Reykjavik was founded in the late 18th century...
1700AD Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Reykjavik was founded in the late 18th century...
Cosmos1985
King
And Oslo was founded in the 11th century, but the Vikings still spawn there and it's even the capital
The important thing to me was the spot, not the name - and according to Wikipedia "Reykjavík is believed to be the location of the first permanent settlement in Iceland, which Ingólfur Arnarson is said to have established around 870 C.E.", that's good enough for me.The Southerner
Warlord
Definitely Reykjavík and only Reykjavík in Iceland.
awesome
Meme Lord
Reykjavik was originally a farm and the city eventually grew around that. So the site was called Reykjavik long before the city existed.
But there are people (including me) who don't care much about UHV and just want to play as these civs too. Why not make them playable; what's the harm in it?
Okay, I will now commit a first iteration of the 1700 AD scenario.
THIS VERSION IS NOT PLAYABLE SO DON'T REPORT THIS HERE.
You can start the scenario and theoretically play it, but most things that would make that worth it are still missing. The purpose of the upload is for you to have a look at it and comment on the city placement. I know that city sizes and religions and improvements and yadda yadda also have to be done but first things first.
THIS VERSION IS NOT PLAYABLE SO DON'T REPORT THIS HERE.
You can start the scenario and theoretically play it, but most things that would make that worth it are still missing. The purpose of the upload is for you to have a look at it and comment on the city placement. I know that city sizes and religions and improvements and yadda yadda also have to be done but first things first.
This scenario affords us an excellent opportunity to manually place some cities in West Africa, since I'm sure we've all seen what a terrible job the AI does in settling it. The historical foundation for this suggestion is the Pashalik of Timbuktu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashalik_of_Timbuktu. Perhaps this can be represented by the Mali vassalized to the Moors. In time, as the Ottomans decline, the Moors can expand eastward along the Mediterranean coast to form the Barbary States, and Mali can end up vassalized to the French as French West Africa.
Also, the Safavid dynasty of Iran didn't collapse until 1736. Is there some sort of upper limit on how many civilizations should be at the start of the game?
Also, the Safavid dynasty of Iran didn't collapse until 1736. Is there some sort of upper limit on how many civilizations should be at the start of the game?
Initial comments on the cities, from east Asia to the Americas, moving westward:
Japan
Sapporo was not founded until 1868. Japan had little presence in Hokkaido until the very tail end of the Tokugawa shogunate, in the 19th century. Hokkaido should probably not be settled in 1700 (or perhaps have an independent or barbarian city).
Korea
All looks good.
China
Changchun was not founded until 1800. I'm also concerned that its presence would make Russia settling far eastern Siberia unlikely. It should probably not exist. Otherwise, I like the way China is set up a lot.
On a related note, I assume you meant Tashkent to be Urumqi. Either way, it should probably be barbarian rather than independent (so it has immediate conflict with China).
SE Asia
All looks good.
India
Mostly looks good. I'm a little concerned by the inclusion of Goa, though. The Portuguese were not serious players in India after their 1664 loss of most of their territories there to the Dutch. Although they did still hold Goa, it wasn't very important, and I worry that the Portuguese could have too much influence in India. I would replace it with Dutch Cochin, as Anglo-Dutch conflicts in India were very important in the 18th century. That would also allow you to add a Mughal (or independent, but in 1700 Mysore was a vassal of the Mughals) Bengaluru to have more Mughal presence in south India.
Iran
Looks good. I assume you'll have Iran immediately respawn in 1700?
Turkey
Is Bengazi really necessary? It's an awful city site. Also would include el-Uqsur in Egypt.
Russia
I think Tomsk is really out of place, though it's hard to tell. Otherwise good.
Poland
Warsaw was the capital of Poland from 1596 onward and should be the capital here.
Austria
Is it feasible to give them Budapest on the Oil? One city seems too weak for the RL quite powerful Austrian Empire in 1700.
Prussia
Ugh. Frankfurt and Hamburg should be independent.
Scandinavia
Interesting choice to have only Sweden, but it makes sense. Too bad there's not enough room for Riga on this map, but if you do stretch the map one tile, I'd try to fit Warsaw (Polish), Konigsberg (Prussian) and Riga (Swedish) all there in a stack.
Italy
Solid. I think Venice is better than Milan, but up to you.
France
Fine.
England
Fine.
Spain
A Coruna should be one tile west (on the NW tip of Iberia). Otherwise it competes too much with Bordeaux, and it's on the Atlantic coast, anyway, not the Bay of Biscay.
Africa generally
I think Timbuktu should be in as an independent (with an expired-for-almost-everyone University of Sankore). Almost certainly more important than Ngazargamu (not Ngazargana). I think Ngazargamu should be 1E, but that's hard to judge. Otherwise good.
South America
Mostly looks good. Not sure French Guiana was terribly important back then, so it could maybe be omitted. Also would be great to represent Potosi, and this is the best opportunity.
