Current (SVN) development discussion thread

[blizzrd]

Leoreth,

Would it be worth tweaking the English settler map to encourage the historical city locations a bit more? This is what happened in my recent Ethiopian game, where England was my vassal throughout.

Spoiler :

The Dutch, before they eventually collapsed, founded four cities from Port Hedland to Arnhem Land as well as that razed city in South Australia, which surely rates as one of the worst city locations possible on the map. Only to be outdone by Streaky Bay, which the English subsequently founded.

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth, I like the changes you have made to Australia. However, There are a couple of things I would like to quiz you about.
1. the Mountains in West of the Brisbane and Rockhampton tiles. The these mountains are some of the most fertile places in Australia with a lot of produce and mining in the areas. Also the tile west of Brisbane is home of Toowoomba Australia's Largest Inland city that is not a capital. I fail to see why these mountains are there. The ones around Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne I feel are justified but not the mountain in Queensland.

2. Marsh in Queensland near the Mt Isa Tile. Why???????????? there is nothing in that area that is remotely marsh. I have family from this area, there is nothing there but shrub-land and bush.

3. No Swan river in Western Australia. You gave Sydney a River, despite there being non in the area but didn't give Perth a River. This is possibly the second most famous River in the country after the Murry because it plays host to the Red Bull aerobatics competition.

4. Still no oil in Australia either inland or off shore?

5. I still feel that it is lacking in the natural mineral resources department. Biggest industry in the country is Mining. I feel that this is still not really evident.

However, the changes you have made have made a great improvement to game play. These cities are not such a drain to maintain now.

Yeah, thanks goes to blizzrd for most of the changes who supplied me with enough geographical background knowledge to actually pull this off.

1. I actually planned to remove those mountains but then I moved on to other things and forgot ... yeah, I'll take care of that.
2. That's Rhye's fault. Australia is really my weak spot geography-wise so I'm unable to see when something's off. Now that you've pointed it out, I can remove it.
3. Sydney's river was mainly motivated by the desire to make its location better. But there's no reason not to do the same for Perth.
4/5. I think generally the map shouldn't reflect modern resource exploitation that much or otherwise many areas of the map would need to be redone. But no oil is definitely not acceptable. Do you have a suitable location for it?

Leoreth,

Would it be worth tweaking the English settler map to encourage the historical city locations a bit more? This is what happened in my recent Ethiopian game, where England was my vassal throughout.

The Dutch, before they eventually collapsed, founded four cities from Port Hedland to Arnhem Land as well as that razed city in South Australia, which surely rates as one of the worst city locations possible on the map. Only to be outdone by Streaky Bay, which the English subsequently founded.

Ugh, yeah, the city placement is awful. I haven't touched their settler maps yet but they definitely need to be redone.

 

[blizzrd]

But no oil is definitely not acceptable. Do you have a suitable location for it?

The north-west continental shelf would be the most accurate location.

 

[Leoreth]

Noted. I still haven't done the Afghanistan changes I mentioned previously so I'm going to do all the map stuff in one go.

 

[Hightower]

I'm going to change the 600 AD city situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan a bit, replacing Qandahar with Herat (1W) and Peshawar with Lahore (1S), and moving the gems so that they're in range of Herat again. Lahore is kind of obvious, and Herat, while currently smaller than Qandahar, is the more significant city historically. It should also help Persia to cover its territory better.

Why not Bactra/Balkh? It was the most important city in the area historically, much more significant than either Qandahar or Herat (though it's in ruins today). You could also extend the Amu Darya down there; not sure why it stops so far north and west.

I also think the Merv/Samarkand area should be a bit more lush (maybe more flood plains) in order to allow them to actually have a chance at becoming the largest cities in the world.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Herat would be the better city in a 600 AD start. Oh, and Leo, can we have a screenshot of the Afghan changes?

 

[Leoreth]

As I said, I haven't done anything yet. I have the K-Mod branch running on autoplay at the moment and it's hard to do map changes without having it open at the same time.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, another thing. I've been thinking about the Aztec UHV goals. "No Europeans in X by Y" goals are boring so I won't do one (there are enough already anyways), and Congo already has an interesting tech catch up goal. Also, the Aztec game should end relatively early. Therefore my current idea is the following:

- make Tenochtitlan the largest city in the world in 1520 AD
- build 8 Pagan Temples and Sacrificial Altars by 1650 AD
- capture 20 European slaves

The third goal is a different take on the "take on the Europeans" goal. It has the advantage that you can be proactive about it and do the sunset invasion if nobody's willing to settle in the Americas. The second goal is basically "become big and keep religions out", number of buildings and deadline can be adjusted for challenge, as can the number of slaves required.

