Alternative Map for DOC

[inthesomeday]

Catch me plugging both GGS and everything Marx wrote every single day of my life

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I mean, when you get down to it, Guns, Germs and Steel is a fundamentally materialistic (as in the material conditions people find themselves in determine their ideas and culture, not the other way around) book, so it's certainly compatible with Marxism.

Uphold Marxism-Diamondism!

 

[Tigranes]

Uphold Marxism-Diamondism!

Very funny. I mean it without

 

[mccp77]

Yes, very sad... According to famous book Guns, Germs, and Steel there been only 5-6 independently developed centers for food production (agriculture), everyone else borrowed the idea. There were profound cultural changes that came with domestication of plants and animals 10,000 years ago in the Middle East, New Guinea, China, Andes Mountains, and Mexico.

Unrelated to this mod, but this book is extremely overhyped just because it managed to capture an audience outside of academia. It makes some questionable assumptions to say the least, and many of its conclusions are derivatives of earlier work on geography. It had some good insights, but it gets way too much credit where credit is due to earlier scholars.

Alright, I'm out on this discussion -- not relevant to the thread.

 

[Leoreth]

Didn't read the quote so at first I thought you were talking about Marx

 

[mccp77]

Didn't read the quote so at first I thought you were talking about Marx

i would never

 

[Leoreth]

Nah actually besides the reference to geography most of it fits too. Marx deserves all the credit for starting materialist history but it thankfully didn't stop in the 19th century. Not to mention that materialist history has its blind spots too.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

It's hard to follow this with its 31 pages so far. Is there a version of the map that has all of the well-received changes in it?

 

[Leoreth]

No, and I want to take ownership of this versions or things will stay a disorganised mess. But it takes time for me to get to that.

 

[mysterious_stalker]

It's hard to follow this with its 31 pages so far. Is there a version of the map that has all of the well-received changes in it?

Yeah, I agree that it would be great to at least go for one specific version of the map for the time being and starting doing, um, stuff with it (like all the things which have to be redone for the new map, such as city manager names, settler maps, stability maps and so on). Would be cool if we agreed on a map before that, or at least a rough draft of it (minor changes could be implemented later, but enlarging the map or whole areas could mess things up).
By the way, Leoreth, you mentioned that maybe switching from the old RFC city naming system to the SoI system could be better for this kind of map. I'm not so sure if I agree, since I'm kind of a fan of the old one too but I see why it would be useful - easier to do and maintain, as well as making the problem of ancient cities staying in the game forever (Babylon and Carthage come to mind) easier to fix, too. What I'd like to see, though, is one "universal" city name map for all civs at the start (preferably based on modern-day names to avoid confusion), so that it's not as complicated to synchronize all the maps (mistakes are in several places on the old map, sometimes fairly significant). I actually wanted to start working on this myself (because city names are fun and... I like maps? well, reasons, anyway)

 

[Temujin8k]

Yeah, I agree that it would be great to at least go for one specific version of the map for the time being and starting doing, um, stuff with it (like all the things which have to be redone for the new map, such as city manager names, settler maps, stability maps and so on). Would be cool if we agreed on a map before that, or at least a rough draft of it (minor changes could be implemented later, but enlarging the map or whole areas could mess things up).
By the way, Leoreth, you mentioned that maybe switching from the old RFC city naming system to the SoI system could be better for this kind of map. I'm not so sure if I agree, since I'm kind of a fan of the old one too but I see why it would be useful - easier to do and maintain, as well as making the problem of ancient cities staying in the game forever (Babylon and Carthage come to mind) easier to fix, too. What I'd like to see, though, is one "universal" city name map for all civs at the start (preferably based on modern-day names to avoid confusion), so that it's not as complicated to synchronize all the maps (mistakes are in several places on the old map, sometimes fairly significant). I actually wanted to start working on this myself (because city names are fun and... I like maps? well, reasons, anyway)

