I think America as a playable civ takes precedence in this case.
1700AD Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Locutus_Morti
Prince
Instead of removing Boston, we could replace New York with Philadelphia. Both were important cities, though the in modern day one has surpassed the other.
Hippo8085
Shaken, not stirred
^ How ideal for the player and horrible for the AI. I think the best solution is to have a city 1S of the lake that is either called Boston and controlled by the British or called Quebec and controlled by the French, your choice. No Halifax necessary then, no Boston so close to New York.
If Quebec, French trading company should start a war with Britain that Britain tends to win both in India and gaining Quebec (start them with enough units to overcome Trading company and take Quebec in North America.
If Quebec, French trading company should start a war with Britain that Britain tends to win both in India and gaining Quebec (start them with enough units to overcome Trading company and take Quebec in North America.
therox
Hydralisk
Portugal should have a settler in brazil to represent the gold rush or have a city there already
Moshe Dayan
Da General
You really, really don't want to move Beijing 1E, huh 
All things considered though, China looks really good, and I generally hate cramped cities. Bonus points if you actually do give them a bunch of warriors guarding their cities àla the original UHV.
But why not French Pondicherry instead of British Madras? It's historical (and more important than Trankebar) and would give France at least a foothold in a subcontinent where IRL they had plenty of colonies. Not to mention it would encourage conflict between the French and the British, who would still start with two colonies anyway.
All things considered though, China looks really good, and I generally hate cramped cities. Bonus points if you actually do give them a bunch of warriors guarding their cities àla the original UHV.
But why not French Pondicherry instead of British Madras? It's historical (and more important than Trankebar) and would give France at least a foothold in a subcontinent where IRL they had plenty of colonies. Not to mention it would encourage conflict between the French and the British, who would still start with two colonies anyway.
giant49er
Warlord
Hi! I've been a lurker on this forum for a while but I think this 1700 scenario is a great idea. However I do have some suggestions regarding city placement.
North America: Looks good, but I think we should add a French Port Royal and an English St. Johns. Maybe Toronto should be French too.
Caribbean and Central America: First off, I think we should get rid of Belize and replace it with Spanish Oaxaca and Panama City. To make this setup better, I think that coffee and the Central American bananas should be in Panama's BFC and the fish in the Pacific should be moved into Oaxaca's range. Also I think Caracas would be better one tile west. Georgetown should be one tile northwest and be Dutch along with Paramaribo, and maybe we should remove Cayenne. In regards to the Caribbean, I think there should be an no Santo Domingo or Bridgetown, with a French Port au Prince and Martinique instead. Also I think there should be an English Kingston and Nassau and the spice island should be a hill with sugar on it and should be Spanish San Juan.
Africa: Lagos should be 2 east and 1 north of where it is now. Also I think we should replace Mbanza Kongo with Portuguese Luanda 1 south. Also I'm not sure there should be a native city in northern Nigeria.
Asia: I think this may have been brought up before, but I think that Madras should be French Pondicherry instead. I also think that we should remove Goa and replace it with Mughal or independent Bangalore and Dutch Cochin. I also think the Madras spices should be moved into one south so that Cochin can easily get it to help the Dutch UHV. Guangzhou would probably be better as Portuguese Cantao, and I don't think Ambon is a very good city, but I guess that it's necessary for the Dutch UHV.
Europe: I think the French should have Brest and the English should have Plymouth, Manchester, or both. Also I think La Coruna should either be moved one west or one southwest as Santiago. I think Krakow should be replaced with Warsaw one north. Also, like many people here, I think there should be Venice instead of Milan and it should be Austrian, along with Austrian Budapest. I think Budapest and Belgrade can coexist peacefully.
And finally, I doubt this will fly but I think Frankfurt should be replaced with Munich one southeast. From what I know about modern German history, Munich has always been a larger and more important city than Frankfurt.
And that's it. Thanks for reading through that whole thing.
