I know the map is cramped and distorted, but it's so weird to see Ragusa more to the south than Constantinopole.
Alternative Map for DOC
- Thread starter Bautos42
- Start date
BarbarianX
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2013
- Messages
- 54
Yeah, it does feel awkward. Maybe move it 1NW, so it sits closer to it's actual location.
AtlantaMarty
No longer active
Do we really need Sofia, though?
It just crowds Belgrade, Bucharest, Constantinople, and Salonica.
There's really no need for it.
ozqar
King
It's a matter of preference, I'd say. I'd rather see Sofia than Thessalonika, for example, if we had to choose. But I was wondering if there was a workaround so we wouldn't need to choose.
mysterious_stalker
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
- Messages
- 89
Besides, there should be plenty of instances when a city doesn't exist at the start of the scenario picked by the player and gets founded later on. Personally, I would rather see more variety than more enforcing of historical city locations.
Anyways, about the screenshots by citis - I agree with moving Ragusa 1NW, right now, it's too far off and ends up in Montenegro or Albania. Same with Belgrade, should be 1NW on the oil, it's on the Danube after all. Sofia would be 2N of Thessaloniki (that's close enough to rl geography) and Bucharest could be placed on the spot which currently is a peak, the southeastern one in the clutter of three. That would permit all of Thessaloniki, Sofia, Belgrade and Bucharest on the map simultaneously (in theory, as this city placement would not be very efficient and the player, I imagine, would be unlikely to go for it if they have a choice).
Anyways, about the screenshots by citis - I agree with moving Ragusa 1NW, right now, it's too far off and ends up in Montenegro or Albania. Same with Belgrade, should be 1NW on the oil, it's on the Danube after all. Sofia would be 2N of Thessaloniki (that's close enough to rl geography) and Bucharest could be placed on the spot which currently is a peak, the southeastern one in the clutter of three. That would permit all of Thessaloniki, Sofia, Belgrade and Bucharest on the map simultaneously (in theory, as this city placement would not be very efficient and the player, I imagine, would be unlikely to go for it if they have a choice).
DC123456789
Deity
Shouldn't Sofia (or whatever city represents Bulgaria) be more important than Bucharest anyway? Wallachia/Romania doesn't strike me as being remotely important before the 19th century, particularly not more than Bulgaria.
Over the course of history Bulgaria has been far more prominent on an international level than Romania; I’d even argue that held true into the early 20th century when the Bulgarians briefly owned much of northern Greece and even threatened Constantinople.
However, in the interest of representing the contemporary world of the 21st century Bucharest should get some representation. I guess I’d support seeing Sofia as the default city in 600 AD and Bucharest in 1700 even if it’s a little precocious (that’s not even talking 3000 BC where you’ll probably get some random Greek-founded Odessa as the main city there lol)
ozqar
King
Another thought / request, could we make the two tiles North of Istanbul land? (the two tiles between Istanbul and the sheep)?
I would then place Bucharest one tile southwest of the sheep, Sofia one tile southeast of current Belgrade, Thessaloniki one tile west of its current location, Belgrade one tile northwest of its current location, and Dubrovnik one tile northwest of its current location (as said). A bit cramped, but this region is relatively poor and highly fragmented, so it fits. If any of those cities would have to go away, I'd say that should be Thessaloniki, especially for the later scenarios.
I would then place Bucharest one tile southwest of the sheep, Sofia one tile southeast of current Belgrade, Thessaloniki one tile west of its current location, Belgrade one tile northwest of its current location, and Dubrovnik one tile northwest of its current location (as said). A bit cramped, but this region is relatively poor and highly fragmented, so it fits. If any of those cities would have to go away, I'd say that should be Thessaloniki, especially for the later scenarios.
While Sofia migth be more important than Salonica in recent history (i.e. the 1700 AD scenraio), it seems a little weird to me to discuss wether we should place Sofia rather than Thessaloniki in the 600 AD scenario. In the Middle Ages, the latter city was vastly more important, being one of the principal cities of the Byzantine empire.
Ani Taneen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 278
This may be violating the sacrosanct, but with a larger map, maybe we could re-evaluate the scenarios starting dates? I know that there has been some clamoringvin the past to break the 1700 scenario into a 1600 and 18xx-1900 scenarios.
Imperator Knoedel
Currently obsessed with The Owl House
If anything I'd move 600AD back to 300AD so Byzantium and Japan get full lifetimes.
soul-breathing
Emperor
1860ad scenerio would be good. I remember there is a 1860ad scenerio in GEM mod, based on American Civil war, Prussia-Austro War and the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement in China.
Certainly it depends on Leo.
What I would add is maybe a 250 BC scenario (to jump start the classical era and remove some of the randomness of the early game) and a 1500 AD scenario (to skip the medieval era but without having colonisation of the New World locked in). I do not see the appeal of late game scenarios and they are comparatively much more work.
Edmund Ironside
White Rabbit Object
You could get rid of the 3000 BC scenario, and have a 4000 BC scenario to represent the rise of the first civilizations, and a 300 BC scenario to represent the rise of Rome?
