Avalon Hills Civilization Map Project
- Thread starter PDMX
- Start date
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
This Earth map will be nice, and will be waiting necessary time...
I'm training on a saved communitas standard map, a very nice one...
Even better than Small Continents Plus...
But the need to have a TSL Earth is returning time to time...
The 90x80 hexes in size would be perfect for that IMHO...
Ravellion
Prince
Thanks for creating this map. It is similar to Sven's Europe, but I prefer your map (though I liked his renamed natural wonders etc from being a full mod). I played as the Byzantines and had some fun wars with Alexander and Ashurbanipal in the classical and medieval age. Carthage swallowed Spain, Rome and Greece eventually, and I declared war on them when the rest of Europe did as well, taking Greece for myself and liberating Rome.
Apart from the fun I had playing this map, these were some of my experiences after winning a space victory on Epic.
1) In my game, the Persian placement North and very close to the Mongols seemed to have the opposite effect as intended. It blocked Persia from filling its natural territory, created immediate tension between the two empires, hampering both Persia's as well as Mongolia's growth; though the latter was less hamstrung... in fact, it expanded in Northeastern direction towards their historic area of origin instead of heading West and harrying the Russians. For the Mongols, Russia was more or less blocked off by meager Persian attempts at expansion. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for their placement in the current position. I'd say putting them in their historic spot would be better - and in fact, is that not the point of TSL maps? Dealing with the peculiarities of certain starts? Otherwise, a map of the region without TSL might suffice just as well. At this point in time, I'd have no interest in playing either Persia or Mongolia. Even Babylon is less interesting, as for me part of Babylon's appeal is being beset on all sides.
2) I don't know whether the Celts need the help of a religious city state right next door. I think they have plenty of faith generation as it is. Besides, would Ireland as a militaristic city state not make more historical sense?
3) The Thera vulcano (Krakatoa) is too close to Turkey, and Crete seems a bit too small. The tilt of the map makes it impossible to get the island to "point" in the right direction, but I'd tend to go the other way and make Crete three tiles long and have it point towards Anatolia. Perhaps put cattle on the island as a nod to Minoan bull-leaping ;-) ?
4) The Ethiopians start with a Natural wonder within their capital's radius, with a few more close by due to the reefs. This seems a bit much. I'd split up the red sea reefs so they cannot be used by just one city, and possibly move the Ethiopian start one tile west. Alternatively, I'd put the lake in Sweden as the Vänern lake, as Northern Europe is rather starved of Natural Wonders right now.
5) Germany seemed a bit squeezed compared to France, Sweden and Poland, possibly due to Prague. Maybe you could change Prague into Geneva? However, I am just guessing there, I really don't know if that would improve the playability of the map.
Hope I don't come across as too critical, I had good fun playing.
Apart from the fun I had playing this map, these were some of my experiences after winning a space victory on Epic.
1) In my game, the Persian placement North and very close to the Mongols seemed to have the opposite effect as intended. It blocked Persia from filling its natural territory, created immediate tension between the two empires, hampering both Persia's as well as Mongolia's growth; though the latter was less hamstrung... in fact, it expanded in Northeastern direction towards their historic area of origin instead of heading West and harrying the Russians. For the Mongols, Russia was more or less blocked off by meager Persian attempts at expansion. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for their placement in the current position. I'd say putting them in their historic spot would be better - and in fact, is that not the point of TSL maps? Dealing with the peculiarities of certain starts? Otherwise, a map of the region without TSL might suffice just as well. At this point in time, I'd have no interest in playing either Persia or Mongolia. Even Babylon is less interesting, as for me part of Babylon's appeal is being beset on all sides.
2) I don't know whether the Celts need the help of a religious city state right next door. I think they have plenty of faith generation as it is. Besides, would Ireland as a militaristic city state not make more historical sense?
3) The Thera vulcano (Krakatoa) is too close to Turkey, and Crete seems a bit too small. The tilt of the map makes it impossible to get the island to "point" in the right direction, but I'd tend to go the other way and make Crete three tiles long and have it point towards Anatolia. Perhaps put cattle on the island as a nod to Minoan bull-leaping ;-) ?
