natural wonder? it should be, Firaxis...). If there is a Kilimanjaro, I'll place it southwest of the current mountain in middle Africa. If not, just another regular mountain tile there instead.



MIDDLE EAST:

... looks great!

1. Arabia: well done. A la Madrid, I think you've got a great 2nd city location and strong resource placement available to nearby CS and civ. Losing those coastal mountain tiles on the Egyptian side is totally worth it for the peninsula's sake.

2. Jerusalem: See my Vatican City comments above. Great religious state with STRONG resources available (Mt. Sinai is a straight faith tile, I believe) which gives all civs early reason to friend or conquer. Moreover, as you have the city currently placed, it's Suez-utility makes it a crucial late game city, for obvious reasons. My only other suggestion would be to place a single source of Uranium on Jerusalem's city tile as an easter egg in the late game.

(Note: I'm not sure of the mechanics of passing THROUGH a friendly CS on a coastal bridge tile like that. My first play-test will be as the US---mostly to see how the rest of the world expands---and I'll try out a Jerusalem friendly approach to see if this works. Either way, it's a great fit; glad to see it included.)



ASIA/PACIFIC:

This is where the expansion is move variable, I'd assume. It's hard to have many comments without at least play-testing it once, but here you go.

1. Mongolia: Looks good. I'd include at least one lake (coast) tile nearby (the grassland tile NW of the capital?) to represent lake Bikal (historically significant). This also provides some fresh water in the area without requiring a river, which helps in Ghengis' road-less troop movement (look out China...). Otherwise, your nearby mountain placement looks good to direct city settlement and conflict.

2. Persia/India: I'd be very interested to see how nicely Persia and India play together now that they are closer and there is even less of a natural defense boundary (at least compared to Europe). The difference here is that there is additional room to expand for each civ in the other direction, respectively.

3. The Non-Siam: I agree with your using CSs instead of Siam in SE Asia as this provides more flavor for CSs in what could (probably already is) a fairly crowded map. As a player, I think it's very interesting. For example, as England, I'd build up my fleet and test out G+K naval combat to conquer/colonize much of South & SE Asia and Australia. Makes for a fun map that still holds up to some realism without a ton of extra effort.

4. Pacific: I initially moved Jakarta to the west (realistic location) in order to open up those islands a bit for Polynesia and Japan. I'd be interested to see how the AI approaches this region. It'd be great if Polynesia ends up colonizing a bit of Australia as well. I did make the Hawaiian islands Asian "continent" tiles, if that makes any difference to AI (though I think it's really just a graphical adjustment).



In sum, at my next opportunity I'll make the adjustments I note above to the DLC map (i.e. Inca/Polynesia/Vatican City) and post them here for your review. I'll also play-test as USA to report how my changes play out.
Thanks again for a great map.

bwoww78
Jul 05, 2012, 05:21 PM
Attached is the edits I made to the map encompassing my last post with some additional. See change log below:


NORTH AMERICA:
- Removed any culture on WB map by selecting "Paint" tab in Map Editor tools... Brush Type "Culture Border"... Drop-down menu selection "No Culture". This is fairly simple and is required for some reason every time you add and then remove a city from the map in WB.
- Added Uranium (3) to plot (5, 44) in Alaska per rationale above.
- Moved Cahokia start position to plot (13, 35) along Mississippi per rationale above.
- Relocated 2 natural wonders; resulted as follows: Old Faithful plot (12,36), Grand Mesa plot (11,34), and Barringer Crater plot (10,34).
- Added Fish resource near New England coast, plot (23,38)
- Relocated Mayan start position to plot (15, 26), in Yucatan peninsula; changed tile from flat terrain to hill.
- Added Atoll features to plots (22, 25) (22, 26) to reflect smaller Caribbean islands.

SOUTH AMERICA:
- Relocated Incan start position to plot (19, 17) away from coast and north of Lake Titicaca; as a result swapped existing Gold resource on that tile to plot (19,15), Inca's previous start position. Rationale here is both historial accuracy of Cusco's location and Incan ability to settle further along coast at start and expand borders beyond mountain range easier from the interior position.

EUROPE:
- Swapped English channel luxury resources from plots (35, 39) (36, 40) to plots (32, 41) (33, 42) per rationale above.

AFRICA:
- Added mountains to plots (33, 28) (36, 28) (36, 27) (38, 26) and hills to (32, 27) per rationale above (based on google maps view). Unfortunately, there is no Mt. Kilimanjaro feature, so I left that region alone.
- Replaced jungle feature and changed grassland to plains on plot (36, 24) NW of Gao to provide 5 Horses to Songhai.
- Note: I don't believe that Egypt needs horses for War Chariot UU. Not totally sure though.
- Added 2 Uranium resource to plot (40,11) north of Cape Town for flavor.

MIDDLE EAST:
- Added 1 Uranium to Jerusalem's start position for flavor.

ASIA/PACIFIC:
- Changed plot (62, 43), north of Karakarum from hills to lake (coast) to reflect Lake Bikal north of Mongolia.
- Added Atoll feature to plots (68, 23) (68, 21) to reflect Philippines islands more accurately.


This is the map I will use to play-test as indicated. Thanks again for considering my input, hopefully I haven't worn out my welcome.


(P.S. You might want to double check all of the WB files that the Team # for each Civ & CS are not shared by accident. This is not handled very well by WB when you add/subtract civs and may or may not cause problems for users down the line. I always double-check before starting a scenario just in abundance of caution.)

Veneke
Jul 05, 2012, 07:12 PM
Feedback is always welcome. Worst thing to happen here would be a lack of commentary, not an over-abudnance of it!

N. America:

1. Well, there is already Uranium out in Alaska. Originally the Uranium in Onondaga's starting position was several tiles north surrounded by snow and ice, however, I felt that the Iroquois would settle there anyway and given how poor the Canadian terrain is I didn't want to overburden the Iroquois with another equally useless city.

2. Fair enough, those are easy changes and I don't think they'll affect the AIs settlement pattern anymore than the existing ones already do. I'm against the inclusion of FoY though, it's still very OP'd.

3. (a) At the moment I'm hoping that Cahokia will serve as a buffer state between Washington and the Iroquois. I considered moving it from the initial location but decided against on the grounds that it would cut into the number of available city spots in America. If it's moved to the position you suggest you'll prevent cities from being settled in much of the southern United States/northern Mexico and it will force the Aztecs/Mayans to expand south unless they take a trip across to the west coast of the US or head east to Florida.

3. (b) Moving the Mayans is not a bad move.

4. Fair warning received. I followed the placement in the map file you attached. If the AI follows river tiles too strongly then we might consider moving Quebec 1 tile NW and moving the Furs there to Quebec's current starting position. That should prevent the city state from wrapping up all the river tiles before anyone can settle in NY.


S. America:


This is always a problem with the Inca and one without a very good solution, especially now that settlers do not require transports to go across water. Once the Inca get Compass all bets are off.

The issue, of course, is that even removing the Inca doesn't actually solve the problem as the Aztecs/Mayans will simply expand into where the Inca would have expanded anyway. It might be that a number of Fish are removed from the Incas landlocked terrain to prevent food growth and hopefully slow their science rate, but ultimately it's going to be very difficult to prevent the Inca from running rampant in S. America provided their AI is even remotely competent (it may be that the XML files are toyed with to tone down their expansionistic preferences, though I would dearly love to avoid doing anything like that).

You don't mention moving the Incan starting position here but it's in the changelog. One of the reasons why I kept Cusco on the coast was to prevent its culture growth from giving it good food tiles for some time. In the new position it has 11 good food tiles which will, I fear, make it more likely to do well and do well early.


Europe:

1. England: Well, if London is kept in the position I have it, England will always get those luxuries and at least one English Channel tile. Obviously if you move London north then yes, you'd have to move the luxuries as well.

2. (a) Yeah, Berlin is rather exposed and the marshes help with that. It also (in Vanilla) helped the Germany AI settle there quickly, which gave them Prussia (kinda) on the coast. They used to settle on that forested tile between the marshes and the Cows to the NW. Unfortunately my first play-test saw Hamburg being settled in the dead centre of Eastern Europe 1 tile NE of the oil. This though has the nice benefit of leaving St. Petersburg open to Russia. I think a few more run-throughs are necessary before anything is altered here.

2. (b) As such, there is a site for St. Petersburg on the coast, it's just the same as the Prussian one! As for Russia's settlement - yes, there are 4-6 reasonable to good settlement spots for Russia before it has to consider moving into Siberia. There is very little to be done about the AI unless the XML files are played with to encourage expansion but short of concentrating resources so that there is one and only one best settlement spot for a decent area we're going to have to take a gamble on the AI.

3. This was an inspired suggestion, no doubt about it.


Africa:

1. (a) Yeah, the current version now uses starting positions for all Civs and City-States. The initial ones didn't and it wasn't until just before the previous release that I realized that the CSs were all missing Palaces! This is also why there is still some left-over culture for some City State starting locations.

1. (b) Adding in some mountain tiles? Sure and you're right, it does mean that Carthage gets to use its UA which is kinda important.

2. Well, Egypt doesn't need Horses (the War Chariot is a resource-less UU). Songhai does and I think they were removed duing the initial update for G&K which didn't have Songhai in it. That'll be fixed.

2. (b) I initially had Uranium both north of Cape Town and in Madagascar but dropped the north of Cape Town Uranium on the basis of removing Uranium from Africa which I felt was generally too easy to acquire. It was kept in Madagascar because that required a deliberate move to settle like almost every other Uranium tile.

3. Unfortunately Mt. Kilimanjaro is not a natural wonder; who can fathom the selection criteria for these things?


Middle East:

1. I must admit that I'm very happy with how the Saudi Arabian penisula turned out. I still think there'll be a problem with Arabia's culture grabbing those desert hills in Egypt but I've done my best with resource placement to delay that as long as possible.

2. A single source? Yeah, that would be a nice twist. Added. Unfortunately you can't pass through it unless you conquer the city. It's still the best solution to the Suez issue (in my previous playthroughs the Egyptian AI stubbornly refused to settle for a Suez). You'll also have the problem of Arabian culture blocking your movement but there's only so much that can be done about that on this size a map.


Asia/Pacific:

1. Good catch, completely forgot about Bikal - added.

2. I'm more worried about Persia than India, frankly. It has a significantly worse starting position than India and it's second city spot, if it misses Iraq, is pretty poor. What I suspect will happen is that if Persia doesn't conquer early it's not going to do very well.

3. Yep.

4. I am almost 100% positive that it is a graphical thing, but we should compare expansion patterns after a few play-throughs and see if it makes any difference. I haven't tried the DLC map properly yet, but I'd be somewhat concerned if the Polynesian AI didn't go for SEA or Australia. If it moves to America in the earlyish game consistently it's going to stunt its growth and something will have to be done about that. As it stands, the Silk in Asia is 1 tile closer than the Salt in Western US but if it's scout heads East then all bets are off.


Will double-check the team # but I believe that they're all good.

Let me know how your playthrough goes.

bwoww78
Jul 09, 2012, 12:04 PM
OK, reporting back... (sorry no screenshots)

Notes on changes I made to the map:
CS:

I kept Cahokia's starting location per your suggestion. This works out perfectly as a buffer between Washington and Hiawatha. Additionally, with Old Faithful tile nearby (east of the Uranium, SE of the nearest mountain) was well positioned in N. America throughout.
I moved Quebec City north (swapping it's location with the nearby Furs) per your suggestion regarding tile acquisition in that region. Ultimately, I think this was unnecessary. Quebec has yet to reach even all it's coastal tiles and will likely never get that whales in the ocean nearby. I'd consider reorganizing those resources to benefit the CS moving forward.

CIVS:

I moved the 2 luxury resources in the English channel to the straight between Ireland and the main island. England is in it's original starting position on the southern coast.
I moved the Mayan starting location to the Yucatan, as previously described.
I moved the Incan starting location from the coast to NW of the lake, as previously described.


Results through 92 turns:


Mayan 2nd city on northern coast of S. America nearby El Dorado. (New city placement works out really well; making lost of money and claiming tiles in Caribbean, etc.)
Incans stayed on eastern coast, founding 2 additional cities: one north and one to the south, both coastal.
No expansion in Pacific (Polynesia) or Africa (Songhai, Carthage, Egypt, Ethiopia).
Spain still one city, claiming some North Africa.
England not only did not bite on settling in Ireland, as of turn 180+, Elizabeth has yet to found a 2nd city anywhere. Moreover, being so close to Paris, England has also claimed up both marsh tiles around "Brussels" as well as the western-most "Brest" tile in France. So, there you go. In future playthroughs, I may put those luxuries back or place one of the two north of Ireland. Also, I'm interested to see what would happen if I moved England's start position NW one tile. France is doing relatively poorly in this game, but I digress...
France 2nd city (late) east on coast.
Russia settled 2 cities on coast to the north, one almost directly north and the other closer to the Ural mountains. Big land grabs around Moscow.
Sweden went north 2nd city.
Berlin went east for 2nd city, then south near alps for 3rd.
Byzantium went directly east across Caspian for 2nd city.
Arabia still one city.
Persia stayed lonely, then ventured out east of Urals for 2nd city... in constant conflict between Russia/Mongols...
India made a tri-fecta, first near Bangladesh then on west coast of subcontinent.
China placed Shanghai directly south, then west (stopping any Indian expansion and butting up to nearby CSs).
Japan settled one directly north.