Central America
To make up for omitting Cayenne, maybe you could give the French Port-au-Prince instead of Spanish Santo Domingo. I also think the Spanish need somewhere south of Belize represented, maybe Cuidad de Guatemala. On that note, Belize was pretty insignificant in 1700 (and at all other times), so it could probably be omitted.
North America
Charleston is too far south. The swamp north of it is supposed to represent the Okefenokee Swamp, which is in southern Georgia. (Personally, I think the swamp tile should be changed to a hill, but if you're keeping it...) Either way, Charleston should be on the Deer.
The lack of any representation of New France is incredibly problematic, though it does crowd Boston. It may be that the map in that area needs to be reworked to better fit in both Boston and Montreal. Boston is too far north as it stands anyway. Toronto was not founded until 1793 and should not be included. The British did not control modern Ontario until 1763; it was French in 1700.
By contrast, I think including British Halifax would be a good idea.
Japan
Sapporo was not founded until 1868. Japan had little presence in Hokkaido until the very tail end of the Tokugawa shogunate, in the 19th century. Hokkaido should probably not be settled in 1700 (or perhaps have an independent or barbarian city).
Korea
All looks good.
China
Changchun was not founded until 1800. I'm also concerned that its presence would make Russia settling far eastern Siberia unlikely. It should probably not exist. Otherwise, I like the way China is set up a lot.
On a related note, I assume you meant Tashkent to be Urumqi. Either way, it should probably be barbarian rather than independent (so it has immediate conflict with China).
SE Asia
All looks good.
India
Mostly looks good. I'm a little concerned by the inclusion of Goa, though. The Portuguese were not serious players in India after their 1664 loss of most of their territories there to the Dutch. Although they did still hold Goa, it wasn't very important, and I worry that the Portuguese could have too much influence in India. I would replace it with Dutch Cochin, as Anglo-Dutch conflicts in India were very important in the 18th century. That would also allow you to add a Mughal (or independent, but in 1700 Mysore was a vassal of the Mughals) Bengaluru to have more Mughal presence in south India.
Iran
Looks good. I assume you'll have Iran immediately respawn in 1700?
Turkey
Is Bengazi really necessary? It's an awful city site. Also would include el-Uqsur in Egypt.
Russia
I think Tomsk is really out of place, though it's hard to tell. Otherwise good.
Poland
Warsaw was the capital of Poland from 1596 onward and should be the capital here.
Austria
Is it feasible to give them Budapest on the Oil? One city seems too weak for the RL quite powerful Austrian Empire in 1700.
Prussia
Ugh. Frankfurt and Hamburg should be independent.
Scandinavia
Interesting choice to have only Sweden, but it makes sense. Too bad there's not enough room for Riga on this map, but if you do stretch the map one tile, I'd try to fit Warsaw (Polish), Konigsberg (Prussian) and Riga (Swedish) all there in a stack.
Italy
Solid. I think Venice is better than Milan, but up to you.
France
Fine.
England
Fine.
Spain
A Coruna should be one tile west (on the NW tip of Iberia). Otherwise it competes too much with Bordeaux, and it's on the Atlantic coast, anyway, not the Bay of Biscay.
Africa generally
I think Timbuktu should be in as an independent (with an expired-for-almost-everyone University of Sankore). Almost certainly more important than Ngazargamu (not Ngazargana). I think Ngazargamu should be 1E, but that's hard to judge. Otherwise good.
South America
Mostly looks good. Not sure French Guiana was terribly important back then, so it could maybe be omitted. Also would be great to represent Potosi, and this is the best opportunity.
Central America
To make up for omitting Cayenne, maybe you could give the French Port-au-Prince instead of Spanish Santo Domingo. I also think the Spanish need somewhere south of Belize represented, maybe Cuidad de Guatemala. On that note, Belize was pretty insignificant in 1700 (and at all other times), so it could probably be omitted.
North America
Charleston is too far south. The swamp north of it is supposed to represent the Okefenokee Swamp, which is in southern Georgia. (Personally, I think the swamp tile should be changed to a hill, but if you're keeping it...) Either way, Charleston should be on the Deer.
The lack of any representation of New France is incredibly problematic, though it does crowd Boston. It may be that the map in that area needs to be reworked to better fit in both Boston and Montreal. Boston is too far north as it stands anyway. Toronto was not founded until 1793 and should not be included. The British did not control modern Ontario until 1763; it was French in 1700.
By contrast, I think including British Halifax would be a good idea.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
Map is mostly good IMO. I especially like the placement of Russian, Turkish, and Chinese cities. A few changes though, mostly due to crowding/UHV viability considerations:
(1) Remove Copenhagen. Move Hamburg 1N to Kiel. The upcoming map changes in Europe might make this unnecessary, but I highly doubt that.
