Alternative Map for DOC

[Publicola]

What would people say to taking @Bobby Martnen's map and pushing only Sardinia up by a tile, then adding a river to separating it from Corsica? The two major islands are not separated by much physically -- the bit of water between them called the 'strait of Bonifacio' -- so it shouldn't look too egregious, and should keep it in its proper location relative to Italy without running out of space or connecting it to the 'boot'.

 

[Leoreth]

I proposed this a couple of pages ago (note that it includes the suggestion to have Corsica disconnected from Italy and instead being to the NW of Sardinia with a diagonal connection, not pictured). Sardinia and Corsica really aren't the most important aspects of the map and have been discussed at length, please at least take previous discussion into account and only post about this if you have anything new to propose.

 

[Darnokthemage]

Would it be possible to add the isle of Gotland in the baltic sea? It was quite important in the middle ages as a trading hub and hansa city.

 

[Leoreth]

But would it actually be settled? I don't think even this larger map has the right scale for that.

 

[Darnokthemage]

True, i wish there was a "big island" tile that you could build improvements on but not build cites on.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I proposed this a couple of pages ago (not that it includes the suggestion to have Corsica disconnected from Italy and instead being to the NW of Sardinia with a diagonal connection, not pictured). Sardinia and Corsica really aren't the most important aspects of the map and have been discussed at length, please at least take previous discussion into account and only post about this if you have anything new to propose.

The shape of Italy in that seems off to me in that Northern Italy has 1 too many land tiles on the eastern side, and I don't see the point to enlarging Sicily.
Here's my proposal - added 1 extra tile to East-Central Italy (in addition to the already discussed move of Sardinia and Corsica).

 

[Leoreth]

I think having Italy as with a straight diagonal coastline does not approximate its real shape very well. But point taken on Sicily, that was just an additional suggestion that does not need to make it into the game.

 

[1SDANi]

I think having Italy as with a straight diagonal coastline does not approximate its real shape very well. But point taken on Sicily, that was just an additional suggestion that does not need to make it into the game.

I was actually making a post about that earlier but scrapped it because the mockup picture looked bloated. Here it is for reference:

 

[Leoreth]

That was my first instinct as well, but middle Italy just is not that wide.

 

[1SDANi]

That was my first instinct as well, but middle Italy just is not that wide.

Exactly why I didn't post it earlier. That was an attempt to curve it without any major changes to the layout, but it seems we'll need to do some changes to the center of Italy, and not just add a couple tiles like I did.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I think having Italy as with a straight diagonal coastline does not approximate its real shape very well. But point taken on Sicily, that was just an additional suggestion that does not need to make it into the game.

It's actually pretty close, although it isn't perfect.

 

[Leoreth]

yeah i also know how to use the transform tool

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Overall, any Italy we do will be slightly thicker than the real Italy because the only alternative is making it 1 tile wide

 

[borhap88]

Leoreth's Italy fits better city placement purpose. Rome and Florence can exist together, Sardinia is not so near Africa (in Bobby Martnen's proposal it seems there's a strait between the island and Algerian coast), Corsica is disconnected from the continent. I've still talked about the importance of having a three tiles Sicily. It's the biggest island (it's weird that it has the same number of tiles of thin Crete), it has been an incredible historical importance from ancient time to our days more than every single island in the Mediterranean Sea, so it really deserves a good spot to settle a city.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, that was my reasoning for Sicily as well. I can think of at least three historically important cities on the island: Palermo (NW), Messina (NE) and Syracuse (SE).

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I've been really excited for a long time now about the new map, but I know this is still going to take a long time (since Leoreth plans this for v1.17). And since I've been bored recently playing DoC with other civs not in the right pace of tech, I started making the 600 AD and 1700 AD scenarios in my free time. There has been lots of progress for both, although surely there are still lacking stuff (esp. buildings) plus a lot of inconsistencies since I only bothered to edit the terrain and resources along the way without modifying the base 3000 BC one. I know the map still needs a lot of polishing, and this may be a bad move, but I think it's okay to do the scenario files again just in case.

I didn't simply copy the two scenarios, though. What I made is a much more populated version, with more cities. Also, in the 600 AD scenario, I placed Persia (Sassanids), India (Gupta), Ethiopia, and Maya. Persia and Maya should collapse easily within a few turns, though, and as it is intended to be such, they are marked unplayable in the scenario. In the 1700 AD scenario, I put an alive Moors and Italy (the latter should have a decentralized civic though).

I've started a 600 AD game with the new map (currently on the RC tag of the develop branch), and edited Python stuff along the way. I'll work on it some more before pushing it to a branch on my fork.

