Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Bautos42, Jul 11, 2017.
The size of the continent in Bautos' original proposal is fine.
Not sure if this is what you're imagining but what about regional modifiers? So depending on the region a city is in it get a different bonus. It could be used to better tune gameplay for different civs.
For example we could shrink Europe to the point that most cities won't even have a full 1st ring and give it the modifier "Cities have X% their yield values" (this includes happiness from Luxuries or Buildings)
This would also let us have a lot more cities and by extension a lot more playable civs.
Not sure about the other regions though.
Sweden is a good idea - I forgot about that one - thanks for reminding me
1. Fair point.
2. I think it should, given the importance of Damascus, and the fact that it is preplaced on the current, smaller map.
3. I think they're big enough to merit land tiles.
4. Fair point.
It's really mostly about giving Jerusalem/Damascus more room and allowing Corsica and Sardinia to avoid getting mushed together.
I mostly agree. There's no need to make it significantly larger. I do think that Jules Auburn's suggestions for Germany/Poland and Anatolia are good, as well as my suggestion for editing France and Iberia.
Except for the fact that my proposal had nothing to do with Koenigsberg, and I dropped that argument months ago.
I wasn't talking about Königsberg, but rather your overall singleminded interest in Europe and questions that have been talked and proposed to death (e.g. Corsica).
Has making Europe smaller been talked to death?
I think I don't super mind the current proposal for Europe's size, it just always bothers me how Eurocentric civ ends up being, especially geographically. I mean realistically Iberia should be a little four-tile nubbins hanging off the end of France, but it ends up being more or less the size of Mexico simply due to the multitude of important cities in it. However that distortion actually detracts from European history in a strange way, to which the limited land space and resource base was always really important to development. Lebensraum helped motivate the entire motion of imperialism, as did resource greed.
Really the problem is just the relative comparison. Europe really is quite big, and Barcelona, Madrid, Cordoba, and Lisbon all are tremendously important, but when it has to come at the expense of something like shrinking Southeast Asia it seems to weaken the mod. Ideally the map itself would be bigger and there'd be space for a big Europe and all the vast lands that get shrunk in the name of the former.
Ugh, this whole line of discussion is kind of exhausting. Europe really is fine in this map, and not at the expense of other regions. Enlargement compared to the current map has mostly benefited other parts of the world as it should, and to me that is kind of the whole point of this proposal. When I first saw this map, I got excited by a lot of the possibilities, but none of them were related to Europe. The best way to prevent Eurocentrism is to stop talking about Europe.
There are many other parts of the world where I am more interested in. As examples for great contributions, see DC1-9's post on Canada and soul-breathing's post on China for example. There also was a lot of discussion about Indonesia but other than that I haven't heard much about:
- the Middle East
- the USA (I think we have a lot of Americans around here? There must be room for improvement)
- Subsaharan Africa
- or even European Russia, which is technically Europe but not usually in the focus of these discussions
Those are just from the top of my head, if you have ideas for other neglected parts of the map I am all ears.
Good idea. This will require some fine splitting up of regions, though, especially for France + Germany + PLC, which right now is a big-chunk region called "Europe."
I'm just saying I don't like how big Europe is. I'd love if there was a mechanic to allow it to be smaller without impacting their civ's success.
Then again, my idea of an optimal Civ game is one where tiles can have multiple resources, tiles are broken up into sub-tiles that you can improve, units move over these large parts only, and by the end of the game places like Europe and New England will have a city on every tile.
Speaking of those,...
[Persia] Is it just me or does the Iranian Plateau really look taller than it should be? I noticed that while looking at the Safavid borders, but I guess that's better, considering Persia needs more space.
[European Russia] I'm not sure if this should even be a concern, but this region is really affected by the limitations of the map's distortion. Heck, I can't even place Yaroslavl' without overlapping with the first ring of Moscow (previously wasn't a problem), and Kiev seems too near to the coast (I see Kiev as more accurately placed 1S of the plot Bautos42 set in the Python files he gave us.)
EDIT: Leo, you linked the Canada post to the China anchor text, too.
Nothing I've proposed has been at the expense of other regions and Europe is one of the most interesting parts of RFC, but if you want me to drop it, I will.
My last proposal of moving Africa was partly inspired by a desire to create more room for Jerusalem and Damascus to coexist without crowding each other so much.
I propose filling up the 2 southernmost tiles of the Caspian Sea - it looks more accurate and gives Persia more room
The shape of the CA coastline is off, but that's already been discussed. Lake Michigan looks odd, but i can't think of a way to fix it, and I've tried many permutations.
I know very little about these region.
No need to justify yourself.
I need a break from this forum for a few days. If anyone really needs to contact me, you can reach me at [snip]
Hmm, would making the northern part of scandinavia get more and more arable be possible? Like making it change from tundra to grassland at various dates, this would symbolize the swedish colonisation of Sapmi (Lappland).
I'd prefer to represent that using technology, e.g. a new unimprovable terrain type between grassland and tundra which you may become able to improve with late game technology.
There isn't much population there. Mostly reindeer herders, mining and (now) tourists services.
Instead we should add more game there if there ever comes a Swedish civilization.
Actually I would like to see less food in Lappland and Finnmark by forbidding windmills in tundra.
Because of the frost they actually aren't profitable most of the year.
When there is really cold and most need of electricity - there is no wind,
and you actually have to use power to prevent them frozing and breaking.
Are we very attached to expanding Scandinavia?
But there is, and it is very rich in resources like gold, copper, silver and iron. Northern Sweden was also for a long time only populated by Sami, it was just in the 17th century that the Swedish started colonizing and converting the native populations. The Silver mines was also a important way to pay for the continental Swedish armies. Maybe there could be some type of improvement that would make independent/native culture appear that could start in Northern Sweden, Finnland and Norway, as there was no sami cities. Maybe it could work like the Native Americans culture in Civ Colonization? It would be a useful system to represent nomadic peoples who did not build cities but still inhabited the region.
Separate names with a comma.