Results through 154 turns:

France settled 3rd city in the Baltics region! Pretty smooth placement, actually.
Songhai expanded through jungles of Africa, with 3 total cities spanning across continent (Carthage/Egypt/Ethiopia/Arabia = still one city)
Mongols settled one NE, above mountains.
China added 2 cities, one NE then later NW, butting up to Mongolia now and keeping Japan off mainland.
India snuck a city into what is actually east coast of China today. It has changed hands between China and Japan I believe already.
Spain/England/Polynesia = still one city.
Russia conquered Persia's second city east of the Urals and settled another. Moving east now in (eventual) conflict with Mongols.


Turn 164

Spain settled second city on NW coast (whoo!)


Turn 180:

Incas settle first city in Brazilian territory, Mayans nearly immediately declare war.
Mongols taking over Russian expansion and pushing back west. Pretty neat.


Overall impressions: So far, this has been a super fun game. Given, as the US I'm influencing a lot of Hiawatha's plans and I think I've kept the Mayan's from settling north for fear of reprisal after I placed New Orleans, I think a lot of the city placement opportunities are realistic and repeatable. Hiawatha got greedy and settled on present day San Francisco and down the peninsula there, to claim Cerro de Potosi. By the time I got my minutemen, that is all changing...I'm only around turn 200 and am now starting to officially meet the rest of the world. This is a great game so far!


Recommendations:

Keep Quebec & Cahokia as is. Change nearby Natural Wonders in North America per previous notes.
Move Mayan starting location. As is with so much gold and silver nearby, Mayans make INCREDIBLE money at the game's start. Having Cerro de Potosi within reach of it's capital would only make that more so... plus I think this helps in their southern expansion.
Move Incan starting location north of lake. I think not having a coastal start put Inca down a different tech priority which helped in slowing their expansion and runaway (not to mention that string of mountains...)
While the Persians and some others seem to be under-performing, it's bound to happen to some civs and may be COMPLETELY different in a different playthrough. While I thought it'd be worth removing a civ somewhere, I've put some thought into it and here's the best idea's I've got:
You could remove Persia and Almaty and add the Huns near Almaty's starting position... I do like the idea of seeing more new G+K civs in action and this would be interesting.
Likewise, if you wanted to be creative, you would add Warsaw west of current Berlin and add the Netherlands to northern Europe or Austria in central Europe. Maria Theresa could then actually BUY up Vatican City and others...
Nobody seemed to claim anything in the desert areas north of the mountains north of Lhasa. Maybe a spare incense or something there would be helpful.
While not historically totally accurate (but neither is Hiawatha...) if the Incans do runaway with South America in the future, you could always throw the Aztecs in there. With their jungle movement bonuses, this would be really interesting. Perhaps a swap with the USA for an "old world" start for those who prefer it? Just an idea.


Thanks again for a great map and your consideration.

(BTW I knew all this information because of the InGame Editor mod, a great tool for this purpose)

Veneke
Jul 09, 2012, 08:09 PM
Thanks for the detailed feedback! Would you mind telling me what speed and difficulty level you were playing on? I wouldn't have thought that this would make any difference but there are some rather curious differences between my couple of test games and what you're saying.

Anyway, in order:


Completely agreed on Quebec.
Inca development is dramatically different to what I experienced with Inca as a coastal start.
I've seen some unusual Songhai city placement. In one game they went north to settle immediately beside Carthage. I have no idea why this happened. Regardless, however, Songhai's starting position is OP'd, it was well ahead of any other city in terms of population for the entire game and was particularly apparent early on.
Carthage, Ethiopia and Egypt all expanded in my games to a second city at least. Ethiopia and Egypt settled near their own borders to their south. Carthage on the other hand went well down the African continent.
Spain AI will eventually settle 2nd city in penisula and I have seen them knocking around some spare settlers. It is inconsistent though with its timing.
England AI seems to stubbornly refuse to settle Edinburgh, let alone Ireland. This could be a unique luxury issue. Culture wise Brussels will happen almost definitely, while Brest is theoretically a toss-up between a number of tiles it seems to hit Brest before any of the others. I think at this point moving London is just about the only option.
French AI has actually done the best on average in my games. I was rather shocked to see just how aggressive he was settling (he was up in the Baltic before the Medieval Era).
Russia seems to develop fairly similarily across playthroughs alright. Although her second city I've found tends to the south towards the Caucasus followed then by North of Moscow and towards the Urals.
Yeah, Sweden likes going north. I'm not terribly sure why, although I think the AI has difficulty with the mountain placement in Scandanavia. There was a French scout going back and forth between the same two tiles for the better part of two games.
Germany has settled in dead centre of Eastern Europe for me when it can and has avoided settling otherwise. Did you alter resource or terrain placement anywhere near Germany?
Byzantium has never gone directly East for me. Usually, if it settles anywhere, it'll go for northern Iraq which is then usually (but not always) puppeted by Persia reasonably quickly.
Arabia needs a serious boost to food in her starting location but does generally tend to underperform. I'm hoping solving the food issue will fix this.
Persia is a mixed bag. Sometimes it goes no where and other times I've seen it beat India to that city spot on the west coast of India and then conquer Byzantium and Arabia.
India does tend to do well, regardless of Persian moves.
China seems about right.
Japan same.
Polynesian AI does seem unable to use its UA to benefit its settlers.


As for your recommendations:

I think you're right on Quebec, Cahokia, Maya and Inca.

I've seriously considered adding Antwerp on a few occassions. I'd wanted to avoid it so that the French or German AI will settle in the Alsace-Lorraine region but this does not seem to be happening consistently. I don't think the Netherlands would work as well given the already very tight nature of Europe. Warsaw was one of the back-up plans if Germany/Russia refused to settle Poland. So far I'm still of two minds about it. I'm quite against Austria at the moment, partly because of geography and partly because I think it's UA is rather overpowered.

I have, in my test map, thrown in some sheep and incense to that area north of Lhasa but it doesn't seem to have affected settlement patterns very much. Frankly though, I'm quite comfortable with it being left as a barren region.

A couple of thoughts of my own:

Unless the modifications to England, Polynesia, Spain, Persia and Arabia make them any more viable I'm strongly considering cutting them from the map.

England needs to settle up in Scotland at least or it's simply not going to be able to compete. I'm a big fan of England both to play and to play against but if they can't compete as an AI their inclusion is debatable at best, especially as there is an alternative. What I'm going to explore is swapping England out for the Celts and placing the Celts up in Edinburgh to see if that helps. Resource placement in England/France would have to be adjusted to prevent France from running rampant over England but it has the potential to work. I am reasonably positive that the Celts have a stronger inclination to expansion than England has, though I need to double-check the XML.

I had high hopes for Polynesia, but it's so inconsistent and so utterly unable to do anything but meet everyone really early that their inclusion is little more than that of a city state. The fact that it is also a DLC is counting against it in my eyes.

Persia and Arabia are a problem and, unlike the aforementioned, are intertwined. I think the region is simply too overcrowded and too awkward to give either a fair shot. I also think part of the problem is that Arabia's AI is simply not expansion-orientated, unlike Persia's. So, the plan being considered at the moment is to remove Arabia and reposition Persia to immediately on top of the Oil directly West of Persia's current placement. Honestly, I'm not happy about that and it is becoming increasingly tempting to buy the Babylon DLC and remove both Persia and Arabia and use it instead.

bwoww78
Jul 10, 2012, 10:27 AM
Thanks for the detailed feedback! Would you mind telling me what speed and difficulty level you were playing on? I wouldn't have thought that this would make any difference but there are some rather curious differences between my couple of test games and what you're saying.

speed: standard
difficulty: prince (4)

In randomly generated maps I usually play one level up on 5, but in TSL maps my goals usually vary significantly from a straight victory path, so I turn it down a notch so it's fun.



Inca development is dramatically different to what I experienced with Inca as a coastal start.


I'm well past turn 200 now and STILL no one has touched the Argentina side of the southern cone (so much free wine!). I'm fully aware my game's progression could be the anomaly, but I like to think the non-coastal start AND mountains landlock makes a difference.

I see two options if Incas can't be contained by resource/starting location adjustments:
1. Keeping Mayans in central america, add the Aztecs to the jungles somewhere and open up a pathway or two between the mountains for the Incas to compete.
2. Add a second city state to south America where the Buenos Aires wine is (Ragusa or Genoa or Venice something. One can argue there is strong Italian heritage from immigration to the region and plenty of CSs that might work). It's not perfect, but it might help curb runaway.


I've seen some unusual Songhai city placement. In one game they went north to settle immediately beside Carthage. I have no idea why this happened. Regardless, however, Songhai's starting position is OP'd, it was well ahead of any other city in terms of population for the entire game and was particularly apparent early on.


I could easily see this happening. Lots of food in the area between jungle and river flood plains...

I might suggest more pre-placed barbarians. I'm curious how setting raging barbarians would impact the more open space on the map (siberia, southern Africa, Australia, etc.). With so many civs in play, barbs are barely a threat to the player after the first 30 turns. likewise, if they continue to spawn in the mid game, it might stop those weird german/french settlements in siberia (the AI is still pretty horrible about accompanying it's settlers). I might try my next playthrough with raging barbarians on...


Carthage, Ethiopia and Egypt all expanded in my games to a second city at least. Ethiopia and Egypt settled near their own borders to their south. Carthage on the other hand went well down the African continent.
Spain AI will eventually settle 2nd city in penisula and I have seen them knocking around some spare settlers. It is inconsistent though with its timing.


This is what makes these types of maps fun: the potential variety. As long as some civs don't continuously take off and run over others, then I'm fine with it (I'm actually happy with it if it's a historically accurate conquest!).


England AI seems to stubbornly refuse to settle Edinburgh, let alone Ireland. This could be a unique luxury issue. Culture wise Brussels will happen almost definitely, while Brest is theoretically a toss-up between a number of tiles it seems to hit Brest before any of the others. I think at this point moving London is just about the only option.
French AI has actually done the best on average in my games. I was rather shocked to see just how aggressive he was settling (he was up in the Baltic before the Medieval Era).


For me, as much as I like the Celt's, if France is in game then it's just not right if the English aren't as well...

As such, when I have more time I might try a total re-haul of the British isles. If it's possible to create some space in the channel, I think that might change things for the better.


Russia seems to develop fairly similarily across playthroughs alright. Although her second city I've found tends to the south towards the Caucasus followed then by North of Moscow and towards the Urals.
Yeah, Sweden likes going north. I'm not terribly sure why, although I think the AI has difficulty with the mountain placement in Scandanavia. There was a French scout going back and forth between the same two tiles for the better part of two games.


That's all good news to me. I think those mountains look good, at the very least. Also, speaking of good looking maps, if you haven't seen the Legendary Earth Mod map, it's worth a look. Very well done (even down to each mountain tile's graphical "continent" designation). It's a much bigger map, but it might help give you ideas. All credit to it's creator, of course.


Germany has settled in dead centre of Eastern Europe for me when it can and has avoided settling otherwise. Did you alter resource or terrain placement anywhere near Germany?


Actually, I might have just described it inaccurately. That's basically what happened. Later once the map is fully explored in my savegame, I'll zip it up along with the two mods I'm using (Infoaddict & InGame Editor) so you can take a look for reference.


Byzantium has never gone directly East for me. Usually, if it settles anywhere, it'll go for northern Iraq which is then usually (but not always) puppeted by Persia reasonably quickly.


I'm starting to think the Jerusalem CS might be taking up too much real estate...


Arabia needs a serious boost to food in her starting location but does generally tend to underperform. I'm hoping solving the food issue will fix this.


definitely. turn 200+ and Mecca only has 4 population. I would recommend more Oasis tiles (like at least 3) in the area. It's an immediate boost that can't be upgraded with farms on the tile itself, but allows for fresh water in nearby desert tiles. Personally, I think it looks weird to have an entirely farmed Saudi Arabia in the mid/late game, and at least graphically the oasis tiles look better to me (plus whatever farms do get created will then add +1 more food due to fresh water... right?)


Persia is a mixed bag. Sometimes it goes no where and other times I've seen it beat India to that city spot on the west coast of India and then conquer Byzantium and Arabia.
Polynesian AI does seem unable to use its UA to benefit its settlers.


Beating India to that city placement would annoy me I think. More on Persia and Polynesia below.


As for your recommendations:

I think you're right on Quebec, Cahokia, Maya and Inca.

I've seriously considered adding Antwerp on a few occassions. I'd wanted to avoid it so that the French or German AI will settle in the Alsace-Lorraine region but this does not seem to be happening consistently. I don't think the Netherlands would work as well given the already very tight nature of Europe. Warsaw was one of the back-up plans if Germany/Russia refused to settle Poland. So far I'm still of two minds about it. I'm quite against Austria at the moment, partly because of geography and partly because I think it's UA is rather overpowered.

I have, in my test map, thrown in some sheep and incense to that area north of Lhasa but it doesn't seem to have affected settlement patterns very much. Frankly though, I'm quite comfortable with it being left as a barren region.



Thanks! Agreed on the status-quo of Europe, as at least in my game technically Germany did go to Eastern Europe (and good point on Austria). Regarding the barren region, I see your point. I'd just rather have settlments there than see Frankfurt and Susa out in Siberia...


A couple of thoughts of my own:

Unless the modifications to England, Polynesia, Spain, Persia and Arabia make them any more viable I'm strongly considering cutting them from the map.

