Alternative Map during 1.18
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Krieger-FS
Warlord
Following my immersion in the study of Western Siberia and Central Asia history for the CNM suggestions (and Valetss’s suggestions here, with which I fully agree), I have some ideas for a few small adjustments to the map:
Also, I'm not sure if this is the right moment or place to discuss Independent/Native/Barbarian city spawns, but studying the history and colonization of Western Siberia made me think that we should at least increase the chance of Turkics/Mongols settling the area. Alternatively, we could add Independent cities like Sibir (Tobolsk) and/or Chimgi-Tura (Tyumen) to represent the Sibir Khanate. The Russians conquered a state-organized society there, which had a significant degree of urbanization. Sibir's major cities were not that much different from those in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. It would make the region seem less empty and provide an earlier barrier to the Russians, forcing them to a conquest, as it was historically. Maybe, and TBH I'm not so sold to the idea, we could have another Turkic/Tatar civ covering Eastern Europe and Siberia, including the Khazar, Volga Bulgar, Cuman, Golden Horde, Kazan, Astrakhan, and Sibir khanates.
Furthermore, we could add additional Independent/Native cities in the area — Great Perm and the Yugran principalities were ancient kingdoms known for their interactions with the Novgorod Republic at least from around the 11th century, well before the rise of Muscovy and the Russian Tsardom.
Spoiler Map Suggestions :
Also, I'm not sure if this is the right moment or place to discuss Independent/Native/Barbarian city spawns, but studying the history and colonization of Western Siberia made me think that we should at least increase the chance of Turkics/Mongols settling the area. Alternatively, we could add Independent cities like Sibir (Tobolsk) and/or Chimgi-Tura (Tyumen) to represent the Sibir Khanate. The Russians conquered a state-organized society there, which had a significant degree of urbanization. Sibir's major cities were not that much different from those in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. It would make the region seem less empty and provide an earlier barrier to the Russians, forcing them to a conquest, as it was historically. Maybe, and TBH I'm not so sold to the idea, we could have another Turkic/Tatar civ covering Eastern Europe and Siberia, including the Khazar, Volga Bulgar, Cuman, Golden Horde, Kazan, Astrakhan, and Sibir khanates.
Furthermore, we could add additional Independent/Native cities in the area — Great Perm and the Yugran principalities were ancient kingdoms known for their interactions with the Novgorod Republic at least from around the 11th century, well before the rise of Muscovy and the Russian Tsardom.
Last edited:
TsimTsigal
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
- Messages
- 176
The real problem about Northern Turkic civilization is how incoherent it was historically (not that the Celts or the Maya weren't, but still), especially if it will be an umbrella civ for Sibir (probably implemented as a period). Should they be uniquely able to embrace Judaism, like Khazars did? Have UHV to migrate beyond Carpathian mountains, like Cumans did? Probably they should exclude the Golden Horde (Ulus Jochi belongs to Mongolian civilization more than anything) and Crimean Khanate (was massively important for regional history but is difficult to tie to Sibir, plus probably better represented as the Ottoman AI being more assertive regarding Crimea). A natural problem with the Sibir Khanate and Permia is how distant they are from other cultures to ravel them in.
Also i'm not sure if Indep cities will be a barrier for Russians (arguably it's easier to have a small stack conquering cities in a hostile territory than a steady supply of settlers (and you always can whip settlers in conquered cities to rebuild), plus you get GG points and experience). I'm also not sure if it is a bad thing.
Also i'm not sure if Indep cities will be a barrier for Russians (arguably it's easier to have a small stack conquering cities in a hostile territory than a steady supply of settlers (and you always can whip settlers in conquered cities to rebuild), plus you get GG points and experience). I'm also not sure if it is a bad thing.
banzay13
Emperor
Independent cites in Siberia will be captured by spawning barbarians, and instead moving across map and pillaging, all those Keshik, Tatar and etc will land in cites.
Krieger-FS
Warlord
Yeah, these are issues that inevitably arise with such an umbrella civ. Sibir was also closely connected to the Mongols — their original capital, Chimgi-Tura, was named in honor of Genghis Khan, and their leading families were of Mongol origin, including descendants of Jochi (the Shaybanid khans). Still, I’d suggest considering at least an Independent city to see how it works.
