There's absolutely no justification for Krakow over Warsaw on the 1700 map. I agree that we can have only one, but it should be Warsaw. Budapest should also be on the map, and one of Liverpool or Manchester would not be a terrible idea. We're not trying to create an ideal city set-up for the human player here, a point you seem to be intentionally and obnoxiously obscuring.
1700AD Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
There's absolutely no justification for Krakow over Warsaw on the 1700 map. I agree that we can have only one, but it should be Warsaw. Budapest should also be on the map, and one of Liverpool or Manchester would not be a terrible idea. We're not trying to create an ideal city set-up for the human player here, a point you seem to be intentionally and obnoxiously obscuring.
blizzrd
Micromanager
A native city should spawn in New Zealand to represent the Maori.
iOnlySignIn
Prince$s
On the contrary, I don't see this "point" at all, so I'm not obscuring it by any means.
Leoreth have said time and again that playability takes precedence over historical realism. He gave me this argument when I asked why England starts with 3 cities in India instead of 1, and I find it a satisfactory and reasonable argument.
So yeah, maybe you should get the memo first before you start calling names.
Hippo8085
Shaken, not stirred
Austria - solution comes with Venice instead of Milan. They get a second city and Italy is less cramped.
Charleston - Easy solution : either don't care or name it Savannah instead. A city is not going on the deer. Period. Otherwise the 1700 AD scenario isn't worth it for America.
Elsewhere, agree on Kagoshima instead of Nagasaki. Maybe move Edo 1N to constrict Kyoto less.
Move the one whale 1NW such that it is within range for Lima.
Remove Bogota. Move Caracas 1W. Add Panama/open up the tile.
Thanks for the feedback everyone, I can't answer everything individually, but it is all taken into consideration.
I was stupid and forgot to rename it. It is supposed to be Turfan.
No. Iran will be present and playable, just hasn't been added yet. I don't think there is a point to the Moors or Mali though, especially if one of them is starting as a vassal.
Do we know a city name, preferably with a significant modern city as a successor so it remains sound after conquest?
blizzrd
Micromanager
Tāmakimakaurau = Auckland
Ōtautahi = Christchurch
Te Whanganui-a-Tara = Wellington
Rotorua = Rotorua (unsurprisingly)
Whakatū = Nelson
Ōtepoti = Dunedin
Disclaimer: Maori encampments were not cities in the true modern sense. Villages would be a good term to describe even their biggest settlements. But for gameplay reasons I think it would be worthwhile to require some conquest of the indigenous peoples for colonisation of New Zealand.
archcapitalist
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 263
would you consider egypt to be more playable if we changed some of those pesky desert tiles to grassland?
sometimes, non ideal cities are part of the game. as long as there is a good balance in the end, it doesnt matter that "oh this city would have been a little better one to the west"
i think really, as much as possible the cities in the 1700 scenario should reflect the state of the world at the time. the game is about what you want to do from that point.
banestrider
Chieftain
Putting a city in NZ to represent maroi i don't think is needed. Much like placing cities in Australia to represent the Aboriginals is also not needed.
Perhaps some independent cities where the Mali use to be so that France has to better time settling the area.
Venice should be on the map and under Austrian control. I think that is a far better option then Milan being independent. I know it is not historical but again is a more player-able option.
Perhaps remove Boston, it is a bad city when New York is on the map, Give the British York Factory and settle Quebec City and Halifax as New France. But at the start the British should have a larger standing army so that they can drive the French out of New France quickly.
I believe that Saint-Petersburg was under the control of Sweden in 1700. However, this only lasted until 1703. So if St Petersburg is to be Russian it should also be the capital.
Perhaps some independent cities where the Mali use to be so that France has to better time settling the area.
Venice should be on the map and under Austrian control. I think that is a far better option then Milan being independent. I know it is not historical but again is a more player-able option.
Perhaps remove Boston, it is a bad city when New York is on the map, Give the British York Factory and settle Quebec City and Halifax as New France. But at the start the British should have a larger standing army so that they can drive the French out of New France quickly.
I believe that Saint-Petersburg was under the control of Sweden in 1700. However, this only lasted until 1703. So if St Petersburg is to be Russian it should also be the capital.
St. Petersburg was founded in 1703 by Peter the Great in order to keep the Swedish Empire from controlling the whole Baltic Sea. It was made capital in 1712. Sweden lost control of all areas on the southern coast of Baltic by 1721.
Can someone please post screenshots of the city placement?
Can someone please post screenshots of the city placement?
banestrider
Chieftain
Also as Belize is not a great city as well perhaps settle Bluefields.
I'm quite a fan of the idea of giving Budapest and Venice to Austria. Also, should there be independent cities in Mongolia? Without them I think it's unlikely the area will ever get settled or Mongolia ever respawned.
I'd rather keep Belgrad instead of Budapest. The former doesn't infringe on Wien that much and makes it easier to start the Balkans under Turkish control.
Edit: I think Italy can start with the consequences of the War of the Spanish Succession already in effect, i.e. Milan and Naples under Austrian control.
Edit: I think Italy can start with the consequences of the War of the Spanish Succession already in effect, i.e. Milan and Naples under Austrian control.
DC123456789
Deity
This would be more accurate. I'm not sure what to do with Halifax, since it was taken by the British in 1713, shortly after the start date. If it's French, it should be named Port-Royal, though.
DC123456789
Deity
If you do, there's no way to realistically represent New France without a lot of city crowding.
Similar threads