North America: Looks good, but I think we should add a French Port Royal and an English St. Johns. Maybe Toronto should be French too.
Caribbean and Central America: First off, I think we should get rid of Belize and replace it with Spanish Oaxaca and Panama City. To make this setup better, I think that coffee and the Central American bananas should be in Panama's BFC and the fish in the Pacific should be moved into Oaxaca's range. Also I think Caracas would be better one tile west. Georgetown should be one tile northwest and be Dutch along with Paramaribo, and maybe we should remove Cayenne. In regards to the Caribbean, I think there should be an no Santo Domingo or Bridgetown, with a French Port au Prince and Martinique instead. Also I think there should be an English Kingston and Nassau and the spice island should be a hill with sugar on it and should be Spanish San Juan.
Africa: Lagos should be 2 east and 1 north of where it is now. Also I think we should replace Mbanza Kongo with Portuguese Luanda 1 south. Also I'm not sure there should be a native city in northern Nigeria.
Asia: I think this may have been brought up before, but I think that Madras should be French Pondicherry instead. I also think that we should remove Goa and replace it with Mughal or independent Bangalore and Dutch Cochin. I also think the Madras spices should be moved into one south so that Cochin can easily get it to help the Dutch UHV. Guangzhou would probably be better as Portuguese Cantao, and I don't think Ambon is a very good city, but I guess that it's necessary for the Dutch UHV.
Europe: I think the French should have Brest and the English should have Plymouth, Manchester, or both. Also I think La Coruna should either be moved one west or one southwest as Santiago. I think Krakow should be replaced with Warsaw one north. Also, like many people here, I think there should be Venice instead of Milan and it should be Austrian, along with Austrian Budapest. I think Budapest and Belgrade can coexist peacefully.
And finally, I doubt this will fly but I think Frankfurt should be replaced with Munich one southeast. From what I know about modern German history, Munich has always been a larger and more important city than Frankfurt.And that's it. Thanks for reading through that whole thing.
My comments and some compilation of other comments:
Europe:
-England needs one more city, either Plymouth or Manchester
-Coruna 1W
-Austria needs a port and perhaps three cities all together, as agreed Growth_of_Habsburg_territories.jpg
-Copenhagen might be viable after the possible extra row in Germany
-Also Helsingfors and St Petersburg can be on their correct places in the altered map. They would representate the Swede-Russo rivalry
-Bergen would propably be replaced with Trondheim on the new map, Sundsvall might be sqeezing it.
-Krakow is better for gameplay than Warsaw
-Poland should be weak and almost collapsing Partitions_of_Poland.png
America:
-France should have Halifax or then remove Boston and replace it with Quebec
-Toronto should be removed
-Santo Domingo should be under France's control and renamed Saint Domingue Saint-Domingue
-If Ciudad Real is on the map, England should have Bluefields (Brits ruled Bluefields from Jamaica
-Not sure about Bogota, Bridgetown or Cayenne
Asia:
-Is Ambon necessary? I would rather see Papua-New Guinea empty and later colonized by England or Germany
-Hangzhou should be removed and Shanghai 1SE, Nanjing is debateable over Kaifeng, which wasn't as important as it used to be after suffering two destructions
-Kagoshima over Nagasaki perhaps, Sapporo can be settleable
-Changzhun should be removed
-I am a bit torn about India, Goa could be replaced with French Pondicherry, but it should be 1E of the Aluminium
-Daibul could be moved 1W and renamed Kolachi, later to be renamed Karachi, around 1750 (Daibul wasn't significant later on)
Africa:
-I mainly like it, as there is still space to settle British Durban for example
-Portuguese Luanda instead of Mbanza Kongo
-Benghazi is not needed
-Indy Khartoum is also possibility (it was founded around 1630s)
-Timbuktu wasn't important anymore in 1700, so it shouldn't be added
Europe:
-England needs one more city, either Plymouth or Manchester
-Coruna 1W
-Austria needs a port and perhaps three cities all together, as agreed Growth_of_Habsburg_territories.jpg
-Copenhagen might be viable after the possible extra row in Germany
-Also Helsingfors and St Petersburg can be on their correct places in the altered map. They would representate the Swede-Russo rivalry
-Bergen would propably be replaced with Trondheim on the new map, Sundsvall might be sqeezing it.