On another note, I’d also argue for increasing the chance of the Turkic civilization settling Imekia (located in modern Pavlodar, Kazakhstan), the capital of the Kimek Khanate. The Kimeks were the largest Turkic polity in the period between the Uyghur Khaganate and the Seljuk Empire, and were described by many medieval Arab geographers and travellers, including Al-Idrisi. The city remained an important center in the steppes for centuries, even during the Mongol Empire and its successors, before being abandoned by late medieval period.
On another note, I’d also argue for increasing the chance of the Turkic civilization settling Imekia (located in modern Pavlodar, Kazakhstan), the capital of the Kimek Khanate. The Kimeks were the largest Turkic polity in the period between the Uyghur Khaganate and the Seljuk Empire, and were described by many medieval Arab geographers and travellers, including Al-Idrisi. The city remained an important center in the steppes for centuries, even during the Mongol Empire and its successors, before being abandoned by late medieval period.
Last edited:
After the Viking Age, the Kingdom of Denmark established the Duchy of Estonia (1219-1346) by participating in the Livonian Crusades. Can we simulate this history by giving Norse historical area of the region of north Estonia? This can also make the power struggle in the Baltic region more interesting.
Lokki242
Emperor
I do think some rethinking of independent cities in Siberia (and Mongolian settlement of the region as it was part of the Empire!), plus Turkic settling of the Kazakhstan region are things that would be good to look into. I also suggested the inclusion of the Khazars as a civ in a big post in the main general discussion thread, who could double as a Kazakh/Tatar respawn (or 1700 AD start). There was a framework for this in 1SDANi's Reborn modmodmod, though I can't remember who the original creator of the civ framework was. I think they'd complement the Byzantines and Persians really well, give the Rus' something to contend with, provide a cool and unique gameplay experience, and put more focus on the eastern Volga region which is cool.
If you want Mongolia to settle Siberia, you definitely need city names. I - really - don't wanna see any traumatic Ninghsia or Sanchu in Siberia, I had many nightmares about it, almost as many as about Aztecs founding Teotihuacan. Indy cities are ok though.
Lokki242
Emperor
Thankfully, the terrain limits which places can be settled already. Also I was referring to places already well-covered being better prioritized by the AI, like Turan, Irkutsk, and some of the ones mentioned above! Lots of CNM work is coming, it seems like it'll default to the Russian CNM if there's no Mongolian at least now anyway.
Apple111111
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 171
As an Irish person, I think I can probably provide some ideas that could make Ireland a more interesting and immersive experience, including map changes, city name changes, and dynamic city names.
First of all, I think the most important change is the position of Dublin in the 600AD and 1700AD starts. Right now it’s positioned at the city name location of Loch Garman(Wexford), instead of Baile Átha Cliath (Dublin). This leads to the weird situation where if a city was founded 1 tile north, it’d also be called Dublin.
Furthermore; the city is named “Átha Cliath” (Dublin county), as opposed to “Baile Átha Cliath” (Dublin city, Baile is Irish for town). For the sake of consistency, I’d change the name to Baile Átha Cliath in the 600AD start, as have it named Átha Cliath would be like Paris being called Île de France.
Personally, having Dublin on the tile that currently occupies the cattle would make much more sense for me, however, the reason you moved Dublin one tile south is likely because settling the cattle would be impractical. As a result, I’d suggest moving the cattle one tile west and two tiles south, to represent the major cattle industry in cork and the south west of Ireland, which produces the largest amounts of cows today.
One other terrain change I’d suggest is adding a fish resource 2 tiles north of Baile Átha Cliath which would represent the fishing industry present in the north of Ireland. It would also be stolen by Edinburgh at some parts of the game, representing the lack of growth Ireland experienced in the industrial era, and the influence Scottish planters had on Northern Ireland.
Finally, I’d suggest adding one river just north in Dublin, to represent the river Liffey, which was the basis for the Viking settlement of Dublin, and the most significant river in Ireland today.
Okay, that’s enough for terrain changes, here are the dynamic city names I’d propose.
Béal Feirste: Béal Feirste (Ancient-Medieval), Belfast (Renaissance Ireland), Belfast (England)
Baile Átha Cliath: Glendalough (Pre-Medieval), Norse and Swedes (Dyflin), Duibhlinn (Medieval Ireland), Baile Átha Cliath (Renaissance Ireland), Dublin(Industrial-Global Ireland and England)
Essentially, Dublin didn’t exist as a major settlement in any sense until the Viking age, and Glendalough is a significant monastical settlement, that existed since the 6th century, making it much more appropriate than immediately having Dublin in the 600AD start.