(2) Remove Milan. Move Marseilles 1E, move Milan Wheat 1W to be in range of Marseilles.
(3) Give the Austrians Trieste (on the Venice tile) so that they are not forced to OCC.
(4) Kagoshima (on Gold) instead of Nagasaki.
(5) Tashkent is not where it is now. That city should be Korla.
(6) Funchal. Is it really necessary? At least give it a Sugar or something.
(7) Helsingfors should be Abo/Turku due to its location. But again, this is subjective to upcoming map changes.
(8) Remove Bogota. What an abomination.
(9) Bridgetown + San Domingo. Remove them, and use Spanish San Juan (on Spice) instead. England can start with a Settler on the Falklands for its expansion UHV.
(10) Remove Bengazi.
(11) Jerusalem moved 1S to double as Suez Canal (this goes for 3000BC and 600AD maps as well).
(12) Remove Changchun. China does not need it, unlike Japan who needs Sapporo.
(1) Remove Copenhagen. Move Hamburg 1N to Kiel. The upcoming map changes in Europe might make this unnecessary, but I highly doubt that.
(2) Remove Milan. Move Marseilles 1E, move Milan Wheat 1W to be in range of Marseilles.
(3) Give the Austrians Trieste (on the Venice tile) so that they are not forced to OCC.
(4) Kagoshima (on Gold) instead of Nagasaki.
(5) Tashkent is not where it is now. That city should be Korla.
(6) Funchal. Is it really necessary? At least give it a Sugar or something.
(7) Helsingfors should be Abo/Turku due to its location. But again, this is subjective to upcoming map changes.
(8) Remove Bogota. What an abomination.
(9) Bridgetown + San Domingo. Remove them, and use Spanish San Juan (on Spice) instead. England can start with a Settler on the Falklands for its expansion UHV.
(10) Remove Bengazi.
(11) Jerusalem moved 1S to double as Suez Canal (this goes for 3000BC and 600AD maps as well).
(12) Remove Changchun. China does not need it, unlike Japan who needs Sapporo.
Why? Milan takes the place of 2 towns in normal DoC (Florence and Venice) and it was an essential target of every foreign domination in Italy throughout 18th century.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
[Sigh] You know perfectly well why. The exact same reason why Warsaw, Liverpool, Osaka, Budapest, or Thessaloniki are also not on this map.
Bonci
King
If Italy isn't going to be added I think it's better to have Venice under austrian rule...I know it's too early, but it solves the Marseilles problem and gives Austria a second city.
Also Neaples could be spanish.
Also Neaples could be spanish.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
Italy is going to respawn. But even for that purpose Venice/Trieste is better than Milan.
Venice was not under Austrian rule in 1700 but Trieste was, and a very important commercial port especially under Maria Theresa.
Using the Venice tile but calling it Trieste is the best course of action IMO.
And Spanish Napoli would be appropriate, yes. It could even be Austrian if going by the result of the War of Spanish Succession, given Austria a necessary 3rd city.
trevor
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 266
I'd really like New Orleans on the spit of land 1S of the marsh, which I'm guessing is Lake Pontchartrain, & the cow that spawns there either moved to Florida (either 1N of the western jungle or on the western jungle to represent cattle farming in & around Tampa) or the current NOLA tile (they grow a lot of cows in Lafayette/East Texas). It's not as good as the other spots in terms of production but it feels right for it to be out there in the gulf--like in reality.
soul-breathing
King
Though my hometown is Hangzhou, I prefer Nanjing instead of Hangzhou in this scenerio. Since Shanghai is very important for China after 19th century, we must make a choice between Nanjing and Hangzhou.
Generally speaking, Nanjing was the capital of Ming Dynasty(first Nanjing, then move to Beijing) and Republic of China(1927-1949). It's more important than Hangzhou after China enter the Industrial Age.
So I think Shanghai could be moved 1SE(It's a city south of Yangtze River), and Nanjing still at the tile which in scenerio 600AD
Generally speaking, Nanjing was the capital of Ming Dynasty(first Nanjing, then move to Beijing) and Republic of China(1927-1949). It's more important than Hangzhou after China enter the Industrial Age.
So I think Shanghai could be moved 1SE(It's a city south of Yangtze River), and Nanjing still at the tile which in scenerio 600AD
Spoiler :
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
Actually I think we can leave some cities unsettled (Shanghai and Hangzhou in China's case) and let these civs start with extra Settlers instead. So the player can decided to settle wherever they want.
Besides China other civs who should get this treatment are obviously Russia and England.
Otherwise the first thing I would do is to WB a few cities out of the map, like that one time (yes, just once) I played China in the 600AD Scenario.
Besides China other civs who should get this treatment are obviously Russia and England.
Otherwise the first thing I would do is to WB a few cities out of the map, like that one time (yes, just once) I played China in the 600AD Scenario.
Similar threads
