Alternative Map for DOC

[Leoreth]

Thinking about that, it's probably best if maritime access for China comes from cities at the southwest coast, and we can discourage settling them early via soul-breathing's earlier suggestions. I'd be great if the Chinese early game during the ancient and classical periods would centre north around the Yangtze. There you'd still have the choice of say Qingdao, but it's better for Beijing to stay land focused.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Almost every border is the result of some diplomatic event rather than culture. The US-Mexico border isn't remotely special.

I know, but some event that allowed civs to trade land without necessarily trading cities after a war would be interesting

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I've figured out how to make France and Holland look better. Just move Iberia and France 1 tile North. Here's a map of that (also with Britain shifted)

Also, Corsica would be better off attached to Sardinia or nonexistent then attached to mainland Italy.

The nice thing about shifting Iberia and France is that it also forces Brussels to be 1 tile W of where it is in h0spitall3rz's maps (which is what I'm using for all of the city adjustments I've proposed), which is more geographically accurate.

The more I look at screenshots of this map, the more excited I get. 1.16 can't come soon enough!

Keep up the great work, Leoreth and Bautos42!

 

[Leoreth]

I see that as more of a 1.17 project

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I see that as more of a 1.17 project

I wonder what's planned for 1.16...

Also, have you considered making the minimap in the lower right hand corner bigger? I think it would be nice, as it's already kind of hard to see things on it, but I'm not sure if it's possible, or if the size is hardcoded into the engine.

 

[Leoreth]

I've been posting about 1.16 quite a lot, but I guess you haven't been active until recently. For 1.16 I will uncouple civs from player slots in the RFC code so that we can achieve the following:
1. additional civs
2. easier respawns and conditional spawns
3. unplayable "flavour" civs instead of independents in case enough slots are free
4. civil war (probably not in 1.16 though, but let's see how much work it is)

This includes rewriting the RiseAndFall.py module which is currently the last bastion of Rhye code in the mod. Besides refactoring and streamlining the code I want to remove annoying features from civ spawns (e.g. defection) and introduce different types of spawns with their own rules (current ideas include invasion (think Arabia, Ottomans) or secession (Byzantium, colonial civs) in addition to the current rules).

Edit: I don't think I can change the minimap size. It's not really meant for maps this big, that's true.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I've been posting about 1.16 quite a lot, but I guess you haven't been active until recently. For 1.16 I will uncouple civs from player slots in the RFC code so that we can achieve the following:
1. additional civs
2. easier respawns and conditional spawns
3. unplayable "flavour" civs instead of independents in case enough slots are free
4. civil war (probably not in 1.16 though, but let's see how much work it is)

This includes rewriting the RiseAndFall.py module which is currently the last bastion of Rhye code in the mod. Besides refactoring and streamlining the code I want to remove annoying features from civ spawns (e.g. defection) and introduce different types of spawns with their own rules (current ideas include invasion (think Arabia, Ottomans) or secession (Byzantium, colonial civs) in addition to the current rules).

Edit: I don't think I can change the minimap size. It's not really meant for maps this big, that's true.

That sounds amazing! I think it will synergize with the new map well, now that there will be more room for a Central Asian and Irish/Celtic civ.
Have you thought about if the respawns will include new UHVs? For example, Modern Greece's could be
1. Megali Idea: Liberate Constantinople, Smyrna, and (maybe) Trebizond
2. ?
3. Eurozone Crisis: Have a stronger economy than Germany in 2000

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, that's why I wouldn't move the map first even if I feasibly could.

There will still be one UHV per civ. The question is more what counts as different civs. For example, I'd make ancient Egypt a different civ than medieval Egypt. Not so sure about Greece.

Let's go back to discussing the map though. There are currently two threads for civ suggestions going so you can continue your UHV ideas there if you want.

 

[inthesomeday]

Again I can't code but, if you need help with redesigning scenarios with the new maps, I'd love to help out with that; I also would like to help design a new starting scenario in a more modern year.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Let's go back to discussing the map though.