England needs to settle up in Scotland at least or it's simply not going to be able to compete. I'm a big fan of England both to play and to play against but if they can't compete as an AI their inclusion is debatable at best, especially as there is an alternative. What I'm going to explore is swapping England out for the Celts and placing the Celts up in Edinburgh to see if that helps. Resource placement in England/France would have to be adjusted to prevent France from running rampant over England but it has the potential to work. I am reasonably positive that the Celts have a stronger inclination to expansion than England has, though I need to double-check the XML.


I'd be interested to see how this tests out. It will have to be a pretty nifty trick to keep France from claiming up southern England, but an interesting test. As I said earlier, I'm more inclined to keep England in game.

Regarding Spain, Lisbon is also an easy stock CS (right?) swap out for the peninsula, which would open up Carthage to be more of a Mediterranean power (harbors everywhere, anyone?) rather than running south into Africa. Likewise, it would entice France to settle south, I'd think, which then in turn supports a stronger Germany start location, etc. AI Spain unfortunately has a rough time taking advantage of it's unique bonuses; on TSL maps if it's not given Gibraltar to start with, it's bonuses are basically useless. In short, I'd put Spain on the block next for European civs, if I had to...


I had high hopes for Polynesia, but it's so inconsistent and so utterly unable to do anything but meet everyone really early that their inclusion is little more than that of a city state. The fact that it is also a DLC is counting against it in my eyes.


Agreed. A bummer too---there are so many luxuries in Oceania... In fact, in my game they have literally denounced everyone and civs are basically asking me to DOW. Just making it easier for the US to go for Honolulu, I guess, which is great for this game, but I doubt will ever happen for an AI. Polynesia even has 2 settlers just sitting in within it's one city borders with no plans to expand! Very weird. I'd sacrifice having that extra civ slowing down the game for another civ that would be more of a competitor.


Persia and Arabia are a problem and, unlike the aforementioned, are intertwined. I think the region is simply too overcrowded and too awkward to give either a fair shot. I also think part of the problem is that Arabia's AI is simply not expansion-orientated, unlike Persia's. So, the plan being considered at the moment is to remove Arabia and reposition Persia to immediately on top of the Oil directly West of Persia's current placement. Honestly, I'm not happy about that and it is becoming increasingly tempting to buy the Babylon DLC and remove both Persia and Arabia and use it instead.

I have the Babylon DLC and would be willing to take a crack at adjusting the map for this very change. I think it will be impossible to keep Jerusalem if we want to accurately place Babylon, but then again, I'll make the effort.

Here's a tentative plan:

Remove Spain, replace with Lisbon on western coast.
Revamp British Isles to try to support stronger English settlements.
Remove Arabia & Persia to include Babylon in TSL, while trying to keep Jerusalem (Mt. Sinai is really powerful for a civ that early...).
Remove Polynesia.
As such I'm removing 4 civs and only adding 1. These changes make it very tempting to add the Huns to the game (in Almaty's place?), but I'd rather not rock the boat too much.


I'm in no rush (still playing out this game), so if you'd like me to work those changes on a beta map you have been testing, just send my way.


Lastly, has Ethiopia always been the first to found a religion? In every G+K game I've played so far with them on the board they are first to claim one...

bwoww78
Jul 10, 2012, 07:43 PM
See attached ideas for British Isles (and some Atoll tiles for Denmark, etc.) as well as my idea for Babylon (vs. Persia and Arabia). Note that I did some resource replacement for England but nothing for Babylon. I just added a new desert flood plains tile for the starting location. This may be a good split between the two spots of Arabia and Persia...

Edit: now with attachments. Also, i DID add some Oasis tiles to the Saudi peninsula to add some food to the region...

bwoww78
Jul 10, 2012, 09:02 PM
ok last thing here is a screen shot of what i mean about Europe and Germany.

Veneke
Jul 14, 2012, 09:14 PM
I have the Babylon DLC and would be willing to take a crack at adjusting the map for this very change. I think it will be impossible to keep Jerusalem if we want to accurately place Babylon, but then again, I'll make the effort.

Here's a tentative plan:

Remove Spain, replace with Lisbon on western coast.
Revamp British Isles to try to support stronger English settlements.
Remove Arabia & Persia to include Babylon in TSL, while trying to keep Jerusalem (Mt. Sinai is really powerful for a civ that early...).
Remove Polynesia.
As such I'm removing 4 civs and only adding 1. These changes make it very tempting to add the Huns to the game (in Almaty's place?), but I'd rather not rock the boat too much.


I'm in no rush (still playing out this game), so if you'd like me to work those changes on a beta map you have been testing, just send my way.


Lastly, has Ethiopia always been the first to found a religion? In every G+K game I've played so far with them on the board they are first to claim one...

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. I've attached my testing map so you can take a look at it if you want.

In terms of changes to the published version, I think England is salvageable if its unique luxuries are spread out to Edinburgh and Dublin. That should facilitiate the AIs desire to obtain new luxury resources. I believe you actually mentioned this way back when but I disregarded it, very sorry about that it would appear that you were entirely correct.

Spain, Persia and Arabia I've kept for now; Spain because even with only two cities it's still somewhat viable, Persia & Arabia because I don't have the Babylon DLC. I have buffed Arabia's starting position though as discussed, which should help. Regarding Spain and Lisbon my initial thoughts were that if Spain were cut then Lisbon and Valetta would replace it, however, as they don't seem to be lagging too far behind I haven't given it much consideration.

Polynesia I've cut and a great deal of the changes you've suggested are included in the test map, including raging barbarians.

Ethiopia does seem to go heavy towards religion, this could be because their UB is a Monument which gives faith.

iloveciv5
Jul 16, 2012, 05:47 PM
Move Jerusalem up a tile, it's on the Sinai. Also put Mt. Sinai on the Sinai peninsula. Egypt then will have a chance to found Islam quickly(like on every earth map)! Egypt owned Mt. Sinai and has almost always owned it.

Veneke
Jul 17, 2012, 12:20 AM
Move Jerusalem up a tile, it's on the Sinai. Also put Mt. Sinai on the Sinai peninsula. Egypt then will have a chance to found Islam quickly(like on every earth map)! Egypt owned Mt. Sinai and has almost always owned it.

Thanks for the feedback. One of the driving factors in putting Jerusalem into an already overcrowded part of the map was to ensure that a city would definitely be available to act as a Suez canal.

Mt. Sinai is a bit of a toss-up. In earlier versions it was located where Egypt could get it rather quickly, a bit too quickly really. Unfortunately, there isn't a Sinai penisula worth mentioning in which to put it, the map simply isn't big enough to include that level of detail and not make it look all sorts of weird.

bwoww78
Jul 18, 2012, 08:58 AM
haven't had much time to edit, but will comment on your test map.

in the mean time, i totally placed Cerro de Potosi wonder incorrectly (it should be in present day Bolivia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD

it's probably for the better to at least remove it and most likely not replace it as I'm not sure south america needs another money producing natural wonder. perhaps remove el dorado (since we can more accurately place the cerro)?

just a thought

Lachlan
Jul 20, 2012, 07:15 PM
@Veneke :

Your map is great, one alone asking : when the next version will be downloadable ?

Why not activating all victories modes in same time ?

Thanks ! I liked to playing Carthage in current version GK"setc"

Veneke
Jul 20, 2012, 09:38 PM
Lachlan:

Unfortunately RL has reared its ugly head, so I haven't had the opportunity to playtest the potential changes to England and a few other bits and bobs. I'm not entirely positive that I'll be in a position to release by the end of the weekend, but I fully intend on doing so.

The 'normal' maps (the ones without SETC or SDD at the end) have all victory conditions enabled with no special settings.

Glad to hear you're enjoying the map!

santoo
Jul 21, 2012, 03:50 AM
thanks a lot for the map - very nice!


The 'normal' maps (the ones without SETC or SDD at the end) have all victory conditions enabled with no special settings.


could you please check again? I've been playing a looong game on the normal G&K map - although with DLC - and NONE of the victory conditions seem to be enabled?!
(I tried for UN, which I couldn't build, same with the spaceship. So I thought I'd conquer the world, which yielded no victory, and finishing utopia didn't help either. I've just passed turn 500 and - nada :()

Veneke
Jul 21, 2012, 09:39 PM
Lachlan & all, the next version is up. Songhai now has horses and should no longer run quite so far ahead in pop so early and Arabia should do much better pop wise. Polynesia was removed, Rome was removed for the Vatican in the non-DLC map and a few other bits and bobs were changed which are more fully documented in the Readme.

One that I forgot to put in though was that I shifted India's starting position one hex west. This was to prevent Persia from settling along India's western coast which, if done, prevented Arabia from settling on the tip of the Saudi penisula. I'm afraid that I still do not have the Babylon DLC mainly because their inclusion will not solve the problem for the non-DLC map.

santoo - You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're enjoying it. Unfortunately, you're quite right; the non-special settings maps lacked for any kind of VCs. I'm not quite sure what happened there but it's fixed now. Very sorry that it buggered up your game.

bwoww78 - I am almost 100% positive that the Cerro refers to this mountain in Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Potos%C3%AD

bwoww78
Jul 21, 2012, 10:03 PM
bwoww78 - I am almost 100% positive that the Cerro refers to this mountain in Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Potos%C3%AD

Oh good! I'm sure that's what I was originally thinking when it was added..... ha thanks for the clarification.

santoo
Jul 22, 2012, 05:04 AM
santoo - You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're enjoying it. Unfortunately, you're quite right; the non-special settings maps lacked for any kind of VCs. I'm not quite sure what happened there but it's fixed now. Very sorry that it buggered up your game.


wow, that was quick! thanks a lot!
I was really astonished when playing on your map - a lot of civs seemed to settle their 2nd and sometimes 3rd cities pretty much where they should be geographically - very fun.

Two main observation from a long game

.) Incas don't seem to be a problem, being mountainblocked too long to matter - but mayans will be the runaway-civ (at least if human, but probably as AI too?). they block americans and iroquois from going south and can take (allmost) all of south-america, meso-america and, if early-expanding north, even a sizable part of north-america.

.) no one ever ever settles oceania. even when every piece of land is taken, even when there is dire need of uranium or aluminium - australia, indonesia & co remain empty. probably a ciV/AI-problem, not a map-problem. maybe use the space for another city-state or two? (OTOH: I was playing the version where all victory-conditions were turned OFF, so maybe the AI didn't look as much for conquest/expansioin as it otherwise would have? maybe both territorial gains and acquiring strategic ressources became non-issues?)

some other points:
.) russia ate up most neighbors in the late game and held what was surprisingly close to the USSR-territory at max. expansion. (in addition: russia started to dominate the game fairly early on)
.) india became a high-pop powerhouse, confined mostly to their subcontinent.
.) china & japan stayed mostly where they were supposed to be and remained rather inconspicuous
.) no civ in africa ever really took off (don't think there was a single wonder built in all of africa)
.) european civs did well tech & money-wise but never expanded much - largest european civ by # of cities: sweden, by far.
.) polynesia never expanded IIRC
.) very cool map to see AI-religious bias in! most civs got to found their preferred religion, which lead to rather appropriate distribution of religions: shinto and taoism were dominant in SEasia, christianity conquered europe (and after infecting russia, spread across their lands as well), islam held a good part of africa and one or two cities in the middle east. (btw: is there really not a single new-world religion in GaK?)

once again, thanks for quite an experience :)

Veneke
Jul 22, 2012, 08:01 AM
No worries, I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the feedback.

I've found that city settlement is hit and miss across playthroughs, it seems to depend on how the random adjustment to the AI's expansion trait (it moves up or down by 2 every game from its base on a scale of 1-10 - this happens for all games, not just my maps).

A. This is a problem, usually either the Mayans or the Americans (provided the player isn't one or the other) will expand into South America. My current game has the Americans settling the entire South American continent after having thrashed the Mayans and Incas. bwoww78 suggested that the Aztecs could be put in S. America to avoid this problem but that takes shifting Civs slightly to an extreme I'm not comfortable with. An old Civ IV map got around this problem by putting ocean between North and South America but it looked ugly as sin. Unfortunately, I can't see a good solution to this without doing more extensive modding (eg. adding in a custom Civ, adjusting the base expansion traits for the Civs in America, etc).

B. I don't think this is an issue with victory conditions. The AI seems to have a mental block when it comes to anything beyond Jakarta. I have seen Japan settle in Indonesia but it's very rare. I've seen Civs settle up in Siberia or that dead desert between Lhasa and Almaty with no resources but Australia is treated like it has the plague. I don't know if the confluence of city states is affecting it or what but something does seem to be off. I don't think there are any more City States or Civs to add in down there though, unfortunately.

