Civilization core area maps?

blizzrd

blizzrd

Micromanager
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
3,738
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I would really love to see some maps that show which tiles are considered to be in each civilization's historical core area. I understand that stability starts to decrease when a civilization spreads to areas which did not historically belong to that civ.

I found this gem in a thread within the archives of these forums. It is a map of the Mongolian historical area as applied to RFC which was apparently created by Whitefire. I don't know how he did it, but is it possible to see similar maps for the other civs, perhaps like in the RFC Atlas for UHV areas?

Spoiler :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Arethi/MongolBoundaries.png

(as posted by Whitefire on 27/9/07)

Bright green is good, dark green is kinda bad, light yellow is bad and White is very bad. Don't ask for other ones or why they're colored like this. I just observe, then extrapolate.


I'm not good with reading python (hopeless infact), but I believe we have many in these forums who are. Or is this information sacrosanct and not to be generally available?
 
I don't believe your python skills matter, since I believe only Rhye and perhaps a few others (i.e. Whitefire) have access to the data, and Rhye isn't giving it out.
 
The core areas are defined in Consts.py. Stability.py also accesses the settler map and uses it in some calculations. So, one could modify the Python to create graphics files from the core areas and settler maps.

If Rhye doesn't want us to do this, he'll just have to hide (and optimize :D) the stability code by moving it into the DLL. ;) ;) ;)
 
Here's the thing:

The settler maps have a lot to do with the calculations and they're definitely in the dll like say said. I was able to confirm this because I do have an (outdated now) copy of the uncompiled dll which I was allowed to use for Rhye's of Europe but obviously it wouldn't be right for me to be releasing Rhye's code here on the forum, however harmless it is, without his permission.

As for Stability.py the only relevant code seems to be lines 594 to 605 (there are checks against the settlerMaps in relation to lOwnedPlots and lOwnedCities). The block of code in question looks like this:
Code: 
for each city:
    if the city is in the civ's normal areas as defined in Const.py
        if this tile on the civs settlersMap has a value below 150
            -3 from base stability
        else
            -1 from base stability
But this can't be it, for several reasons: what about plots outside the normal areas? Where do broader areas come in? Why is the threshold 150 when there are no values in the settler maps above 20?

At first I thought lOwnedPlots and lOwnedCities might have something to do with it but it appears that has something to do with other civs owned plots and cities in your core area.

So basically, I'm stuck.
 
Here are the stability modifiers that use the settler map in version 1.181. They get recalculated from scratch rather than accumulating.

-2/7 per hill or flat you own where your settler value < 90. Your first 32 are free, with no penalty.

per city you own in another civ's normal area:
-1 base
additional -2 if your settler value < 150
additional -7 if the other civ's settler value >= 400, unless the other civ was recently born or reborn



- - - - - - -

The "broader area" regions are used in rise and fall events, but they don't affect stability.

The settler values that the Python sees *can* be above 20. Examples:
Egypt's value for Abdju (1N of Ethiopian start) is 3.
Persia's value for Shush is 500.
Persia's value for Ninua is 400.
Germany's value for Rome is 300.
 
Here are the settler maps. My Python code for generating them is included. You can do anything you like with this, as far as I'm concerned.

Dutch settler map:
 

Attachments

  • rfc-settler-maps.zip
    53.4 KB · Views: 571
  • rfc-dutch-settler-map.bmp
    28.4 KB · Views: 1,894
well, I don't think this will be such helpful as you believe.
First, those are primarily maps for settlers, and you already know where the AI is drived to.
Second, stability involves many other factors, and the specific expansion modifier is balanced out by a large tolerance, and increases very gradually.

I won't do any censorship this time, so that you can see that you're overrating the problem. You will benefit from this only if you were used to try to keep the whole Europe under the Netherlands and wonder why you were instable. No surprise for all the others.
 
Interesting, but the real problem is that stability naturally declines with time and with the number of cities you control - that is, instability is an inevitable process.
 