I've compiled all of my suggestions in this post, for your convenience. Please let me know what you think of them
1. Please move Britain and Ireland 1 tile North and East, they look weird where they are now, and moving them would be more geographically accurate anyway
2. Add 1 more tile to the west coast of Ireland to smooth it out - it looks better and is more realistic
3. Add 1 more tile to southwestern Iberia so it is more square
4. Make Lake Michigan somewhat wider
5. Shift France and Iberia 1 tile North, which is both more accurate and better looking
6. Either remove Corsica or attach it to Sardinia, it just looks really weird attached to mainland Italy
7. Add more grassland to southern Iberia
8. Add another land tile in the southwestern corner of Iberia
9. Remove the land tile 2S of Venice, it just looks off. Maybe add a land tile 1S and 1E of it, if you want to compensate Italy
10. Add another land tile 1W of Trondheim

 

[J422]

I moved around resources in France trying to be more accurate.

Spoiler :

Moved the wine in centre to the Bourgogne
Moved the iron in Lorraine, coal should ideally be here too, but goes in the north to be attainable by Amsterdam (and a nice symmetry on the rhine )
Aluminium in the Var, where the highests deposits are (we could even add one given those are very large deposits)
I don't know why sheep was in Franche-Comté (probably to feed Lyon ?) most of them are traditionnaly along the Pyrénées, so I put them there.
Moved one wheat to the Beauce, and one pig in Bretagne to reflect historical and actual major production.

The columbian exchange could add corn near bordeaux as it already does, or potatoes in the north if those are implemented.

Consequences of all this :
Paris gets way more production than in the actual DoC map with cow and iron.
Marseille may lack some food, but if the event that adds a clam near it in the renaissance is maintained, it should be fine.
Lyon gets the short end of the stick, with no proper resources that would not be better used by Paris or Marseille. Settling Strasbourg instead may be a good alternative from a player's perspective.

 

[star15389]

Paris having next to zero production has a been a universal feature of RFC maps since the very beginning, I'm pretty sure. Feels weird to see that change

 

[soul-breathing]

I moved around resources in France trying to be more accurate.

Spoiler :

View attachment 474447

Moved the wine in centre to the Bourgogne
Moved the iron in Lorraine, coal should ideally be here too, but goes in the north to be attainable by Amsterdam (and a nice symmetry on the rhine )
Aluminium in the Var, where the highests deposits are (we could even add one given those are very large deposits)
I don't know why sheep was in Franche-Comté (probably to feed Lyon ?) most of them are traditionnaly along the Pyrénées, so I put them there.
Moved one wheat to the Beauce, and one pig in Bretagne to reflect historical and actual major production.

The columbian exchange could add corn near bordeaux as it already does, or potatoes in the north if those are implemented.

Consequences of all this :
Paris gets way more production than in the actual DoC map with cow and iron.
Marseille may lack some food, but if the event that adds a clam near it in the renaissance is maintained, it should be fine.
Lyon gets the short end of the stick, with no proper resources that would not be better used by Paris or Marseille. Settling Strasbourg instead may be a good alternative from a player's perspective.

So what is the plot of Paris in this map? Between 2 wheats?

 

[Alexius08]

So what is the plot of Paris in this map? Between 2 wheats?

I think so, going by his plan to put both cows and iron within its reach.

 

[J422]

The cities I had in mind.

Spoiler :

 

[Temujin8k]

I think Lyon is more geographically accurate 1S?

 

[Temujin8k]

Anyway, is there a guide available on editing settler maps and warmaps through WB? I don't fully understand the numerical values assigned. And I don't get why I can't see certain values like 400 in the WB.

 

[J422]

I think Lyon is more geographically accurate 1S?

Yes, but it's a better city here (less overlap with Marseille) and it's still at the confluence of the Rhône and Saône rivers, so I figured why not.

 

[Leoreth]

Anyway, is there a guide available on editing settler maps and warmaps through WB? I don't fully understand the numerical values assigned. And I don't get why I can't see certain values like 400 in the WB.

Those are the settler map values. Higher values are preferred. 90 or higher is historical. But that's why I said I want to make some more changes here, I don't intend to carry that system over to a new map.

 

[Temujin8k]

Those are the settler map values. Higher values are preferred. 90 or higher is historical. But that's why I said I want to make some more changes here, I don't intend to carry that system over to a new map.

I understand. Are you planning to implement something similar to the province system in RFCE and SoI, just that we're using regions instead? Or maybe, may we know your plans to innovate on the stability maps?