1. Russia usually does fairly well, yes. I've seen it get beat to the punch with regards settlement, but it's a rare game when they don't conquer far and wide. I'm actually rather pleased with Russia's performance, out of all the AIs on this map, I think they're the most consistent.
2. That happens in about half of my playthroughs, the other half of the time Persia will settle their second city southwest of Delhi and India will then usually expand into modern-day China.
3. Yes and this is a problem. Japan will, once in a blue moon, poke its toe either into Siberia or down into Indonesia, but its rare. China, for reasons I cannot fathom, typically does rather poorly.
4. Really? That now is odd. Africa usually ends up founding at least one religion (usually Ethiopia) and Egypt will normally grab a few wonders while either Carthage or Songhai die by the other's hand. That said, I was rather excited to see Spain take out Carthage and become a strong African power in my current game.
5. Now that's unusual. I've yet to see Sweden found more than two cities (its capital and one to its north - who knows why there and not to its west). Usually what I see after that is two of the following (Russia, France, Germany, Byzantium) conquer/settle the rest of Europe and remain at war for most of the game. The other two are typically killed off.
6. Polynesia should have been really exciting. Definitely the single most disappointing performance of any AI on the map to date given its opportunities.
7. That sounds perfect! Religion I've found a bit hit-and-miss, especially if any of the American Civs found a religion. Japan will usually pick up Shinto, India will generally get one and Ethiopia almost always gets Christianity. One thing I want to do, if it isn't too difficult, is expand the number of religions that can be founded from 5 to 7. If the Inca grab a religion, for instance, that typically makes for rather large blocky religions in the Old World. Oh and yeah, it's all Old World religions I'm afraid.

santoo
Jul 22, 2012, 10:38 AM
A. This is a problem, usually either the Mayans or the Americans (provided the player isn't one or the other) will expand into South America. [...]

I see, thanks for the explanation. would it be viable to add another CS in the middle/northern part of south-America, blocking of the rest? would that discourage (rapid) expansion southward, either from America or the Mayans, thereby giving the Incas some time to settle the southern part of south-America? or a really crazy amount of barbarians roaming the continent?


4. Really? That now is odd. Africa usually ends up founding at least one religion (usually Ethiopia) and Egypt will normally grab a few wonders while either Carthage or Songhai die by the other's hand. That said, I was rather excited to see Spain take out Carthage and become a strong African power in my current game.

well, to be more precise: all african nations lagged behind the european ones and most of asia technology-wise. Ethiopia did found the first religion, but they seemed to get into an early war with Egypt, thereby crippling the wonder-factory. none of the african nations got taken out (by AIs), unlike some european (Germany) and asian (Russia's neighbours) nations - but no african nation was ever in the top 5 score-wise

5. Now that's unusual. I've yet to see Sweden found more than two cities (its capital and one to its north - who knows why there and not to its west). Usually what I see after that is two of the following (Russia, France, Germany, Byzantium) conquer/settle the rest of Europe and remain at war for most of the game. The other two are typically killed off.

in my game, Russia & France divided the only 2 German cities amongst themselves (ca 1500AD?), while Byzantium remained more or less a one-city-nation (might have made some inroads into north-africa or the middle east, but lost those again).
so Spain, England, France, Byzantium ended up with 1 or 2 cities, while Sweden expanded to 6 or 7 - all of (realworld) Scandinavia, Poland, maybe even a city in north-western Russia

6. Polynesia should have been really exciting. Definitely the single most disappointing performance of any AI on the map to date given its opportunities.

agreed 100%. if it's not too much trouble, could you provide a version of the v3 DLC map for G&K with Polynesia included? yes, they are a waste if played by AI, but after seeing how bad the AI did, I wanted to try playing Polynesia myself to see how much potential it has (room to expand, no close rivals, early contact to both hemispheres, finally a use for Australia.. ;))
Oh and yeah, it's all Old World religions I'm afraid.
:( strange how I've never noticed that, until I've experienced them in a more realistic context...

two more observations:
.) everyone loves Hanoi. Whenever there were election-shenanigans and coups going on, it was here. NO other CS *ever* played a role in the espionage-game (and, in fact, all AIs seemed to have stopped maintaining relations with CSs post 1600AD or so - even while banking more than 50k gold). But Hanoi, they did love.

.) it's probably an AI-issue and has nothing to do with this map per se, anyway: Russia DOW'd twice on me for no reason - in situations where I had no foothold in the old world yet and they were landlocked (actually: super-landlocked, as they didn't even have open boarders with any coastal neighbors and no intention of capturing any coastal areas). They had literally no way of getting to me. The most boring 50-turn wars ever :)
Later on, on several occasions, nations shared intrigue with me of impending nautical invasions of my land from a couple of "friends" - yet no ship ever got near the new world

bwoww78
Jul 22, 2012, 11:55 AM
1. Might I suggest instead of the Aztecs in south America (which is admittedly a historical stretch) maybe, as suggested, a city state in modern Venezuela... La Venta is the best (g+k) vanilla city state left in the America's. I believe historically La Venta represents the Olmecs, which are of the yucatan region. It's at least accurate in that they would be a potential conflict for the Mayans and would help cover some more ground in south America without introducing another civ.

2. Speaking of other civs, maybe the only hope for Polynesia is to actually place their start position in the oceania pacific region, in line with some of the locations of its 2nd and 3rd city names (tonga, Samoa, etc.) I'm not sure how you mod their city name list, but if it's possible to rearrange to make Honolulu a lower tier city and a start position near those spices...

3. I have a few edits to your test map which I'll post once RL permits; most edits are minor but I think would be helpful (hence my previous (poor) attempt to double check cerro de potosi).

4. Funny, in my game as America (which explains how I kept Mayans and an expansionist Hiawatha in check) china was the tech lead with 4 cities and excellent relations for a long time with southeast Asia (Hanoi included). The Mongols actually kept the Russians in check but their age old wars kept them behind while china eventually took over a poorly defended India. As America, with porcelain tower and plenty of RAs, including one with my dear friend Gandhi, changed that Chinese ambition and resurrected the Indian empire with b17s. I eventually won in science.

In short, I guess my point here is that it might be worth taking a look at the current mix of city state types for balance. Lots of maritime friendships can make the AI imbalances, for example. Right now I think that's the prevailing CS type in this map. As a note, including more new g+k CS will increase variety (ie mercantile and religious).

Veneke
Jul 23, 2012, 12:56 AM
I see, thanks for the explanation. would it be viable to add another CS in the middle/northern part of south-America, blocking of the rest? would that discourage (rapid) expansion southward, either from America or the Mayans, thereby giving the Incas some time to settle the southern part of south-America? or a really crazy amount of barbarians roaming the continent?

La Venta, as bwoww78 suggests, is a possibility. It's not a great one because it should, technically speaking, be between the Mayans and the US and not the Mayans and the Inca. Also, given the fact that a city state south of the Mayan starting position won't actually prevent spread southwards I'm not sure it's a good fix. Ideally speaking it either needs to be populated with CSs, a south American Civ or transport there needs to be blocked. More barbarians though I think are probably warranted.

well, to be more precise: all african nations lagged behind the european ones and most of asia technology-wise. Ethiopia did found the first religion, but they seemed to get into an early war with Egypt, thereby crippling the wonder-factory. none of the african nations got taken out (by AIs), unlike some european (Germany) and asian (Russia's neighbours) nations - but no african nation was ever in the top 5 score-wise

Africa does seem less able to conquer other Civs than European ones, I'm not sure why because aside from Ethiopia none of them are particularly defensible. I'm not sure how to address there development any further either, the Songhai and the Egyptians have fantastic starting positions so unless someone can spot something the map has that is handicapping them, I'm inclined to suggest that this is a problem with the AI of the African Civs.

in my game, Russia & France divided the only 2 German cities amongst themselves (ca 1500AD?), while Byzantium remained more or less a one-city-nation (might have made some inroads into north-africa or the middle east, but lost those again).
so Spain, England, France, Byzantium ended up with 1 or 2 cities, while Sweden expanded to 6 or 7 - all of (realworld) Scandinavia, Poland, maybe even a city in north-western Russia

Russia and France dividing Germany is fairly typical. I've yet to figure out how to give Germany a better defensive starting position while maintaining some kind of accuracy.

England almost always ends up with 1 or 2 cities, tops. Byzantium and Spain usually. though not always, have 2 or 3 while it's an odd game where France doesn't have a number of cities. I've never seen Sweden go beyond 2 cities but it's good to hear that they can, if circumstances permit.

agreed 100%. if it's not too much trouble, could you provide a version of the v3 DLC map for G&K with Polynesia included? yes, they are a waste if played by AI, but after seeing how bad the AI did, I wanted to try playing Polynesia myself to see how much potential it has (room to expand, no close rivals, early contact to both hemispheres, finally a use for Australia.. ;))

Sure, I'll attach it to this post.

:( strange how I've never noticed that, until I've experienced them in a more realistic context...

two more observations:
.) everyone loves Hanoi. Whenever there were election-shenanigans and coups going on, it was here. NO other CS *ever* played a role in the espionage-game (and, in fact, all AIs seemed to have stopped maintaining relations with CSs post 1600AD or so - even while banking more than 50k gold). But Hanoi, they did love.

.) it's probably an AI-issue and has nothing to do with this map per se, anyway: Russia DOW'd twice on me for no reason - in situations where I had no foothold in the old world yet and they were landlocked (actually: super-landlocked, as they didn't even have open boarders with any coastal neighbors and no intention of capturing any coastal areas). They had literally no way of getting to me. The most boring 50-turn wars ever :)
Later on, on several occasions, nations shared intrigue with me of impending nautical invasions of my land from a couple of "friends" - yet no ship ever got near the new world

I've found that the AI can become fixated on certain City States. In my current game anything done for Kuala Lumpur is destined to be revoked in a few turns when someone coups it again. I haven't noticed Hanoi taking more attention than the others but I have noticed that everybody wants to conquer Jerusalem. Strangely they seem okay with other City States near their borders but Jerusalem seems to attract declarations like flies to a cow pat.

I'm reasonably certain that the problem with Russia is a map issue. The concentrated resource placement means that the AI desires far away territories you own because of the unique luxuries, while it desires nearby territories because of you're so close to them. The AI should realize what it can and can't reasonably accomplish and that is certainly an AI fault but the circumstances in which its placed in this map are different to the norm so depending on the AI's traits you may see more of this than in a typical game.

Fortunately (or not, depending), the intrigue issue is not a map problem. The problem here is that the AI likes to change its mind. In a normal game (random map) I received severals notices that Sweden had embarked a naval force to attack one of my cities. The third time I got this message I took a sub up to Sweden to see what the fuss was about. Apparently, their army was embarking and disembarking every dozen+ turns. It was almost like it calculated the force needed to take the city but once they got on water it seemed to think more were needed so put everything back on land and the cycle began once again!



1. Might I suggest instead of the Aztecs in south America (which is admittedly a historical stretch) maybe, as suggested, a city state in modern Venezuela... La Venta is the best (g+k) vanilla city state left in the America's. I believe historically La Venta represents the Olmecs, which are of the yucatan region. It's at least accurate in that they would be a potential conflict for the Mayans and would help cover some more ground in south America without introducing another civ.

2. Speaking of other civs, maybe the only hope for Polynesia is to actually place their start position in the oceania pacific region, in line with some of the locations of its 2nd and 3rd city names (tonga, Samoa, etc.) I'm not sure how you mod their city name list, but if it's possible to rearrange to make Honolulu a lower tier city and a start position near those spices...

3. I have a few edits to your test map which I'll post once RL permits; most edits are minor but I think would be helpful (hence my previous (poor) attempt to double check cerro de potosi).

4. Funny, in my game as America (which explains how I kept Mayans and an expansionist Hiawatha in check) china was the tech lead with 4 cities and excellent relations for a long time with southeast Asia (Hanoi included). The Mongols actually kept the Russians in check but their age old wars kept them behind while china eventually took over a poorly defended India. As America, with porcelain tower and plenty of RAs, including one with my dear friend Gandhi, changed that Chinese ambition and resurrected the Indian empire with b17s. I eventually won in science.

In short, I guess my point here is that it might be worth taking a look at the current mix of city state types for balance. Lots of maritime friendships can make the AI imbalances, for example. Right now I think that's the prevailing CS type in this map. As a note, including more new g+k CS will increase variety (ie mercantile and religious).

I'm not sure about La Venta, but it's definitely worth a look. The same with moving Polynesia. China did well there. I've yet to see it but the fact that it's possible is the key point.

I think you're right - a review of the city states might well be in order. I'm not sure who's been left out but provided they're not in Europe then they should be free to include.


On another note. I'm trying to collect screenshots of the map in play. I've a few myself but if there are any interesting or cool situations that cropped up during your games on the map I'm very interested in putting them up on Steam.

bwoww78
Jul 23, 2012, 09:30 AM
La Venta, as bwoww78 suggests, is a possibility. It's not a great one because it should, technically speaking, be between the Mayans and the US and not the Mayans and the Inca.

perhaps that's an answer: (using the Onondaga gameplay principle) move the Mayan start position much closer Panama (enabling the strait which is a major plus on these types of maps...), place La Venta somewhere a bit north of it's TSL in mexico (giving it access to Cerro de Potosi?). This pits US vs. Iroqois to settle north America and Mayan vs. Inca to settle south america. If need be, you could easily slip one open hill near the Incan mountain range. The Inca are defensible with mountains and the Mayans would be defensible with only ~2 non coastal tiles to assault it's capital (if/until the Incas or others build up a navy).

i think it'd be worth a playtest. I'll mark it up in the test map you provided with my other thoughts and try to post that later.

iloveciv5
Jul 23, 2012, 09:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD

I'm pretty sure that this the real, famous one that made Spain rich, made China abandon paper money and go back to silver coins, and made England also rich from wars with Spain. Cierro de Potosi was a mountain made of silver, and maintained to have been mined over 150,000 tons of silver periodicity.

I think i'm also pretty late on this one.
This video on YouTube helped me know this:
The Spanish Empire, Silver, & Runaway Inflation: Crash Course World History #25

Veneke
Jul 23, 2012, 11:39 PM
...