So does Ethiopia's map mean that South America and Western Africa is "better" to send settlers to than Africa south of the Equator??
 
So just reviewing the maps I know that the AI's choice of which cities to ask for in congresses is determined by their core map. (Now I know why Germany always asks for Shanghai and Vikings for Inverness and Dublin) Does that mean that the other AI civs are more likely to approve of those choices, and does that apply to the human choice of city too?
 
Yes it does, but the effect is not all that great, and it only applies to the highest priority cities.
 
Well, the effect is really big on the AI. I always vote yes on things like "Victoria wants Sana'a" or "Willem wants Kagoshima." If passed, you hurt 2 good civilizations (why would a European civ purposefully hurt its own science research rate on a dump city that would eventually be drowned out by the native civ? Losing a city is really bad for stability for the native civ). In my games after each conference there's at least 1 civ spawning or collapsing within 10 turns. :lol:
 
True, but I meant that the effect of the "core area" check on the AI's vote is not all that great. Other things matter more.
 
After studying all these maps, I realize why Brazil in Warlords remains strangely uncolonozed. Well, I heard BTS finally has arrived in Ekaterinburg, time to buy it, althrough I dislike buying computer games.
 
This is really great! Exactly what we needed I will pour over these maps and hopefully uncover more hidden gems of the stability question!!
 
Ahhhh now I that I have uncovered these maps I have some questions for Rhye or anyone else for that matter:

1. Why is Persia's settler map so small? Shouldn't Egypt and Greece and North Africa not be in grey but in red or brown of some form?? The Greek empire shouldn't be larger than the Persian.

2. Why is most of Spain bad for the Arabs? Now you have a very good Arab settler map but Spain puzzles me, we all know about AL Andaluz so why is most of Spain grey and white???

Very accurate maps though, no big surprises to anyone with a historical atlas or historical knowledge handy! Well done to the Italian nationalist Rhye!
 
AI settler maps =/= AI wars maps. An AI may not care for settling something, but may care to conquer something.
 
Cossack Captain said:
Ahhhh now I that I have uncovered these maps I have some questions for Rhye or anyone else for that matter:

1. Why is Persia's settler map so small? Shouldn't Egypt and Greece and North Africa not be in grey but in red or brown of some form?? The Greek empire shouldn't be larger than the Persian.

2. Why is most of Spain bad for the Arabs? Now you have a very good Arab settler map but Spain puzzles me, we all know about AL Andaluz so why is most of Spain grey and white???

Very accurate maps though, no big surprises to anyone with a historical atlas or historical knowledge handy! Well done to the Italian nationalist Rhye!
Click to expand...

settlers maps take into account many other aspects, not only historical expansion and my own Italian nationalistic view.
For example, areas in the surroundings of capitals to be, tend to be left alone (see Western Turkey on the Greek map)
 
Being an Australian, I'm interested as to why the French have any inclination to settle in Australia? The Dutch and English are understandable, for they both sent boats towards New Holland with a view to finding suitable settlement sites. But the French were at best indifferent to the idea until well after the English had laid a claim to the Australian continent.

The British were for many many years worried about the French contesting their claim to Australia, but there was no real French interest in the idea as the French Revolution was taking a firm hold of the country at this point in time. Prior to the revolution, the French monarchy was so bankrupt that they couldn't have possibly afforded to fund a colonising expedition.

Is the French interest in Australia purely for gameplay reasons? Because it seems to be historically innacurate, where there is otherwise so much good correlation between histroy and the settler maps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jarcast2
Bigger Huge Maps for Communitu_79a
2
Replies
23
Views
5K
MariusMagnus
MariusMagnus
Leoreth
Updated Plans for DoC 1.18
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
Logoncal
Logoncal
V
RFC Dawn of Civilization - The Historically Accurate Mega Campaign
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
Darnokthemage
Darnokthemage
E
Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
3
Views
2K
Expansist
E
PDX Katten
Millennia - Steam Next Fest Demo | Live Now!
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
9K
Revolutionist_8
Revolutionist_8
Top Bottom