Alternative Map during 1.18
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 739
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.
I'm kinda wondering about that: Japan had a significant Christian minority, that was then persecuted out of existence by the Sakuko Edict and other laws. Is there any way to represent this in the game? DOC doesn't have a religious persecution mechanic in the same sense as Sword of Islam, but I'm wondering if there's any 'religions can disappear from cities' type mechanic that is present or is possible.
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.
TheCleanerDragon
Squad Leader
What is the green in South America, Caribbean and Africa supposed to represent for Holy Rome?
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 739
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 I wasn't able to find a historical reference for the green in the Caribbean or South American ones.
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.
Either of these disappearances are probabilistic and might only happen over the long term or not at all. This has to be taken into account when considering regions that only had temporary presence of a religion. For example, Christianity was only a meaningful presence in Japan for a short period, but enabling its spread there would mean it is likely to be there for much longer.
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.
Krieger-FS
Warlord
Just a minor suggestion for the Judaism map: add some minority areas in South America, particularly in Argentina and Brazil.
In the former, there is some sizeable Jewish population, particularly in Buenos Aires, and there was also historical communities in Santa Fé and Entre Ríos provinces. In the latter, Brazil also has some significant Jewish community in Southeast and Southern states, particularly in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Sul. Historically speaking, we could also add some few tiles in Brazilian Northeast, since it also had a relevant Jewish community living in Dutch Brazil; Recife has the first synagogue built in the Americas.
In the former, there is some sizeable Jewish population, particularly in Buenos Aires, and there was also historical communities in Santa Fé and Entre Ríos provinces. In the latter, Brazil also has some significant Jewish community in Southeast and Southern states, particularly in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Rio Grande do Sul. Historically speaking, we could also add some few tiles in Brazilian Northeast, since it also had a relevant Jewish community living in Dutch Brazil; Recife has the first synagogue built in the Americas.
Dracosolon
King
Is the post-colonial presence of Islam (and I guess Buddhism to a lesser extent) in the Western world represented in some way, or is that too late to be of importance?
I've made a few notes on the excellent new war maps.
America: (1) Either Vietnam could be removed from the American war map or Korea could be added. One without the other is strange. (2) Canada was also considered a prime target for annexation until defeat in the war of 1812. It couldprobably be on war maps although I understand that this may be undesireable for gameplay reasons, and therefore this suggestion may be a bad idea.
Argentina: I might add Chile to the settlement and/or war map unless a Chilean civilization is added. Otherwise, Spain likely never leaves Chile.
Germany: I might add Venezuela and the Dominican Republic to their war maps. The Kaiser did make moves toward expanding into the Caribbean in the late 19th century but was blocked. The effort though was genuine.
England: I might add the informal empire to their war maps as they often intervened with military force in those areas. Specifically, southern Persia, Central China (at least Shanghai), and Argentina/Uruguay.
Russia: Northern Iran and modern Mongolia could be added to their war maps as those were traditional formal spheres of Russian influence. Constantinople and Trabzon were also desired by the Russians and fought for throughout the 1800s.
Vikings: The Swedes had a colony in Delaware that might be added to their settler map.
America: (1) Either Vietnam could be removed from the American war map or Korea could be added. One without the other is strange. (2) Canada was also considered a prime target for annexation until defeat in the war of 1812. It couldprobably be on war maps although I understand that this may be undesireable for gameplay reasons, and therefore this suggestion may be a bad idea.
Argentina: I might add Chile to the settlement and/or war map unless a Chilean civilization is added. Otherwise, Spain likely never leaves Chile.
Germany: I might add Venezuela and the Dominican Republic to their war maps. The Kaiser did make moves toward expanding into the Caribbean in the late 19th century but was blocked. The effort though was genuine.
England: I might add the informal empire to their war maps as they often intervened with military force in those areas. Specifically, southern Persia, Central China (at least Shanghai), and Argentina/Uruguay.
Russia: Northern Iran and modern Mongolia could be added to their war maps as those were traditional formal spheres of Russian influence. Constantinople and Trabzon were also desired by the Russians and fought for throughout the 1800s.
Vikings: The Swedes had a colony in Delaware that might be added to their settler map.
Last edited:
ThreeBlackSevens
Chieftain
What's the reasoning behind the conquest areas in the Harappan map? Isn't there pretty much no evidence of any kind of warfare at all for them?
I double checked the war/settler maps, and besides the easy to spot stuff above I found a few other things that I might consider changing. These were less obvious, but I think the first two at least should be uncontroversial:
1. Italy -- might have Tunisia added to its settler map -- ~100,000 Italian ex-pats lived there in 1900, only ~30,000 French did, and the french occupation caused a lot of tension -- and definitely would have Egypt (at least up to Suez) added to its war maps.
2. France -- By agreement with Britain, France had an exclusive sphere of influence in Siam east of the Chao Phraya river. Might recognize this by extending the French war map to Bangkok in order to include this sphere. Gunboat diplomacy was used on multiple occasions to intimidate the Siamese and block the Chao Phraya. (The British had a similar official sphere to the west of the Chao Phraya river but it was never enforced by gunboats in the Siamese case.)