I'm blaming the Spanish for naming everything so bloody similar. In the next update Cerro de Potosi is going in Bolivia then.

santoo
Jul 24, 2012, 08:16 AM
Sure, I'll attach it to this post.

Thanks a lot!


but I have noticed that everybody wants to conquer Jerusalem. Strangely they seem okay with other City States near their borders but Jerusalem seems to attract declarations like flies to a cow pat.

Jerusalem I can understand. I typically never DOW on CSes, much preferring to ally them, but Jerusalem holds such a powerful position geo-strategically speaking... if you plan on invading Europe, Africa, Asia or the Arabian peninsula (from a different region, via land), you'll most likely want that territory


I'm reasonably certain that the problem with Russia is a map issue. The concentrated resource placement means that the AI desires far away territories you own because of the unique luxuries

ah, that makes sense. thanks for clearing that up.

...off to try out Polynesia for the first time... :)

santoo
Jul 24, 2012, 01:30 PM
I think I have some idea, why Polynesia (as AI) doesn't expand - it's a combination of factors:

.) Really unproductive starting location: 3 production from capital + 1 from an atoll nw. No chance of improving production (2 more landtiles are near, but they are jungle - with grassland below) - so the initial production for Honolulu stays really low for reaaaally long.

.) Good growth starting location: IIRC 4 improvable sea-resources lead to comparable quick growth of the capital - soon eating up the happiness-bonus from the 2 or 3 luxuries - assuming you *have* used your valuable production on 1-use workboats (unlike the other civs that can build workers to multi-improve their capitals' ressources, and which are not so strapped for production in the first place)

.) Settling new cities would be quite a drain on the economy - you have to wait at least until late medieval times to research compass before you can form your FIRST trade route - but even if your new cities have some good production going, you *still* have to wait while building a harbor in the really lazy capital as well (or you could buy it... with the money... you don't have... thanks to no trade routes ;))

I don't know why the AI wouldn't expand after Compass - then again, it might try to play catch-up in the capital (which, due to limited production, will be sorely lacking in area-appropriate buildings)

Even if geographically incorrect - maybe give them one or two hills (or even some atolls) and see if that helps the AI?

oh, and bad production in Honolulu also means 2 things:
.) Polynesia has virtually no chance to found a religion (no natural wonders for faith, too slow to build faith buildings, scouts used mainly for naval purposes, therefore no goody huts/free faith)
.) No chance to grab any wonder in the first 100 turns. (Playing on Immortal. I had no problem getting 5 or so wonders by this time in my earlier Maya-game - at Immortal as well)

That being said - surprisingly, Polynesia can still hold it's own (score-wise in the top third of civs) - even without wonders, free techs or religion.

Other observations @Turn 110, unless otherwise noted
.) China explores Australia as early as Turn 55 (with land units!). Makes it even stranger, that no one settles there.
.) Selasse leads the scoreboard - all other African nations are in the bottom half.
.) By turn 100, Polynesia has made contact with every other nation (using only its starting unit to scout). Since open borders are only just started being traded and no one else can cross oceans yet - this is hugely different from other nations. (Though not [yet] much of an advantage, as RAs are not yet possible).
.) American, Chinese, Indians Mayans and Russians are the remaining nations in the top 3rd (apart from aforementioned Ethiopia and Polynesia), all with ample space to expand into
.) The Bottom-6 look like they will stay at the bottom: Spain, Germany, Carthage, the Inca, the Arabs and the Byzantines (high-to-low) all have no place left to expand (England could settle Ireland, but that's it)

Veneke
Jul 24, 2012, 07:35 PM
I think I have some idea, why Polynesia (as AI) doesn't expand - it's a combination of factors:

.) Really unproductive starting location: 3 production from capital + 1 from an atoll nw. No chance of improving production (2 more landtiles are near, but they are jungle - with grassland below) - so the initial production for Honolulu stays really low for reaaaally long.

.) Good growth starting location: IIRC 4 improvable sea-resources lead to comparable quick growth of the capital - soon eating up the happiness-bonus from the 2 or 3 luxuries - assuming you *have* used your valuable production on 1-use workboats (unlike the other civs that can build workers to multi-improve their capitals' ressources, and which are not so strapped for production in the first place)

.) Settling new cities would be quite a drain on the economy - you have to wait at least until late medieval times to research compass before you can form your FIRST trade route - but even if your new cities have some good production going, you *still* have to wait while building a harbor in the really lazy capital as well (or you could buy it... with the money... you don't have... thanks to no trade routes ;))

I don't know why the AI wouldn't expand after Compass - then again, it might try to play catch-up in the capital (which, due to limited production, will be sorely lacking in area-appropriate buildings)

Even if geographically incorrect - maybe give them one or two hills (or even some atolls) and see if that helps the AI?

oh, and bad production in Honolulu also means 2 things:
.) Polynesia has virtually no chance to found a religion (no natural wonders for faith, too slow to build faith buildings, scouts used mainly for naval purposes, therefore no goody huts/free faith)
.) No chance to grab any wonder in the first 100 turns. (Playing on Immortal. I had no problem getting 5 or so wonders by this time in my earlier Maya-game - at Immortal as well)

That being said - surprisingly, Polynesia can still hold it's own (score-wise in the top third of civs) - even without wonders, free techs or religion.

Other observations @Turn 110, unless otherwise noted
.) China explores Australia as early as Turn 55 (with land units!). Makes it even stranger, that no one settles there.
.) Selasse leads the scoreboard - all other African nations are in the bottom half.
.) By turn 100, Polynesia has made contact with every other nation (using only its starting unit to scout). Since open borders are only just started being traded and no one else can cross oceans yet - this is hugely different from other nations. (Though not [yet] much of an advantage, as RAs are not yet possible).
.) American, Chinese, Indians Mayans and Russians are the remaining nations in the top 3rd (apart from aforementioned Ethiopia and Polynesia), all with ample space to expand into
.) The Bottom-6 look like they will stay at the bottom: Spain, Germany, Carthage, the Inca, the Arabs and the Byzantines (high-to-low) all have no place left to expand (England could settle Ireland, but that's it)


You could be right, the production issue might be what's preventing Polynesia from expanding. Those jungle tiles could all be changed to hills (with the jungles removed - the AI has a tendency to TP jungle tiles, irrespective of the terrain underneath) which might help and a few more atolls would do no harm. The happiness issue is only a concern for the human player. The AIs essentially ignore happiness but even if they didn't Monarchy makes it a non-issue anyway. Poly starts with Whales, Crab and Pearls IIRC which is 12 so the city would have to be above 18 before they run out of happiness from luxuries if Monarchy is in play. This, of course, ignores the difficulty level bonuses.

I'm not as convinced with the gold issue - Polynesia can pick its settlement spots in most of the open areas for the first third of the game basically with no competition. I simply can't see how there isn't a gold-positive settlement site available to them early on. Buenos Aires is a gold mine, as is most of South America. The west coast of the US has some very nice spots as does southeast Asia while Australia has some choice locations as well. Plus, all of these locations have luxury resources they need - the AI should be settling there as a matter of priority.

Also, bwoww made a comment earlier that Polynesia did have settlers, it simply wasn't using them and I did see something similar at one point. It imagine that this was after compass (as I couldn't have known otherwise) but I couldn't be positive.

Well, I'd argue that Polynesia has first pick on a good number of goody huts, esp. those in Australia, New Zealand and other places besides because of their UA. You're right though, early wonders and a religion are not really on the cards and are likely to remain off them even with a production boost.

With regards Australia etc. in my current game Persia (who has taken to settling everywhere) dropped a city in the Phillipines and another in Indonesia. Not quite Australia but they're definitely capable of expanding that far out.

With exception to Ethiopia, Maya and Polynesia, those Civs in the top tier usually wind up there unless the game develops unusually. Ethiopia in particular I've rarely seen do anywhere near as well as that.

With exception to Byzantium, those Civs in the bottom tier do usually wind up there as well. That said, I have seen Spain conquer northern Africa. I've yet to see Carthage, Germany, Inca or Arabs do anything other than poorly though. Byzantium is hit-and-miss - it very much depends on settlement patterns and how quickly they can get their army to a large size.



One thing I've noticed, though perhaps its just my playstyle, is that you seem to go through techs faster than what you'd see on a default map. On Immortal I managed to get to the Industrial era with very little beelining before any other AI, including the Americans who were double the score and triple the cities of anyone else, as England with 3 cities. Has anyone else experienced anything similar?

bwoww78
Jul 24, 2012, 09:44 PM
just a couple of suggestions. see attached screenshots...

Veneke
Jul 24, 2012, 10:39 PM
just a couple of suggestions. see attached screenshots...

The changes to central and south America look pretty solid. I assume you've added the two mountain tiles north of La Venta to prevent the Americans from walking quickly over them? The Mayan starting resources will need to be adjusted, as might La Venta's now that I look at it but it could very well solve the potential runaway American Civ issue.

Manila I think is an easy add. Honolulu looks a bit odd there, but it should definitely make the more viable.

bwoww78
Jul 24, 2012, 11:08 PM
The changes to central and south America look pretty solid. I assume you've added the two mountain tiles north of La Venta to prevent the Americans from walking quickly over them?

thanks. and actually i just swapped the old Potosi location with a mountain, but you're absolutely right that the hope is to keep the Americans (and Iroquois) from running to far south...


The Mayan starting resources will need to be adjusted, as might La Venta's now that I look at it but it could very well solve the potential runaway American Civ issue.


definitely. it's your map and you seem more well versed in AI expansion principles and resource balance. i would note that it might make sense to move El Dorado, maybe deeper into the Amazon... those natural wonders are big $$$ makers, which is really powerful in early game (especially with 2.. and the +4 faith bonus to natural wonders pantheon... just thinking out loud).

either way, in this layout the incas/mayans are trapped into jungle conflict, which should slow any early runaways...


Manila I think is an easy add. Honolulu looks a bit odd there, but it should definitely make the more viable.

it just seemed obvious. You might want to consider looking into reorganizing the city name priority of Polynesia, if that's something that irks you. personally, i could get over it. moreover, that seems above the scope of this mod (and definitely my modding skills).

bwoww78
Jul 24, 2012, 11:11 PM
one last thought, while you're rearranging resource placement (assuming you go with the central america layout as is) i'd consider adding another plains/hill tile due east of the southern most central american sugar (hope that made sense...). this would add a little depth to central america and allow you to potentially play with the new Mayan "panama" placement resource type distribution a little more...

Veneke
Jul 28, 2012, 06:39 AM
Okay, version 4 is out. It incorporates pretty much all of the changes that we've talked about since the last release. The only thing I've left alone at the moment is Polynesia, I'm still not convinced that they can make a reasonable contribution to warrant their inclusion without drastic changes - like starting them in New Zealand or Australia.

One really cool thing I found out is that it's possible to play this custom map with Steam achievements enabled by loading the game up without activating the Mod. I've included instructions on how I did it in the OP, but if this isn't news to everyone else and/or there's a better way of doing it, please let me know!

I've also included two screenshots from my recent game as England (runaway US with strong India Russia, Mongolia and Songhai) in the Workshop but I'm still very interested in screens from other people's games if anyone has any that they'd like to share.

In other news the G&K map has surpassed Vanilla map downloads with over 2,000 downloads on Steam! That might not be that big in comparison to the popularity of other, larger, Earth maps (Gedemon's has 12,000+) but I'm reasonably positive that this is now the most popular standard-sized Earth map for Civ V. There's a potential exception to Smellymummy's cordiform map that's included in Gedemon's map collection but I think regardless of where it's placed, it's been a pretty successful venture. A venture that certainly would not have been anywhere near as successful, nor as good, without the valuable contributions from everyone in this thread.

bwoww78
Jul 28, 2012, 08:47 AM
Okay, version 4 is out.

do you mind updating the OP screenshot of the WB map? i'm not going to be near a civ-ready computer for a while, but i'm interested to see how the new version looks, civ/cs/resource placement changes and all.
thanks!

Veneke
Jul 28, 2012, 09:07 AM
do you mind updating the OP screenshot of the WB map? i'm not going to be near a civ-ready computer for a while, but i'm interested to see how the new version looks, civ/cs/resource placement changes and all.
thanks!

Sure thing.

Also, you might be interested in this Let's Play (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=470753) which is based on version 4.

Edit: Done. I've changed it to a url link to the file on the imgur site, largely to save on CFC space but it has the added benefit of being bigger than the previous version. Also, what happened your computer or are you just away from your gaming rig?

RedRover57
Jul 30, 2012, 01:43 PM
Where is the link to download the zip file? The link in the original post is for a RAR file.

Veneke
Jul 30, 2012, 08:59 PM
Where is the link to download the zip file? The link in the original post is for a RAR file.

ZIP and RAR are just two different means of compacting a file. You may need WinRar (http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm) to extract it.

Alternatively, you can simply hit 'Subscribe' on the map in the Steam Workshop and it'll instantly download and install to your harddrive.

RedRover57
Jul 31, 2012, 03:28 AM
Ah thanks. That's the issue. I don't have that app.

I've been searching for a standard size Earth map with correct civ starting positions so this looks interesting.

Veneke
Jul 31, 2012, 04:29 AM
No worries. Technically the WinRar you download is a trial version for 30 days but after the 30 days you just have to close the warning and it works as normal - archiving, extracting, exploring etc.