Loch Garman: Loch Garman (Irish), Veisafjoror (Norse), Wexford (Industrial-Digital Irish and English)
Diare: Doire (Pre-Renaissance Ireland), Derry (Renaissance-Digital Ireland), Londonderry (England)
Derry definitely has an interesting history behind its name dispute, which still goes on today, with the city officially named Londonderry in the UK, and Derry in Ireland. Catholics in the city will always refer to it as Derry.
Sligeach: Sligigh (Pre-Renaissance Irish), Sligeach (Renaissance Irish), Sligo (England and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Luimneach: Inis Sibhtonn (Pre-Medieval Ireland), Hlymrekr (Norse), Luimneach (Medieval-Renaissance Ireland), Limerick (Industrial-Digital Ireland and England)
Corcaigh: Corcaigh (Ancient-Renaissance Ireland), Cork (Industrial-Digital Ireland and England)
Gaillimh: Gaillimh (Classical-Renaissance Ireland), Gallive (Medieval England), Galway(Renaissance-Digital England and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Tráigh Lí: Riasc (Ancient-Medieval Ireland), Tráigh Lí (Renaissance-Ireland), Tralee (English and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Considering the town wasn’t founded until the 13th century, it could do with a name for an earlier Celtic settlement, and Riasc, a Kerry monastic site, makes the most sense for me.
Obviously, this is a lot of detail for the city names of a relatively small region of Ireland. They don’t all need to be implemented, but I’d at least suggest adding the dynamic names for Dublin since it’ll exist in most situations on the map.
First of all, I think the most important change is the position of Dublin in the 600AD and 1700AD starts. Right now it’s positioned at the city name location of Loch Garman(Wexford), instead of Baile Átha Cliath (Dublin). This leads to the weird situation where if a city was founded 1 tile north, it’d also be called Dublin.
Furthermore; the city is named “Átha Cliath” (Dublin county), as opposed to “Baile Átha Cliath” (Dublin city, Baile is Irish for town). For the sake of consistency, I’d change the name to Baile Átha Cliath in the 600AD start, as have it named Átha Cliath would be like Paris being called Île de France.
Personally, having Dublin on the tile that currently occupies the cattle would make much more sense for me, however, the reason you moved Dublin one tile south is likely because settling the cattle would be impractical. As a result, I’d suggest moving the cattle one tile west and two tiles south, to represent the major cattle industry in cork and the south west of Ireland, which produces the largest amounts of cows today.
One other terrain change I’d suggest is adding a fish resource 2 tiles north of Baile Átha Cliath which would represent the fishing industry present in the north of Ireland. It would also be stolen by Edinburgh at some parts of the game, representing the lack of growth Ireland experienced in the industrial era, and the influence Scottish planters had on Northern Ireland.
Finally, I’d suggest adding one river just north in Dublin, to represent the river Liffey, which was the basis for the Viking settlement of Dublin, and the most significant river in Ireland today.
Okay, that’s enough for terrain changes, here are the dynamic city names I’d propose.
Béal Feirste: Béal Feirste (Ancient-Medieval), Belfast (Renaissance Ireland), Belfast (England)
Baile Átha Cliath: Glendalough (Pre-Medieval), Norse and Swedes (Dyflin), Duibhlinn (Medieval Ireland), Baile Átha Cliath (Renaissance Ireland), Dublin(Industrial-Global Ireland and England)
Essentially, Dublin didn’t exist as a major settlement in any sense until the Viking age, and Glendalough is a significant monastical settlement, that existed since the 6th century, making it much more appropriate than immediately having Dublin in the 600AD start.
Loch Garman: Loch Garman (Irish), Veisafjoror (Norse), Wexford (Industrial-Digital Irish and English)
Diare: Doire (Pre-Renaissance Ireland), Derry (Renaissance-Digital Ireland), Londonderry (England)
Derry definitely has an interesting history behind its name dispute, which still goes on today, with the city officially named Londonderry in the UK, and Derry in Ireland. Catholics in the city will always refer to it as Derry.
