You could repurpose the National Park graphic from HR for this. The trees are separate from the base model and can easily be removed if desired. I've never quite got them to line up properly, thus the tree in the water when viewed from certain angles.
Alternative Map for DOC
- Thread starter Bautos42
- Start date
You could repurpose the National Park graphic from HR for this. The trees are separate from the base model and can easily be removed if desired. I've never quite got them to line up properly, thus the tree in the water when viewed from certain angles.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
Give it some grass textures and a new water texture and it looks great!
What I'm wondering is if it's possible to change the height map below sea level so the game automatically renders it as water. Probably not as a feature, but maybe a terrain type?
ozqar, that's a great set of suggestions, I will review it in detail once my current to dos are complete. Can you also upload a version of your current screenshot that has Ctrl+R active?
ozqar, that's a great set of suggestions, I will review it in detail once my current to dos are complete. Can you also upload a version of your current screenshot that has Ctrl+R active?
ozqar
King
Yeah, here's the map:
Resources:
Here are sites for main prehispanic cities.
Tzintzuntzan was the Tarascan capital, a main rival of the Mexica people (they remained independent until the Spanish conquest). It's not in the right place (it should be 1S, but there's a mountain there), but it's in the future Guadalajara site, which I think is alright. Other main cities are too close together to represent properly.
And here are the main (modern) Mexican cities.
I'm posting because I have some questions about what the prehispanic vs. modern city placement does, especially thinking of maritime access.
The three main Mexican cities that should be there as a priority are Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
I placed Veracruz (the main port on the Gulf coast, and historical gateway into the country) 1 tile far too east that it is to allow better city placement, but that is only possible if Dani Baa is destroyed (or moved 1 tile west). In that scenario, the prehispanic city of La Venta (an Olmec city) could share Veracruz's spot.
In the Pacific coast, I placed Acapulco (the main port historically) - but Acapulco would be blocked if Dani Baa was moved west. Dani Baa is currently uninhabited, but it's super close to the city of Oaxaca, which would be colonial and modern name for it in the game, but it's not a major city (as the other two are).
Some other ideas (not in the map): the Colorado delta should be flood plains, and it would be nice if the Usumacinta/Grijalva delta (the river east of Veracruz) also had 1 tile of flood plains.
Not sure what's your long-term idea on resources (given the ongoing changes to the resource system), but one way to increase game diversity and "texture" it would be to have resources that are important regionally available in the map, even if they're only a couple of instances and will only benefit a civ or two. Specific civs could also have unique uses of resources if the effects are attached to their UBs.
- Cacao, for example, should give the same or similar benefits as coffee to any civ that has it, but for the Mayas and the Aztecs, it should provide gold (as it was used as currency) - this effect could be added to their UBs so it only benefits them.
- A really cool resource you could add in Mexico would be Agave (perhaps two or three instances, one next to Guadalajara, a second one next to Mérida, and if there's a third, that one in the Oaxaca region). 150 of the world's 200 types of agave are native to Mexico - some of them are used to make alcohol (tequila and mezcal) and some of them as textile fibers. Hence, agave could give gold and unhealthiness with the distillery (like banana, sugar, and wine), and give happiness with the weaver (like sheep, cotton, and dye).
Edit: Just checked and the main producing country is currently Colombia, with Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba, and the Philippines are also producing areas. Looking at this, I would advise to attach the distillery-type effect to the UBs of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Mexicans, and keep the weaver-type effects with the weaver building so that is available to everyone.
Agave is just a specific idea since it builds on the Mexico theme of the posts, the general point would be to explore civ-unique benefits of resources and to explore if having regionally-concentrated resources provide some diversity and texture to the game
Resources:
Spoiler :
Here are sites for main prehispanic cities.
Tzintzuntzan was the Tarascan capital, a main rival of the Mexica people (they remained independent until the Spanish conquest). It's not in the right place (it should be 1S, but there's a mountain there), but it's in the future Guadalajara site, which I think is alright. Other main cities are too close together to represent properly.