Hope you enjoy the map, let me know what you think of it when you've given it a go.

vibe96
Aug 02, 2012, 08:39 AM
the map looks pretty good. but could you add the huns somewhere near the caspian sea. i also think that you should remove one of the european nations. like france

Veneke
Aug 02, 2012, 09:22 PM
the map looks pretty good. but could you add the huns somewhere near the caspian sea. i also think that you should remove one of the european nations. like france

Thanks for the feedback.

The Huns have been suggested a few times and my opinion on them is mixed. I just don't know if their inclusion will be of benefit. It's rather cramped down where it's been suggested they start, even with Almaty removed.

Europe is a little crowded but if any Civ was on the chopping block it would have to be Germany - they consistently fail to break out of Europe or survive the inevitable attacks from France/Russia.

Lehnardtsson
Aug 03, 2012, 06:52 AM
can you post the last version in this forum? My PC for play is not connected so I cannot donwload through the interface but rather do it during lunch time at my jobs computer :)

vibe96
Aug 03, 2012, 07:19 AM
How about this:

Civs:
France
Germany
Carthage
Ethiopia
Egypt
Songhai
Russia
Mongolia
Sweden
India
Arabia
China

City states:
All you have in the map exept jerusalem
native americat tribes
london
kyoto
edinburgh

Veneke
Aug 03, 2012, 07:41 AM
@ Lehnardtsson: The latest version is attached to a .rar file in the OP. Download and follow the installation instructions and it should be good to go.

@ Vibe: I have seriously considered releasing a map with a significantly reduced number of Civs as well as only old world Civs etc. Your list is close to my plans for the latter but you've included every African Civ and removed a number of Civs in the more high-powered regions (Europe and Middle East in particular struck me). There's actually a reasonably strong argument to be made for that approach, as it might help ensure a more consistent historical development. It might, however, make it too historically consistent. There is also the issue that Germany rarely survives long enough between France and Russia to warrant inclusion in any reduced Civ map.

Your suggested city-states, however, are both beyond the scope of this mod and against my preference to keep things as vanilla as possible. It's largely for this reason that there is a DLC map at all - if I was modding in Civs/City-States I'd ignore DLC altogether. It's a tempting approach but in the interests of not letting this project run away on me (I've still to get a working settings selection screen in order!) I fear that I'm unlikely to add those city-states in.

I'm more curious though why you want to remove Jerusalem. Testing made it pretty clear that Suez was basically a non-starter on most playthroughs unless the human got a chance to settle the city himself, and although the trip around S. Africa is not terribly long, Suez is still an important site that adds interest to the map. Have you encountered something that would suggest its removal would be of benefit?

vibe96
Aug 03, 2012, 09:16 AM
Well, i haven't yet tryed the map, but doesn't jerusalem "block" arabia from expanding. the civilization list was just my picks. its really hard to pick only 10-12 civilizations so i decided to leave out england and spain. of course you could change this to remove carthage, germany and arabia and add england, spain and the byzantine. England could do really well with tradition+left commerence and beeline to astronomy to colonise americas. Spain could expand to north africa and americas. Its just a matter of taste which civs do you want in. About those citystates you can just rename the cities in worldbuilder. But if you dont want to do so, its OK.

Veneke
Aug 03, 2012, 09:13 PM
I tried the renaming option before and never managed to get it to work. It would always come up as 'TXT_KEY_X' ingame.

Jerusalem kinda blocks Arab expansion, but they have two easily accessible city sites - one to their east at the other end of the Saudi penisula and another up between the two rivers. The AI does settle there if it has the chance, almost always on the former and if Persia buggers up on the latter. On the other hand, playtesting without Jerusalem found that usually Egypt went north to settle roughly in Alexandria, which blocked Arabia anyway.

It is tough to reduce the Civ list. I think you're right in that removing England and Spain (and Japan) are good moves in any reduced civ listing, primarily on account of the fact that they typically do so poorly. Germany I also think is an easy write-off, as probably are Carthage and Ethiopia. I think the real issue is whether the reduced Civ listing would have Arabia, Persia, Byzantium, Turks or even the Huns, Babylon would actually be ideal. There's probably only room for one of them.

Arsuro
Aug 04, 2012, 04:20 AM
Very good map. Tks vm for sharing.

Veneke
Aug 04, 2012, 04:58 AM
Very good map. Tks vm for sharing.

Glad you enjoyed it! Welcome to CFC. :D

Lachlan
Aug 10, 2012, 12:36 PM
Any news here ?

Veneke
Aug 13, 2012, 01:22 AM
Any news here ?

Unfortunately, with the semester well and truly started my free time has gone from 'very little' to 'hahahaha, all your free time belongs to us', hence why there've been no updates to the Russia LP or the map.

On the other hand, aside from the setup screen problem I think the map(s) are pretty good as they are now. The only possible inclusion to the map pack that is really being considered is a 'Limited Civs' map with maybe half the number of Civs that are currently in play but I don't consider this a major priority because you can very easily adjust this yourself through the worldbuilder.

Avatan
Sep 21, 2012, 04:46 AM
Hi! I am currently playing a game as France and it's heap of fun (g&k version)!
This map is exactly what I was looking for: a real world feel but I don't need to but a super computer from NASA.
Most civ are happy with just one city when they could be building more (well, except cathy!). I got 13 denoucements after ending isabella :P
Well done!

MadLion
Nov 20, 2012, 01:03 PM
Veneke.


I absolutely love your map!! ( happy! happy!! joy !!! joy!!!! ).
Can you please do a large version of it . That would be awesome mate.

Best regards

Veneke
Mar 16, 2013, 08:24 PM
Glad you're enjoying the map Avatan and Madlion!

One of the driving reasons behind why I made this map was because of the plethora of very well crafted Earth maps of larger sizes and the dearth of available maps in the standard size. I'm still of the opinion that Civ 5 is so poorly optimized that anything larger than standard size is a non-starter without a huge rig of a computer and a willingness to put up with serious lag. I haven't played in some time but I've not seen anything that suggests this has changed (if it can even be changed).

For both of these reasons I have no intention of redrawing the map at a larger size. I would, however, recommend Gedemon's earth pack for a good huge earth map selection and Vadus' large earth map which was the basis for this map.


In addition, if anyone is curious, there will be a new version of this map released for BNW.

Lachlan
Mar 17, 2013, 08:07 AM
Egypt can't build a city on Mediterranean Sea, you should correct this...

Veneke
Mar 17, 2013, 05:07 PM
Huh, I never noticed that. The region has always developed pretty acceptably in my playthroughs but moving Thebes 1 SW or SE shouldn't affect anything terribly significantly and would allow for there to be a city on the Med between Carthage and Jerusalem.

Very good catch.

Veneke
May 09, 2013, 12:22 AM
I've tidied up the map pack so that you are now only presented with four maps; a Vanilla version (basically the Gods and Kings version but with the new things removed), a Gods and Kings version with 21 Civs and 17 City States, a Gods and Kings version with 22 Civs and 17 City States that requires the Inca DLC and a Gods and Kings version with 8 Civs and 16 City States. All four have fixed Egypt's starting position to allow for a city to be built on the Mod between it, Carthage and Jerusalem. OP has been updated.

EgyptRaider
May 13, 2013, 12:03 PM
I've never been that interessed in world maps but this map just seems made for me since I always play with alot of civs on a Standard map, because I love the crowded civ maps with not that much cities so I'm certainly gonna try this!

Are you planning a BNW version as well? I could imagine that there would be room for the Zulu and Brazil, and the probable new Native American and let's hope for the new Asian civ, and maybe some new city-states.

EDIT: woops, I missed your announcement a few posts back concerning the BNW version. I can't wait for it!

Veneke
May 13, 2013, 10:19 PM
Glad to see that you're going to give it a try EgyptRaider. Yes, you're quite right that there will be a BNW map once it's released. Obviously no changes are set in stone, but these are my thoughts on changes based on what we know so far:

North America:

La Venta will go, replaced by Panama city 2 SW. Panama is further north than I'd like but putting it where it actually is would mean that the Mayans are not in S. America and that does not work for balance, especially if Brazil is the powerhouse I kinda expect it to be.

South America:

Brazil will take the place of the Incas and RdJ is obviously gone. I'm considering removing El Dorado. To be honest, I'm kinda hoping for a new city-state to go somewhere in S. America.

Africa:

Zulus are definitely going to be included, probably swapping out Carthage for them. Cape Town will have to go. M'banza-Kongo will be included where it should be. I suspect that we'll see a number of new African Natural Wonders given the scenario and its conditions, these will all be included (provided they don't bugger up anything in the process anyway). Zanzibar will potentially be included (possibly on Madagascar). Previously I think I rejected it and Mombasa on the basis that it would block Ethiopia, it still might but after a few playthroughs I'm beginning to rethink it.

Europe:

Europe is always a pain. Portugal will take Spain's place though, that's pretty easy. Germany will probably be swapped out for Poland. I was uncertain about this until recently but I think it's a good move. Poland though will almost certainly have to start where Germany is right now, this is to ensure that Riga will fit north of those swamps between Germany and Russia and so that they definitely have access to the water. Sofia and Bratislava are almost certainly both out.

Middle-East:

I'm not sure about how this will work. Assyria is definitely in, but whether to drop Byzantium, Persia or Arabia (or both Persia and Arabia) for it I'm not so certain. Arabia typically does pretty poorly, Persia sometimes does alright provided it can win the rush to the flood plains, Byzantium usually does reasonably well no matter what happens but rarely successfully holds onto a second city for very long. I'm wondering if it might be too crowded. Dropping all three for Assyria could work too... I really am not sure here. I think it's safe to say that Ur is out though.

Asia:

I'm toying with the possibility of nerfing Siberia except for late-game stuff and removing Mongolia. They rarely achieve anything and that Civ spot might come in handy elsewhere. They'll stay though unless that Civ spot is needed. I want to try and leave the CS-heavy SE Asia as it is, as I think that works pretty well and looks kinda neat.


Then there'll be the usual tweaks and resource re-allocations that happen whenever I start looking at a map.

Lachlan
May 14, 2013, 03:27 AM
A) What about an ancient, classic and medieval era Civs and City Set ?

Europa (6) : Celts, Rome, Greece, Huns (placed as Scyths), Denmark and Russia

Asia (6) : India, China, Siam, Mongolia, Korea and Japan

Middle-East (4) : Assyria, Babylon, Arabia and Persia

Africa (5) : Carthage, Egypt, Songhaï, Ethiopia and Zululand

America (1) : Mayans

Total : 22 civs !

B) What about allowing 7 religions instead of 5 on your Standard Map ?

Veneke
May 14, 2013, 04:42 AM
That listing looks pretty good though Babylon, Denmark and Korea are all out, purely on the basis that they're entirely separate DLC (I'm only running with the Inca because of the problems that arise from not doing so as is). I'd probably toss in the Aztecs and the Iroquois to the Americas, just so the Mayans don't run away entirely. Depending on the other Civs to be revealed that should be doable, very doable. That and a map where the focus is on Old World Civs, which is something I forgot in this most recent update. A Classic and Medieval era Civ/CS listing map I probably won't do, that's something better left to scenarios I reckon.

You've brought up the 7 religions before I think and I'm sorry to say that I had entirely forgotten about it. For much the same reason that I'm not touching scenarios and no longer including a diplomacy mod or Infoaddict or anything similar I really don't see this being included. The problem isn't so much the idea (I think it makes quite a bit of sense) but rather that I don't want to set up to do something and then have to back down on it because I lack the technical expertise, the time, or whatever to actually do it. I've also a concern that this is just meant to be a map pack, no dependencies, very little chance of technical error etc, adding a modification to the core game would change that.

If I get around to figuring out scenarios then I would play around with expanding the number of religions, capping range to two tiles (Longbowmen shooting from behind London into France is a bit wonky) and other fancy things of that nature. Right now though, that's just not on the cards. To be honest, I'm more likely to do a Small version of the map before anything like that.

Lachlan
May 14, 2013, 03:13 PM
Thanks for answering me : i must admit that i just agree...

Your map is nice, i just colonized new egyptian spot with Carthage...
More production tiles for Egypt perhaps ?

Veneke
May 14, 2013, 07:28 PM
Cool. Remember that I'm always looking for screenshots from any game played on this map to be displayed on Steam, preferably mid or late game.

Hmm... it might be worthwhile moving the hill tiles NW of Egypt's old starting position SW of it's new one. That'll give it 6 desert hill tiles, give or take, and more than enough food with the flood plains to work them. Do you reckon it'll need more?

Lachlan
May 15, 2013, 04:21 AM
1) I do not finished your map at 2050, my computer could hardly handling it...

The ideal size is Small at the moment... With serious slowing at the end...

2) I read that you think to make a Small version of your map, very good idea...

What would be the changes between Small and Standard size in term of possibilities of your new map ? Could be handled by more computers...

Veneke
May 15, 2013, 08:21 AM
Aye, even standard-sized maps (especially landmass/civ heavy ones) slow down to a crawl towards the end. Pretty sure that the problem is the game engine but be that as it may, that's what we're working with.

In terms of a small map, thinking as I type, perhaps ~10-12 Civs:
- America and Brazil are easy picks.
- Zulu is a shoe-in as well. Go for another civ in Africa? Probably.
- Only one European Civ I imagine and they would have to be from mainland Europe, not the Baltics nor the British Isles. Not sure who to put here really, a Civ like France or perhaps something different like the Netherlands, Austria or Poland?
- Russia, India and China are easy inclusions.
- Then 2-4 more... Assyria probably, Mongolia maybe? Perhaps Siam and cut the number of city states?