Sligeach: Sligigh (Pre-Renaissance Irish), Sligeach (Renaissance Irish), Sligo (England and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Luimneach: Inis Sibhtonn (Pre-Medieval Ireland), Hlymrekr (Norse), Luimneach (Medieval-Renaissance Ireland), Limerick (Industrial-Digital Ireland and England)
Corcaigh: Corcaigh (Ancient-Renaissance Ireland), Cork (Industrial-Digital Ireland and England)
Gaillimh: Gaillimh (Classical-Renaissance Ireland), Gallive (Medieval England), Galway(Renaissance-Digital England and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Tráigh Lí: Riasc (Ancient-Medieval Ireland), Tráigh Lí (Renaissance-Ireland), Tralee (English and Industrial-Digital Ireland)
Considering the town wasn’t founded until the 13th century, it could do with a name for an earlier Celtic settlement, and Riasc, a Kerry monastic site, makes the most sense for me.
Obviously, this is a lot of detail for the city names of a relatively small region of Ireland. They don’t all need to be implemented, but I’d at least suggest adding the dynamic names for Dublin since it’ll exist in most situations on the map.
just a very minor thing i found but america's historical area in-game includes 3 horizontal tiles above seattle that are in canada's flip zone. since it was highlighted as being america's historical area i thought it would be safe from flip but i was wrong. went to check the zones in the maps folder of the mod directory and they do not match what it shows in-game
I think the Protestant European periphery area should include Estonia and Latvia (due to Swedish rule), South American periphery area should include former Dutch and British Guiana, African periphery area should include former British East Africa and West Africa, and of course, Liberia
Countries by percentage of Protestants in 1938
Countries by percentage of Protestants in 1938
I assume this is 54°40' or fight territory, which makes sense.
Oregon boundary dispute - Wikipedia
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 764
Somehow we're also forgetting Korea where 20% of the population is Christian but mostly Protestant, and all of Latin America where something between 10 and 20% is. It's even bigger in Central America and Brazil.
Suggestions on some fragmented colonial historical and conquest areas of Dutch and Portugal
Portugal:
Arguin, Nagasaki, Yemen(Conquest area), Zanzibar island
Netherlands:
Bengal Chinsurah, Chile Valdivia(Conquest area, due to a very brief reign), Loango-Angola
In addition, considering the Dutch-Portuguese War, perhaps Portugal's territories in India, Mozambique and Brazil could also be used as Netherlands conquest areas(Strangely,I don't seem to have found historical basis for the current Dutch conquest areas in Atlantic)
Portugal:
Arguin, Nagasaki, Yemen(Conquest area), Zanzibar island
Netherlands:
Bengal Chinsurah, Chile Valdivia(Conquest area, due to a very brief reign), Loango-Angola
In addition, considering the Dutch-Portuguese War, perhaps Portugal's territories in India, Mozambique and Brazil could also be used as Netherlands conquest areas(Strangely,I don't seem to have found historical basis for the current Dutch conquest areas in Atlantic)
Last edited:
The historical areas of the USA should include Iceland and Greenland, while the conquest areas should include Canada, South Korea, and Afghanistan(Russia may also deserve to acquire North Korea and Afghanistan as conquest areas.Afghanistan can also serve as a conquest area for England)
Furthermore, I have limited knowledge about this, but the existence of TTPI and COFA may serve as a reason for the USA to acquire Micronesia and Palau as the historical areas?
Furthermore, I have limited knowledge about this, but the existence of TTPI and COFA may serve as a reason for the USA to acquire Micronesia and Palau as the historical areas?
Last edited:
Bernd-das-Brot
Prince
Carthage (3000 BC, normal/regent, newest git-version)
I have circumvented Africa (mostly by foot, only W-Africa up until 2nd cape by ship) and only have 42 % of the coast discovered. Is this intended? Does it work correctly?
There are some coastal tiles around Madagascar and the islands around Africa I am missing, but 58 % seems strange.
Thanks!
I have circumvented Africa (mostly by foot, only W-Africa up until 2nd cape by ship) and only have 42 % of the coast discovered. Is this intended? Does it work correctly?
There are some coastal tiles around Madagascar and the islands around Africa I am missing, but 58 % seems strange.
Thanks!
Attachments
Bernd-das-Brot
Prince
Lakes count as coast, too.
Similar threads