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.
4. Netherlands -- I might add London to their war map. I'd consider the Glorious Revolution to be a conquest just as much as an internal revolution, and the Dutch fought 3 wars with the English in the 1600s.
5. Mexico -- (1) Very controversial and requires a looser reading of history, but I might might (emphasis on the might) add all of New Spain's North American holdings at its maximum extent (Louisiana, Florida, California) to their settler and/or war maps. The logic is thus: If Mexico is renamed "New Spain" as a vassal to Spain then should its maximum borders not be acknowledged even if they were as a Spanish colony? It could go either way in my mind. (2) On a less controversial level, Mexico at independence wanted Cuba and fought a naval skirmish in the Battle of Mariel with the Spanish over it. Cuba might be added to Mexico's war map.
Very excited and can't wait to see the 1.18 new civs' maps
1. Italy -- might have Tunisia added to its settler map -- ~100,000 Italian ex-pats lived there in 1900, only ~30,000 French did, and the french occupation caused a lot of tension -- and definitely would have Egypt (at least up to Suez) added to its war maps.
2. France -- By agreement with Britain, France had an exclusive sphere of influence in Siam east of the Chao Phraya river. Might recognize this by extending the French war map to Bangkok in order to include this sphere. Gunboat diplomacy was used on multiple occasions to intimidate the Siamese and block the Chao Phraya. (The British had a similar official sphere to the west of the Chao Phraya river but it was never enforced by gunboats in the Siamese case.)
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.
4. Netherlands -- I might add London to their war map. I'd consider the Glorious Revolution to be a conquest just as much as an internal revolution, and the Dutch fought 3 wars with the English in the 1600s.
5. Mexico -- (1) Very controversial and requires a looser reading of history, but I might might (emphasis on the might) add all of New Spain's North American holdings at its maximum extent (Louisiana, Florida, California) to their settler and/or war maps. The logic is thus: If Mexico is renamed "New Spain" as a vassal to Spain then should its maximum borders not be acknowledged even if they were as a Spanish colony? It could go either way in my mind. (2) On a less controversial level, Mexico at independence wanted Cuba and fought a naval skirmish in the Battle of Mariel with the Spanish over it. Cuba might be added to Mexico's war map.
Very excited and can't wait to see the 1.18 new civs' maps
FishFishFish
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
- Messages
- 176
Two suggestions:
Spain had a small colony in northern Taiwan.
The Dutch briefly ruled the coast of Angola. (I think this should just be apart of their conquest area since Portugal retook it soon after)
Spain had a small colony in northern Taiwan.
The Dutch briefly ruled the coast of Angola. (I think this should just be apart of their conquest area since Portugal retook it soon after)
Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 652
West Africa should definitely be in France's war and settler map, Industrial and later.
Congo should be in Netherlands's War Map? I mean, its the closest we can have as Belgium...
Weirdly, currently Turkey expands into Italy thru the North, rather than south. Which it tried several times.
HRE should have the Netherlands as a War Map, even after its independence. As should Spain (pre-Industrial).
Vikings tend to be very active in the west, but not in the east. They should be more active in Russia, Ruthenia and even Constantinople.
How bad would it be if Mongolia had all of the Atlantic Coast (Africa and Europe) as its war map?
Congo should be in Netherlands's War Map? I mean, its the closest we can have as Belgium...
Weirdly, currently Turkey expands into Italy thru the North, rather than south. Which it tried several times.
HRE should have the Netherlands as a War Map, even after its independence. As should Spain (pre-Industrial).
Vikings tend to be very active in the west, but not in the east. They should be more active in Russia, Ruthenia and even Constantinople.
How bad would it be if Mongolia had all of the Atlantic Coast (Africa and Europe) as its war map?
SultanRedSnake
Warlord
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.
Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 652
You have a point. But before then, Portugal would usually survive fine with Spain (and the HRE almost always flip to protestant) even if Spain has interest in Lisbon. Its just that nowadays Portugal barely survives because Expasion mechanic was added, so when Portugal gets attacked, Spain gets 5-7 free units.
I think Netherlands can survive, especially when they spawn quite strong. And the HRE/Spain already has bigger fish to fry (France)
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 510
Those war(colony/religion maps look really interesting.
My own 50 cents:
The American war map has Iraq and Vietnam as conquest areas. Why? The US had no interest in settling/colonizing Vietnam, they only temporarily occupied the area out of global power concerns. They also didn't want to hold/colonize Iraq either. What's not represented is the occupation of Germany and Austria after WW2, where the US had high stakes and interest; also there is no representation of Afghanistan in the map, where they were involved a really long time. And if you count economic interests (like for Iraq, that is), then why not mark Ireland or Germany as valid goals? Maybe just temporary areas of interest for when these areas are not held by native powers.
The British map marks large portions of France as war areas. If this represents Aquitaine and Normandy in the 100y war, then France should in return get areas in Southeast England as historical/conquest areas as well. French war planners definitly had dreams of invasions for centuries, after the Guillaume le Conquereur's colony declared indepence. (btw, I like how France now can compete in India)
The new war map for Japan is much better than the old one in showing the designs of the Empire in WW2. The old maps showed a few tiles at the US west coast that are now missing. An oversight or pure intent?