Spoiler :
And here are the main (modern) Mexican cities.
I'm posting because I have some questions about what the prehispanic vs. modern city placement does, especially thinking of maritime access.
The three main Mexican cities that should be there as a priority are Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
I placed Veracruz (the main port on the Gulf coast, and historical gateway into the country) 1 tile far too east that it is to allow better city placement, but that is only possible if Dani Baa is destroyed (or moved 1 tile west). In that scenario, the prehispanic city of La Venta (an Olmec city) could share Veracruz's spot.
In the Pacific coast, I placed Acapulco (the main port historically) - but Acapulco would be blocked if Dani Baa was moved west. Dani Baa is currently uninhabited, but it's super close to the city of Oaxaca, which would be colonial and modern name for it in the game, but it's not a major city (as the other two are).
Spoiler :
Some other ideas (not in the map): the Colorado delta should be flood plains, and it would be nice if the Usumacinta/Grijalva delta (the river east of Veracruz) also had 1 tile of flood plains.
Not sure what's your long-term idea on resources (given the ongoing changes to the resource system), but one way to increase game diversity and "texture" it would be to have resources that are important regionally available in the map, even if they're only a couple of instances and will only benefit a civ or two. Specific civs could also have unique uses of resources if the effects are attached to their UBs.
- Cacao, for example, should give the same or similar benefits as coffee to any civ that has it, but for the Mayas and the Aztecs, it should provide gold (as it was used as currency) - this effect could be added to their UBs so it only benefits them.
- A really cool resource you could add in Mexico would be Agave (perhaps two or three instances, one next to Guadalajara, a second one next to Mérida, and if there's a third, that one in the Oaxaca region). 150 of the world's 200 types of agave are native to Mexico - some of them are used to make alcohol (tequila and mezcal) and some of them as textile fibers. Hence, agave could give gold and unhealthiness with the distillery (like banana, sugar, and wine), and give happiness with the weaver (like sheep, cotton, and dye).
Edit: Just checked and the main producing country is currently Colombia, with Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba, and the Philippines are also producing areas. Looking at this, I would advise to attach the distillery-type effect to the UBs of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Mexicans, and keep the weaver-type effects with the weaver building so that is available to everyone.
Agave is just a specific idea since it builds on the Mexico theme of the posts, the general point would be to explore civ-unique benefits of resources and to explore if having regionally-concentrated resources provide some diversity and texture to the game
Last edited:
What do you think about representing agave with the sugar resource?
I also notice that many Mexican cities are one tile from the coast. Instead of pushing them all to inaccurate locations, maybe this should be reflected in the Mexican UP? I would like to replace the current one anyway. Maybe +1 food to surrounding hills for landlocked cities?
I also notice that many Mexican cities are one tile from the coast. Instead of pushing them all to inaccurate locations, maybe this should be reflected in the Mexican UP? I would like to replace the current one anyway. Maybe +1 food to surrounding hills for landlocked cities?
DC123456789
Deity
How bad would it be if Tikal/Guatemala were 1 NE like it is currently? I mean it would be more accurate for Tikal and less for Guatemala City, but I do feel like it's a little more accurate overall and doesn't quite crowd into Dani Baa as much.
Wouldn't that be a much better spot for Belize, though?
DC123456789
Deity
Well, you do have to consider that unless Leoreth decides to change things radically, Tikal is almost always going to be founded by the Mayans and is usually going to be conquered by the Europeans, so whatever city it gets renamed to is going to be the standard city you're going to see in that area. I assume that Guatemala City is more important than Belize City (which I think is more accurately 1N of that position, i.e. 2S of Chichen Itza anyway?).
I'm pretty sure the general rule is not to give a city a name associated with a different city upon conquest—especially if the two cities are not extremely close to each other?
I mean, there can be exceptions, but Guatemala City doesn't strike me as important enough to warrant one.