Thoughts?

 

[soul-breathing]

Okay, another thing. I've been thinking about the Aztec UHV goals. "No Europeans in X by Y" goals are boring so I won't do one (there are enough already anyways), and Congo already has an interesting tech catch up goal. Also, the Aztec game should end relatively early. Therefore my current idea is the following:

- make Tenochtitlan the largest city in the world in 1520 AD
- build 8 Pagan Temples and Sacrificial Altars by 1650 AD
- capture 20 European slaves

The third goal is a different take on the "take on the Europeans" goal. It has the advantage that you can be proactive about it and do the sunset invasion if nobody's willing to settle in the Americas. The second goal is basically "become big and keep religions out", number of buildings and deadline can be adjusted for challenge, as can the number of slaves required.

Thoughts?

maybe 8 is a little too much? how about 6 or 8 Pagan Temples and 4 UB?

And now the plot of Tenochtitlan is a flood hill, settle city there just add 1 more food, how about move the flood hill to somewhere nearby? Or make this plot a flood plain(4 food)?

 

[apenpaap]

The second goal's neccessity to keep religions out sounds like it'll just make you go Theocracy with no state religion, which seems rather lame to be honest.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, as I said, the number of buildings would be subject to balancing.

The floodplains on the Tenochtitlan tile is basically just for realism and the additional food to keep the city from shrinking on its first turn. Although I think I could remove the hill there.

 

[ales_]

"No Europeans in X by Y" goals are boring

- build 8 Pagan Temples and Sacrificial Altars by 1650 AD

1) Will you change the Inca goals?
2) What does this mean? 8 Pagan Temples and 8 Sacrificial Altars; or 8 (Pagan Temples and Sacrificial Altars)?

 

[Leoreth]

I will also change the Incan goals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this specific goal will be removed.

And it'd be 8 buildings each.

 

[Mr_Hobo]

But no city-states plan for Aztecs then? I think this would make them fun and unique. If you want to do the city-states idea, the map should probably be edited a little.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think I will. The Valley of Mexico is just too small for that.

Edit: Someone asked for a screenshot of the revised situation in Punjab/Afghanistan/Transoxania so here it is (the additional flood plains disappear in 1600 AD):

Spoiler :

You could also update your SVN and see for yourself of course, because I've just committed that along with further Australia revisions.

 

[civ_king]

Tibet uses the Chinese Embassy graphic


You forgot to add Vikings to the trading company civs, both Sweden and Denmark had trading companies.

 

[Hightower]

I don't think I will. The Valley of Mexico is just too small for that.

Edit: Someone asked for a screenshot of the revised situation in Punjab/Afghanistan/Transoxania so here it is (the additional flood plains disappear in 1600 AD):

Spoiler :

You could also update your SVN and see for yourself of course, because I've just committed that along with further Australia revisions.

Quick comment: Tisfun and Herat should have Zoroastrianism at the start, while Merv, Samarkand and Kashgar should have Buddhism (and maybe Herat, too). They'll lose it on flip/conquest by the Arabs or Seljuks, but the historical accuracy would be nice.

 

[civ_king]

Congo should have a Coffee spawn 1N of starting location (was one of the biggest coffee producers until the civil war), 1N2E of start location should be an oil resource (Angola produces a massive amount of oil). Namibian crab should be fish.

bump (was posted when you were gone).

I don't think I will. The Valley of Mexico is just too small for that.

Edit: Someone asked for a screenshot of the revised situation in Punjab/Afghanistan/Transoxania so here it is (the additional flood plains disappear in 1600 AD):

Spoiler :

You could also update your SVN and see for yourself of course, because I've just committed that along with further Australia revisions.

How about a Bamayan Buddha statue wonder?

 

[civ_king]

That last update broke something and broke it bad, the whole UI is incredibly choppy to the point of unplayable.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Herat should have Buddhism for sure, and I'd like to contend the mountain south of it. Farah province isn't that mountainous, and I think it would be better represented as a desert hill.