In the meantime, here are screenshots (1099 AD, Marathon):

Spoiler Screenshots!!! :

The Seljuk Empire. (Finally, we can place Rayy (future Tehran) as the Seljuk spawn plot. Although the capital should move to Esfahan upon capture.)
View attachment 479049

Byzantine Empire
View attachment 479050

Iberia & Maghreb
View attachment 479051

Western Europe
View attachment 479052

China
View attachment 479053

Southern India
View attachment 479054

A lot still needs to be done, though. Areas.py still lacks a lot of edits (although I've edited flipzones for most civs already, the exceptions are a hassle though esp. for irregularly shaped flipzones). I've also started editing RiseAndFall.py with updated plot coords for hard-coded ones. I've been for a long time wanting to edit the settler and warmaps, but I have little clue on how to do it--I had to turn off stability to play this without weird stuff happening like southern Persia flipping to Tibet. We'll see where this is going, but so far I'm enjoying what I see.

A couple ideas for city placement
1. Move Thessalonica 1N, and change the mountain that is currently there to a hill. It's more geographically accurate, and crowds Smyrna and Athens less, while still being outside of Constantinople's BFC
2. Move Trebizond 1E for geographic accuracy. Ideally Asia Minor would get another column of tiles, this could be achieved by moving Europe 1W.
3. Frankfort is on the Main, not the Rhine, so it should probably be moved 1E.
4. Cracow should be moved 1W and possibly 1N - the city is on the Vistula River, so either side works, but that decision should probably be based on which one crowds Warsaw and Prague less.
5. Koenigsberg/Tvanksta should be 1E, which is both more accurate and allows it to coexist with Danzig.

 

[Temujin8k]

I just looked again at Leo's version of Italy (didn't pay much attention to it back then). I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but I think Turin should be on the wheat? So that Milan could be the city beside it. Loosens up the overlap with Venice.

1. Move Thessalonica 1N, and change the mountain that is currently there to a hill. It's more geographically accurate, and crowds Smyrna and Athens less, while still being outside of Constantinople's BFC

I get your point. However, Thessalonica is near the coast and that protruding piece of land--just enough reason to place it there. Besides, it's less constricting for Thessalonica to crowned Athens and Smyrna than Belgrade, which already suffers from too much crowding.

2. Move Trebizond 1E for geographic accuracy. Ideally Asia Minor would get another column of tiles, this could be achieved by moving Europe 1W.

Sounds okay, but I think the current one is good too. Bautos42 also plans to have that tile as Trabzon as seen on his screenshots. Also, moving it one tile east would lessen the viability of a Caucasian city due to increase in overlap.

3. Frankfort is on the Main, not the Rhine, so it should probably be moved 1E.

I think I get what you mean. Though I'm currently redoing the 3000 BC scenario, and one of the new changes is the Rhine River. I moved the section of the river near Frankfurt 1E and will be moving Frankfurt 1E too when doing the later scenarios. I just knew it's on the Main River, but the problem is that it the Main River does not seem to be on the map, and Frankfurt is very near the Rhine, anyway.

4. Cracow should be moved 1W and possibly 1N - the city is on the Vistula River, so either side works, but that decision should probably be based on which one crowds Warsaw and Prague less.

That suggestion has been around for some time too. So, no coexisting, Krakow and Warsaw, I guess?

5. Koenigsberg/Tvanksta should be 1E, which is both more accurate and allows it to coexist with Danzig.

Allowing Konigsberg to coexist with Danzig will create the same crowding problem that the Krakow and Warsaw placement I did has. Especially if Vilnius needs to be placed (to represent Lithuania). They're just too near.

 

[ok-ck]

Can anyone explain how to change the flipzones and spawn areas, I have downloaded the new map scenario posted on page one, I have worked on the warvalue zones, settler values and cores and what else can be done inside the map editor, but flipzones are view only and although I did try to change the spawn marker it had no effect which means I have to manually relocate civs when they spawn, and since their flipzones often overlap existing nations it is not really playable, I can upload the finished work when I am done, I do realise the new map project is far from complete but having an at least working larger map scenario seems like something alot of people could be interested in while we wait.

 

[Leoreth]

I just looked again at Leo's version of Italy (didn't pay much attention to it back then). I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but I think Turin should be on the wheat? So that Milan could be the city beside it. Loosens up the overlap with Venice.

Imo you will only have either Turin or Milan (usually Milan) and my proposed location has better access to tiles in Italy and less overlap with France.

Can anyone explain how to change the flipzones and spawn areas, I have downloaded the new map scenario posted on page one, I have worked on the warvalue zones, settler values and cores and what else can be done inside the map editor, but flipzones are view only and although I did try to change the spawn marker it had no effect which means I have to manually relocate civs when they spawn, and since their flipzones often overlap existing nations it is not really playable, I can upload the finished work when I am done, I do realise the new map project is far from complete but having an at least working larger map scenario seems like something alot of people could be interested in while we wait.

Areas.py.

 

[ok-ck]

Areas.py.

I'm completely new here but in the editor I realised giving any value above 20 would make it a historical area, is there a way to export my work into a file similar to area.py or would I (completely unfamilair with python) have to type it in manually myself?

taking a look at the file it does seem fairly straight forward as the groundwork is already done