Which brings us to the City-States.
- Jerusalem and Panama are more than likely.
- One-tile CSs that don't impact terribly much on major landmasses, like Manila and Jakarta are probably okay.
- Everybody else, with potential exceptions to Almaty and Lhasa are probably space dependent.

I'm far from wedded to any of these by the way. So if you've thoughts, feel free to jump in.

The drop from standard (~4200) to small (@2800) is pretty significant so it'll be a challenge to fit everything in. I'll have a look at what other people have done but from what I recall the smaller maps tend to look horribly disfigured. I went through the old posts and I think that ComradeKristov was on the right track. Unless I find something better I'll probably use that for inspiration. Natural wonders and resource distribution will hopefully stay the same.

Lachlan
May 17, 2013, 08:40 AM
You could limit the map to Ancient World area, you cut Americas, Australia, South Africa...

Only north hemisphere, Suez Canal zone would become major importance...

If not you could rest on your standard handmade Earth map , because i could upgrade my computer...
And so, Standard Maps could be fully playable !

And your Scenario 1000AD, is it outdated ?

I sugest for your map a 500 BC Scenario...

Veneke
May 17, 2013, 09:22 PM
I could but ultimately I won't. There are others out there who like cutting things out to make the map more playable but I prefer dealing with the big, complete and ultimately messy picture.

The 1000AD scenario is well outdated, never really worked and is certainly no longer supported nor receiving updates. My experience with scenarios was not pleasant and I very much doubt that I'll return to them.

On a BNW note, with Indonesia and Morocco confirmed I'm pretty sure that Morocco will be included for the BNW map. I'll drop Songhai for them and nerf Songhai's starting position (which was well OP even by the map's standards), that'll leave the Zulus, Egypt, Ethiopia and Morocco in Africa with M'banza-Kongo and Zanzibar/Mombasa as city-states which is a nice mix although Ethiopia is kinda cramped.

Indonesia, unfortunately, will probably be left out. After our misadventures with Polynesia I simply don't see Indonesia faring any better. If I was to cut into the city-states in Southeast Asia it would be for Siam, given that there is an alternative to the inclusion of Indonesia, Civ slots are already tight on the ground and they're likely to underperform I just can't see it.

For South America Buenos Aires is definitely in and for the Middle East I'm thinking to add Kabul where Persia is now and use Persia's Civ slot for Assyria. That would still leave Byzantium and Arabia in the Middle East both of whom will stay depending on what the last two civs are. Kabul, however, leaves Assyria with no decent second city spot so that will have to be addressed, somehow.

Omega_Kabob
May 24, 2013, 05:48 PM
Would you mind if I use this map as a reference for my Asia map? :)

Veneke
May 25, 2013, 02:18 AM
Work away mate.

Barak
Jul 14, 2013, 05:02 PM
I really like this map. Any plans to update for BNW?

Veneke
Jul 15, 2013, 02:00 AM
Yep! I had planned on having it done earlier but having run into a few errors with worldbuilder I gave up on it to concentrate on actually playing the expansion. :P Fortunately, those errors were resolved when I updated to the beta version of the SDK/World Builder.

The good news is that it's up on steam now, so if you're subscribed to that it should auto-update for you. There's detailed changelogs and what have you in that and I'll update the OP accordingly with a new manual download including the BNW map.

The bad news is that I'm a little concerned about turn times given that they've slowed down already in BNW and I went a little nuts with all the new city-states. The map now has the maximum 22 civs and 24 city-states. Some things may have to change; Indonesia for example might do very poorly in Southeast Asia. As far as new Civs go though, the only Civ not included is Venice which I thought was pretty good going (although I have taken some serious liberties with Poland's starting position). I probably could have squeezed Venice in there, somehow, but for much the same reason that I dislike Austria I am not particularly fond of Venice - the ability to permanently remove civs or city-states from the game is too much. If you could raze everything, including capitals and city-states then I'd have less of a problem with it, as is I'm not exactly devastated by their non-inclusion.

One fairly big change to the map though is that Mongolia was cut. I've absolutely no idea what this will do to the development of the map over the course of a game but I really wanted to get Indonesia in there. If Indonesia flops I'll drop them and put Mongolia back in but, for now, that's how we're rolling.

Oh, and raging barbs was turned off - cause barbs in BNW are terrifying enough with it off.

Barak
Jul 15, 2013, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update! I fear that with no Mongolia it will leave China too much room to expand and no one to keep them in line.

Veneke
Jul 15, 2013, 07:31 AM
That's a distinct possibility and, frankly, I'd expect to go through a couple of games and versions of this until I'm happy with it. The Vanilla and G&K versions went through three to four reasonably major changes before they reached their pre-BNW state.

At the moment, however, I'm banking on barbs and Kyzyl to slow down any potential Chinese spread through Siberia. There's also the point to be made that, pre-G&K at least, the AI did not regard Siberia very highly. Russia typically conquered Europe (or was, in turn, conquered) and China kinda sat there while the Mongolians as a fairly mediocre middle power. It should, I hope, give China a nice boost though as, in my experience, they rarely have sufficient weight to put up a fight against the (inevitably) united Americas or other major Eurasian power. My experiences with BNW so far have led me to believe that the AI will go tall until Industrial and then go nuts expanding and, in theory, I think that'll work out fairly well for China and Siberia.

It's also worthwhile pointing out that the addition of so many CSs will also have an impact, though how significant that will be is a bit early to say. It's an extra 7 I believe, which cuts down on potential city sites by quite a significant margin.

In short, BNW changes so many things and introduces so many things that, given the restrictions I've set myself (standard map, no changes to the base game), there are fairly decent odds that the map will require at least one major overhaul. Hopefully that can be avoided but I'm distinctly aware of the possibility that it may take several attempts to get it right.

Barak
Jul 15, 2013, 07:40 AM
I have played many run throughs on your map in G+K, and i really like it. It runs fast, and forces some interesting conflicts. The middle east is a tad overcrowded, and adding Assyria leaves no good second city locations for the Byz Assyria or Persia.

That said, I will give it a try as Arabia and see how aggressive Assyria is.

I always found that China had 3 good city spots, as did India, Sweden and England. Some civs struggled to find a good second spot. Which usually mean the Europeans fight lots of wars until someone wins :)

Veneke
Jul 15, 2013, 10:16 AM
I have to admit, I am rather happy with how the maps have developed. There's always a tweak here or there which might make it better but, on the whole, it seems to stand up pretty well. Speed (or more accurately, turn times) is something that I place a premium on - I've a feeling BNW will not help in that regard, nor will my happy-go-lucky approach to City-States for the BNW map.

Also, I should probably have mentioned that Persia was swapped out for Kabul (the map in the OP will be updated as soon as I can get WB to stop crashing on me...). It's still very crowded in the Middle East; it's like Europe really, but even smaller. Kabul though will hopefully mean that Assyria can avoid building for settlers and instead take a good spot by going warlike early which thematically I find quite appropriate. Same with the Zulus, they've no good second city spots nearby but 4 decent city-states to conquer.

If the BNW map plays out anything like the G&K one, there should be an absurd number of dig sites once Archaeology comes online.

Barak
Jul 15, 2013, 08:01 PM
I played about 150 turns as Arabia, and the only DOW that I saw was when I declared war on Assyria. Their starting spot needs some work, as their is only 1 pearl and not enough production for them to really work on anything. I read somewhere that the AI is not DOWing enough due to the effect on their economy and their reliance on trade routes.

Veneke
Jul 15, 2013, 08:38 PM
Good catch, I beefed the Assyrian start with Gems (robbed from Kabul) and Incense (newly placed). There's still no decent second city spot for them though, there's potentially one in the Caucasus but no obviously good way to fit it in there without harming the potential city spots on the northern end, near Russia.

I also fiddled with Melbourne/Sydney and gave Panama City a starting position - I'm still not sure how that didn't make it in.

As for the AI, there's unfortunately not a huge amount I can do about that. Previously they could be counted upon to take neighbours out. If they don't do that, I'm not sure trade routes will provide enough of a boost to their economies in the longer term.


Edit: Also, attempting to put an Assyrian city down to display the name (like it's done in OP) causes WB to crash, consistently, so I'm afraid an overview like that will have to wait until I find a workaround or they fix it.

ariel552
Jul 17, 2013, 02:56 PM
Hi Veneke,
Very good job on your maps!! I use them every day!

Well, I've found two bugs in version 4 and 5, with the VDK DLC map, it crashes a few turns before 1 A.D (somewhere between 600 AD and 300 AD, standard speed) and tryied twice with England and Cartaghe, same crash.

I hope you can finish the brave new world map, soon!!

And that Firaxis fixes the bug in the archeologies, the pop up window that cannot be closed crashed another of my games in late game, and cound't finish it!

Regards

Veneke
Jul 17, 2013, 08:24 PM
Glad you're enjoying them ariel552. The BNW map should be good to go, it should auto-update through steam but, if not, then unsubscribing and resubscribing should fix it.

I've experienced that kind of random crash on custom maps before (it's why I had to give up on smellymummy's interesting standard Earth map) but have never found a fix. I'll double check that map (and the others) later on tonight to see if there's anything in the set-up that might eventually cause it. Could you attach a save from a few turns before the crash? Who knows, maybe there is a fundamental flaw in the map that leads to an automatic crash under certain conditions? I don't think so, but that's the best I can do I'm afraid.

It might be an idea to delete old versions of the map pack, they shouldn't interfere but you can never tell. I've no idea why it would keep old versions around but I know it does - I had to delete my own old versions of both this and Gedemon's map pack because, for whatever reason, it refused to overwrite them like it normally did.

I've yet to encounter the archaeologist bug but it sounds particularly awful.

ariel552
Jul 19, 2013, 02:47 PM
All right Veneke, thanks! And if want to download the last version to have the BNW map, would it be the attachment Vens Standard Earth Maps.rar (46.1 KB, 465 views) in your page?

I'll use it and let you know, but actually I'm thinking the crash is not only with your map but also with Legendary Earth, and in both I was using the IGE. In this last one, a crash around 1870 AD that couldn't even load the autosave both from IGE and the civ itself...

By the way, in order to reduce the turn to turn time to 5-10 seconds, I put a montains wall between the urals in russia and north china/corea. No one can enter to found cities, so much less units = time :) and also sometimes I conquer Asia with the barbarians, whe they get too much tech than europe, to mantain history...

Cheers

Veneke
Jul 19, 2013, 05:47 PM
It's the attachment with 0 views on the OP 56KB or so (I've removed the old package to avoid confusion. The new one contains everything the old one did).

It's an interesting idea to cut out some sections of the map, although not one I'm currently keen on introducing to my map. There are much better gameplay orientated maps out there than this one, I'd recommend djvandyke's map in that regard which removes the less important areas of the map like Siberia and so on. Unfortunately, it's a large map so the boost to turn times will be relative to that.

Spawnblade
Jul 20, 2013, 02:12 PM
I'm a bit of a dunce with Civ 5 mods, but doesn't the new v6 archive need a .modinfo file in it to function? I thought the civ5proj files were purely for modding purposes?

Veneke
Jul 20, 2013, 05:09 PM
...

Yes, yes it does. Fixed. It should still have worked anyway as these are maps and none of the core files are changed but they decided a bit back that maps were mods for some reason.

bwoww78
Jul 21, 2013, 11:01 AM
1. really happy this map is still getting all the attention it deserves! (and is becoming BNW ready)
2. just had a chance to take a look at your placement of new civs, natural wonders, etc. really well done! i like the layout of Europe (here's hoping France moves eastward and the Poles make it interesting) and the crowded layout of Africa makes for early and often conflict, which will be interesting to see. I also hope that the Mongolian decision works out (there's always the idea of adding in Korea...?)
3. Here are my thoughts on potential changes:
* Switch Mayan and Panama's starting position to be historically accurate (unless you're doing this on purpose to give Brazil a challenge, and then it would make more sense...)
* If Indonesia goes the way of Polynesia (unfortunately...) and add back in the Incans (S. America is pretty vacant vis-a-vis Africa) while switching Panama/Mayans. I think this would make the western hemisphere much more interesting and historically accurate.
* If another Civ can go, I think it would be Carthage (gives Morocco more room to expand vs Songhai) and you could then add the Iroquois into the Cahokia slot (or further north, utilizing it's forest travel bonus) or add back in the Mongols, if that seems appropriate.

I plan to make a few of the adjustment types listed above and play as the US to toy with the new trade routes and tourism aspects on this map. if all goes well (and it may take me a long time to actually finish the game as the summer rolls on), I'll try and report back so you have some data on how those changes affect the map.

thanks again!

Veneke
Jul 21, 2013, 06:43 PM
I hadn't actually intended on setting out to make Africa crowded but that's how it seems to have worked out and I'm not terribly disappointed with the results. Europe, as always, remain an interesting place to start.

Given that Korea is a separate DLC I'm not keen on including it, although an exception was made for the Inca in past incarnations so there's no reason why one couldn't be made here; except that to include anyone I'd have to remove someone and if I'm removing someone then I can just add Mongolia back in...

Aye, the Mayan/Panama starting positions are switched to avoid giving Brazil relatively uncontested access to S. America and having three Civs in N. America. It's a more extreme sacrifice of realism to gameplay than what had happened previously with La Venta and what's currently happening with Poland.

