Alternative Map for DOC

[Leoreth]

The size of the continent in Bautos' original proposal is fine.

 

[1SDANi]

We should just give European civs bonuses to yields that live inside their cities and then shrink Europe, it'll make the world more realistic and representative as well as actually incentivizing colonialism. It's too easy as is to just exist in the confines of the European states, when in reality the wealth of European countries has come almost entirely from outside Europe.

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.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I both agree and disagree with this. With the current mechanics, I agree that Europe doesn't need any more civs. However, if the upcoming RFC mechanics are included, I think additional (conditional) European civs can give a nice dynamic game.

I would make an exception for Sweden. Even on the current map they can already be presented without overcrowding that area. On the bigger map there is definitely enough space for them.



I have mixed feelings on your map. Some parts look pretty decent, whereas others don't. I'm affraid however that using the nice parts of your map with other map suggestions will create some weird distortions.

1. I fail to see how moving Africa reduces the overcrowding between Spain and the Moors. That conflict is on the Iberian peninsula, which seems not to be changed. The body of water provides enough room between the Iberian peninsula and Africa that that area will not be overcrowded.
Even on the current map the water tiles provide a big enough gap for that.
I agree with Ceasar Augustus that crowding of Tunis and Sardinia is a good things. Even more, it is (IMO) more geographically accurate (which you seem to be and advocate of) if bottom coast of Sicily is on the same line as the top coast of Tunis. The extra horizontal row of water should be removed, but this gives distortion in other parts of the map. (Although I can counter this argument myself with 4.)
2. I do like this. But I don't know how the preplaced city placement will included Damascus. If it doesn't, this rationale does not matter that much IMO.
3. I don't know yet if those islands should be represented with an land tile or just by the islands features. If they will be presented by land tiles, I think this is a decent solution.
4. Personally, I think that the accurate size/shape of waterbodies can be sacrificed for a better representation of the landmasses. Therefore, I don't think the lossed water tiles of the Mediterranean Sea do not need to be compensated.

I also agree with Ceasar Augustus on the African coastline. Aside from his arguments, I also think that the "Tanger peninsula" is exeggerated on your map. I would fill up the 2 water tiles east of it with land tiles. It looks currently too distorted to me.

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.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

The size of the continent in Bautos' original proposal is fine.

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.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I don't dislike you, I have just already repeatedly told you that I don't share your goals and concerns and that you continue to push them without regard of this feedback is just annoying. I don't know how I can communicate this more clearly. I will ignore future suggestions that go in this direction entirely.

Edit: actually what I do dislike is that you continuously victimise yourself when I don't agree with your ideas. It's the opposite of a constructive discussion environment.

Except for the fact that my proposal had nothing to do with Koenigsberg, and I dropped that argument months ago.

 

[Leoreth]

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).

 

[1SDANi]

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?

 

[inthesomeday]

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.

 

[Leoreth]

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
- Persia/Transoxania
- the USA (I think we have a lot of Americans around here? There must be room for improvement)
- India
- 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.

 

[Temüjin VIII]

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.

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."

 

[1SDANi]

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
- Persia/Transoxania
- the USA (I think we have a lot of Americans around here? There must be room for improvement)
- India
- 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.

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.

 

[Temüjin VIII]

- Persia/Transoxania
- or even European Russia, which is technically Europe but not usually in the focus of these discussions

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.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

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.

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.

- the Middle East

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.

Persia/Transoxania

I propose filling up the 2 southernmost tiles of the Caspian Sea - it looks more accurate and gives Persia more room

- the USA (I think we have a lot of Americans around here? There must be room for improvement)

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.

- India
- Subsaharan Africa
- or even European Russia, which is technically Europe but not usually in the focus of these discussions

I know very little about these region.

 

[Leoreth]

No need to justify yourself.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I need a break from this forum for a few days. If anyone really needs to contact me, you can reach me at [snip]

 

[Darnokthemage]

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).

 

[Leoreth]

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.

 

[Visard]

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).

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.

 

[inthesomeday]

Are we very attached to expanding Scandinavia?

 

[Darnokthemage]

There isn't much population there. Mostly reindeer herders and turists services.
Instead we should add more game there if there ever comes a Swedish civilization.

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.