I'm envisioning something like this for the city name map of DoC too. The SoI system is clearly more efficient. Implementing the same algorithm using this map would be much heavier since it would be x languages times # of tiles added to the map. The main concern is that there are old cities which are not necessarily related to newer cities in its vicinity.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I agree that it would be great to at least go for one specific version of the map for the time being and starting doing, um, stuff with it (like all the things which have to be redone for the new map, such as city manager names, settler maps, stability maps and so on). Would be cool if we agreed on a map before that, or at least a rough draft of it (minor changes could be implemented later, but enlarging the map or whole areas could mess things up).
By the way, Leoreth, you mentioned that maybe switching from the old RFC city naming system to the SoI system could be better for this kind of map. I'm not so sure if I agree, since I'm kind of a fan of the old one too but I see why it would be useful - easier to do and maintain, as well as making the problem of ancient cities staying in the game forever (Babylon and Carthage come to mind) easier to fix, too. What I'd like to see, though, is one "universal" city name map for all civs at the start (preferably based on modern-day names to avoid confusion), so that it's not as complicated to synchronize all the maps (mistakes are in several places on the old map, sometimes fairly significant). I actually wanted to start working on this myself (because city names are fun and... I like maps? well, reasons, anyway)

Yes. I know many people here have ideas and are motivated to contribute to the new map. That's great, because honestly I don't know if I was up to the task on my own. But I want to make sure that everyone's contributions are applied in a way that is ultimately useful to me and easily integrated into a working version of the map I can include in the mod. This also means that I have the final say over what goes and does not go into the map, and set some initial parameters like what coastlines are and how the city name and settler maps are supposed to work in this new map. As you mentioned, starting from a fresh map gives us the opportunity to do some of these things better but only if we make these improvements first. I know it is frustrating to be blocked by that (it is for me too), but I think ultimately it is worth it, because it also avoids wasting time with complicated systems down the line. So please let me get 1.15 in order and I will outline a roadmap on how we get to that point soon after.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm still holding out for the GEM map... I do recall you saying somewhere that you didn't like it, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

 

[Leoreth]

No, I don't like it. This one is already much better in its current state without any of the suggested improvements.

 

[mysterious_stalker]

Yes. I know many people here have ideas and are motivated to contribute to the new map. That's great, because honestly I don't know if I was up to the task on my own. But I want to make sure that everyone's contributions are applied in a way that is ultimately useful to me and easily integrated into a working version of the map I can include in the mod. This also means that I have the final say over what goes and does not go into the map, and set some initial parameters like what coastlines are and how the city name and settler maps are supposed to work in this new map. As you mentioned, starting from a fresh map gives us the opportunity to do some of these things better but only if we make these improvements first. I know it is frustrating to be blocked by that (it is for me too), but I think ultimately it is worth it, because it also avoids wasting time with complicated systems down the line. So please let me get 1.15 in order and I will outline a roadmap on how we get to that point soon after.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the response! Guess we'll just have to wait for the grand wizard Leoreth's magic to work
[rant]
I'm just a bit excited about the new map because it'd fix some really annoying minor problems with the old map, such as some tiles randomly having no city names assigned whatsoever (there's at least 5 of them, ugh), or cities who just won't get the name changes they need (Persian names are such a nightmare, Aspadana just doesn't feel like ever becoming Isfahan...), or annoying cities that always get settled for... reasons (I swear either Babylon, Persia, Greece or Turkey always settles Poti in Georgia in 90% of the games).
[/rant]

 

[ales_]

And also a possibility to start from scratch and fix some oddities with city names.

By the way, after the new map and the new spawn mechanism, will there be anything left in the mod made by Rhye?

 

[Leoreth]

Probably not much, although some of the AI wars and plague code is still his, and bits and pieces everywhere in the DLL.

 

[Mouthwash]

Hold on, you're going to split off Corsica with a river, right? I know you don't like how they look but anything's better than a huge tumor on Italy.

 

[Leoreth]

There's a post where I've talked about my intentions for Corsica.

 

[Mouthwash]

Xenforo doesn't have a search function. Remember the page?