4) The Ethiopians start with a Natural wonder within their capital's radius, with a few more close by due to the reefs. This seems a bit much. I'd split up the red sea reefs so they cannot be used by just one city, and possibly move the Ethiopian start one tile west. Alternatively, I'd put the lake in Sweden as the Vänern lake, as Northern Europe is rather starved of Natural Wonders right now.
5) Germany seemed a bit squeezed compared to France, Sweden and Poland, possibly due to Prague. Maybe you could change Prague into Geneva? However, I am just guessing there, I really don't know if that would improve the playability of the map.
Hope I don't come across as too critical, I had good fun playing.
Thank you for the feedback, I will take that into consideration.
You can try to put the mongols south of AralsK and Persia west of Hormus. These spots are marked as random start positions right now. You can see them on the map. These spots were originally meant to be their starting positions. When testing that I noticed that the whole Iranian-Afghanistan area will be empty for the most part of the game. Therefore I put both right in the center of that area. Of course that is only the impression of a few test games by myself and it could turn out better the way it was before.
I think great barrier reef cannot be splitted, it will be invisible then, if I remember correctly.
Removing Prague entirely is also a likely change. I was not happy with that from the beginning.
I think Krakatoa is as good as it is, because it is in reasonable reach of multiple coastlines. If it was nearly unworkable it would be useless. And it has to be surrounded by 6 water tiles, so it is the only possible position right now.
You can try to put the mongols south of AralsK and Persia west of Hormus. These spots are marked as random start positions right now. You can see them on the map. These spots were originally meant to be their starting positions. When testing that I noticed that the whole Iranian-Afghanistan area will be empty for the most part of the game. Therefore I put both right in the center of that area. Of course that is only the impression of a few test games by myself and it could turn out better the way it was before.
I think great barrier reef cannot be splitted, it will be invisible then, if I remember correctly.
Removing Prague entirely is also a likely change. I was not happy with that from the beginning.
I think Krakatoa is as good as it is, because it is in reasonable reach of multiple coastlines. If it was nearly unworkable it would be useless. And it has to be surrounded by 6 water tiles, so it is the only possible position right now.
Ankorafeonix
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 75
I had great fun playing the first round on this map as Poland.
Some feedback of my own that may or may not be useful to you:
1) Babylon never made it to more than 2 cities, being swamped by Assyria and shortly afterwards Arabia, and I thought that Babylon was quite close to Assyria. Given that Assyria is also quite close to Byzantium (Byzantium also lost very early on to Assyria), perhaps Assyria could be nudged a little east, and Babylon removed entirely.
2) Carthage has a LOT of room to expand, and being a Settler-happy civ, I wasn't surprised to see Carthage with almost twice as many cities as the average even before the mid-game. I think if Babylon can be sacrificed, sticking Songhai down in the south and making the area somehow more attractive might allow Carthage's growth to be checked a little.
3) I'd sort agree with a lot of Ravellions points about Mongolia and Persia, although they seemed pretty equally matched in the game that I played. They both ended up with large areas that stretched from the top of the map down to the coast, and they had a lot of battles with each other that didn't move much. I thought it was quite good. Still, I would have liked Persia to be a little further West, to help deal with the massive problem that Assyria became.
4) Brest was a big hindrance to France and I wonder why that city state really needs to exist. You could remove it and put in another that represents the Kartvellian people (Georgia) in the Caucasus, or just leave it out entirely.
Overall, this has still be one of the best maps I've ever played on Civ. I've made a few personal adjustments to suit my own tastes but absolutely great work. 5 stars!
Some feedback of my own that may or may not be useful to you:
1) Babylon never made it to more than 2 cities, being swamped by Assyria and shortly afterwards Arabia, and I thought that Babylon was quite close to Assyria. Given that Assyria is also quite close to Byzantium (Byzantium also lost very early on to Assyria), perhaps Assyria could be nudged a little east, and Babylon removed entirely.
2) Carthage has a LOT of room to expand, and being a Settler-happy civ, I wasn't surprised to see Carthage with almost twice as many cities as the average even before the mid-game. I think if Babylon can be sacrificed, sticking Songhai down in the south and making the area somehow more attractive might allow Carthage's growth to be checked a little.