Dropping Carthage and Indonesia for the Incas and the Iroquois is certainly a possibility and could well work out better than how it is currently. I'm less certain on the Panama/Maya switch, keeping as is with the Civ swaps would give 3 Civs in N. America and 3 in S. America. If Indonesia works out, however, then potentially swapping Byzantium for the Incas (and putting a city-state nearby) and leaving Indonesia in there could prove interesting. Carthage still be swapped for the Iroquois.

One other swap I'm toying with is dropping Arabia for Mongolia. At the moment Assyria is somewhat trapped for space and while having Assyria surrounded by City-States might impede their growth it would guarantee at least one second, decent, city.

bwoww78
Jul 22, 2013, 10:40 AM
I hadn't actually intended on setting out to make Africa crowded but that's how it seems to have worked out and I'm not terribly disappointed with the results. Europe, as always, remain an interesting place to start.

So each civ in Africa seems to at least get a decent 2nd city? That's good to hear (I suppose Africa is a bit bigger than S. America anyways). I'd say of the remaining group, Carthage would be the one I'd use to replace, if I had to choose...

Given that Korea is a separate DLC I'm not keen on including it, although an exception was made for the Inca in past incarnations so there's no reason why one couldn't be made here; except that to include anyone I'd have to remove someone and if I'm removing someone then I can just add Mongolia back in...

You're right about Korea for the reasons you mention; also it has a tight spot for it's TSL. I think that any expansionist ways from China would be better checked by Genghis in that regard anyways...

Aye, the Mayan/Panama starting positions are switched to avoid giving Brazil relatively uncontested access to S. America and having three Civs in N. America. It's a more extreme sacrifice of realism to gameplay than what had happened previously with La Venta and what's currently happening with Poland.

I see your point and could live with Panama being north of Palenque (looking back through posts, it's a little embarrassing to see that I might have been the one to initially suggest the Mayan placement in the first place - oops!). Panama is a decent choice as it's nice to have a variety of CS flavors; however, La Venta could also continue to be placed there if you have find you have too few religious flavored CS... (I'm not sure about the current balance)

Dropping Carthage and Indonesia for the Incas and the Iroquois is certainly a possibility and could well work out better than how it is currently. I'm less certain on the Panama/Maya switch, keeping as is with the Civ swaps would give 3 Civs in N. America and 3 in S. America. If Indonesia works out, however, then potentially swapping Byzantium for the Incas (and putting a city-state nearby) and leaving Indonesia in there could prove interesting. Carthage still be swapped for the Iroquois.

One other swap I'm toying with is dropping Arabia for Mongolia. At the moment Assyria is somewhat trapped for space and while having Assyria surrounded by City-States might impede their growth it would guarantee at least one second, decent, city.

While I have done no playtesting yet (so just from a theoretical perspective), I'd encourage the following swaps:

1. Arabia for Mongolia: you help out Assyria, freeing up some space in the middle east, and add back in a check on China and solid warmonger for a bigger/emptier (barbarian-prone) part of the map. Even a struggling Indonesia still has a great civ bonus for it's likely 2nd city placement, and for some reason I kind of like Byzantium (or even Ottomans) in that regional spot.

2. Carthage for Inca: You'd know best with play-testing, but it might help out Morocco/Egypt expand vs their two offensively minded continental neighbors while adding some more flavor to the S. America map. Also, I definitely wouldn't remove both Carthage and Byzantium, but having both is maybe why I keep trying to remove one.

2a. Rather than Carthage for Inca, Carthage for Iroquois. You'd keep Mayan start as is, but swap Panama for La Venta (if CS flavors may need balancing, plus it's just a bit more historically accurate TSL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Venta)). I'd guess that Shoshone grabs up a LOT of territory (and quickly after city #2), so you could move Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) a bit south, Shoshone a bit north (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_people) and add Iroquois to somewhere in the forest-y north/northeast as a balance. Quebec City could really be even more on the NE coast (can anybody reach that whale out there?) or simply removed to make more room (Hiawatha does have Montreal, etc. in his city names list...). To this end, maybe you'd also add some more deer/forest/etc. as necessary to the N. America for balance. The more I think of it, the more I like removing Quebec City...

3. ...or, then again, you could go crazy: Iroquois for America! (though actually, I like having US in the game when I'd play as them, but otherwise it'd be neat to play with a European start and meet (now mostly) just "new world" civs in the Western Hemisphere. I doubt you'd want to have too many versions of the map; it's just a thought.)


Lastly, I might be the only one, but Baja California seems really huge and just looks funny to me. I'd swap that interior-most coastal tile, which is basically in Nevada/Arizona right now for a desert tile and maybe move the Barringer Crater SW one tile(?).

Thanks again for the shout out and considering my input.

Veneke
Jul 22, 2013, 08:58 PM
So each civ in Africa seems to at least get a decent 2nd city? That's good to hear (I suppose Africa is a bit bigger than S. America anyways). I'd say of the remaining group, Carthage would be the one I'd use to replace, if I had to choose...

Well, everyone except the Zulus. They are forced down a warlike path as they are surrounded by city-states. Somehow, I don't think Shaka will have much of a problem with this.

...

I see your point and could live with Panama being north of Palenque (looking back through posts, it's a little embarrassing to see that I might have been the one to initially suggest the Mayan placement in the first place - oops!). Panama is a decent choice as it's nice to have a variety of CS flavors; however, La Venta could also continue to be placed there if you have find you have too few religious flavored CS... (I'm not sure about the current balance)

It never really occurred to me to check for balance of CS types, I tossed Panama in there simply because it was new and threw La Venta out because it wasn't. :mischief: I'm going to look more closely at Panama/La Venta and see what, if anything, could be done.


1. Arabia for Mongolia: you help out Assyria, freeing up some space in the middle east, and add back in a check on China and solid warmonger for a bigger/emptier (barbarian-prone) part of the map. Even a struggling Indonesia still has a great civ bonus for it's likely 2nd city placement, and for some reason I kind of like Byzantium (or even Ottomans) in that regional spot.

Yeah, I'm liking the idea of an Arabia for Mongolia swap. That will be in the next update (this weekend, hopefully? It depends on if I manage to convince myself of all the various changes by then.). I don't particularly mind Byz/Ottomans either but they usually struggle - badly. Reckon I'll swap Byz for Ottomans though, if only to try something new.

Carthage for Inca: You'd know best with play-testing, but it might help out Morocco/Egypt expand vs their two offensively minded continental neighbors while adding some more flavor to the S. America map. Also, I definitely wouldn't remove both Carthage and Byzantium, but having both is maybe why I keep trying to remove one.

Aye, Carthage of either Inca or Iroquois will almost certainly happen. I do need another Civ removed though to ensure three Civs start in N. America and S. America. BYZ are my first preference for removal, followed by Japan and England. I'd really rather avoid removing England - although the possibility of replacing them with the Celts is always there. At any rate, removing either Japan or England brings balance issues to both continents that removing BYZ doesn't... Will have to have another look at this but BYZ seems like the best option.

... I'd guess that Shoshone grabs up a LOT of territory (and quickly after city #2), so you could move Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) a bit south, Shoshone a bit north (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_people) and add Iroquois to somewhere in the forest-y north/northeast as a balance. Quebec City could really be even more on the NE coast (can anybody reach that whale out there?) or simply removed to make more room (Hiawatha does have Montreal, etc. in his city names list...). To this end, maybe you'd also add some more deer/forest/etc. as necessary to the N. America for balance. The more I think of it, the more I like removing Quebec City...

If there are three Civs going in N. America then removing one, if not both, of the city-states up there makes a degree of sense. I like Cahokia as a border and Quebec might work if I push it out of the way a little more but if the Iroquois are going back in then a little more attention to N. America is almost certainly warranted.

3. ...or, then again, you could go crazy: Iroquois for America!

I've thought about this (and variations thereof) a couple of times but mostly it comes down to the very simple fact that people like playing as their own Civ especially on TSL Earth maps. And yeah, I'm growing increasingly concerned at the number of maps I'm toting around. Once I'm happy enough with the BNW map I'll likely add a Limited Civ variant and an AIOW variant and then leave it at that. Although, I've been toying on and off about the possibility of a Small version as well. At that point, it might be worthwhile sitting down and figuring out how best to organize all of that.

Lastly, I might be the only one, but Baja California seems really huge and just looks funny to me. I'd swap that interior-most coastal tile, which is basically in Nevada/Arizona right now for a desert tile and maybe move the Barringer Crater SW one tile(?).

I believe I made it like that to try and ensure the possibility of two coastal cities down there. I definitely haven't reconsidered it though since the Shoshone made an appearance so that sea can be shortened a bit depending on likely Shoshone city placement.

Barak
Jul 23, 2013, 07:01 AM
I disagree with Mongolia for Arabia. In truth, Arabia fits better than Assyria, who although they are new to the BNW, really don't fit in very well to the map. I personally would go back to having Arabia and Persia and take out Kabul. It would allow The Byz, Persia, Egypt and Arabia a good spot to fight over for a 2nd city near their capital. Not having Assyria there allows the Byzantium to have a spot to expand. Perhaps give the Byz an Iron as well?

bwoww78
Jul 23, 2013, 09:00 AM
It never really occurred to me to check for balance of CS types, I tossed Panama in there simply because it was new and threw La Venta out because it wasn't. :mischief: I'm going to look more closely at Panama/La Venta and see what, if anything, could be done.

FWIW here's a link (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5)#List_of_city-states) to what seems to be a comprehensive listing of city states.

Veneke
Jul 23, 2013, 11:02 PM
Just to clarify, as I got lost myself a few times in the post below. The current swapping envisioned is as follows:

- Carthage for Iroquois.
- Arabia for Mongolia.
- Byzantium for Inca.

I disagree with Mongolia for Arabia. In truth, Arabia fits better than Assyria, who although they are new to the BNW, really don't fit in very well to the map. I personally would go back to having Arabia and Persia and take out Kabul. It would allow The Byz, Persia, Egypt and Arabia a good spot to fight over for a 2nd city near their capital. Not having Assyria there allows the Byzantium to have a spot to expand. Perhaps give the Byz an Iron as well?

I think, at present, that you're right in that previous versions had a nice rush to where Assyria/Babylon would start for a decent but not spectacular second city spot. Dropping Assyria for Persia and removing Kabul would be fine (although Egypt should be blocked to that particular position by Jerusalem - they have a spot nearer Alexandria though and a few more besides so they're good) but it leaves the problem of Mongolia and creates problems for a three Civ start in both N. and S. America. If Arabia isn't swapped for Mongolia then swapping Byzantium for the Inca doesn't make any sense which would undermine the whole justification for swapping Carthage for the Iroquois. None of this would be overly problematic but for the fact that, after a couple of games, it has become obvious that leaving Mongolia out was an error that needs to be addressed and reverting to the Middle East from before the BNW map doesn't fix this.

Indonesia, Japan, Carthage and England are all prime candidates but Indonesia is actually doing alright while Japan and England can do reasonably well. Carthage for Mongolia could work though.



FWIW here's a link (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5)#List_of_city-states) to what seems to be a comprehensive listing of city states.


Thanks for this!

Qlover
Jul 24, 2013, 06:05 AM
hello,

first thank you for working on this map!

is there a possibility that you can take all the winning conditions including some round limitation out for a version with bnw?

since bnw the sdk is not working for me and i love long "marathon" infinite play :(

ps: my english is very bad, sorry...

Barak
Jul 24, 2013, 07:07 AM
@Veneke

Was wondering since there are soooo many civs available now could you create 2 different maps with some civs in both but some others in one or the other? For instance, different euro civs in each, different middle east civs in each?

Just a thought...

Veneke
Jul 24, 2013, 08:57 PM
@QLover - Sorry to hear that you're having trouble. They do seem to have managed to break the SDK for some people with BNW (although for me it's been semi-broken since a patch or two ago). Fortunately, a workaround is to sign-up for the beta version of the SDK. Details on how to access it are here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=500778

@Barak - Definitely a possibility, although I am concerned at the growing number of variations of one map. This started out as a very simple Standard Earth TSL map and has rapidly changed into a map pack catering for increasingly diverse desires.

bwoww78
Aug 09, 2013, 11:44 AM
FYI: In line with my previous list, this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491713)seems way more comprehensive and helpful.

@Veneke: any time frame on an update? thanks in advance.

ariel552
Aug 15, 2013, 03:09 PM
Hi Veneke,

Since I play it a lot I have one suggestion, could you make a BNW version where the vanilla civs are replaced by GK and BNW? for example, poland instead of russia, celts in england, denmark in germany, etc?
And one version with civs in america and another without? since it leaves the continent for european expansion and doesn't slow the turns so much.

Thanks a lot! very good job!

Lachlan
Dec 27, 2013, 04:00 AM
Could you make a 500 BC version of this map ?
Could you remake 1000AD version ?

No need for a mod for that, you could make it in the spirit of 1000 AD for Civ 4...
Just a scenario, you could just updating your first version of 1000AD by transposing on your actual Earth map...

clinton
Jul 31, 2014, 08:49 AM
I'd like a version of the BNW map with no victory conditions if possible. As much as I try sadly the worldbuilder keeps getting stuck on the loading screen.

Sag Bobet
Oct 07, 2014, 02:42 AM
This mod looks really cool, but I'm kind of new to Civ and don't know how to download this mod. Where does it say to do that? Sorry if this is a stupid question.