Yeah, if the change has to apply to the whole Dravidia region, then minority status seems right. You might include minority status for Catholicism as well, due to the work of Francis Xavier in Goa, as well as South China and Japan.Like I said above, the religion spread maps are region based, so they do not allow this degree of granularity. Maybe a minority status in Dravidia is justified.
I'm assuming it represents Austria colonial efforts -- the green dot in southern Africa looks like Maputo/Delagoa Bay (modern day Mozambique), which was settled by the Austrian East India Company. OTOH, if Austrian EIC = green, then there should also be green tiles in Kerala (southwest tip of India), Chennai (southeast tip of India), Bengal (Bangladesh), and Brunei. I wasn't able to find a historical reference for the green in the Caribbean or South American ones.What is the green in South America, Caribbean and Africa supposed to represent for Holy Rome?
Religions can disappear from cities, but this can only happen if either a) another religion with higher spread rate spreads to the city and it is too small to have many religions (e.g. spread of Islam in the Islamic core are can displace Orthodoxy in its historical area) or if a religion can no longer spread to a city. This can happen particularly in the periphery area, where spread depends on the owner's state religion - once the state religion or owner changes, the religion may have no natural spread in that city any more.For instance: if the city in question is in the peripheral/minority region for that religion AND if the civ that owns the city is a different/hostile state religion or at war/worst enemies with another civ that has the state religion in questions/owns the religion's holy site... then there's a chance the religion will disappear from the city. I'm imagining 'scaling probabilities' for each case, with each source of conflict increasing the chance that the religion will disappear from the spot.
It also includes any abortive colony by other German states pre 1700. For example, there was a short lived colony in Venezuela named Klein-Venedig in the 17th century. Generally those failed colonies are included to have some potential for alt-historical colonisation of the Americas.I'm assuming it represents Austria colonial efforts -- the green dot in southern Africa looks like Maputo/Delagoa Bay (modern day Mozambique), which was settled by the Austrian East India Company. OTOH, if Austrian EIC = green, then there should also be green tiles in Kerala (southwest tip of India), Chennai (southeast tip of India), Bengal (Bangladesh), and Brunei. I wasn't able to find a historical reference for the green in the Caribbean or South American ones.
I totes agree with the historicity for sure but would hesitate for gameplay reasons. I think the result would just be the Dutch getting rekt and collapsing too often given the amount of time Spain/HRE has to build up military combined with likely wrong religion penalty.HRE should have the Netherlands as a War Map, even after its independence. As should Spain (pre-Industrial).
I totes agree with the historicity for sure but would hesitate for gameplay reasons. I think the result would just be the Dutch getting rekt and collapsing too often given the amount of time Spain/HRE has to build up military combined with likely wrong religion penalty.
If you want to put a resource on Mauritius at all (which I think would be a good idea to make the island valuable, as it was historically), it should be sugar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_industry_of_Mauritius. It should spawn in the 1600s. (Nearby Réunion should get a vanilla spice resource in the 1800s, which is where and when hand-pollination of vanilla orchids was discovered.)Spoiler :
I am currently working on resource spawns and noticed that sugar is quite rare in the world so far. These are all the sugar resources that exist on the map on game start (there's also one on Madeira, but I will get to it). It's actually quite accurate regarding the historical spread of sugarcane at 3000 BC though. However I still have some concerns:
Does this make sense? Anything else I am missing?
- I think there should be a few more resources in this range still. It's odd that there are only three in India and none in southern India. Would it make sense to add one around there?
- Likewise it looks odd that no sugar exists in Indonesia. The current map had a source in Sumatra.
- Historically it seems there were two waves of sugarcane spreading west. During the Caliphate, it was introduced to the Muslim world and heavily cultivated in Mesopotamia and Egypt. However this is currently not represented in the game at all. So I think at least one resource each should spawn there around 700 AD.
- The second wave was during the European colonization of the New World. The game currently spawns two sugars in the Caribbean and two sugars in Brazil in 1700 AD. I think this is very late - I have seen mentions of early sugar cultivation in the Caribbean in the early 1500s. So a 1500 AD spawn makes more sense to me. Sugarcane also seems to have been important in the Guyanas.
- What about North America? Does it make sense to have sugar e.g. in Florida?
- Like mentioned above there is sugar in Madeira at game start, which is actually reflecting the sugar introduced by Europeans. I think it makes sense to spawn it slightly earlier than the New World sugar i.e. about 1400 AD.
- There are also three sugar spawns in East and South Africa in 1100 AD currently - I do not think these are accurate. All I could find about sugar cultivation in sub-Saharan Africa mentions it being introduced by the British. Is there any reason why this is here? Otherwise I would not carry it forward into the new map.
- Should there be sugar in Madagascar? It seems it got introduced there during the Polynesian migration.
- Also currently sugar spawns in Hawaii in 1850 AD. I think this is fine.
A thing to keep in in with Justinian is he was crowned emperor in 527, only 51/52 years after the last emperor in the west was deposed, the Western Roman Empire was still well within living memory, and many of the barbarian states that carved out a piece of the empire were only decades older than that.3. Byzantium -- Personal preference, but I might either add what they called "Libya" (all of Roman North Africa) to their settler map or remove Italy. Justinian (really Belisarius) re-conquered North Africa before Italy because it was rich and easy to defend. During that conquest Belisarius even referred to the local Libyans in a speech to his troops as "Romans of old" (i.e. Byzantines) under a state of subjugation/occupation to be liberated.
![]()