Portugal now has no longer a core area outside the Iberian peninsula; the old map had Ponto Delgada. They are regularly wiped out by Spain in my 1.17 games but can continue as "Portuguese in Exile". They hardly ever retake Lisbon. Dunno if you want to introduce a mechanic to allow Portugal to continue without core. Move the core to Brazil or Sri Lanka, in case of a spanish conquest of the motherland?
It's been a while since I did the Polynesian puzzle, is it still possible with this new map?
I think Poland should have a core that involves some tiles of Lithuania.
The Netherlands might have a conquest tile in Nagasaki for a colony? Japan hardly ever collapses, but if it does...
The Moors have a pretty conservative war map. I recently learned about Fraxinetum. Also there was a famous 400 year power struggle in Sicily between the Moors, the Byzantines and eventually the Holy Romans. Turkey has a historical area in Sicily, but not the Moors? At spawn, the Moors would inherit the Arabian cities in Corsica and Sicily (if any ;-).
Russia's map is overpowered, period (but not as much as the old one). The whole Turkestan-Kazakhstan areas as well as the Caucasus are certainly historical but should be conquest-areas. I'd argue that Ukraine is also a conquest area.
Protestanism (as in Evangelical churches) is on the rise in Africa for decades now, especially West Africa.
Judaism in Cochin? (look up "Cochin Jews")
Islam in Sicily and Crete, at least when the territory holders are muslim?
My own 50 cents:
The American war map has Iraq and Vietnam as conquest areas. Why? The US had no interest in settling/colonizing Vietnam, they only temporarily occupied the area out of global power concerns. They also didn't want to hold/colonize Iraq either. What's not represented is the occupation of Germany and Austria after WW2, where the US had high stakes and interest; also there is no representation of Afghanistan in the map, where they were involved a really long time. And if you count economic interests (like for Iraq, that is), then why not mark Ireland or Germany as valid goals? Maybe just temporary areas of interest for when these areas are not held by native powers.
The British map marks large portions of France as war areas. If this represents Aquitaine and Normandy in the 100y war, then France should in return get areas in Southeast England as historical/conquest areas as well. French war planners definitly had dreams of invasions for centuries, after the Guillaume le Conquereur's colony declared indepence. (btw, I like how France now can compete in India)
The new war map for Japan is much better than the old one in showing the designs of the Empire in WW2. The old maps showed a few tiles at the US west coast that are now missing. An oversight or pure intent?
Portugal now has no longer a core area outside the Iberian peninsula; the old map had Ponto Delgada. They are regularly wiped out by Spain in my 1.17 games but can continue as "Portuguese in Exile". They hardly ever retake Lisbon. Dunno if you want to introduce a mechanic to allow Portugal to continue without core. Move the core to Brazil or Sri Lanka, in case of a spanish conquest of the motherland?
It's been a while since I did the Polynesian puzzle, is it still possible with this new map?
I think Poland should have a core that involves some tiles of Lithuania.
The Netherlands might have a conquest tile in Nagasaki for a colony? Japan hardly ever collapses, but if it does...
The Moors have a pretty conservative war map. I recently learned about Fraxinetum. Also there was a famous 400 year power struggle in Sicily between the Moors, the Byzantines and eventually the Holy Romans. Turkey has a historical area in Sicily, but not the Moors? At spawn, the Moors would inherit the Arabian cities in Corsica and Sicily (if any ;-).
Russia's map is overpowered, period (but not as much as the old one). The whole Turkestan-Kazakhstan areas as well as the Caucasus are certainly historical but should be conquest-areas. I'd argue that Ukraine is also a conquest area.
Protestanism (as in Evangelical churches) is on the rise in Africa for decades now, especially West Africa.
Judaism in Cochin? (look up "Cochin Jews")
Islam in Sicily and Crete, at least when the territory holders are muslim?
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:
- 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.
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.)
I don't see the Canary Islands mentioned; they should probably have a sugar spawn at the same time as Madeira. Single-crop sugarcane cultivation was imposed as the economic model after the Spanish conquest.
I don't really see the case for Florida or North America generally? There are enough other resources to put there.
Random thought, would it be a cool idea to have a sugar beet resource variation appear in the 1800s in France and the northern hemisphere generally? Probably not really necessary but it might be an interesting way to represent the decreased value of tropical sugarcane plantations in the modern world.
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.
So to a then roman citizen of Justinians rome practically the entire of his conquests would have been viewed as liberating the occupied west. Italy was later lost because the conflict to retake it was a lot more hard faught and devastating to Italy, it took centuries to recover irl. I dont think a player should be penalised for managing to hold it.
Honestly its better to think of Justinian as a "roman" than a "byzantine" in my opinion in the sense he spoke latin and was culturally a roman he shared more in common culturally with a gallo-roman civil servent under the nacent franks than he did an emperor of byzantium even only 50 years after his death. This is why I never liked the Rome/Byzantium view of the western "canon" because the cutoff is entirly arbitrary and personal opinion. This mini rant included
Similar threads