-Krakow is better for gameplay than Warsaw
-Poland should be weak and almost collapsing Partitions_of_Poland.png
America:
-France should have Halifax or then remove Boston and replace it with Quebec
-Toronto should be removed
-Santo Domingo should be under France's control and renamed Saint Domingue Saint-Domingue
-If Ciudad Real is on the map, England should have Bluefields (Brits ruled Bluefields from Jamaica
-Not sure about Bogota, Bridgetown or Cayenne
Asia:
-Is Ambon necessary? I would rather see Papua-New Guinea empty and later colonized by England or Germany
-Hangzhou should be removed and Shanghai 1SE, Nanjing is debateable over Kaifeng, which wasn't as important as it used to be after suffering two destructions
-Kagoshima over Nagasaki perhaps, Sapporo can be settleable
-Changzhun should be removed
-I am a bit torn about India, Goa could be replaced with French Pondicherry, but it should be 1E of the Aluminium
-Daibul could be moved 1W and renamed Kolachi, later to be renamed Karachi, around 1750 (Daibul wasn't significant later on)
Africa:
-I mainly like it, as there is still space to settle British Durban for example
-Portuguese Luanda instead of Mbanza Kongo
-Benghazi is not needed
-Indy Khartoum is also possibility (it was founded around 1630s)
-Timbuktu wasn't important anymore in 1700, so it shouldn't be added
Made extensive changes and lost everything in a crash. Damn.
What did I say when I committed the scenario?
chopped_liver
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 11
Why is Scotland under English control in 1700AD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
Moshe Dayan
Da General
Sorry, I didn't explain that well; I meant even after all of the population adjustments, improvements, and buildings added Spain's city placement is still too close to allow them much of a chance to do anything useful. La Paz, for example, has only 6 workable tiles, two of which are jungled over a third which is a single-food coast. That city is nothing but a money/science drain (even with Machu Picchu since it still drains science). Mexico is pretty bad as well...
By 1700, and throughout the 18th century, the Spanish Empire in the Americas was a drain, and the Spanish were in bad shape. So it's appropriate.
Also, it shouldn't be so bad with proper infrastructure. They'll be able to run some science, etc. But the Spanish will appropriately start in the lead and steadily lose ground to the other Europeans and other powers.
Because they were in personal union even before.
It shouldn't be unsalvageable though... frankly, given this starting situation, you're better off gifting away half the empire so you can burn it all down.
Okay, I've just committed a revised version of the scenario.
blizzrd
Micromanager
After I initially looked at all of the cities and this was the only direct change that I considered should be made.
blizzrd
Micromanager
The Maori provided significantly better and more organised resistance to European settlement than the Aborigines did. I think it is worth representing this in the game.
The Southerner
Warlord
Looking good generally I think.
New Orleans needs to be moved one tile SE - to be next to the Mississippi - it's never looked right to me where it is.
I agree with blizzrd that the Maori should be represented by a city (not sure which one though). The Australian Aboriginal people should be represented by a few underpowered barbarian (that is in no way a reference to their level of culture IRL which far surpassed Europe in many ways) units - possibly emerging west of Sydney and in Tasmania
New Orleans needs to be moved one tile SE - to be next to the Mississippi - it's never looked right to me where it is.
I agree with blizzrd that the Maori should be represented by a city (not sure which one though). The Australian Aboriginal people should be represented by a few underpowered barbarian (that is in no way a reference to their level of culture IRL which far surpassed Europe in many ways) units - possibly emerging west of Sydney and in Tasmania
Similar threads