I mean, there can be exceptions, but Guatemala City doesn't strike me as important enough to warrant one.
DC123456789
Deity
Sure, except I'm pretty sure that Tikal -> Guatemala City is already ingame.
In my opinion the location of the Mayan capital is more important and requires more accuracy then a Spanish colonial city or capital of a smaller independent nation. I also would prefer Tikal 1NE, which seems to be more accurate and preferable gameplay wise.
That would be news to me. Tikal is called Yax Mutal when founded, and later renamed to Tikal. No civ currently renames that city to anything.
DC123456789
Deity
Sorry, must have misremembered based on the 1700 AD scenario.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
What if we add a darker green "grassland" tile called woodland or taiga that produces no food unless by a river or lake. It would fit for northern sweden and canada, the tundra tile looks a bit out of place due to constant snow.
Can I ask what people mean when they talk about "city placement"? To me, discussing "city placement" is relevant only in four cases:
- Starting spot of civilizations
- Scripted independent/native/barbarian/Celtic cities
- Pre-placed cities in the 600 AD scenario
- Pre-placed cities in the 1700 AD scenario
All other city placement decisions are made by players and the AI over the course of a game. But I see many people talking of city placement without explicitly stating which of these situations they are talking about, if any, and I find that confusing. Is it mostly suggestions as to which cities should be encouraged for the AI/player by placement of resources and so on?
- Starting spot of civilizations
- Scripted independent/native/barbarian/Celtic cities
- Pre-placed cities in the 600 AD scenario
- Pre-placed cities in the 1700 AD scenario
All other city placement decisions are made by players and the AI over the course of a game. But I see many people talking of city placement without explicitly stating which of these situations they are talking about, if any, and I find that confusing. Is it mostly suggestions as to which cities should be encouraged for the AI/player by placement of resources and so on?
I agree, that is somewhat confusing. However, you have forgotten another bullet point, which is settler map values. We should have some preferences for which cities the AI should settles which will be manifested in the settler maps. Talking about "canonical" city placements is a good starting point for that.
Integrating Jules Auburn's suggestions was rather nervewracking, but now it's complete. Thanks to merijn's mass move tool that made the process bearable.
Screenshots:
Synopsis: as suggested I moved all of Europe including Anatolia one tile west and also moved Scandinavia one tile north. The additional column benefited Anatolia, Central Europe and Sweden, the additional row benefited Denmark, the Baltic region and parts of western Russia. I chose not to implement some more radical elements of the proposal, including land connection between Sweden and Denmark, additional bays at the cost of Polish terrain and the reshaped Netherlands. Some Central European rivers have been reshaped mostly in accordance with the suggestion. I also moved most resources as suggested, but I am not sure if the resulting resource placement is ideal.
Edit: does anyone know a justification for the Norwegian silver? I'd rather remove it for gameplay reasons, Vikings would be more realistic with less commerce and happiness.
Another edit: it probably would make sense to place marshes in Ingria until the 17th century so there cannot be an early Sankt Peterburg.
Screenshots:
Spoiler :
Synopsis: as suggested I moved all of Europe including Anatolia one tile west and also moved Scandinavia one tile north. The additional column benefited Anatolia, Central Europe and Sweden, the additional row benefited Denmark, the Baltic region and parts of western Russia. I chose not to implement some more radical elements of the proposal, including land connection between Sweden and Denmark, additional bays at the cost of Polish terrain and the reshaped Netherlands. Some Central European rivers have been reshaped mostly in accordance with the suggestion. I also moved most resources as suggested, but I am not sure if the resulting resource placement is ideal.
Edit: does anyone know a justification for the Norwegian silver? I'd rather remove it for gameplay reasons, Vikings would be more realistic with less commerce and happiness.
Another edit: it probably would make sense to place marshes in Ingria until the 17th century so there cannot be an early Sankt Peterburg.
Last edited:
