Cartography

[Vishaing]

There was nowhere else I could think to put these, and I think it might be a good idea to just have a thread open for small little map changes, though I will admit the map is very very good, I doubt there will be any large changes, but nothing is perfect right?

First off, I present to you, two small changes in the Roman area that can really increase their strength.



These are the two changes, and mostly just affect city placement. The change to Lugdunum is key not so much for Rome, but will help France by giving them a shipyard on the Mediterranean. This is not too important, but I think it could help them out, and seems more realistic to me.

The Second change is with Panormus, which frankly, is nothing more than a burden to the Empire as it never has good production, and just adds another city you need to pay maintanence on. By moving it to Vibo Valentia, we give it more production, the Naples part of Italy is finally being used, and we stop Panormus from culture converting Carthage, which while not as important now, would become a big problem once Carthage is an actual civ in Warlords. Mostly it would weaken Rome further by providing it not only a relatively useless city, but a city that would draw large numbers of troops to it to defend it against the Carthaginians across the sea. Also, Viob Valentia is just barely too far south to use the fish, so Dyrachium or Epidamnus or whichever is founded will still have some food to eat. Vibo is also far more powerful, when first founded, Vibo's production will be higher than that of Roma itself.

That's all for now, but I'm going to start combing the map to try and get any small little bugs like this out.

EDIT:
No sense in me having all the fun, if others propose changes, I shall add them to this post for easy referencing.

Prestidigitator suggested;

Ur, shouldn't change name to Kuwait, it is SO historically wrong, it should be one of the following:
1. Al-Basrah.
or more correctly,
2. An-Nasiriyah.
~~~~~~and followed with
Originally Posted by kairob

then can we have kuwait one tile to the south of ur?

That was what I proposed, with Ur being one of the two alternatives I listed.

 

[Gunner]

I think those are two good common sense changes.

 

[Red Threat]

The Second change is with Panormus, which frankly, is nothing more than a burden to the Empire as it never has good production, and just adds another city you need to pay maintanence on. By moving it to Vibo Valentia, we give it more production, the Naples part of Italy is finally being used, and we stop Panormus from culture converting Carthage, which while not as important now, would become a big problem once Carthage is an actual civ in Warlords. Mostly it would weaken Rome further by providing it not only a relatively useless city, but a city that would draw large numbers of troops to it to defend it against the Carthaginians across the sea. Also, Viob Valentia is just barely too far south to use the fish, so Dyrachium or Epidamnus or whichever is founded will still have some food to eat. Vibo is also far more powerful, when first founded, Vibo's production will be higher than that of Roma itself.

Rather than Vibo Valentia we could think at Syracuse, that is more historically accurate, to achieve the same targets. It could be a minor civ (maybe vassal of Greece) until it flips to Rome.

 

[Elhoim]

Great changes, my good friend. I vote for them too.

 

[Prestidigitator]

That's all for now, but I'm going to start coming the map to try and get any small little bugs like this out.

I'm sure you don't mind me contributing to your fixes Vishaing , here is what I would like to point out:
Ur, shouldn't change name to Kuwait, it is SO historically wrong, it should be one of the following:
1. Al-Basrah.
or more correctly,
2. An-Nasiriyah.

 

[kairob]

why not Kuwait is in the same tile...

 

[Prestidigitator]

why not Kuwait is in the same tile...

Well, no. Kuwait was non existant at the time. You might notice that the map has the marshes of Iraq cut-out, that was the way it was 6'000 years ago, Kuwait was buried under water, besides it's another coutry, Ur is FAR away from Kuwait, and Kuwait could easily be one tile to the south of Ur.

 

[kairob]

then can we have kuwait one tile to the south of ur?

 

[Prestidigitator]

then can we have kuwait one tile to the south of ur?

That was what I proposed, with Ur being one of the two alternatives I listed.

 

[Sovietof17]

France needs no help. They dominate almost every single game I play [top 3 at least]. Hopefully I finish this inca game soon, around 50 turns left and I'm second place to Russia (who also needs a tune).

 

[Red Threat]

I really don't like the placement of Panormus and the general lack of cities in southern Italy. If Naples and/or Bari/Brundisium/Tarentum are impossible, then Syracuse (the second greatest city of Italy in the classic age, and one of the greatest in the whole empire just after Carthage, Antioch and Alexandria and obviously Rome itself) is better IMO.

 

[kairob]

@Prestidigitator
Oh right sorry, well then I like your idea

 

[Rhye]

The reason for Panormus is in the map and Syracuse isn't is that the former was founded by Carthaginians (barbarians for now) and the latter by Greeks (who now could found it but don't)

 

[Red Threat]

The reason for Panormus is in the map and Syracuse isn't is that the former was founded by Carthaginians (barbarians for now) and the latter by Greeks (who now could found it but don't)

Is it so important? What kind of soluton do you suggest? The AI never builds cities in Southern Italy, there are tiles that remain empty and not worked by any city.

 

[Ravellion]

So what about vibo valentia? I second this change: Carthage should be fought over.

Besides, if Warlords adds the Carthaginian civ, it would be nice to not have the cultural pressure of the carthaginian capital on one of the roman cities so soon.

Rav

 

[Red Threat]

Besides, if Warlords adds the Carthaginian civ, it would be nice to not have the cultural pressure of the carthaginian capital on one of the roman cities so soon.

It's a very good point.

 

[Vishaing]

Perhaps instead of Syracuse, we could use one of the southern cities conquered from I believe Epirus? Although Epirus did not actually control the city of Tarentum, which I feel is more appropriate to the location, not so much for importance, they were a significant power there and most of the fighting the Romans did was against them, perhaps the city should be there, but NOT convert, this would give Rome something to fight against while the Gaul cities spawn, and build up the experience of their army. Or it could weaken them, I don't know, but I do know that the city where I put it on the map was invaluable to my war effort with Greece, and in general. Panormus can not make the same claim.

As for the French being too powerful, I don't think this will actually give the French much more power, if anything it may weaken them because the city will be closer to Spain, thus getting more wars started.

 

[MrThing]

I also agree with the changes proposed by Vishaing.
They would be good for both France and Rome.

 

[Red Threat]

Perhaps instead of Syracuse, we could use one of the southern cities conquered from I believe Epirus? Although Epirus did not actually control the city of Tarentum, which I feel is more appropriate to the location, not so much for importance, they were a significant power there and most of the fighting the Romans did was against them, perhaps the city should be there, but NOT convert, this would give Rome something to fight against while the Gaul cities spawn, and build up the experience of their army. Or it could weaken them, I don't know, but I do know that the city where I put it on the map was invaluable to my war effort with Greece, and in general. Panormus can not make the same claim.

As for the French being too powerful, I don't think this will actually give the French much more power, if anything it may weaken them because the city will be closer to Spain, thus getting more wars started.

No, Epirus was only the protector of the city state of Tarentum under the reign of Pyrrhus. It never had a real control over Southern Italy, that was only Pyrrhus' dream and it didn't last so long. Vibo valentia wasn't surely a very important city in the classic age (nor is it so now).

IMO the options are (look at both history and the necessity of filling the "holes" in the map):

1) Naples AND Panormus (the first one flipping soon to Rome, the latter belonging to Carthage). Pro: Historically accurate, all the holes are filled; Cons: little production, the cities are too much nearby Rome and Carthage. Rome gets less power in the area and this should be re-balanced.

2) Tarentum (Brundisium) AND Panormus: as before but there's more space.

3) Syracusae: if the city flips a little later to Rome, it is still historically accurate and all the holes are filled (except one plot in Apulia, but Epidamnos/Dyrrachium would "cover" that and Tarentum could always be founded there): the balance is the same as now but the Sicilian city has more space and production (if it starts barbarian, it could get some starting buildings I think, like granary and lighthouse). I think it's the best option.

 

[Vishaing]

Where exactly would you suggest Syracuse be places? I assume where the wine is currently, I just started a game recently, I'll take a look at moving the city there and moving the wine, and see how the city does.

If the city can prosper as much as Vibo Valentia, then I would be all for it, plus there, once Carthage is a civ, the borders will clash a bit and that could start an early war between the two without resorting to an AIWar map.

Like I said, I'll test it and get back to you.

Once this game is done I'm going to head over to Japan and look over the Asian lands.