3) I'd sort agree with a lot of Ravellions points about Mongolia and Persia, although they seemed pretty equally matched in the game that I played. They both ended up with large areas that stretched from the top of the map down to the coast, and they had a lot of battles with each other that didn't move much. I thought it was quite good. Still, I would have liked Persia to be a little further West, to help deal with the massive problem that Assyria became.
4) Brest was a big hindrance to France and I wonder why that city state really needs to exist. You could remove it and put in another that represents the Kartvellian people (Georgia) in the Caucasus, or just leave it out entirely.
Overall, this has still be one of the best maps I've ever played on Civ. I've made a few personal adjustments to suit my own tastes but absolutely great work. 5 stars!
I agree that Babylon is just weak, but thats the failure of AI, I even gave them Iron directly under their capital. I have witnessed in 1 out of 10 games Babylon is actually beating Assyria and becoming a problem itself. I think for an ancient setting Babylon has to be in.
For Brest. Never thought about settling on that spot, even when I was playing France... Hm... I will probably port those maps to Civ 6, once it comes out. Its rather unlikely to have any big changes at the moment. I am just to busy with other stuff. Having some more feedback will be just fine.
You can really try to use the marked secondary spots for Persia and Mongols. Please give me feedback if thats better.
For Brest. Never thought about settling on that spot, even when I was playing France... Hm... I will probably port those maps to Civ 6, once it comes out. Its rather unlikely to have any big changes at the moment. I am just to busy with other stuff. Having some more feedback will be just fine.
You can really try to use the marked secondary spots for Persia and Mongols. Please give me feedback if thats better.
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
- Post46 : What are the news for your Earth with Avalon Hill's taste ?
- Post45 : Brest take sense with "Anne de Bretagne" ou "Duché de Bretagne" long time independent from Kingdom of France... But all good fan of History know it...
- Generally speaking, why not replacing France and Spain by two more Celts factions ?
Is it possible to having three "Celts" factions ?
The origine in Great Britain and the two others representing Ibers and Gaulish ?
Even with same three leaders, these three factions will have three different dual set of colors in game... Isn't it ?
This method could be applied indifferently for both small and standard version and even the earth...
What is your mind about that ? Could apply for other civs for having more ancient game as possible...
- Post45 : Brest take sense with "Anne de Bretagne" ou "Duché de Bretagne" long time independent from Kingdom of France... But all good fan of History know it...
- Generally speaking, why not replacing France and Spain by two more Celts factions ?
Is it possible to having three "Celts" factions ?
The origine in Great Britain and the two others representing Ibers and Gaulish ?
Even with same three leaders, these three factions will have three different dual set of colors in game... Isn't it ?
This method could be applied indifferently for both small and standard version and even the earth...
What is your mind about that ? Could apply for other civs for having more ancient game as possible...
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
Quick refresh : Does your Earth Map progress ?
What do you plan for it ?
I would really like to play this Avalon's Earth themed map...
What do you plan for it ?
I would really like to play this Avalon's Earth themed map...
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
I understand, real life is more important than virtual life...
Will play your existing Down of History maps...
Will play your existing Down of History maps...
PDMX, maybe you're aware, that veBear had made a great Mediterranean map for Civ IV using that principle of a turned angle or tilted, as you call it. That's where I saw it first and was impressed by the simple but efficient trick. Obviously Avalon Hill and probably some other strategy games had had the idea earlier, table top or virtual. Ever since I've been biased, when I read about a map with a turned angle and in most cases therefore intelligent map section, and I know I like it, before playing it. Keep up the good work
and best luck for reconciling Civ IV and real life!
I am currently in the mood to create and edit some maps. So please post any improvements or changings on the maps you would like to see.
I must admit, that I am a bit disappointed with the number of downloads for this, because in my personal rating, I like this a lot better than my complete Europe map.
Maybe it is the name of the thread.
I must admit, that I am a bit disappointed with the number of downloads for this, because in my personal rating, I like this a lot better than my complete Europe map.
Maybe it is the name of the thread.
Anders JJ
Chieftain
Very interesting map. Is Venice included as a playable civ?
What does it mean Bosporus and Suez is open?
Thanks!
What does it mean Bosporus and Suez is open?
Thanks!
Similar threads
